Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive995

General Elections in the Donetsk People's Republic (2014)

General Elections in the Donetsk People's Republic (2014) has the same issues as Protests in Armenia (2018), which were discussed a few days ago, here. The article is unreadable and should not be made visible in this state. I attempted earlier to reach out to the user and help with formatting, but have not been able to start a discussion (nor have others); I'll try again now. Per that earlier thread, the errors seem to be the result of machine translation. This is far beyond my abilities (translation/linguistics/patience-wise), but I thought I should report it. Thank you, Jessicapierce (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

There is an existing article, Donbass general elections, 2014. It dealt with both the DPR and LPR elections at the time they took place. It was deemed sensible to keep them together. The new article should be merged back into the old one, which I've now done. RGloucester — ☎ 20:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

That fixes that article, but I have come to wonder whether Панн has difficulty with English. I have asked on his user talk. His global contributions and user talk page posts here suggest that Russian is his primary language. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Same situation, different article (let me know if I should start a new thread, but I thought it might be helpful to group the info): please see this version of Eduard Basurin, with Панн's recent additions. Runawayangel has just removed most of the article, which I fully support, because the previous version was unreadable. The situation has therefore been dealt with, but it's an ongoing issue that Панн is submitting content like this. Jessicapierce (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I would just like to bring attention to this page he has created, which seems to be confusing two different people. --Runawayangel (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be at least one more article with the same issue. [1] --Runawayangel (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The Alexander Ananchenko article cites a reference in an edit summary without actually footnoting it in the text, so something odd is going on; but I suspect the wrong name in the text came from using another article as a template and forgetting to change it. This also doesn't seem to be an uncredited translation from another Wikipedia article; on the contrary, the Polish Wikipedia article seems to be derived from it. However, he has continued to edit without either responding here or answering anyone on his user talk, and if he does have serious problems with English, that's a serious competency issue. (His history on Commons and on ru.wikipedia both are also concerning; both have blocked him as a copyright violator; but he appears to be doing different things here.) So I'm going to ping in Ymblanter, the only Russian-speaking admin I can think of, in hopes he can talk with Панн. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I left a message at their homepage, I do not know whether it is going to help but at least then we have tried everything.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: We still have problems. Since you left your message, the editor has added machine translated text to Alexander Ananchenko, probably from the Polish Wikipedia article, which they cleaned up only minimally; here's what I had to do a day later to make it readable. They've also yet again uploaded a film poster at too high a resolution, and have also uploaded another file with a possibly poor fair use rationale; granted, I have no idea myself how to reduce the resolution of a file, which is why I avoid uploading posters, and I would not know how to write a good fair use rationale for a screenshot, but they've been told about excessively high resolution many times and have yet to ask for help from you or anyone else, just as they have not made any statement here. Perhaps the next step is an ultimatum to stop machine translating and an explanation of how to reduce resolution? @Панн: you need to talk to us, either on your talk page or here. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Added a note at their talk page which I hope should be pretty clear.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Refdesk vandal

Hi, the refdesk vandal is active again (Wikipedia:Reference_desk subpages). Can someone clean it up? Thanks, Henry^Flower 09:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

All reverted ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 09:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The vandal (bot?) somehow managed to reach autoconfirmed status before this latest spree. Do we need to increase the protection level of the Refdesks? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty obvious this ongoing disruption is not being solved. It would be a good idea to prevent the same user posting material more than once per minute or two as well. Just fix that up for us, it's destroying my watchlist all this nonsense, particularly when admins don't work Sundays.... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I am upgrading to extended confirmed, help will be appreciated,. I hope though that they are going to exhaust all the extended confirmed socks soon.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like they did, pls post here if disruption reappears.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

They had one more ec sock, and six of the subpages have been extended-confirmed protected for 4 days.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all. I'm a little out of practice with this sort of thing. Henry^Flower 09:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

A similar pattern of vandalism has occured at various Village Pump pages. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Zzuuzz, might have something to add. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Some significant differences, not convinced, says I. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't answer this if it reveals too much, but are we talking about more outing attacks on a particular editor? Or is this something new? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

He's vandalizing the Help Desk and Teahouse too. He is really overwhelming our anti-vandalism network. funplussmart (talk) 12:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Really? In all my years here, overwhelming the anti-vandalism network is something I've never heard of being possible, much less having happened.  Swarm  talk  20:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Particularly vitriolic LTAs consistently attempt to do so. I remember when JarlaxleArtemis was more active as his "Grawp" persona that he constantly attempted to recruit 4chan members to hassle random articles, specifically to try and overwhelm us; fewer and fewer people actually took him up on his offer, however. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I read the LTA page on JarlaxleArtemis. It seems to be a very similar situation here: Use of proxies, posting of personal infromation, repeated attacks. funplussmart (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I mean that this vandalism is forcing us to protect pages (like the Ref Desk and Help Desk) that anons and new users have a need to edit. And so far he has managed to get around edit filters and all other means to stop this. Page Protection is a last resort in many cases, and this guy has forced to 30-500 several essential pages for inexperienced users at this point. I mean we can stop the disruption from this specific vandal, but only if we take actions that cause a lot of collateral damage. I hope that this guy will get tired of this soon, but so far he has shown no signs of stopping. funplussmart (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Guy Macon Yes, it's the same. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia being open to all, if you work on building the encyclopedia for any length of time, you have the possibility of attracting your own personal stalker who considers pretty much anything you do a personal affront, and who considers it their sacred duty to "expose" the person they fixate on. It's really quite pathetic, but for some reason they just can't quite seem to figure out why no one else sees their actions as heroic. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

User randomly reverting my previous edits.

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

---

There's a user 2A02:A31B:8444:A800:B4B3:713A:BFB4:B995 who keeps reverting an edit I've made to the page on Heaton Moor, ignoring my contribution to the Talk page, and has now taken to randomly reverting edits I've made to other pages. Who should I report this to, and how do I get him to stop the intimidation? Thanks.

C0pernicus (talk) 13:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It does rather look like stalking. But it is a new account, so it may just be (an odd) coincidence. More likely (given the time frame) is an account you have had interaction with in the past.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It's a new user that only ever reverts things, and it's already gone over 3RR on one article from the looks of things. Malfunctioning bot?Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

However you should have properly informed them of this ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. What's the prescribed format for informing them? C0pernicus (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

See the text in red in the blue box at the top of this page. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Dealt with now, I informed them.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Upon second look it does possibly seem retaliatory. See the edit history of 2a02:a31b:8444:a800:514d:b5dd:6b18:2486. Simonm223 (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It's kind of useless to notify IPv6 editors, they generally rapidly switch between addresses on a /64 CIDR so pinging them on any one of the addresses has about a one in 18 pentillion chance of notifying the right user. This one, 2A02:A31B:8444:A800:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), seems to only revert except when they're vandalizing, and has been specifically reverting C0pernicus since about the end of August, and while it's mostly occurring on Manchester-related topics they're also following editors to completely unrelated pages like fricative consonant. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Range blocked 31 hours for disruptive editing. They're clearly reverting indiscriminately, reverting edits as old as March, and never with an edit summary. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• It's apparently a long-term problem, so a 31-hour block of the range is rather short. We'll hope it helps, but, @C0pernicus: if IPs beginning with 2A02:A31B:8444:A800 continue to stalk you after the block expires, feel free to come back here, or to tell me directly on my page. Or perhaps tell you, Ivanvector? Bishonen | talk 21:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC).

Many thanks, it's useful to know who to turn to. C0pernicus (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Multiple IPs attacking Pixels

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

---

First, I'm unsure on where else to specifically mention this but I believe it needs some attention. I've noticed a range of similar IPs edit the Pixel 3 page. I would say the issue is more of going against NPOV than vandalism. The following is the list of IP addresses:

Examples would be [2], [3], [4], [5] (this actually was an ok action but still the generic edit summary), [6] (revert on anything that is not a criticism). I'm unsure on how to proceed after the page protection ends. It seems to be the same user for these edits but I think the ISP gives a different IP address every few days (or even hours) which just prevents any warnings. {{uw-multipleIPs}} only points to vandalism which isn't the case here. – The Grid (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I've anon-blocked the /24 range. They are able to rapidly cycle through IPs and are IP hopping which won't work. They are the editor that made multiple reverts on WebGUI. Other editors have tried to leave messages on nine talk pages but they don't respond to them. Editors don't need to keep trying to chase them down. They can get an account or find a way to stop IP hopping.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for looking into it and providing info about the IP range. – The Grid (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Santanu99: persistent disruptive editing, and obvious lack of competence

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

---

Santanu99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The reported user, whose main activity here is scr*wing up articles about Indian institutions of higher learning, should be shown the door ASAP, and not just for a short period of time, but for good, for being a huge time sink, and a net negative for the project. Their talk page is full of warnings for uploading non-free images, making copyright violations (adding copyrighted text found elsewhere; see revdelled entries in their contributions, and recent multiple warnings on their talk page), making repeated cut-and-paste moves of articles, making repeated attempts to redirect an article to another article that only covers a subset of what the article they're redirecting to it covers (see page history here) and repeatedly adding unsourced material to a large number of articles. It's also obvious that they don't know enough English to be able to read and understand the warnings they get, or communicate with others, with their response to getting a final warning for disruptive editing after their latest attempt to redirect Indian Institutes of Engineering Science and Technology to Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur (their second such attempt today, showing they just won't stop...) being this post on their talk page: "GOTO Hell, Lets Try..You have no idea.Wikipedia Foundation will loose fund.", which IMHO proves my point about utter lack of competence. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Tom, your quote ""GOTO Hell" etc has the wrong diff, could you fix, please? I'd like to read the post, even though it may be kind of moot, as I've indeffed. Bishonen | talk 15:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC).

Sorry, Bishonen, too many windows open in the browser at the same time. The diff is here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes (brought he from their talk, having just left a message there and seen an absolute kaleidoscope of warnings). I see some of them relate to the addition of copyright material; that's what took me there, as I stripped a load out of Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur, which they have proceeded to restore. I wonder how many wasted editorial hours they have managed to consume in the last five years. ——SerialNumber54129 14:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The account was registered five years ago, but only made stray edits until early July this year, that is less than four months ago, but have since accumulated about 1,000 edits here, very few of them really constructive. A look at their earliest edits, from 2014 and 2015, is interesting too, though, since several of their earliest edits have been revdelled, including their very first ones, making it seem like they've been regularly adding copyvios here, from their very first day of editing here and up to today. Kazi Nazrul University, which they added now revdelled copyvios on a couple of days ago, was also the very first article they edited, with now revdelled edits made by them on that article also in 2014 and 2015, showing they haven't learnt anything during the past several years. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. Bishonen | talk 15:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC).
  • @Bishonen: You might want to— ——SerialNumber54129 15:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• This has to be the most stupid attempt at socking that I've ever seen, creating a new account named User:Santanu98 and then using Santana99 to redirect Santana99's talk page to the newly created sock... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Santanu98 also now blocked. GiantSnowman 16:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• It wasn't registered? They just tried to redirect their talk to a non-existant page. Which does just about sum it up admittedly. Ah, TW's dodgy spelling there :) yes, that was a rather foolish manoeuvre, wasn't it. ——SerialNumber54129 16:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Err yes it was - "Created on 23 October 2018 at 12:46" ... GiantSnowman 16:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• @GiantSnowman: I know; it was originally spelled differently though. ——SerialNumber54129 13:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Ad hominem at homonym

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

---

Please fill this space with a relevant humorous image of your choice. BMK (Sorry, trout was trite) BMK

Add hominid at "Ad hominem at homonym", at home with them

Homina, homina, homina

Hominy, hominy, hominy

Hominy home

Harmony, harmony, harmony

Homily, homily
homily

Did someone say tripe?

This whole homonym thing is a fluke.

[7]. EEng 18:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

An ad homonym? erm, no, what I meant to say is: We are very busy here doing very important things. We have no time for frivolity. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, Eeng. Look at the thread above this one and ask yourself if we really have time for this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

When I saw this pop up, my question was going to be "Really? Did Eeng put you up to this? Otta known I have plenty of time for frivolity, and maybe some fishing...-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Damn you EEng! Damn you. We don't have time for this. We. Don't. Have. TIME. This post has wasted precious volunteer resources, and frankly, I'm not sure how long it will take to recover. Every minute people spend here, precious, precious work is being done, and you have stolen that from us. Propose BOOMERANG TBAN on the use of any and all humor, broadly construed.  Swarm  talk  19:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

How about this? ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 20:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, this is kind of a reminder to close this thread. I've outdone EEng with puns on this one. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 20:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• This thread is succeeding beyond my wildest imagining. EEng 21:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Your imagination is obviously deficient, so sad, so sad. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

A mind is a terrible thing to... wait, what are we talking about again? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

???????????????💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 01:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

As one of the late 20th century's greatest philosophers put it, "What a waste it is to lose one's mind." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

What's this about hominy? power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I hereby block the electrical engineer for a microsecond. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

On what charge? Battery? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

If convicted I hope they put me in a dry cell. EEng 18:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

If they do, quite a few admins will get a charge out of it. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 01:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, watt are we talking about? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Ohm my! Resistance is futile. You're impeding discussion. etc etc etc. What have I started? EEng 16:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I dunno, but I just saw a Volts Wagon Beetle pulling a mobile ohm. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 22:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Personally I prefer the bus, if I don't have to make too many connections. EEng 00:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I amp not sure where this discussion is going. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Do we have a current consensus? Blackmane (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

<weeps quietly> EEng 17:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

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

User:MjolnirPants

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

---

I have removed contentious BLP claims that the subject of the article is inspired by neo-nazis and white nationalists [[8]]. The specific line of which did not have any WP:V link at all and is unsupported by the body of the article. While there is no doubt that the subject communicated with such individuals to ask them what they thought, that doesn't mean he was inspired by them. When questioned about it, a source was given, but I do not believe that the source actually says what is being claimed, that this is at best an analysis of that source. As such, per WP:BLPREMOVE, we are required to Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: (1)is unsourced or poorly sourced; (2) is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see No original research). Two minutes after I removed the text, explicitly invoking BLP and asking for consensus to restore per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, User:MjolnirPants used his rollback rights to revert my edits.[9] This is an inappropriate use of the rollback permissions which should not be used to revert good faith edits. Additionally this material was restored in violation of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE without consensus that it is validly sourced. Debate on if this is validly sourced is currently ongoing at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Milo_Yiannopoulos. -Obsidi (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

As this is a content dispute your next step is WP:DR not ANI. MarnetteD|Talk 15:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

This isn't about whether the text should be added or removed, but the behavior of restoring the text without consensus and the abuse of rollback rights, both of which are appropriate for ANI to consider. He has now written a response on the talk page: Read WP:CRYBLP and either provide reliable sources disputing the claim, which has been thoroughly sourced already or fuck off. Seriously, dude, you're begging for an ANI report, and you're going to get one soon with this tendentiousness. [10] -Obsidi (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

It's still not an issue for ANI, which is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. If he is edit-warring, warn him on usertalk and report at WP:ANEW. If he is violating DS or GS, warn him on usertalk and report at WP:AE. If you feel it is a BLP issue, then ask/report at WP:BLPN. If it's a verification issue, then ask/report at WP:RSN. If it's anything else, discuss on articletalk and see what the consensus is, and if you don't like the consensus, then utilize some form of WP:DR. One/two edits is not a sufficient reason to open an ANI thread, because as MarnetteD stated, it's just a content dispute, and one lousy use of rollback (which is not sanctionable for one instance). Softlavender (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I cannot warn him on usertalk as he has banned me from his talk page. This is already on WP:BLPN. I would revert him, but then I will get accused of edit warring (so far I have only reverted once), see below here Writ Keeper is already saying I am edit warring with only one revert so far. -Obsidi (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you can. Usertalk bans do not apply to mandatory warnings and notifications, which WP:ANEW warnings are, just like the usertalk notification you just gave him for this thread: [11]. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

"This is already on WP:BLPN." So you admit you are forum-shopping, apparently specifically to either/both (1) get MjolnirPants in trouble for a single edit (or at most two edits) (2) get your way – in a content dispute which is already being discussed extensively both on the article's talk page and at BLPN? Softlavender (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I admit nothing of the kind. I came here to discuss conduct issues, not the content of the article which will be decided by BLPN, not here. -Obsidi (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Then I refer you to this: [12]. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

You're missing some important context, which is that this material has already been challenged, answered, reverted, and restored recently, which is making this look like more of a slow-burn edit war than a simple case of BLP enforcement. MP was probably too zealous in reverting to the status quo--and definitely didn't need to use rollback to do so--but it makes it understandable. We're supposed to err on the side of caution when reverting for BLP, it's true, but MP's assertion that this is validly sourced isn't unreasonable, as evidenced by the BLPN discussion; this isn't a clear-cut BLP violation. I'd trout the both of you for edit-warring, with MP getting a slightly bigger end of the troutstick for the rollback, and call it a day. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The previous revert was not based on BLP (or at least no claim to that was explicitly made), my revert was the first and only to make an explicit BLP claim and it is the only revert that I have ever done to the page. As such, I do not believe I was edit warring. And I'm not claiming that MP's claims that it is valid are unreasonable, consensus might end up deciding that he is right. But until it does, I made a good faith removal of BLP material, and it should not be restored until consensus decides it is valid. -Obsidi (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

That's not how it works. To quote the edit war policy: The following reverts are exempt from the edit-warring policy (...) Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. (emphasis mine) Later in the same section: When in doubt, do not revert. Instead, engage in dispute resolution and, in particular, ask for help at relevant noticeboards such as the Edit war and 3RR noticeboard. Given the earlier disputes about that line, which you were of course aware of, you knew that it would be controversial whether your reversion would fall under BLP, and given that discussion was already underway on BLP/N, your revert was unnecessary. So, no, I'm not buying that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The actual quote starts with Note that, although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. I have not used the exemption from 3RR, as I have only reverted once. My revert is necessary to remove what I in good faith believe to be BLP violating material until consensus has been reached. -Obsidi (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I have precisely zero expertise or authority, but Obsidi, I very much agree with Writ Keeper. You seem (to me, at least) to be very enthusiastically barking up the wrong tree. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

...No, it doesn't. The section I quoted, Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Exemptions, doesn't mention the three revert rule anywhere in its body, except in reference to the name of the ANEW board. 3RR isn't relevant to this, as I never brought it up. Your revert wasn't necessary, because it's not clear that this is BLP-violating material, which is what the BLP/N discussion is for. BLP isn't a license to kill (read: edit-war) on BLP pages. I know you reverted in good faith, which is one reason among others I'm not considering a block at the moment. But that doesn't make you right. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought you were referring to the similar language in WP:BLPREMOVE. I do not believe I was edit warring, so I do not believe that the exception applied. -Obsidi (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that before engaging in this forum shopping Obsidi was asked to provide one or two reliable sources that actually refuted the reliably sourced statement the page includes. They responded by providing a list of some 80 headlines tangentially related to the subject which they insisted they could not narrow down because it was all behind a paywall. Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not forum shopping, I came here to discuss behavior, not if the content to should be added or not. BLP does not require that those who dispute the statement provide a RS to refute the statement in the article. I said, in talk, that as far as I could find, there is no RS that ever uses that language. MjolnirPants said I was lying about that (specifically and I quote Bull-motherfucking-shit. She-goddamn-nanigans. I don't believe this shit for one second.[13]), and so I provided the list of every single source I could find with those words so he could verify what I said (that none of the sources that use those words actually says what is claimed). I am not required by BLP to provide a RS that refutes the statement in the article. -Obsidi (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Was it a good faith revert? Or was it Obsidi following MPants around because they are angry about previous interactions? Grandpallama (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not "following MPants around" I regularly watch the noticeboards, including BLPN. Which is where I first saw this dispute taking place. You will notice that all my edits around this were originally exclusively on BLPN. I didn't care if MPants was there or not. -Obsidi (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm assuming so, but your mileage may vary. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm struggling to even see this as a good faith report. You tangle with MPants in a few places, write a whiny complaint on his talkpage (which is what resulted in him banning you from it), and then subsequently show up on a page you've never edited before just to undo an edit by MPants that is part of a minor editing disagreement a few days earlier. You should seriously take the advice GreenMeansGo gave you (even if you didn't like the way it was delivered) and spend some time doing more mainspace editing and less time bringing people to AN/I or in front of ARBCOM. Grandpallama (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• This was clearly a content dispute in which Obsidi is apparently using the BLP exemption to mask POV-based edits. If there is a behavioral issue here, it lies in that behavior, not in that of MjolnirPants. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Also this seems like an attempt at pre-emptive reporting before you pulled a report. MPants said this to you at 14:33. Your very next edit, less than 20 minutes later was this. Which means you had basically exactly enough time to write your complaint after reading that MPants was considering going to AN/I if you didn't stop your tendentious WP:SOUP at Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos. Honestly this seems so specifically retaliatory that a boomerang might not be the worst idea ever. Simonm223 (talk) 15:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I was writing my complaint before I ever saw MPants write that (which is why when I noticed it, I posted it on this forum as a reply). -Obsidi (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• I would recommend to close the topic before it escalates into a boomerang.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

G'day mate, I'd like to talk about this here throwing stick...

For starters, let me address the rollback thing: I didn't mean to. I was literally trying to check out something else and hit it, and there's no confirmation dialog (WHICH THERE SHOULD BE DAMNIT) so it went through. Now, I had every intention of undoing Obsidi's edit, because it was based on some rather bad-faith argumentation (see below), so instead of re-rollbacking or re-rollbacking and then undoing, I just left it and went to talk, where I edit conflicted and then changed my response to what you can see there now.

Next, this is a clear-cut case of WP:CRYBLP. Obsidi is lying about what the sources (notice the plural and see: [14], [15], [16] [17] [18] [19]) are saying: They are explicit that Milo solicited ideas from neo-nazis and white supremacists, and that Milo engages in neo-nazi and white supremacist behavior, yet obsidi is insisting that they merely claim he "associates" with neo-nazis and white supremacists. Obsidi then used that as an excuse to WP:CRYBLP, and announced his intention to edit against the consensus, and then quickly proceeded to do so.

But putting that particular issue aside for the moment, I'd like to say a few things about Obsidi.

• This is an editor who has proposed that we shouldn't call widely debunked conspiracy theories "conspiracy theories" because it's not fair to the people who believe them.
• He has also tried to argue that the conspiracy theory which gave rise to the Cigarette Smoking Man (remember that dude from the X-Files?) and the Men in black is actually true because a couple of Vox articles have sarcastically referred to it. Obsidi had also been slow edit warring over this at the article, see [20], [21], [22] & [23]. This seems to have stopped, but it still paints a picture of an editor unfamiliar with.. Well, how to read a source.
• Obsidi has also started an RfC that he then immediately opposed, which other editors noticed looked suspiciously like Obsidi was trying to make a point rather than actually accomplishing anything.
• This is also the same editor who has made fewer article space edits in his entire (11 year!) wiki-career than I have since August. Of this year. And not even the beginning of August, but, like, around the 23rd or so. And when he does edit article space, he always, takes a right wing POV [24] [25].

I'm not above suggesting that Obsidi is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, and is, instead here to indulge in their desire to stir up drama and WP:ADVOCATE for various right-wing causes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

From what I've seen, Obsidi is indeed a problematic editor who is probably going to end up with some sort of topic ban if he continues on his current course. Softlavender (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but what topic? And even with a topic ban, if they just continue to go around on the back-end, stirring up drama about policies they've never used in practice and consensuses they don't know how to read, then how does that help? I'm usually all for substituting a topic ban for a block, but in this case, I think the best interests of WP are just to block this guy and be done with it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I hear you, that's why I didn't mention a topic. If a topic ban cannot cover all of his disruption, then an indef for DE, POV-pushing, and TE, etc. Softlavender (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

No disagreement, here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not lying about what the sources say. None of the sources say that Milo was inspired by neo-nazis and white supremacists. (Go look at them!) Yes, he solicited ideas and asked them questions, but I do not believe that means he was inspired by them. Saying someone is inspired by neo-nazis is a horrible claim to make against someone who merely asked them for their ideas on a piece to be written about them. I was not editing against consensus, there was not yet consensus on this subject.

To respond to the other issues that MPants brought up:

• I strongly believe in NPOV policy. That we shouldn’t say something is a conspiracy theory (which says there is no reliable evidence for that belief), unless it is fringe to believe there is such evidence. A minority view, on the otherhand should be respected. This is NPOV policy and all I have advocated for.
• What I argued is not a conspiracy theory is that there are “government and military officials who secretly manipulate or direct national policy.” For which I believe this New York Times article provided the proof. This is the same view publicly expressed by the House Majority Leader in the Hill [26]. I do not believe this is a crazy view fringe.
• I started the RfC after the sentence has been removed, and after I objected, it was forced back into the article . I started the RfC to establish consensus on if that sentence should be removed (for which many people agreed with me that it shouldn’t). Maybe I should have phrased the RfC so that I was supporting keeping the sentence rather than opposing the removal, but that difference isn’t to just make a point.
• I have 2,576 edits, most of which are in WP or talk namespaces, because usually I like to discuss the changes and let others actually add them to the articles. I’m not here to rack up barnstars or celebrate how many edits I have. I only get involved when I think the WP processes are breaking down and the policies of WP are not being enforced. My point isn’t to advocate for a viewpoint, but to advocate WP policies. Look back at my edits, you will see I am rarely getting involved unless I think there is a policy problem. I care about WP policies and that they are accurately enforced. That is why I am here.

Am I a right-wing person? Yes, but that doesn’t mean I am here to violate the NPOV and other policies of WP. Almost all my edits are to advocate FOR such policies when I think they are being violated.

I started this with a focus only on this one topic (the Milo page), and what I saw as violations of BLP policy. But if we are going to go beyond that to broader questions of behavior, then I would like to bring up the incredibly uncivil behavior of MPants. Just in this very instance he accused me of Bull-motherfucking-shit. She-goddamn-nanigans.[27]. Or when he told me to fuck off[28], and said other people just bitched[29]. But this isn’t an isolated instance. Just go back through his talk page edits and they are FULL of him saying incredibly rude things to people all the time. -Obsidi (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

And the appearance of "but MPants is mean to me" declarations absolutely vindicates my belief about where this filing came from in the first place, and why a boomerang is the proper course of action. Grandpallama (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

This isn't about me at all, there are a ton of edits to all kinds of other people where he has been rude. Feel free to ignore all the comments he directed at me, and look at the rest of his history. -Obsidi (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• 40% of Obsidi's edits are to WP:space, and another 40% are to talk pages. While a high number of TP edits usually indicates a keenness for discussion, the concomitant 184 edits to articles in nearly 11 years' tenure—is less positive. ——SerialNumber54129 16:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I tend to rarely edit articles directly instead relying upon talk pages, that is quite true. But also look at how many edits per month. You will see that sometimes I am very active, but usually I have other things to do than worry about WP and I have 0 edits for years at a time. 11 years isn't long when you don't edit at all for many of those. -Obsidi (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef block per WP:NOTHERE based on the evidence I gave, above, combined with the fact that Obsidi is still insisting that the sources don't say what they obviously say in his response to the refutation I gave above; this is either a severe lack of competence or severe tendentiousness. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef block largely because this isn't the first time. Obsidi did the exact same thing - the tendentious talk arguments, the WP:CRYBLP and the slow edit-warring with regard to Tucker Carlson and the advocacy of the Daily Caller for the White genocide conspiracy theory. [30] [31][32][33][34] Simonm223 (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• I only get involved when I think the WP processes are breaking down and the policies of WP are not being enforced. - this sounds very much like Obsidi is here to push a point of view, not to build an encyclopedia. Perhaps that user should try getting involved on non-controversial topics. I don't currently support an indef block, but agree that it looks like one will be coming soon if Obsidi's behavior doesn't change. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• I propose a topic ban for both parties? Maybe just Obsidi? Indef block is a bit extreme. Hdjensofjfnen (♪ Oh, can I get a connection? Alternatively, trout me.) 16:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef block for persistent DE, POV-pushing, TE, and NOTHERE behavior which has disrupted Wikipedia too long at this point. Softlavender (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• I've indefinitely blocked the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Incivility

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

---

Have to comment here after the NAC. I was surprised to see no attention given to complaints about MjolnirPants's incivility by Obsidi. Quite something to see him regularly make comments and edit summaries like this: Bull-motherfucking-shit. She-goddamn-nanigans. I don't believe this shit for one second, fuck off, Fuck off with this hypocritical butthurt, fucking bullshit, fuck off and don't come back, fuck off with that shit, bitchfit removed. Fuck your bullshit and your templates. Seriously; fuck off and don't post to my page again, If you disagree with it, you should go fuck yourself and pray to whatever deity you worship that we never meet in person etc. ScienceApe was just indefinitely blocked and had his talkpage access removed for similar comments. So are you giving MjolnirPants some kind of a special privilege of not having to comply with WP:CIV by turning a blind eye? Any comments @Bbb23:? --Pudeo (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't what this thread was about. This was a quickly trumped-up thread to get MPants in trouble over one or two edits that had substantial support on the article's talkpage, and was part of a longterm pattern of disruption and POV-pushing and battlegroundishness on the part of the OP, who only under duress threw in some additional charges. If you want to open a new thread, on MPants and present a case for incivility, you are welcome to. I personally don't think it will get very far, but that's just my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The inappropriate comments were part of the complaint, but the complainer got hit with a boomerang. Such comments add nothing constructive to Wikipedia, offend other editors, and make the writer look like a low class fool. Better to stop them. Legacypac (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

No, they weren't part of the original complaint at all. Softlavender (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, second post by the OP Legacypac (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"I know what I'll do! I'll express my dissaproval at someone's perceived incivility by calling them names! That'll show em!" Presumably Legacypac, soon before writing the above comment.

Seriously, dude, go look at the context of those edits. In every case, it was me dealing with some tendentious childishness. If you expect me to never sound salty about anything, you've got some wildly misplaced expectations. I can think of at least one editor (hint hint) who just succumbed to their frustration and lashed out with a personal attack worse than anything I said above, whom I just forgive for it because really, who cares?

P.S. That last diff was me referring to the claim "The Holocaust was a Really Bad Thing". And I stand by what I said in that diff 100%. If anyone reading this ever meets me in person and insists that the Holocaust was a good thing, I will very likely beat you to within an inch of your life, or die trying. Racism and genocide are kinda sore spots with me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I did not call you any names, I gave the same advice I give to the kids I teach - speaking low class makes you look low class. People take you more seriously if you speak/type in a respectful way. Legacypac (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

You did call me a name, you were just careful to couch it as an opinion, which many people often mistake for carefully phrasing it as not being an insult. Just because it's opinion doesn't mean it's not insulting. What you need to do to avoid insulting people is to not say that they are "low class fools" in any terms. You might say that they have engaged in some foolishness, or that their comments lack class. But "I think you're a low class fool" is no more civil than "you're a low class fool".

Also, as advice, it's really quite shitty advice (well, maybe not so much for a kid, but certainly for an adult), so forgive me if I don't take it. Perhaps if you tried thinking in adult terms instead of kid terms you might come up with some better advice. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh lawd. Arkon (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work: "dealing with some tendentious childishness" is no excuse. Such language is never helpful, and should have no place here. Paul August ☎ 21:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. You wouldn't fight a fire by pouring gasoline on it, right? ansh666 21:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Please look at the entirety of the posts and threads (not just the few words quoted), grasp the tone and venue and circumstance, and understand that on own's one talkpage such retorts are par for the course in such circumstances on Wikipedia, even for a large number of highly respected administrators and even arbitrators. Softlavender (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Being "par for the course" doesn't make it helpful. Paul August ☎ 21:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but it is the norm, and therefore not sanctionable. Cussing on one's own talkpage when dealing with BS is not sanctionable. Softlavender (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm saying it's shameful, whether sanctionable or not. Paul August ☎ 21:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

All things being equal, if my saltiness at my talk page encourages other editors not post edits like those I was responding to, then mission accomplished. Note my big red edit notice. I'm not here to quibble and argue about who was being meaner to whom, and my usual response to being insulted or being the recipient of some rudeness is to either ignore it or lampshade it and move on. I would humbly suggest that more editors should be like me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Note: Bbb23 doesn't get ping notifications (he turned them off). The issue was resolved by the disruptive party being blocked. Hence the close of this thread. If someone wants to open up another thread about MPants, please create a separate thread. His communications to the indef-blocked editor on his very own talk page (and a couple on the endless Milo threads) are not going to gain any traction, especially given tone and circumstance and context and venue. I suggest this matter be dropped unless someone wants to open a new and separate thread with some actually sanctionable evidence. Softlavender (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The first post is my "case". It doesn't matter to me whether the title has two or three =-symbols. And most of the personal attacks detailed in my message are not directed at Obsidian, but editors in good-standing, like admin Northamerica1000, who was also told to "fuck off" in the diff I included[35]. And what's alarming is that these diffs are just starting from September. --Pudeo (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

If the first post is your "case," then I would move to dismiss for improper venue. Dumuzid (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Based on what? I could have also reverted the non-admin close. Also ANI threads don't have to be formulated like ArbCom requests. The incivility is chronic and intractable and as such is within the scope of this noticeboard, and also mentioned in the above thread. --Pudeo (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Because this is not an incident, of course. This is you trawling through my contributs, cherry picking out those times that I got salty with someone who was being a pain to try and get me sanctioned because you don't like me (your opinions of editors with liberal political views is no secret, buddy). I would further note that I have made 1,882 edits since September first. If, as you say, this is just my incivility since then, then it represents 0.425% of my editing, assuming that my attitude has remained constant over time (it hasn't: I've been dealing with a lot more POV warriors the past few months than usual). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The message to Northamerica1000 was a response to being templated, which is known to rile some people. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

In fact, Northamerica1000 templated me and reverted me because I participated in a running joke with another admin. Ironically, me and the others (there was more than one other) were making fun of officiousness. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I remember that. Came across to me as possibly being a potential tactic to potentially game the system. The user could then theoretically continue to engage in questionable behavior, and if warned about it by me, could then state that they didn't want me posting on their talk page. Of course, this may not be the case, with the rude response simply being an angry retort. A similar type of post was posted by the user in this diff, listed above. At the very least, hopefully MjolnirPants can consider the notion that such statements are uncivil, and go against the grain of assuming good faith. Running around and telling various users to "fuck off" all the time is quite sophomoric. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I will say this: I'm very unlikely to consider the feeling of an editor who singles me out for participating in a joke to revert and then template (without ever considering the fact that they just engaged in pompous officiousness in response to several editors mocking pompous officiousness) in the future. I'm far more likely to consider how pointlessly uncivil it is to revert someone and template them for participating in a running joke. And I'm very likely to revert them with an angry retort (well, a snide retort, really, but you can't be blamed for not reading the right tone into some plain text). Sorry, that's just my nature. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Boomerang for Pudeo? The OP of the original thread was the latest in a long line of bad-leground editors attacking MPants and opening frivolous ANI threads on him; re-opening the thread after it's already been closed as such is pretty disruptive at best. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Certainly not a boomerang. MPants' comments on their own talk page probably are not sanctionable, but they shouldn't be encouraged. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• Meh. I was pinged. You know I love you MJ, but you're not gonna break anything if you tone it down about 1.7 notches. Maybe you get it right, but maybe you don't, and maybe someone you got it wrong on just gets the impression that Wikipedia is a place where a bunch of assholes act like a bunch of assholes to one another, so please go back to Facebook. Gallows humor doesn't translate well over text, and we're not in the freezing mud shooting the shit with the other sergeants, as much as I enjoy and loath those moments. At the very least, it will avoid threads like this, and if you don't think that users who are not so well integrated into the organizational culture would be long since blocked for the same thing, I think you're kidding yourself. GMG^talk 22:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"and if you don't think that users who are not so well integrated into the organizational culture would be long since blocked for the same thing, I think you're kidding yourself." I think you've hit the nail on the head, GMG. And to pick up on power~enwiki's comments above, these comments are very clearly sanctionable under our policies and the consensus of the vast majority of the members of our work community; if "Fuck you and you better hope I don't find you on the street someday" is not a violation of WP:CIVILITY, I can't fathom what comment would be, and why we'd even bother to have a civility policy to begin with. Surely even the editor who made such a comment would, if competent, recognize the inappropriateness of such threats and invectives--hopefully before they hit the edit button, but certainly at least once they have calmed down. If an editor can't even own up to such issues after the fact, there's an WP:IDHT and basic WP:CIR issue that will have to be addressed by the community eventually.

The reason it takes so long at present is two-fold: 1) the massive differential between what is tolerated (with little to no consequence) of long-term contributors and what would get a new editor immediately indeffed, as GMG notes, and 2) the fact that this single noticeboard responds to the majority of complaints about such behaviour, and there is a collective of editors here who have more or less set-up camp to push back against any efforts to contain such temper-tantrums--not because they are actively colluding to cover eachother's back, but just because they share an ideological belief that they should always be able to react to a situation and "call at as they see it", and as their perspective and emotional state inclines them, without any restrictions on their comments whatsoever. These editors steadfastly refuse to internalize any piece of WP:NOTFREESPEECH and decry any effort to reign in editors with a similar perspective and predilections as 'bureaucratic nonsense' or 'hand wringing by easily upset editors'. "But that guy really was a fucking asshole, so it's perfectly ok to call him that, whatever WP:NPA says" they insist, or: "When I say that I'm going to find somebody and make them regret what they have said, nobody really believes its a real threat!"

These sentiments are not just in conflict with the explicit directions of policy and community consensus, they demonstrate a kind of willful ignorance of the inexhaustible number of reasons that such comments corrode our established processes, undermine the work we are here to do (and make the work that does get done so much more onerous for everyone involved), drive experienced contributors off the project and discourage new ones from taking their place (contributing to an editor retention problem that has grown to an outright existential threat to our whole endeavor), create liability for the project, and frankly just debase our reputation for maturity and reliability, embarrassing the rest of us with their lack of self-control. That's to mention just a few of the possible consequences that take place on project; one only needs to look at the headlines in the news this week to see the broader consequences of what happens when unchecked hostility becomes a part of public discourse for too long.

Most of the (very small, but very vocal) minority who leap to excuse such comments every time they appear here (provided they come from the "right" people) come from others who are recognizably the same hotheads who have been the subject of a similar thread recently and probably will be again some time soon (though good luck convincing them there is a connection between their own propensity for being brought here themselves and their perspective on WP:NOTFREESPEECH/WP:NPA when defending others here). However, even for that hypothetical editor who just objects to any checks on violent or angry rhetoric on-project for purely philosophical reasons because "the greater good" demands unrestricted ability to speak ones mind, I would say the following: I respect your belief and believe there is some merit in it, but you're either going to have to temper that absolutist perspective in order to conform with the standards adopted by this community, or find somewhere else to volunteer your time, because we decided a long time ago (and most editors in good standing here continue to feel) that there must be limits in this work environment."

And this is a work environment, make no mistake, even if we are all here as volunteers; this isn't just us getting together with some chums for a hobby, and there's more at stake than our individual rights to blow off steam and tell others what we really think of them. And I highly doubt that most of our editors can get away with telling their co-workers in their professional life that they are going to come after them if given the opportunity. Frankly, if you're someone making those particular kinds of comments to anyone, anywhere, at any time, I hope you pay a consequence for it. It never helps a situation, whether at work, on the street, on facebook, or on Wikipedia; it only adds vitriol into the world. In any event, this community has rules, and we've been doing a bad job in recent years of holding editors to those standards (and applying those standards equitably to all members of the community). In particular, any threat of violence (whether conditional on finding that person first or not) ought to be grounds for an immediate block, and indef if it happens more than once. Any other course of action is infeasible and unsustainable for this project. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Yup. --Jayron32 12:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Can we close this? This is stupid. --Tarage (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Urge admins to issue a sanction regarding MPants at work making these threats of physical violence. Even if rather ridiculous, threats of violence should never be condoned and must be sanctioned. Considering MPants at work seems justified and/or fails to agree that their comments are unacceptable, the only option I see is a 72 hour block. If it happens again I urge an indefinite block.--MONGO (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Your comment brought my attention back to the threats of violence as I forgot about those when I made my original comment.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 12:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I think MPant's behavior should be looked at. This way of communication is unhelpful whatever the personal failings of the other parties. I also think it's draconian to suggest WP:BOOMERANG on Pudeo given what they've shown that this is long-standing behavior (some of these diffs are from September and clearly shows this isn't exclusive to the MPants/Obsidi thing). Don't get me wrong, I'm clueless to the whole MPants/Obsidi thing (I haven't read anything above this but that's already actioned no need to delve further into that), but we shouldn't excuse these comments just because the other side is disruptive as it doesn't accomplish anything but create a more hostile editing environment (the same can be accomplished by acting reasonably when dealing when disruptive editors and is the best way to show the other side is being disruptive). Given that MPants continues to be 'justified' in their behavior, I'd fully support sanctions against MPants as well.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 12:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• Since this got unclosed, I just want to say that Snow's rant above is ignorant, arrogant and chock full of lies and personal attacks against not just me, but against a number of other editors. If someone wants to give me shit for incivility, that's fine, but don't sit here and engage in outright hypocrisy over it. You've got an editor engaging in blatant incivility, relying on their status with the community to excuse them, all in the service of complaining about an editor whose status with the community excuses incivility.

The claim that I ever threatened to track anyone down is complete bullshit. Complete bullshit. I never said anything of the sort, and Snow is lying when they say that I did.

Snow also apparently lied about the nature of the comment: claiming in the edit summary that they edit conflicted with the close, except that the close was more than an hour before the edit was posted. So Snow decided to add to a closed discussion, knowing I couldn't respond without re-opening it.

The claim that "there's an WP:IDHT and basic WP:CIR issue that will have to be addressed by the community" is a petty, immature personal attack. Claiming that I refuse to listen is pure willful ignorance (I responded to GMG's post on his talk page after this section was close, agreeing with most of what he said), and the CIR thing is just juvenile.

The claim that my behavior is only (and by implication, always) excused by a circle of friends is just as empty. Me and softlavender have almost always disagreed at ANI. Not always, but most of the time. Me and Bellezzasolo have never interacted before. Me and Granpallama have had a single conversation, and GMG is the closest thing to a friend I have in this thread, yet he told me to cool my jets. I think Tarage and Hijiri are the only editors I have a good relationship with who said anything in support of me.

The rest of the comment is just more of the same. Empty rhetoric, assumptions that Snow knows my own mind better than I do, and bald-faced dishonesty. Tarage has hit the nail on the head, but then, that should have been recognizable to anyone as soon as someone showed up to call me names right after this was brought up.

For those of you interested: This is the kind of bullshit that gets me salty. I've been dealing with petty, immature lies about me for the past few months, and you actually act shocked that I respond without a filter from time to time?

The one thing, above all else, that I can't stand is petty, pointless drama. And that's exactly what this whole thread is, from Obsidi's first report to Pudeo's (who's got no dog in this fight except his political views, surprise surprise) cherry picked diffs. So if ya'll want me to calm down, this dumb thread is decidedly NOT the way to do it. I mean, Jesus H. Christ, do you really think you can insult, lie about, and needle someone into being more polite? That's just phenomenally ignorant. I already told GMG I'd work on being more chill with the bullshit pushers. Continuing this stupid thread is pretty much the definition of "counter-productive". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Where did Snow say MjolnirPants 'ever threatened to track anyone down'. The closest I can see is '"Fuck you and you better hope I don't find you on the street someday"' and 'And I highly doubt that most of our editors can get away with telling their co-workers in their professional life that they are going to come after them if given the opportunity' and 'any threat of violence (whether conditional on finding that person first or not) ought to be grounds for an immediate block' which aren't the same thing. Is there some other post by Snow I'm missing or has Snow's post been modified? Nil Einne (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

You just answered your own question. If you don't see it, then I'm not going to debate you on it because you're intentionally not seeing it, so there's no point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• As everyone ought to pretty much know by now, admins aren't too keen on blocking people for dropping f-bombs, even very long clusters of them, and if racism and antisemitism are things that get you riled up then congratulations, you're not an asshole. Going back and forth about it is pointless drama. But that being said, MPants at work, this ("pray to whatever deity you worship that we never meet in person") is a direct threat of violence, and I don't care about context or emotion or whatever else, or whether or not you think you intended it to be read this way, if I see you write something like this again I will block you, and it will be for a good long time. There is no reason to write threats like this on Wikipedia. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Since someone brought it up: no, I'm not going to block now for a comment that was written more than a month ago. But don't do it again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

...There is no reason to write threats like this on Wikipedia. Fair enough, but as I said before: this was directed at a hypothetical (not real) editor who disagrees with the statement "The Holocaust was a Really Bad Thing that We Should Never Do Again". I'll keep it to myself from now on, but I stand by that statement 100%. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

You shouldn't stand by it. You should retract it and admit that you were wrong. There are real editors who disagree with the statement "The Holocaust was a Really Bad Thing that We Should Never Do Again". They are racist idiots, but threatening them with "pray to whatever deity you worship that we never meet in person" just plays into their hands. This is the result of advocating violence to promote political goals. Please take it back and go back to ridiculing the racist idiots rather than threatening them. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm never going to apologize for harboring a perfectly rational hated of out-and-out nazis. I can do "turn down the aggresiveness a notch or two", and even "keep that extent of your opinion of nazis to yourself", but I will never think it's a bad thing that I would rather cold-cock a nazi than debate one. Not in a million years. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• Agree thank you to Pudeo for filing this. I consider Mpants incivility a serious problem, which was completely ignored above. I have seen it directed at others and at myself. He said, "I don't need to bother reading whatever you have to say, as it's bound to be bullshit." I warned him to stop. His response was "Sure thing. As soon as you stop writing bullshit." I support sanctions on Mpants.

I think it equally outrageous that Obsidi--an editor who had been here since 2007, in good standing, with no prior blocks--was indefinitely blocked less than two hours after he filed a complaint against Mpants. I could not even tell what behavior was so horrible that it could constitute "long-term disruption", and I saw no evidence of repeated warnings. There were also no diffs provided. To me that shows a very serious problem with how this AN/I board functions.

I no longer see editors being given an assumption of good faith. It appears to me that they are being abused with incivility, eliminated for complaining about it--not because they break rules--but because they disagree on content. We need more admins and neutral editors with eyes on this notice board, because this has really gotten out of hand in recent years. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC) [revised 16:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC), --David Tornheim (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)]

I think it equally outrageous that Obsidi--an editor who had been here since 2007, in good standing, with no prior blocks--was indefinitely blocked less than two hours after he filed a complaint against Mpants. I could not even tell what behavior was so horrible that it could constitute "long-term disruption", and I saw no evidence of repeated warnings. There were also no diffs provided. You see, David. This is why I don't take you seriously.

The problem with Obsidi is described in detail just up this page a bit, where I actually gave 20 diffs (and myriad other evidence) you claim were never given.

As for the rest: Well, you've been following me around for several weeks now, ever since I curtly told you not to ping me back to a page where you gave me a ration of crap only to discover that I wasn't the problem at that page, after all. This whole time, you've been a pain in my ass and been supporting some rather ridiculous propositions, like endorsing a BLP-violating conspiracy theory. You might also notice that said support for a BLP-violating conspiracy theory (which consisted of you cherry picking sources and then contradicting yourself) is what I described as "bullshit" and that, contrary to what I said there, I actually did eventually read and respond to your claims. So we can now add this to the number of places where you've shown up for no reason other than to disagree with me and say ignorant (or dishonest: I'm not going to speculate which) things to support that disagreement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

MPants provided 26 diffs. Simonm223 provided 5 diffs. Others provided links to the user's contribs and edit history, which display a clear pattern, especially to anyone who has been editing or watching any of those articles/pages/noticeboards. The user had had an observable disruptive pattern over quite a while. And there were plenty of warnings and notifications on his talkpage: [36]. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, sorry. I did not see those diffs. It looked like a long rant. I will look at the diffs. I have struck the comment saying there were no diffs. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Be done with this, please?

I have better things to do here, so can an uninvolved admin come, take a look, and decide either to accept that I've already said multiple times I would work on being more civil with tendentious editors, or that I need to be punished and how? Thanks. @Ivanvector: You've made yourself clear enough to me already. If you want to put that in a close and go drop a formal warning or something on my talk page, that's fine. Hell, you can go revdel that edit if you want, I really don't care. I'm just sick of seeing this crap. This is exactly the kind of dumb shit that makes me pissy to begin with. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

If your description of being civil with other editors includes not using words like "Fuck off" and the likes, apart from what you already said above (that you will never use threats of violence again), I can close this with a neutral statement. If it doesn't, I can indefinitely block you till you agree. What say? Lourdes 16:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

WTF Lourdes? Have you read anything that Ivanvector said above? You are threatening a longterm user with an indef block unless they accede to your very specific demands and your extremely idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:CIVIL? Softlavender (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll await M Pants response on my offer. Lourdes 16:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Me and Softlavender are in perfect agreement here (we've usually disagreed at ANI). But if you want to block me, go do it now, so we can at least get a head start on all the stupid drama that is gonna cause. I've already said I would work on civility. If you think I need to kowtow to some condescending demands as well... Well, I think you know by now what my response to that is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

If it is your opinion that no user is allowed to tell someone to fuck off, please cite the policy and a few examples of someone being blocked for saying fuck off with no other violation. If it is your opinion that you can impose different fuck off rules on ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants than the rules that apply to other editors, please prepare yourself for a shitstorm as multiple Wikipedia complain about your behavior. I agree that ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants should greatly reduce this behavior, but disagree with you threatening a block. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Motion to close

Okay, now we have multiple admins fighting over closing and unclosing this, and it's getting to be much more of a spectacle than it needs to be. @Bishonen, Lourdes, Snow Rise, and Guy Macon: can we agree to move on? If not, what do we need to talk about? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth I propose as closing statement: "Mjolnirpants has agreed to treat fellow editors with respect and to dial back on rhetoric when addressing blatant racism, and has been warned that any additional commentary suggesting a threat of violence will be met with an immediate block." Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not very multiple AFAICS, Ivanvector. Lourdes "closed" the discussion with a supervote and a threat; I reverted her, with an explanatory note; and a non-admin, User:Mr rnddude, reverted me, removed my comment, and edit warred over it, with Softlavender (whose actions I appreciate). I actually don't see any admins fighting or contributing to any spectacle. I think it's a little sudden to close right now, in mid-discussion, but if you think it's ready to be summarized, Ivan, be my guest. Bishonen | talk 18:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC).

Well, Lourdes, yourself, and me (I wrote a close but edit-conflicted with one of Lourdes' comments and then decided to leave it), and a few other names in that list who I assumed were admins but in fact are not (not that it should matter, really). I don't see where there's more to talk about but it's evident some others do, so I'm trying to either move the discussion forward or determine for certain that it is concluded, rather than try to close this a fourth time and have that be reverted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I think we've reached the point of people merely repeating themselves, and that Ivanvector's summation is about as clear and as resolved as this is going to get, because apparently no one's position on the matter is going to change at this point, I don't think. Softlavender (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Bishonen: User talk:Softlavender#Short note should explain my second revert. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Bish, it wasn't so much an edit-war, as it was me using rollback without thinking and therefore then not able to leave an edit-summary, so Mr rnddude had no context for my first revert. Softlavender (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

(wasn't trying to top post, I didn't get an edit conflict) We really need a dispute resolution process that is not ANI. Although I'd support a closing statement of "Sowiejgiowejgoiwjeogjw" too, just to make it go away, bonus points to Ivan's proposed close because it actually seems to be a reasonable summary of the thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I certainly have no objection. My edit after the close was a mistake, hence my revert. Anyway, I've already said more than my fair share as a concerned community member, and I personally think the thread has served what purpose it can and brought us all as close to agreement as we are likely to be at this time; no objection to your proposed closing language either. Snow ^{let's rap} 18:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• I don't know which action is most appropriate here, but it should be more than a warning. MP offering to "work on civility" doesn't mean very much when he is simultaneously still defending his actions in this very thread: [37], [38]. Some other comments seem bizarre to me. A user threatens conditional violence multiple times, and one comment is to ignore it because it happened more than a month ago? This user has been on WP for years and this behavior is likely to continue if serious steps are not taken. Deleet (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Mpants said he's "working on civility". I don't think it would be too much asked for him to just stop saying "fuck off" to anyone, full stop. So his actual response is rather unimpressive but your warning sounds about right, except that Mpants has been incivil against editors who are not racist one bit, like NA1000 or David Tornheim. So it's not just about "incivil when addressing blatant racism". --Pudeo (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

We can't legislate specific phrases he is not allowed to use, when half of the administrators on Wikipedia regularly use the same phrase. As I said above, people are merely repeating themselves at this point, and no one's position on the matter is going to change, so bringing up the same matter again is not going to help reach a resolution. He says he's going to dial back. If he doesn't, he'll end up back here. Softlavender (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• FWIW, I'm not willing to discuss this matter any further, except on two user talk pages where I have explicitly said I was willing. If there's a line of editors waiting to comment here to request sanctions against me, then get get them into an orderly queue and then somebody decide whether "I will dial it back, and I will not bring up violence like that again" is a good enough conclusion, or if we need to just block me and have a great big stink about that, next. But seriously: I'm done. I agree with Floq, Ivan and Bish (obviously), but I don't care enough to edit war over the close. Just, please, everyone let's stop fighting about this! All of us have better things to do. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Ivan, your proposed summary is perfect enough. Close it. Lourdes 18:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Support close; whether the close has a discouragement or a warning or just restates MPants' agreement to try to be more civil isn't concerning to me. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

---

• You wouldn't fight a fire by pouring gasoline on it, right? – Perhaps, but fires are routinely extinguished with dynamite. EEng 19:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I stand by my comment that this was stupid and should have been closed after said comment, which it was for a time. Quite frankly, Lourdes insane threat concerns me enough to comment. As someone very much against admin abuse, had they carried through with that threat I would have instantly gone to ARB to file a case. --Tarage (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Can an IP be topic banned?

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

---

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

The above IP, who clearly appears to be ...

Zainab Chaudry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

... (a Maryland resident), has continued to disruptively edit and edit-war on the article on herself, despite warnings and a block and more notifications and warnings. I don't think temporary semi-protection of the article is going to work, or that a short-term block is going to work, because she's just going to start up again later, like she has over and over. Currently she is edit-warring to change "outreach manager" to "outreach director" in contravention of the citations. Help needed. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 05:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I had to look up what a "TEDx" talk was. Hu boy. Yeah, ban. --Tarage (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Considering IP's change, such a topic ban wouldn't be enforceable. That measure is only enforceable on registered accounts, but even with that, disruptive editors often sock to avoid their topic bans (including editing as IP's). It's best to just keep an eye on the article for disruptive edits, and if the article is being disrupted by multiple accounts/IP's, WP:RFPP is thataway.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I will wait for an administrator to respond. This is a static IP, so a topic ban could conceivably be applied, and then if it is breached the IP could receive a longterm block. As I mentioned previously, RFPP is not going to work unless it is quite longterm; if it is merely temporary the IP will just come back when it's over, as they are bizarrely persistent. As it is, I could have reported them to ANEW because they've already breached four identical edit-warring edits despite warning [39], [40], [41], [42] (a bit longer than 24 hours but that's immaterial), but they would simply wait out a short-term block like they waited out their last block. Softlavender (talk) 06:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, that just goes back to how IP's are able to game the system, because they can't be indeffed like registered users can. Being "bizarrely persistent", and having just gotten off of a 36 hour block, that definitely strengthens your case against the IP. But I've only seen registered users get topic-banned, so more than likely an administrator will just give them a longer block (maybe 1 or 2 weeks).—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

IPs do get indeffed. Softlavender (talk) 07:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I've never seen it. But then again, I've been away for long periods at a time. Must be in rare cases then.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Just this past hour: [43]. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• The answers to all the questions are: no, not topic-banned (the only way of enforcing it would be to protect every page on the topic...broadly construed); no, not indeffed (except either by accident or admins who have have "forgotten"); and—an as yet unasked question, this—no, since even checkusers don't link IPs to accounts, then we probably shouldn't either... ——SerialNumber54129 07:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • There's no socking involved; it's just one user. The issue needs to be resolved, either through a very long-term block or a very long-term semi-protection of the article. They've already been blocked once, and it didn't take. They refuse to respond to any notifications or warnings on their talkpage, and they refuse to desist in edit-warring and/or vandalizing on the article about themselves. Softlavender (talk) 07:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see any attempt to discuss things with the user on either the user's talk page or the article talk page. I see user talk templates but those don't count. CAIR's web site says she is Maryland outreach director[44] so I'd go with that as authoritative if it's an issue for her. Person has made about a dozen edits in 2 weeks, so it's not like this is a huge long running dispute. Too much overreaction and BURO it seems to me. I'll see if I can check the other edits tomorrow since it's late here now. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 08:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • OK fair enough, thanks for checking that out. Her other edits no longer apply because the entire article has been cleaned up (it had been over-run by a sockfarm trying to defame her, and I subsequently cleaned, cleared, and cited everything). I withdraw this complaint. Softlavender (talk) 09:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Scriptions disruptive editing

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

---

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Scriptions
• {{Infobox Chinese}}
• {{Infobox Chinese/Chinese}}
• Template:Infobox Chinese/doc
• involving user
  • Scriptions (talk · contribs)
  • Primefac (talk · contribs) (closing admin)
  • matthew_hk (talk · contribs) (myself)
  • other user in the discussion thread in previous ANI and template?

The user Scriptions made controversial (disruptive ) edit in a template . The closing admin "would also strongly suggest that Scriptions revert to the previous reversion since their changes were contested, if only to show good faith"

However, the user refuse to agree on reverting his change (see template talk), and made this comment in the now closed thread. (Special:Diff/865481962)

:That's not possible because the protection level of Template:Infobox Chinese/Chinese has been changed in the years since my edit – by you. Scriptions (talk) 06:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)}}

It seem there is no hope he wish to cooperate with other user. Matthew_hk tc 13:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Your previous reporting of me for disruption was considered to be in bad faith by the closing admin. Nevertheless, you repeat the bad-faith accusation of disruption above. This is a pure content dispute; nothing nefarious has been going on. Scriptions (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The template was coded this way. pinyin data stored in |p= Cantonese Yale in |y=, Cantonese Jyutping in |j=. The |showflag= was intended to trigger what the code in |showflag= to show which data from hidden collapsible list. Thus |showflag=p was working was as intended to show pinyin. Same logic applies to |showflag=j and |showflag=y. If you want every Cantonese article to show |showflag=y instead of |showflag=j , you change the {{Infobox Chinese}} template in the articles one by one, as well as fixing the backend code of the template by adding the codes for |showflag=y (and other combination involving |y=). Not sabotage the template codes for |showflag=j and |showflag=gd (Guangdong Romanization).

I don't wish to paraphrase again. Matthew_hk tc 13:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As has already been pointed out by the closing admin, this is not sabotage but a legitimate way of doing things. Your idea that this is against some rule is without basis in reality. Scriptions (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

To other admin that not involving the thread. I don't see it is not vandalism that if someone like mdy date format, then edit {{birth date and age}} |df=yes to show MDY instead of dmy. Matthew_hk tc 13:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Not comparable. Scriptions (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Closing admin comment my only mistake in my previous close was not realizing that the page protection prevented Scriptions from reverting their edits. Regardless, I did not force that change and they would have declined anyway. Recommend this be closed (again) and the discussion allowed to proceed on the template talk page. Further disruption by Matthew hk might be considered, well, disruptive. Primefac (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Serial BLP-violating IP, part 5? (with an account this time)

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

---

We've had ongoing problems for months now with an IP user (110.22.50.32) who is obsessed with Australian state-level conservative party powerbroker Marcus Bastiaan and is continually adding BLP-violating rubbish to his article and those of anyone associated with him.

About a month ago, he was blocked for six months by Ymblanter after two shorter blocks failed to get him to stop. He reappeared a week or two later as 49.177.138.206, which was also blocked by Ivanvector for sock evasion. The IP had continued adding bizarre rubbish like this to the articles of anyone vaguely associated with Bastiaan. At this time, the Bastiaan article was long-term semi-protected due to the neverending issues.

Cue user User:Smokeyfire, who has suddenly appeared with exactly the same editing passions and distinctive editing style and odd grammar within articles. He's added claims about Bastiaan branch stacking to his high school article, created an article on a non-notable political candidate seemingly for the purpose of attacking him for having ties to Bastiaan's wife, weird trivia like an MP attending a boring-sounding function in 1999, etc.

Looking at his edit history in further depth, he's actually the original creator of the Bastiaan article, with similar types of edits well before we started noticing the perennial problems with the IP. It seems like this was the original account before the IP edits - it's pretty unlikely that there would be two users with this very niche obsession and same uniquely weird editing style and grammar.

Can this account be blocked as well? It seems like this one never ends. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Usual escalating clearly disruptive behaviour/insults once notified of this discussion too, as occurred most of the other times. (And again.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I blocked them for 2 weeks for personal attacks (they have been blocked for 72h for personal attacks before), as a short-term solution, but we also should think of a long-term solution such as a topic ban or even a site ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I think a site ban is definitely warranted - they're already violating your previous block despite having been blocked once for block evasion already. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I feel that at this point, another administrator would need to look at this. In any case, either a topic ban or a site ban would require an approval at this noticeboard.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks like they've quit. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• The person editing from the account is obviously the same person as is editing from 110.22.50.32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at least, probably the others as well, and that makes this block evasion. Block upped to indef. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Ranting Userpage

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

---

Could an administrator possibly take a look at the user page of Elllis-Ellis Morgan; they are ranting about plagiarism and referencing legal action. Creating their userpage has been their only edit. Home Lander (talk) 03:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looks to be a case of WP:ADVOCACY. Perhaps they need educated about some of our policies/guidelines.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I see it as a fine rant, something of which "Bob" would grant his blessings, and not to be taken (nor probably meant to be taken) seriously. Unless someone can explain what "the right to steal ancestors" means while keeping a straight face. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Clearly not here to improve Wikipedia. I recommend an Indefinite Block and Delete the User page.--RAF910 (talk) 05:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with the user page, even if it is a rant or NotHere? Everyone complaining should either leave it alone and contribute to an article instead or expect the Boomerang. 2600:1003:B859:C85:5588:3267:F1B0:9E07 (talk) 05:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

...Nice logged out editing. That's not how boomerang works. Also I am trying my hardest to figure out what the editor is taking slight with. Charlotte seems to be the daughter, not the queen. I guess maybe I need to buff up on my Georgian history... --Tarage (talk) 05:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

...Nice bad faith assumption. I never login. What would be the point? 2600:1003:B859:C85:5588:3267:F1B0:9E07 (talk) 06:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Accountability. Ask someone you know to explain the concept to you. --Calton | Talk 06:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Calton: Do you think you could be so kind as to explain it to me? 2600:1003:B859:C85:5588:3267:F1B0:9E07 (talk) 06:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Had a look at this and there are obvious problems with WP:NOT. See WP:USERPAGE for more details on how to write a user page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Perfect U5 and so tagged. Goodbye Legacypac (talk) 06:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Francis March

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

---

I am not sure where to post this, but I hope it gets the attention it deserves here. I noticed a ton of edits to the page Francis March today, all by different redlink users whose only contributions to this site are through editing that page. After running a copyvio, mostly everything "they" have added is a violation of copyright from another source. Requesting an admin take a look into this. I'm assuming they are all socks of the same user but am unsure how to open an investigation into that, and if possible I'd like all their revisions deleted and hidden since they contain copyrighted information. Thanks for the help! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

This looks to me like a class project or similar rather than sockpuppeting. Unfortunately, I don't have time to look into it now. If there's copyvio involved, the affected material should be deleted. Deor (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Cool, just wanted to make sure the IPs weren't all the same. The usernames were following the same format which is what set the red flag off in my head. I'll fix up the references. As long as the IPs aren't the same I guess this request can be closed! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) They can be the same if it was a class-project. It seem a good faith meatsock. All need to do is tag copyvio for individual edit and sent a nice (templated) message to them for not just c&p source expect an essential need to have a direct quote. Matthew hk (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Inclined to agree! Copyvio checks out now, the first problem I had with it was a site that pulled directly off Wikipedia. Since it wasn't updated to reflect the current page I didn't notice it at first, but it looks OK now :) SEMMENDINGER (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not that terrible when using wiki mirror site as circular referencing. It sometimes terrible that primary source (e.g. Italian football club) had c&p it-wiki content, that make you misjudge the text was authoritatively correct. Any way, if those are good faith, then there is no urge to continue this thread in ANI, but may be some venue in teahouse or the talk page of the article. Matthew hk (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Holy moly ten redlink editors all on one day. That sounds like a bit of a record for an article on an obscure long-dead person. Softlavender (talk) 07:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Kintetsubuffalo

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

---

This is about User:Kintetsubuffalo's behavior using user warnings and his refusal to discuss it.

User:TheWowaDepp's very first contribution to Wikipedia was an apparently unconstructive edit to Kyrgyzstan[45]. It wasn't blatant, but it was worthy of a vandalism warning, so I left a level 1 warning on TheWowaDepp's talk page[46].

Twenty minutes later, a level 4 vandalism user warning appears on TheWowaDepp's talk page[47]. It has no signature. At first, my intention was to add {{unsigned}} to it, but then I see that there have been no further contributions whatsoever from TheWowaDepp since his first. I identified the edit as being from User:Kintetsubuffalo. I reverted it[48] with edit summary "Unsigned, no intervening vandalism." Then I went to Kintetsubuffalo's user talk page to explain. Before I could post, Kintetsubuffalo reverted my reversion with edit summary "don't edit others' comments. vandalism is vandalism"[49] and then made a subsequent edit to post-date and sign the original post.

I left two messages on Kintetsubuffalo's user talk page [50][51] Each was in turn reverted by Kintetsubuffalo with edit summaries "why belabor this? move on"[52] and "what part of "move on" did you not understand?" [53].

In the situation in which I encountered Kintetsubuffalo, he posted a level 4 vandalism warning subsequent to mine and with no intervening contribution, and it was unsigned. If done intentionally, this would contravene the behavioral guidelines Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

There is the larger issue of Kintetsubuffalo's behavior.

He has done exactly the same thing before. A new user makes an unconstructive edit. An editor (or bot) reverts the edit and leaves a lower level user warning on the user's talk page. Then, with no intervening edits at all by the new user, Kintetsubuffalo leaves a level 4 vandalism warning. He doesn't sign it.[54][55][56][57][58] This has the obvious effect of stepping on the editor actually addressing the vandalism, and unjustifiably warning the vandalizing user again when there is no cause to do so. An editor assessing whether a block is justified might think one incident is more than one. That the post isn't signed only compounds the confusion.

Kintetsubuffalo also makes a routine of creating user talk pages with {{vandalism4}}.[59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76] The correct template for giving a user an immediate assumption-of-bad-faith warning that their next edit will result in a block is {{uw-vandalism4im}}, so Kintetsubuffalo is using the wrong template. Also, none of these posts are signed either. Besides that, while there are certainly times when the highest level warning should be given immediately, Kintetsubuffalo hardly ever gives a user warning at a level less than this. It is just not plausible that Kintetsubuffalo is assuming good faith as required by the guidelines.

Regrettably, Kintetsubuffalo refuses to discuss his behavior. Not even that he is forgetting to sign his posts or using the wrong template. The result of Kintetsubuffalo plain refusal to discuss his behavior on his talk page is that we are here instead. --Bsherr (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you asking that the admins force Kintetsubuffalo to have a conversation with you about all the things you think he has done wrong? Because that's highly unlikely to happen. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

No. --Bsherr (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

What do you want to have happen? --Tarage (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe the OP is raising this user's rude and unwelcoming behavior so a wider group can figure out a solution. That seems quite appropriate. Legacypac (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted clarification because there was confusion of intent. This is a common question asked on confusing filings is it not? --Tarage (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac put it quite well. As for corrective edits, I think Kintetsubuffalo's duplicate user warnings should be reverted, and his unsigned posts signed. As for Kintetsubuffalo himself, if the community agrees that there is a problem, I want his behavior to change. As for how that should be compelled, I think that will depend on how Kintetsubuffalo responds, what the community thinks, and what the administrators here agree to be best. I think it's premature to propose anything specific, even though this is not the first time Kintetsubuffalo has been addressed here. --Bsherr (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Tarage, if you're looking for specific corrective behavior, in my opinion it would be that Kintetsubuffalo should (1) sign his posts, (2) refrain from giving user warnings for edits for which a warning has already been given, (3) refrain from using {{uw-vandalism4}} as a first warning in contravention of its documentation, (4) have discussions on his user talk page, not in edit summaries and reversions, and (5) follow Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. --Bsherr (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I concur with those recommended steps. I handle a lot of spam, vandalism etc while working with AfD. That is more Level 4 warnings posted in a short time than I've used in years of editing. Frankly if someone really deserves a Level 4 vandalism warning, the correct course of action is reporting them for blocking. This pattern of behavior is troubling. I'd like to see this user explain themselves. Legacypac (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed. That collection of LV4 warnings is ridiculous. Look at User talk:74.218.186.106 - this user made a test edit, then reverted it. This one is probably a good faith edit. They got Level 4 warnings. Yes, admittedly most of the IPs are vandalising, but unless it's competely egregious we don't go straight to level 4 warnings. That needs to stop. However, given the "instructions" at the top of User talk:Kintetsubuffalo, I'm unconfident we will get an explanation. However, they've been informed of this thread, so we'll see. Black Kite (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment). Either he (Kintetsubuffalo) did not know ~~~~, or he intentionally skip it. I would expect people to response me back when i send the warning, either they response in personal attack, or feeling rude on level 0 warning and ask for clarification. Matthew hk (talk) 01:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, for those level 4 warning. I had fixed some by signing for him, adding {{shared ip advice}} and send welcome (canned) message, but for the rest, as well as if he continuing doing so, WP:BRI? Matthew hk (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• Note. Kintetsubuffalo has removed the ANI notice from his talkpage with the edit-summary "yawn", and has edited this morning without addressing the issues here. This is what I expected, given their talkpage. The question is, therefore, where do we go from here? Black Kite (talk) 09:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Meh ban them from issuing vandalism warnings and have done with it. That list provided above is ridiculous. If they want to play the bully online there is always someone with a bigger stick. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that seems to be the best idea. They seem inclined to ignore this complaint, which means they're likely to just continue with this excessive templating.--WaltCip (talk) 11:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

In late July, there was a similar user (Starkarrow) who was similarly leaving level 4 warnings as their first warnings to vandals or editors who did test edits as can be seen here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive988 I am wondering if they could be the same editor?? JC7V-talk 05:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban discussion

Based on several comments above, I am starting a discussion to topic ban Kintetsubuffalo (talk · contribs) from using any warning templates. The wording of the ban is as follows:

User:Kintetsubuffalo is indefinitely banned from using any templated warning, including but not limited to the list of warnings at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. He may warn other users, but only insofar as his warnings are directly typed by him, and directly address the behavior in question. Furthermore, Kintetsubuffalo is prohibited from leaving ANY warnings of any type for behavior that a user has previously been warned for, and he is enjoined to sign all of his posts to another person's user talk page. Failure to comply with the terms of this ban in any way can result in progressively longer blocks, at the discretion of the blocking admin.

I hope that captures the essence of the problem. --Jayron32 16:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Support ban

• --Jayron32 16:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC) as nominator.
• (Non-administrator comment) As someone that was block before long time ago (if my memory was right, also due to sending warning in bad faith). Matthew hk (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, I support such a ban. This newbie-biting needs to stop. The user's nonchalance in the face of attempts at discussion is unbecoming. Bishonen | talk 16:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC).
• I'm all about skipping level 1, but this is ridiculous. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
• I can't come up with any justification for the unsigned level-4 warnings being left for what can be described as test edits. If KB is unwilling to comment here, this is the only option. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
• per my assessment above. He will not discuss here, so enact the ban and block him if he continues. He's used up his quota of Level 4 warnings. Legacypac (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, unless/until Kintetsubuffalo agrees to use only level 1 or level 2 warnings for first-time offenses (according to the severity of the offense, i.e. not primarily level 2), to avoid re-templating people who have already been templated with no further offense, and to sign the warnings. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, I'm not sure perfect wording has yet been found and Black Kite's 21:11, 26 October 2018 post below is overly formal for my taste (and doesn't cover issuing another warning if one has already been left), but I don't have better text and enough time has spent on this already. I prefer Black Kite's text over the current Jayron32 text of 16:32, 26 October 2018 which suggests KB may rollback an edit and leave no warning/explanation, and "enjoined" isn't strong enough. Johnuniq (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. Prefer Black Kite's modified version below, but would that result in over-aggressive warnings done manually? I guess we can deal with that if it happens. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Particularly for the sake of editor retention. His actions have no logic or basis, and are tantamount to either harassment or trolling, unless he can explain why he is doing that and or promise that he will stop the nonsense. He's gunning for an indef if he doesn't follow the sanction, which seems to have consensus. Softlavender (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support with reservations. Although I support the principal of a topic ban, I do not believe that the current proposed wordings are going to cut the mustard. Please see the section 'Alternate or additional proposal' below for my reasoning. TheVicarsCat (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Struck per Softlavender's comments below. See Oppose section. TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I have supported the proposal above, since so much time went into it, but we know good and well by now that the user is just going to delete the sanction from his talkpage just like he has every other notification. And then he's going to be blocked. He's certainly not going to abide by a restrictions that has clauses and subclauses and addendums. Any way you look at it, he's going to end up with an indef block. So why don't we just cut to the chase and indef him? If he wants to then make an unblock request and pledge to abide by templating and signing norms, he can. Softlavender (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose ban

• I often give what are called level 4 warnings to brand new vandals. It depends on the vandalism. Roxy, in the middle. wooF 09:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Of course, but this case is not about that. The claim is that the user is inappropriately leaving level 4 warnings (see links above). Of course when reverting dubious edits, a fair portion of them will warrant a level 4 warning, but it is important that warnings not be sprayed around per WP:BITE. Johnuniq (talk) 10:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

still oppose. Roxy, in the middle. wooF 11:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: Per Softlavender's pair of comments below. The second unanswered deletion of a notification of this ANI makes it fairly clear, IMHO, that Kintetsubuffalo has no intention of even reading this ANI thread let alone making any response to it. I believe he is treating the process with contempt and any response needs to reflect that. TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• I was actually going to enact such a ban before Jayron started the discussion, so if there isn't any opposition in the next hours, I'll go ahead and do that. I can't see there being any opposition, however; this is a pretty straightforward violation of the the requirement to edit collaboratively. Black Kite (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
• Just so everyone is on the same page, everyone realizes that what this really means is he's going to revert and not warn at all, right? Everyone OK with that? I'm not necessarily opposed to that outcome, but just making sure that there isn't another "Kintetsubuffalo isn't warning for vandalism/test edits" thread in a few days. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's an improvement. If they were to comment here and ask that level-1 warnings through Twinkle not be prohibited in the sanction, I'd be fine with that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Floq is right. Since this editor is not likely to comply, or at least is likely to find any loophole, I suggest "User:Kintetsubuffalo is indefinitely banned from using any templated warning, including but not limited to the list of warnings at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. However, If he reverts vandalistic or disruptive editors, he must warn that editor with a warning directly typed by him, which directly addresses the behavior in question. Furthermore, Kintetsubuffalo must sign all of his posts to another person's user talk page. Failure to comply with the terms of this ban in any way can result in progressively longer blocks, at the discretion of the blocking admin." I think that covers it. Black Kite (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Much better than the original proposal. Make it so. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Or how about we just tban him from reverting beyond 1 revert? --Tarage (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• While Tarage's suggestion could be an additional restriction that sounds good and should be considered whenever required, Black Kite your re-iterated proposed close summary sounds expansive enough to capture most relevant issues at hand. Lourdes 05:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I’ve notified User:Kintetsubuffalo on his User talk page, it looks like he hasn’t done anything about this discussion yet. PorkchopGMX 06:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

He was already notified, and removed it here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

my notice was removed with the edit summary of “vandalism is vandalism”. Something probably should be done here. PorkchopGMX 07:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

According to WP:OWNTALK, blanking means "read". Plus his additional edit summary "vandalism is vandalism". It sounds he read it (as least his own talk). While he agree or disagree or not, i assume it just depends on when we decide the topic ban to start, may be when do we close this thread? Matthew hk (talk) 09:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

All of this is a distinct sign of someone who needs an indef block. I don't know why we are pussyfooting around it. Softlavender (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Alternate or additional proposal

I view of this last blanking and comment there seems to be a complete unwillingness (or even refusal) to WP:COMMUNICATE in this matter. May I propose a course of action to force some action. While the above discussion about a topic ban is entirely laudable, as a first step, Kintetsubuffalo be immediately indefinitely blocked with a caveat that the block will be lifted as soon as he posts an acceptable response to this complaint. This seems to have focused attention in the past. Who knows: but if the response fully accepts the unacceptable behaviour, a topic ban may (and I emphasise may) be rendered unnecessary (I somehow doubt it but good faith is good faith). Since he will only be able to post the response to his talk page, someone will need to copy it here, but there seems to be enough eyes on this that this will happen. TheVicarsCat (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I've been thinking a lot about this proposed remedy. There are so many benefits to the UW templates—uniform and thoughtful message, their easy identifiability when determining the next level message to use or whether a block is appropriate—that I wonder whether this is a remedy we all suffer as opposed to a correction. (It's not so dissimilar from hypothetically sanctioning an editor not to use the references templates.) This isn't so much a topic as a feature of Wikipedia. Kintetsubuffalo needs to use it correctly. The bottom line is I can't imagine we are going to be happier with the result of Kintetsubuffalo crafting his own user talk warnings. That being said, the alternatives are are essentially either an admonishment that if the behavior continues he will be blocked, or a block now. Before weighing those options, I think TheVicarsCat's proposal of an indefinite block until Kintetsubuffalo participates is a very good idea. --Bsherr (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Reading your response and re-reading the proposed topic bans leaves me believing that we are not adequately addressing the issue. Both ban wordings merely prevent Kintetsubuffalo from using a templated warning (of any level), but require him to craft his own warning. There is no prohibition on crafting a differently worded warning that is essentially still a level 4 warning (or worse). Thus the problem will remain. His response to this complaint is essential if only to determine which teeth any topic ban requires and what the parameters are for a violation to occur. TheVicarsCat (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• He needs some sort of sanction. I don't care if it's an indef block. He is driving away potential good users, and he never answers any usertalkposts -- he simply deletes them. Wikipedia requires collaboration and communication, and following polices and guidelines. The standard way we deal with people who neither communicate nor follow PAGs is to indef block until they communicate and convince others that they will continue to do so, and will comply with policies and guidelines and templating norms. Softlavender (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. A topic ban seems sufficient at this point, as it would prevent the reported problem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: In what form should this topic ban be applied, because the versions already supplied will not work for the reasons given above? TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban from using level 4 templated warnings, and then address any further problematic behaviour if it should occur. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

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

• ... and I told you guys he would simply delete the sanction. May I have my winnings now? Indef block coming in 1, 2, 3 .... Softlavender (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Come on, Soft. You know he can delete the ban message if he likes. The interesting part is whether or not he abides by it. Bishonen | talk 00:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC).

• Well, you know where my money is. I'm expecting a big payday. Softlavender (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Here ya' go, Softy!

-EEng

Editor has issues with NOTHERE and CIVIL

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

---

65.60.240.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) continually adds unnecessary TBA lines to pageant articles prior to the crowning of the next winner which have been consistently deleted by myself and other editor. They appear not to be on Wikipedia for any other useful purpose. They have taken objection and left a number of highly uncivil comments on my talk page eg “You cheese eating surrender monkey! What have I been telling you about deleting things on pageant titleholder lists? You did not listen you racist little baby. STAY OFF PAGEANT TITLEHOLDER LISTS YOU AINY FAIRY!” [77] and other comments along the same lines [78] After an original patch of issues by this IP and a second IP they then created a new username Pageantgurl (talk · contribs) and continued the problem editing and personal attacks/threats under that username (admitting they were the same editor) [79] and have now returned to editing with the original IP. The IP was blocked for 72 hours early in this pattern of editing but that has not deterred them. ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  06:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I watch many pageant related pages as I occasionally seek to delete them as non-notable vanicrud. Pageant chasers can be hard to deal with, very dedicated to their hobby. Best you can do is rollback their changes if they keep switching IPs. Legacypac (talk) 06:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Which is what I am doing, however the civility issues need to be dealt with, as they are leading to the sort of inappropriate comments on my talk page as above ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  06:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

we learned recently here that editors can say a heck of a lot worse and not be sanctioned. Undo their posts and they will tire of it. Legacypac (talk) 06:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support hardblock indef of named account as clearly NOTHERE (account is being used only for disruptive editing and threats). And a block of the IP for as long as possible for the same reason and for persistent PAs and socking. Softlavender (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef on account, longterm block on the IP - per WP:NOTHERE, WP:NPA, WP:HARASS and WP:SOCK.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• I third that motion...Indefinite block. I would add no talk page access as well.--RAF910 (talk) 07:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • That's usually only necessary when they're abusing their talk page or if it's an ArbCom block. I'd say it's best to let the blocking administrator decide on that one.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
• Please note they have not engaged with the discussion here but are continuing their disruptive editing under both the IP and the Pageantgurl username. [80] [81] ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  12:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

If you support one or both of the proposals above, then place a bolded !vote here as others have so that it can be counted. Softlavender (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Oops sorry, I would vote for an indefinite block as well ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  13:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

CJinoz, it's best if you use the format that others have, with flush-left bullet and full bolding and the word "Support" at the beginning. That is, if you want this issue to be taken care of as swiftly as possible. Admins don't always pay attention to threads on this very busy board, but when there is a clear consensus of clearly bolded !votes it's easier for them to notice the thread and know what the consensus is. Softlavender (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks and apologies, I have added this in below, hope that's formatted better this time ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  13:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef block until they agree to stop this pattern of editing and agree not to insult other editors. That fairy comment is especially disturbing.(always hated being called that in school back in the day) Isaidnoway (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef block as per previous comments. Editor has shown no indication that they will stop without being made to stop ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  13:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Editor has issues with NOTHERE and CIVIL

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

---

65.60.240.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) continually adds unnecessary TBA lines to pageant articles prior to the crowning of the next winner which have been consistently deleted by myself and other editor. They appear not to be on Wikipedia for any other useful purpose. They have taken objection and left a number of highly uncivil comments on my talk page eg “You cheese eating surrender monkey! What have I been telling you about deleting things on pageant titleholder lists? You did not listen you racist little baby. STAY OFF PAGEANT TITLEHOLDER LISTS YOU AINY FAIRY!” [82] and other comments along the same lines [83] After an original patch of issues by this IP and a second IP they then created a new username Pageantgurl (talk · contribs) and continued the problem editing and personal attacks/threats under that username (admitting they were the same editor) [84] and have now returned to editing with the original IP. The IP was blocked for 72 hours early in this pattern of editing but that has not deterred them. ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  06:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I watch many pageant related pages as I occasionally seek to delete them as non-notable vanicrud. Pageant chasers can be hard to deal with, very dedicated to their hobby. Best you can do is rollback their changes if they keep switching IPs. Legacypac (talk) 06:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Which is what I am doing, however the civility issues need to be dealt with, as they are leading to the sort of inappropriate comments on my talk page as above ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  06:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

we learned recently here that editors can say a heck of a lot worse and not be sanctioned. Undo their posts and they will tire of it. Legacypac (talk) 06:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support hardblock indef of named account as clearly NOTHERE (account is being used only for disruptive editing and threats). And a block of the IP for as long as possible for the same reason and for persistent PAs and socking. Softlavender (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef on account, longterm block on the IP - per WP:NOTHERE, WP:NPA, WP:HARASS and WP:SOCK.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• I third that motion...Indefinite block. I would add no talk page access as well.--RAF910 (talk) 07:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • That's usually only necessary when they're abusing their talk page or if it's an ArbCom block. I'd say it's best to let the blocking administrator decide on that one.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
• Please note they have not engaged with the discussion here but are continuing their disruptive editing under both the IP and the Pageantgurl username. [85] [86] ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  12:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

If you support one or both of the proposals above, then place a bolded !vote here as others have so that it can be counted. Softlavender (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Oops sorry, I would vote for an indefinite block as well ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  13:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

CJinoz, it's best if you use the format that others have, with flush-left bullet and full bolding and the word "Support" at the beginning. That is, if you want this issue to be taken care of as swiftly as possible. Admins don't always pay attention to threads on this very busy board, but when there is a clear consensus of clearly bolded !votes it's easier for them to notice the thread and know what the consensus is. Softlavender (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks and apologies, I have added this in below, hope that's formatted better this time ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  13:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef block until they agree to stop this pattern of editing and agree not to insult other editors. That fairy comment is especially disturbing.(always hated being called that in school back in the day) Isaidnoway (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef block as per previous comments. Editor has shown no indication that they will stop without being made to stop ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  13:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

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

2401:7400:4001:2BEE:0:0:0:0/64

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

---

• 2401:7400:4001:2BEE:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone will need to quickly block this range, as he has started making bad edits right away as soon as the last block by Favonian expired, and the last block not created by a bot was at 08:56, October 27, 2018. Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Acroterion taking things out of context on EgyptAir Flight 990

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

---

EgyptAir Flight 990

(cur | prev) 22:49, 27 October 2018‎ Acroterion (talk | contribs)‎ . . (45,309 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 71.56.169.162 (talk): Rv - no substantive change made to content. (TW)) (undo) (Tag: Undo)

(cur | prev) 22:46, 27 October 2018‎ 71.56.169.162 (talk)‎ . . (45,307 bytes) (-2)‎ . . (Not pointless reordering, do not do disruptive edits. The context is being edited to match that of the NTSB report which states actions for determination. There is no reason to not maintain the same context as the investigative report unless you have personal reasons.) (undo) (Tag: Undo)

(cur | prev) 22:32, 27 October 2018‎ Acroterion (talk | contribs)‎ . . (45,309 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 71.56.169.162 (talk): Rv pointless reordering. (TW)) (undo) (Tag: Undo)

(cur | prev) 22:30, 27 October 2018‎ 71.56.169.162 (talk)‎ . . (45,307 bytes) (-2)‎ . . (Changed the context to match the conclusion of the report. Context matters, DO NOT make edits to take things out of context for personal reasons.) (undo)

Unable to leave message on users talk page

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.169.162 (talk • contribs) 2018-10-27T23:07:47 (UTC)

Content dispute with no discussion on the article talk page. Please sign your posts with four tildes (like ~~~~). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

And what on earth is the difference between these two sentences, anyway? [87]. Black Kite (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The only difference I can start to imagine is whether one wants to emphasize that no conclusion was reached or try to blame the pilot. But I'd have to have someone admit that's exactly why they're switching it around, and I'd have to say that the difference is so weak that that reason would frankly be a pretty lame reason for an edit war. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Not notified of this - I warned the IP for edit summaries like "unless you have personal reasons." They're up to three reverts for no reason I can discern, and I'm not getting the "out of context" business. I have no strong opinion on the wording, but I'm concerned about the IP's tendency to claim interested motivations in edit summaries while claiming that they're making vital changes. I've unprotected my talkpage - I didn't realize it was still semi-protected. Acroterion (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Ugly edit war at Interstate 95 in Delaware

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

---

There’s an ugly edit war unfolding at Interstate 95 in Delaware. I am reporting User:Cards84664 for engaging in the edit war, but I am also going to report myself as I acknowledge that I have broke 3RR too. We need an outside mediator - perhaps block both of us to make it fair. 24.34.85.169 (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Update: It now appears that the other user in question may be editing while logged out to continue the edit war. 24.34.85.169 (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

(ec) User has shown incompetence with citations, I was in the process of filing a notice at WP:AN3 when this request was made. User reviews within Google Maps are not regarded as reliable sources. The IP makes a claim that essentially says a passage is correct with "everyone says so" logic. The IP also reasons that user competence is good enough of a source, as shown here. IP was also reverted prior by another experienced editor, as shown here. I am requesting a block for this IP, due to repeated requests to stop vandalizing on their talk page, which the IP repeatedly blanks after recieving warnings. This kind of editing does not belong on Wikipedia. Cards84664 (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

First of all, the warnings on my talk were for something totally different months ago. Also I think the best course of action here is to block both of us for 3RR violations, and possibly Cards84664 for editing while logged out. A single Google Review is not reliable, but a dozen of them that all say the same thing clearly states that the information is true. 24.34.85.169 (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Pinging second opinion, @Dough4872:. Cards84664 (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The information really does not belong, though I think that my neutrality could legitimately be called into question if I acted with the admin tools on this one. I see User:Bbb23 has CU-blocked the IP already, so that may be the best solution. --Rschen7754 23:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The information the IP keeps adding to the Interstate 95 in Delaware article is unsourced, even though they claim it came from Google Maps reviews, and is not appropriate for the encyclopedia given the lack of reliable sourcing. Dough4872 23:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• A request for semi-protection has been filed at RFPP by FreeKnowledgeCreator. Any admin seeing this can go ahead and do that if it hasn't been handled yet. Softlavender (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

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

IP posting "porn"

User 87.254.70.8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.254.70.8 is in a rampage posting "porn" images. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The IP has been blocked by RickinBaltimore. TedEdwards 16:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Could we also RevDel the offensive edits? Altamel (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Already done by somebody.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I've revdel'd the diffs, and added the soon-to-be-deleted-on-Commons image file to the badimages list. Raul654 blocked an earlier IP doing the same thing. I expect more attempts once they obtain another IP. Acroterion (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

We really need to get to work on some image-rec software to filter out uploads at commons of the usual suspects. This is not the first time I've seen this exact form of vandalism using the goatse image. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I deleted the image, now they will need to upload a new one.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Ymblanter:, @RickinBaltimore:, They had another image currently in 2018 Yilan train derailment, please delete the image and protect the article (despite it is a current event and some ip may do good faith edit). user:matthew_hk 17:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

They created a new account on Commons. Can we block the commons user and delete the image? Altamel (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

All done, pls ping me if there is more admin help on Commons needed, I should be reasonably active for three more hours.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: User:87.254.84.46, posting File:Nature 1.png. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: User:178.16.10.94, posting File:D8c.png Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• I'm imagining that this IP is actually a spy, sending a secret signal by doing this, and that the pages and images were "chosen at random" by their superior who's had it out for them for a long time. So now there's some young CIA handler at an embassy somewhere pounding their forehead on the desk as they keep trying to let their field assets know their cover is blown, but the edits just keep getting removed.

Pretty soon, he'll give up, grab a pistol out of his desk drawer and start running across the city on foot while techno music plays in the background, hoping desperately to find his operator in time.

Across town, said operator is looking at a cached diff of one of their assigned WP pages thinking "Is that the 'proceed with caution' butthole or the 'your cover is blown' butthole?"

Meanwhile, right outside his door, some foreign operator carrying a .22 pistol with a huge can is listening to his earpiece telling him "the butthole is live, move now!" in Russian. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm billing you for a new keyboard for the one I just ruined laughing at that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

MPants at work That was awesome! I will save the diff where you wrote that, as it is now one of my new favorite things ever. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• @RickinBaltimore and ONUnicorn: Most of my jokes seem to go over like a lead balloon. I'm glad this one made someone laugh. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Just, let's please not read too much into the fact that I'm rewarding that particular comment with an image of a grinning face superimposed over the shape of a star; we're treading pretty close to the line of appropriate wiki-commentary as is... Snow let's rap 23:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Did you seriously go with a Porn Identity joke? Bravo, sir. Blackmane (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Acroterion: the image you added to WP:BIL has been deleted so it can be gone from the list. Sorry to hear this vandal is back again. Home Lander (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reminder, I was going to go back and declutter the list. Acroterion (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• Continued, the latest incarnation was 80.65.245.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Again, if admin help on Commons is needed pls ping me. I will be around for half an hour, then half an hour not available, and then again around for four hours.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) It seem they vandal articles that appears on the front page, as the train accident is a current event, while Yugoslav torpedo boat T5 is today featured article. Matthew hk (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Repeated uncivil verbal abuse in film articles

Seems like some people are really frustrated. The Mohanlal v Mammootty fan wars has gone one step ahead, now a weird version of it is taking place in Wikipedia. Since 13th October, an IP (or IPs) was persistently trying to edit Mohanlal's name in Odiyan (an upcoming much anticipated film in the industry) cast list and replacing it with extreme foul language (Malayalam written in English letters). An otherwise less edited page, on that day there was at least 120 edits, warring to add the profanity.

Some IPs are:

• 2405:204:D105:E05F:EC1F:93DF:BBAB:3519 (14 edits) - most disruptive (also edited Kayamkulam Kochunni)
• 2405:204:D302:3DB1:D9AD:D0AA:A5B6:FE55 (3)
• 86.98.84.7 (1)
• 2405:204:D48B:93CF:346A:3D8C:26FE:8EF1 (2)
• 2405:204:D308:7024:5208:43DF:5B9E:8A86 (4)
• 137.97.155.163 (10) - most disruptive (also in Mohanlal regular collaborator Antony Perumbavoor)
• 49.15.207.246 (1)
• 42.111.228.116 (1)
• 78.100.162.226 (1)
• 2405:204:D401:C999:A711:D1EB:E234:868F (2)
• 2405:204:519E:B978:3F78:3C0A:BEDB:40E8 (2)
• 2405:204:D08B:9642:0:0:1E85:E8A1 (2)
• 43.239.55.13 (2)
• 2405:204:659A:E1A6:904D:6515:3C4D:FB90 (2)
• 83.110.229.77 (1)
• 2405:204:D206:94C3:79CD:B692:225B:ED5A (1)
• 2405:204:D282:32E5:0:0:2480:B8A4 (1)
• 45.125.117.2 (2)

Finally the page was protected for disruptive editing. Unable to vandalize Odiyan, the target shifted to Mohanlal's Pulimurugan (the top-grossing Malayalam film).

• 27.61.41.50 ([88], [89]) - vandalizing box-office data
• 27.97.28.205 ([90])
• 2405:204:D10E:F29C:2487:7A45:2113:988C ([91]) - profanity
• 27.61.22.115 ([92]) - profanity and box-office vandalism
• Fayismuhammed ([93])

The page was soon protected. If you observe here, 27.61.22.115 and Fayismuhammed edited in 1 minute gap with same edit summary. Fayismuhammed, an otherwise inactive user came at the same time ? You know what I mean. Check his contributions, it's all box-office vandalism, adding inflated numbers in Mammootty films (Rajamanikyam, Pokkiri Raja) and diminishing them in Mohanlal films (Drishyam, Pulimurugan). Same obscene words used by IPs here was also seen in Odiyan, so it's possibly the same person.

Then other IPs began returning the favour, doing the same in Mammootty films. But is less occuring when compared to the vandal spree in Odiyan and Pulimurugan. On 17th October, Frz latheef undid such an edit in a Mammootty film [94] at 21:29 UTC. Just a minute after, this IP went savage adding profanity in a number of Mohanlal films. It was from 21:30 UTC to 21:39 UTC just after Frz latheef's edit. Maybe his retaliation ?

Instead of protecting the pages and preventing good faith editors too, blocking the problematic IPs/Users will be more effective. After all, how many pages can you protect. Both the M's has acted in more than 300 films each. 2405:204:D483:E219:BC9B:BFD2:524F:F1C1 (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• I've done some blocking. I think an edit-filter would be useful here, and I'm going to request it. Can you let me know on my talk page of any further issues? Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Given the diverse IP ranges and edits made, I agree with Black Kite that an edit filter will probably be the best solution to this matter... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree, the tightest range here is an IPv6 /32, which is much too large to block. It's regrettable but this is why we have semiprotection. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree; semi-protection will be helpful, but it won't stop further disruption from spilling over and spreading to other articles and we'll essentially be playing "whack-a-mole", which would be both beneficial and convenient to avoid if we can do so. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Black Kite, Oshwah, Ivanvector. Why are you not blocking them ? Today they have started it in Mohanlal's upcoming films Drama ([95], [96], [97], [98]) and Lucifer (film) ([99]). You think this is going to stop ? Unless you apply a range block, I don't think so. 2405:204:D18A:ACC0:A859:7843:4744:8F26 (talk) 08:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocking individual IPs has already been an active task performed as noted by Black Kite above. Given the ranges available to the user and what I calculated from the IPs listed here - they could just hop onto another IP and continue with their "business as usual". The IPv6 range (2405:204::/32) is much too wide to block and it would result in a lot of collateral damage as seen by the range's edit contributions. The IPv4 addresses listed here all come from different ranges and would be useless to try and pursue. I just applied semi-protection to the two articles you listed in your response above. Are there disruptive edits continuing to actively occur at this moment in time and on other articles or pages? If so, can you list these articles and pages here so that I can take a look? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Just to note that I did rangeblock a smaller subset of that IPv6 range because all of the recent contributions appeared to be about this subject. However as Oshwah says the IPv4s are just popping up all over various ranges and I can see no rangeblock for any of them that would not cause significant collateral issues. Semi-protection and/or edit-filter is the main way to proceed here. Black Kite (talk) 09:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

(Edit: the 42.109.136.x - 42.109.146.x range appears to have very little collateral so I have temporarily rangeblocked that.) Black Kite (talk) 09:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The problem with applying a useful range block, IP, is that it would also block your IP. That's the "collateral" problem here, we can't technically sort the good edits from the bad. We're doing the best we can. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Black Kite's block on "42.109.136.x - 42.109.146.x" translates to 42.109.128.0/19 in CIDR notation, for those who don't know how to calculate those. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Black Kite, Oshwah, now it's in Neerali ([100], [101], [102] - this page was vandalizing since 17th October, I forgot to mention) and Janatha Garage [103], also Untitled K. V. Anand film. Any blocking possible ? 2405:204:D489:DA38:79C2:3D18:F628:DB52 (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I've added semi-protection to all three articles listed here, and blocked 188.236.128.0/19 due to their disruption to them. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Black Kite & Oshwah, the person has now created an account User:Itheillu and started abusing Mohanlal in Villain (2017 film), 1971: Beyond Borders, Velipadinte Pusthakam. Also in IPv6 - Villain [104], [105]; 1971: Beyond Borders [106], [107]. It is now clear that Fayismuhammed is the guy, you can see the user abusing Mohanlal here at the same time with IPv6. It's a vandalism-only account and should be blocked. Please do what is necessary for the IPs. 2405:204:D306:848F:F16B:4C84:1F6F:8D15 (talk) 06:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite and Oshwah:, repinging for the IP ——SerialNumber54129 10:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

One more: Shajil_369.2405:204:D286:3C77:ECD7:174:E1ED:4AA6 (talk) 07:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

user:2A02:C7D:B910:3D00:D16C:D88C:E83D:7B31

On 29 July this year (and only on that day) 2A02:C7D:B910:3D00:D16C:D88C:E83D:7B31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made a large number of edits, all related to merges. The majority of them were to turn articles that had at some point been nominated for merging (almost without exception these proposals had not been documented on a talk page or if they had then no subsequent discussion had taken place) into redirects and removing merge-from tags on destination articles, all without actually merging any content.

I think I have now cleaned-up all the mess they made by restoring articles without prejudice to a merge (some of them look like excellent candidates for merging), except Qaum which is currently being discussed at RfD (how I became aware of the issue) but I'd appreciate someone else taking a look as well, as there were some useful edits in the mix (e.g. removing merge tags from a nomination that received opposition and no support several months ago). It would also be useful if someone who understands IPv6 ranges could take a look to see if any similar edits have been made by similar IPs as it seems very odd behaviour for someone brand new to Wikipedia to do on one day never to be seen again. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

ps: I haven't left a notification as it seems highly unlikely any message left on the talkpage of an IP that hasn't edited since July will be seen by the relevant human being. Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) the ip was stale (last edit in July). For those merge, if controversial, then revert. For finding the range, the super large range is on whois (Sky Broadband) 2a02:c7d::/32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). You can narrow the range by looking at the contribution, then use {{IP range calculator}}. Matthew_hk tc 13:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hate to tell you, Thryduulf, but the user is still up to the same thing as of 2 days ago as 2A02:C7D:B910:3D00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), so you might yet have work to do. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Given that it took me about an hour to clean up the mess from one day this is going to require more than just me. Especially as I don't have time to look right now. Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Judging by their last 50 I think they're now just removing old merge tags, and in at least one case they actually carried out the merge. I think it's safe to say they've learned what they're supposed to do, but like Thryduulf I haven't time to check in detail (and there are a lot of edits). I'd like to get their input on this discussion and ideally have a conversation to reassure us that they are carrying out merges properly, and I'm going to ping them on their most recent IP but pings with IPv6 don't work well and they've been idle for nearly 8 hours now - they'll likely have a new discrete IP by the time they come to edit again. I could use help from other users to keep an eye on the range especially around 06:00-12:00 UTC, and if you see them active please leave a note on their current IP's talk page referring to this discussion or referring to my talk page. I'd rather not use an "attention-getting" rangeblock here, but it's an option. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup please

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

---

At Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). 05:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Also on my talk page. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 05:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I requested page protection and have been reporting the IP's to AIV.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

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

User 14.200.91.233

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

---

This user has vandalised Wikipedia. They have also threatened legal action against Wikipedia (See 'bin chicken low importance ' in this; [[108]]. I am also not sure if this may have contained a link to copyrighted material. On their talk page (here;https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:14.200.91.233) they have been insulting and made personal attacks against me. For example, he told me that I had poor comprehension skills and that 'people such as yourself just turned it (Wikipedia in general) into a nasty edit warring trash-fire'. They then asked ME to appologise. On this page, Nick-D asked him to stop disruptive editing and was accused of only allowing 'cabal friends' to edit Wikipedia. On this page, under September 2017, he was given a final warning for personal attacks, against Yassmin Abdel-Magied; [[109]]. He also told Jytdog on his talk page that they 'helped make more people cripple and destroyed their quality of life! May you get what you give'. After Jytdog told him that a page he had edited had been put under discretionary sanctions and making it clear that this was not because of his bad actions.

Qwerty number1 (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

He said that a bird Twitter account might sue because the bird species was ranked on Wikipedia as being of "low importance", he didn't threaten to take legal action himself. I don't know about the other issues but that was clearly a joke since animals can't sue anyone. 2601:1C0:5A01:4302:D556:B44C:37A:BF97 (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

!? They were given a warning on their page. However, if you want more examples, on their talk page, I was called by them a 'nuisance' told I am doing 'childish antics', told I was 'aggressive ',that I had 'rudely threatened blocks ', but I think that this was the first time 'block' had appeared on the page, saying I am a 'hypocrite', I 'knew nothing about copyright ', told me that I had no sense of humour and I did not help Wikipedia's environment. I was also accused of libel, defamation and vandalism by trying to communicate my view with them. I was told at least once to 'go away' after posting a non-insulting comment. Qwerty number1 (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Nowhere, does it actually say that the twitter account was going to sue it. In some ways, it would be like saying 'but they obviously couldn't do it' or 'how do you know that they were threatening to do it' if someone said 'I bet somebody is going to punch you'? Qwerty number1 (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Qwerty number1: The 14.200. IP address has not done any editing relating to Yassmin Abdel-Magied nor crossed paths with Jytdog in over a year. The person who was editing those pages might not even be the same person. Any actions carried out by the IP in those areas are beyond stale and not relevant.

This more relevant edit of the IP's which you attempted to link to shows making a joke suggesting that a bird would sue. Jokes to carry an otherwise serious point are not vandalism. Assume good faith, even from IP editors.

I'm not saying the IP is right (or wrong) with regards to the content dispute but I am going to say that you're making mountains out of molehills and need to back away until you can handle this calmly. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Vandalism in pursuit of an edit war

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

---

See here. This editor is defacing my user page ([110] & [111]) in response to being reverted at Murder of Seth Rich. It's also worth noting what they are edit warring over. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Note: Editor was warned here, here and here. (all have since been blanked.) I also issued a warning over the vandalism, but then I thought better of trying to reason with someone who would do this and came here instead. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

User "ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants" did not read the source, as evidenced in the edit log.

He referenced the wrong source for the section in question, as evidenced in the edit log.

When I called him out on not doing his due dalliance, he engaged with higher authority, accusing me of an edit war he clearly started (see edit log).

He engages in arguments in bad faith using logical fallacies purposefully, to defend not correcting the error of editorializing/original research, which already has a lengthy discussion. Evidenced in talk page of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuroelectronic (talk • contribs)

@Neuroelectronic: None of that is an excuse for edit warring or an exception from the one-revert restriction. —C.Fred (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

So go ahead and revert it again then, logical. I don't care but clearly if you're going to put up with editors like this and defend their actions they clearly instigated then I'm not welcome here. @Neuroelectronic:

@Neuroelectronic: You made a bold edit, they reverted. Other than the exchange of reverts that followed, I do not see anything untoward in the other user's conduct. This thread is about your conduct: specifically, your follow-on revert and your defacing of another user's user page. —C.Fred (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I see what's going on here. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.207.204 (talk • contribs)

• And then this message. Is this enough intent to edit war to go ahead and block the account preventively? —C.Fred (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It certainly is. IP hard-blocked and account blocked. Acroterion (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The intent to start an edit war is clearly on ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants. I don't know who you think you're fooling.

Also calling an accurate edit vandalism is just transparent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.207.204 (talk • contribs)

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

75.91.226.53

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

---

I made the mistake of getting into a small edit war on the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting article, but based on some of this IP's edits, it's absolutely uncivil. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 06:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It appears that the IP has been temporarily blocked. Someone can close this now. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 06:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Cannot edit the article Bodacious which is protected from IP and anon users, but I am registered user

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

---

Hi, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus over at the Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests told me this was the correct place to post my request. Details at this URL! [112]

Please see this conversation with the admin I just had who referred me to post at "ANI" for Bodacious (bull). When I came to the noticeboard area, I wasn't really sure which noticeboard to post it at. [113] The issue is explained clearly at the admin's talk page. But the theme is that I cannot edit an article that was protected to keep IP users from editing it temporarily. I have a login and should be able to edit it. Thank you! Going to bed but hope it be resolved w/o me. dawnleelynn^(talk) 06:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It is odd, the article is semi-protected and you are an extended confirmed user, so you should be able to edit it. I suggest posting at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) instead of here. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 08:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is odd. Okay, thank you. dawnleelynn^(talk) 15:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Fireflyfanboy

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

---

Uncivility and namecalling at Talk:Anthony Bourdain after POV pushing. Edit appears to have a pattern of poor behavior here. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 00:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to see a week long block, even though it's unrelated to the previous edit warring block, the user clearly has issues with civility as seen by the numerous warning on their talk page. --Tarage (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

For someone calling a jerk for them ignoring something they requested of me...? I admittedly lost my cool in a situation where a user wasn't being constructive. Must that warrant a block?Fireflyfanboy (talk) 00:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I’m involved. The pattern isn’t good and the editor clearly has no patience. Generally, I prefer to play out more rope in such situations. If there is a block, make it brief or consider a TBan instead, or just trout him with a warning. Albeit, I foresee a bad ending. O3000 (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

You made a request for another reason to include the quote, which I followed through on. I politely asked for a response, you ignored it and changed the subject to what would happen if I added the quote without consensus. Can't you understand why I lost my cool? You insulted me by not even considering the point I was making!Fireflyfanboy (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn’t make the complaint and I asked for leniency. We edit based upon WP:CONSENSUS. You were not making headway toward that goal, which I merely pointed out. If you lose your “cool” so easily, perhaps you should edit less controversial articles. I suggest you simply say you will be more polite in future and understand the concept of consensus. Hell, do that, and with the OP’s permission, I’ll close this filing myself. O3000 (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

All I wanted was for my point, which, again, YOU requested, to be considered as part of discussion. I was trying to add to the discussion, and just wanted my point to be properly considered by all parties, including and especially you. I do understand the concept of consensus, which is why I wanted my point given its proper credence, and will try to be more conscientious in the future.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

You guys do whatever you think is right, I just wanted to report it. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 01:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Fireflyfanboy, from reading the thread on the article talk page, I'm not sure you understand that people can carefully consider your arguments and still disagree. At least if you are arguing that your arguments weren't given proper credence. zchrykng (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Fireflyfanboy, when you call another editor a "jerk!!!", an "obstructionist", and a "WikiZealot", all in one single comment, you are not editing collaboratively and you are motivating scrutiny of your editing patterns. Excessive use of exclamation marks is an obvious problem, but bullying other editors is much worse. Work toward genuine consensus instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, as the editor he called a jerk, obstructionist, and WikiZealot, I was willing to NAC no action close this myself if I saw a better understanding of consensus and civility. I suggest a brief, but escalated block. O3000 (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Fireflyfanboy: This is not just because you got frustrated and lost your cool. Your conduct on that talk page, and article, through and through, is disruptive, tendentious, POINTY, combative uncivil, and unreasonable. Frankly, you come across as impossible to reason with. This started because you re-added Trump's reaction, which was reverted because "[Trump] has no connection with [Bourdain].[114] You then made the false claim that "Protocol states that [sitting presidents' reactions are] included".[115] On the talk page, you relied on a WP:OTHERCRAP argument, and while it was pointed out to you that that rationale was not valid, the opposition extended beyond that. Calton immediately responded, pointing out that Obama's relation to the subject was different from that of Trump's, and that your desire to equivocate both pieces of content in an "all or nothing" approach "makes no sense", and called that approach "mindless whataboutism". Rather than showing any sort of indication that you were making any effort to listen to and understand the points that were being made, you simply made the bizarre, detached statement "thanks for citing something unrelated and using an ad hominum attack against me instead of arriving at a consensus". It was then pointed out that you could make a proposal via an RfC, but rather than doing so, you proceeded to edit war over the removal of Obama based on your personal preference "all or nothing" approach, in spite of specific objections to that approach that were provided multiple times both in edit summaries and on the talk page. You were told by an (apparently) uninvolved party that you were being disruptive, and you were told to present a compelling, logical argument for including Trump for editors to decide whether to agree or disagree with. You then claimed that you already did, and your points were simply being ignored (while in reality, you were the one refusing to acknowledge a differing opinion). You apologized for making personal attacks, and then proceeded immediately to make another one ("he started it"). O3000 made a fairly neutral comment, but laid out plenty of procedural reasons he objected to your edits, and said that he didn't even have an opinion, and that he wanted to see a more convincing argument than the 'other articles' approach which you had been relying heavily on, to which your "new argument" essentially boiled down to "it's just significant". Nothing to back it up, just your opinion, which was already implied all along. No new information or compelling rationale. You just think it's significant. And, when this user, who didn't even have a strong opinion, and literally just wanted to see a good argument, was unconvinced by this incredibly shallow counterargument, and referred you back to the reasons you were already opposed, you became belligerent and personally attacked them again, claiming that they're a "zealot". A user who was neutral on the content dispute. I note that your talk page declares a general aversion to the "zealots" on this site, which is interesting. If that user is an example of what your userpage refers to, then that tells me that you have a tendency to invalidate your opponents in minor, good faith content disputes, even in situations where they're being perfectly reasonable, and when called out on it, you will blame your opponents by falsely accusing them of disruptive conduct. I think you're easily in the territory of the proposed one-week block, but based on the overall conduct I'm seeing here, I'm unconvinced that you will respond reasonably to it. So, I'm blocking indefinitely. This is not meant to be a draconian, harsh, or long block. It can be as short as you want it to be. However, you're going to have to actually address the problems with your behavior, show us that you understand what the problems are, and what you need to do to resolve them. When you submit a suitable unblock request, you can be unblocked without delay, but this is a collaborative project, and you're not displaying the competence required to collaborate and go about resolving disputes in good faith.  Swarm  talk  08:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Lad Blackpool being uncivil and nothere

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

---

• Lad Blackpool (talk · contribs)

They've accused me of vandalism twice. Both times, they misread the edit history because I wasn't the one who removed the content they restored (that's the charitable explanation). [116][117]

And now they're calling me a vandal on their talk page, and calling me a "TRA" which means "trans rights activist" and is a term TERFs use to describe anybody who disagrees with them. [118]

I already asked them to be WP:CIVIL after the first baseless accusation, and now they've shown that their purpose here is not to edit Wikipedia collaboratively, but to be antagonistic towards people they consider their ideological enemy. --ChiveFungi (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

It appears your last edit to the article was on October 20, and Lad Blackpool is a new user who has jumped right on in editing with an agenda. It's shameful that editors can't be more tolerant and civil here. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• I've added the user's links to the top of the thread here. The editing seems to have stopped; if it continues, it's probably best to just revert and then warn about edit-warring and report to ANEW. Some of their edits could actually have partial merit, and discussion should occur on the talkpage of the article. If the abuse continues, then report back here. Softlavender (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• OK, this user needs an indef block. He's pursuing an agenda, attacking others, editing disruptively, and deliberately repeating his behavior despite communications from others. Definitely and irredeemably WP:NOTHERE. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• I have received this message on my talk page which is another example of uncivil behaviour by this user. It appears as if they are pushing a specific agenda of a very political nature. The removal of information not relevan to an article and removing information without a source is a fundamental of Wikipedia. This user does not seem to understand this. If possible I would also like my talk page page deleted, but I am not sure if that is possible. 91.110.126.37 (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The editing relates to this page and the history. 91.110.126.37 (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indef per all of the above, looks like a clear NOTHERE case.  Swarm  talk  09:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Rude & Conflictive User:Mystic Technocrat

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

---

I have engaged in editing and talk with this user and they use extremely rude and conflictive attitudes with all their issues and communications. Request Administrator review conduct and/or warn user. Some of their action also border on edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirsentence (talk • contribs) 2018-10-24T20:37:16 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) report edit warring here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. And it would be good if you provide which sentence in User talk:Mystic Technocrat or User talk:Sirsentence are specifically personal attack. Matthew hk (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I am unamused by both of your conducts. Use the talk page, stop using personal attacks, and assume good faith. --Tarage (talk) 20:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Is this a parody? Two joe jobs? Don't comment if you aren't logged in, either of you. If one of you has been in touch with "many admins over the years", contact them privately. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No. This is a major compulsive obsessive troll who has been using multiple IDs and IPs over the years to disrupt a variety of articles. he's been warned MANY times by maany admin over the years. Toxic material. There is NO goods faith here. Period.95.236.216.152 (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC) Isn't it a bit unwise to accuse someone of using 'multiple IDs and IPs' while editing logged off in such a way that everyone can see that you've been doing exactly that? 86.147.197.124 (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC) no it's not, the admins I have been in touch with for years are well aware of teh issue. Now here's your signature so you can sleep better. 95.236.216.152 (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

non-scrutiny-evading edits go here...

This is some double-edged comedy. Was I rude? Perhaps. I have attempted to engage the user to discuss an issue on the talk page, and he hasn't...and then tells me to stop edit-warring without discussing on talk page...even though I attempted to engage on talk page OVER A MONTH AGO.
As for the IP clown above...he has some weird paranoid belief that I'm involved with some actual vandals who took an interest in a page he edited, despite no evidence whatsoever. For the past 2 to 3 years, his only activity has been trolling every single edit I make. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
As for the issue at hand, all I want is a meaningful discussion on talk page. Mystic Technocrat (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

You could have at any point, instead of being rude and aggressive, come here, or spoken to an admin you trust. You did neither. And it doesn't excuse your behavior either. Both of you need to stop. --Tarage (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rival Sons Jytdog (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC) (that went down in flames) Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Talk:MGM Home Entertainment

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

---

Looks like there's an argument going on at Talk:MGM Home Entertainment. It appears to be that a single user using multiple IP address was trying to respond to an semi-request edit. A user thinks that the IP was block-evading and reverted the edits per WP:BANREVERT. What do you think about this? INeedSupport^{(Care free to give me support?)} 01:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Apparently there was an admin involved with the issue and seems to took care of the issue already. INeedSupport^{(Care free to give me support?)} 01:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Nipe Cold

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

---

Nipe Cold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There seems to be a pattern of disruptive editing with this user[119][120][121][122][123][124]. Requesting for administrator intervention. Flooded with them hundreds 14:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

A quick review of this user's edits shows a large amount of low quality editing: starting empty articles/drafts, lack understanding of notability guidelines, lots of unsourced original research, ridiculously poor quality image uploads, etc. They do not respond to the dozens of issues brought up on their talk page. It's likely that this individual does not speak English as a first language and WP:CIR is clearly something to be considered. I suggest a block until the user can demonstrate that they understand the issues associated with all the warnings on their talk page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree, they clearly have some competence issues. In particular, they do not seem to understand how WP:V works.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

They also seem to think that Graz is in Australia. And note the edit summary. [125] 86.147.197.124 (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23 has now blocked them as a sock of Binamra Deb and deleted all the articles they created (some of them seemed like possible hoaxes). I'm looking over their edits now and rolling back anything unconstructive that I see per WP:Rollback#RB4.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 22:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Cosying up to trolls

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

---

Soft skin wants the Reference desk to be permanently protected and administrators appear to think it's a good idea. Since when have administrators been in the business of giving trolls what they ask for? The only way to discourage them is not to give them what they want. Soft skin has succeeded in getting all seven reference desks protected for the whole of October with no end in sight, and he's got the talk page (which is supposed to be the backstop) protected indefinitely. The latest casualty is Entertainment, which is "extended confirmed protected". RD2 was the excuse to hide the latest bout of vandalism. This is what he posted:

Edited by robot protection hidden Mobile page visibility?

Edited by robot Undo Possible Thanks RD3 changed?

THEY are trying to destory white people date to vandalism request to?

THEY are trying to destory white people date Wikipedia administrator the hidden?

The Foundation is very clear that revision deleting this stuff is tool abuse which will lead to de-sysop. There is no shortage of eyes on the desks - just revert and carry on. Administrators appear to be protecting just because they are too lazy to wield the mop - that's what they signed up for when they were given the keys to the cleaning cupboard. If they don't want to do the work I will do it for them - I have the Reference desks on watch. 2A00:23C0:7F00:C401:BC37:B191:4FBD:7984 (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

No, this is an incorrect assessment. We protected the reddesks not because we are lazy but because the asshole was posting purely disruptive maaterial (which had to be revision deleted) at a frequence which required full- time employment of several users to roll all this shit back.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Then just block him. Problem solved. 2A00:23C0:7F00:C401:BC37:B191:4FBD:7984 (talk) 11:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

They did. Problem not solved because he just creates another account and carries on. TheVicarsCat (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

No, the quote you posted has nothing to do with why the refdesk has had to be protected, which involves very specific and prolific defamatory crap that absolutely has to be revdel'd/oversighted, arriving from multiple proxies. Feel free to consider yourself fortunate that administrators, checkusers and oversighters have managed to keep those edits from becoming visible to most users. Acroterion (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

There was one account and one IP. The account was blocked at 08:18. There was no further disruption (the IP also having been blocked at 08:18) yet protection was applied three minutes later. 2A00:23C0:7F00:C401:BC37:B191:4FBD:7984 (talk) 12:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, this has been going on for weeks, and if protection isn't applied, it just keeps on going at a high rate from multiple IPs and autoconfirmed accounts from a variety of continents. Blocking doesn't work. Acroterion (talk) 12:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Now that had a certain inevitability about it. TheVicarsCat (talk) 12:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Suggest range block for harassment: Special:Contributions/2001:D08:1808:8341::/64

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

---

2001:D08:1808:8341::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) (i.e. a single user) is repeatedly harassing Bonadea on Uppsala University ([126], [127], [128]), so I suggest a range block of whatever duration is deemed appropriate. It could be her long-time foe Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nsmutte, but might also be someone else (Nsmutte geolocates AFAIK to India while these IPs geolocate to Malaysia...). I haven't notified the IP, in case someone wonders, since they have, in theory at least, millions of IPs to use, and might pop up here as any one of them... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. I don't think it's Nsmutte. GAB^gab 17:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, both. I also don't think it's Nsmutte - there are trolls in many places, it seems. Anyway, as I am a (former) librarian, there are worse slurs than ape. --bonadea contributions talk 19:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Paint Chat, a collection of non notable applications

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

---

• Paint chat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm tired of engaging in a slow edit war on this. With the exception of two apps that already have articles here, the remainder are sourced to their websites. It's a spam repository that someone wants to keep intact. Thanks for any help. Etc. 2601:188:180:1481:1034:5A75:D26C:7084 (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

This page is not for resolving content issues. If you wish to nominate articles for deletion, there are processes to do that. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes. please feel free to remove this. Thank you. 2601:188:180:1481:7DB5:CF1F:4444:67C9 (talk) 12:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Nominated for Speedy delete (WP:A7) and deleted. TheVicarsCat (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

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

(classic) case of WP:NOTHERE?

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

---

• Dorapid (talk · contribs)

"New" user who creates this AfD, and then closes it. Other contributions aren't of any merit. I know I should notify them of this discussion, but I'll skip that part in this case. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Probably the same person who made two accounts impersonating Abelmoschus Esculentus earlier today. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - and this one has been blocked. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

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

IP attacking a user on their talk page

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

---

Could somebody please have a look at this diff, [129], and decide whether talk page access is still needed. English is not my mothertongue, and it is difficult for me to see how offensive this is. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

This edit should also be looked at. THis is the first one. The one above is the IPs response to my warning about attacking editors. ~ GB fan 15:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter, GB fan - Checking... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ymblanter, GB fan - Meh, I'd say leave it enabled for now unless the user decides to become openly disruptive or abusive with repeated edits, or otherwise blatantly abuses access to their user talk page. Their unblock request isn't convincing; I'd say respond to it (which will most likely be a decline) and let the user throw rocks (within reason) and blow steam - it's the core of what WP:DENY is about and it shows that what they're doing isn't drawing attention. They'll get bored of it and stop (should it get that heated)... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

And now there is this edit. ~ GB fan 15:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

And now we have a brand new editor, Squanchinho that shows up. Their first edit is to Talk:Newt Gingrich to discuss NPOV. The same as the IP discussed here. ~ GB fan 15:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

IP's TPA revoked. Sorry, Oshwah, I don't know what you're checking. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector - Based off the new information provided here, fine by me. I was just responding here to state that I was looking into the edits and would respond; nothing more. Thanks for handling the matter. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll also note that based off the last response made by the IP, I'm tempted to extend the block to include violations of civility but I know that it will only have the opposite effect when the block expires... hence, as tempting as it is... it's not a good idea and I'm not going to do so. I did decline the unblock request though. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding after close: I did extend their block for the incivility. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

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

An edit war in the Eastern Front (World War II) article.

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

---

Some IP is making the same edit:

[130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], despite the fact that this change is being reverted by several users.

I think, taking into account that it is a class 4 vital history article, semiprotection would be decirable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

That IP is a sockpuppet of a banned user. They've been blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. However, an IP can be changed easily.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Uncivil comments from User:Fortnite Battle Royale Season 6

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

---

This [136] [137] behaviour is unacceptable.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The username alone should be grounds for a block. But I agree, not here to build Wikipedia. --Tarage (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• With a name and edits like that, this is clearly just some kid, indeff them and get it over with.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 18:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Excuse me I am an adult not a kid.Not all kids play Fortnite adults play the game too. Plus how is that vandalism im just saying good luck for having a child and you have to go through sex to have a child. I have done a lot of constructive edits to Orienteering and Air Madagascar. Fortnite Battle Royale Season 6 (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Block Per WP:NOTHERE it takes a certain special kind of person to come onto an AN/I thread and toss around sophomoric insults like this as your defense against complaints that you're tossing around sophomoric insults. Simonm223 (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• @Fortnite Battle Royale Season 6: If you are not a kid, you really seem to be acting like one. I would also support a block per WP:NOTHERE. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 19:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) As an explanation,"Good luck having Sex and having a baby :)" was in response to them stating on their talk page that they are a gay man recently married to another man. Natureium (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

In light of the fact that they jumped onto another editor's "congratulations on your marriage" thread at user talk to toss said childish insults I'd suggest indef and require community consultation prior to unblock. Simonm223 (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I never mean't that at all. I am here to build an encyclopedia because i added useful infomation to Air Madagascar and Orienteering. Fortnite Battle Royale Season 6 (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Warring as well [138].--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef obviously WP:NOTHERE zchrykng (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The user in question doesn't seem to understand. Can someone please go and explain the situation further with them? Considering that this is likely a child it's beneficial to take a little time to explain all of this. --Tarage (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

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

New editor disrupting multiple pages

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

---

LewisChampion97 is a new SPA editor, whose only edits have been to change all instances of the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix to the incorrect United Arab Emirates Grand Prix. They aren't acknowledging their talkpage, and continue to disrupt and vandalise 12 different pages:

1. Abu Dhabi Grand Prix
2. Yas Marina Circuit
3. 2018 Formula One World Championship
4. 2017 Formula One World Championship
5. 2016 Formula One World Championship
6. 2015 Formula One World Championship
7. 2014 Formula One World Championship
8. 2013 Formula One World Championship
9. 2012 Formula One World Championship
10. 2011 Formula One World Championship
11. 2010 Formula One World Championship
12. 2009 Formula One World Championship

Their only edits have been to make this one disruptive change, and so a block or stern final warning from admins is needed. Because right now they are not contributing positively to the encyclopedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Панн: Competence issues

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

---

Панн (talk · contribs) has been the subject of two recent reports here, on 17 October starting from the concern that he (his user page gives his name as Pavel) creates articles with serious formatting issues and has never responded to concerns expressed on his talk page, and on 20 October concerning an article he created that focused on his use of machine translation and culminated in two messages on his talk page left at my request by Ymblanter, who speaks Russian, which appears to be Панн's native language. Панн is also indeffed on both ru.wikipedia and Commons for copyright violations, and his talk page shows that he has been uploading film posters and screenshots at too great a resolution to meet fair use guidelines, and also sometimes "fair use" images of living people. Ymblanter's second message, left on October 23, informed Панн that his understanding of the fair use image policy was poor and also that machine translated text is unacceptable in main space; Панн thanked them for the advice on the 24th. Some of Панн's work appears to be an attempt to use better English by copying other Wikipedia articles, unfortunately producing simply untrue material. For example, in this version of Alexander Ananchenko the first/lead paragraph is taken from Denis Pushilin, and the entirety of Sergey Morozov (politican) (since deleted) was copied from Alexander Zhilkin. He's now resumed creating articles by, apparently, simply machine translating from Russian Wikipedia: Lyudmila Porgina on October 27 (compare the then version of the Russian article in edit mode; I think I'm going to stub the English article rather than tag it as a rough translation) and Fartsa (TV series) today, which has the same machine-translator-produced scrambled formatting and has already been tagged by another editor.

In addition to Ymblanter, a number of editors have tried to fix Панн's work and to advise him. To name just two, Jessicapierce made the first report here and has tried to work with him on formatting references, and Runawayangel poked me on my talk page about other articles by him. Pages needing translation into English, where bad translations get reported, is horribly backlogged and the editors there do backbreaking work; and this editor's articles illustrate why we say machine translated articles are worse than no articles. His entire output needs to be checked to make sure all the statements are about the right person, quite apart from the work to make them readable. I'm afraid I've become convinced that Панн, despite laudable intentions, just doesn't have the competence in the English language to contribute here. And the violations of fair use image policy are not negligible either. Ymblanter requested I start a new AN/I report. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Support indef block - I'm sorry but if you can't edit in English you shouldn't be editing here. Using talk pages maybe, but not editing articles. --Tarage (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Yngvadottir:, I am back on ipad, and it was difficult for me to file the report today. I fully agree with your assessment of the situation. I am afraid we are dealing here with serious competence issues. The user has good intentions and acts in good faith but I am afraid they are not unable to edit Wikipedia without serious problems at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked indef for now, at the very least he needs to learn to engage on his talk page. He thanked Ymblanter for the advice last week, but has kept right on doing the exact same things. Courcelles (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Political soapboxing at multiple articles

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

---

• 98.113.64.235 (talk · contribs)
• Deconstructive Editor (talk · contribs)

For the IP, an often disruptive and editorializing history: [139]; [140]; [141]; [142]; [143]; [144]; [145]; edit warring at Electoral College: [146]; [147]; [148]; [149]; [150]; [151], to the extent of arguing that the only content in the lede should regard its controversy [152]. Seems to be working toward a compromise at the college article, but the pov in all edits is evident.

The registered account appears to be associated: [153]; [154]; [155]; [156]; [157]. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

What is the point of this thread? I suggest OP should be blocked for creating this utterly purposeless ANI. I've contributed more useful content, more much-welcomed links to references, and more cool, crisp prose in the last 3 days than OP has in a lifetime. Yes I created that account. And? OP is a plague on the project; this, I submit, is the real issue here. 98.113.64.235 (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

More kindling: [158]; [159]. The fact that I agree is beside the point. This isn't the website for this. 2601:188:180:1481:1034:5A75:D26C:7084 (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

And [160]. 2601:188:180:1481:1034:5A75:D26C:7084 (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

frankly, who cares whether or not you “agree”? Nor do I care for your rude innuendo that my statements were “more kindling” when you utterly fail to indicate what precisely was wrong with any of my edits in the first place. Again, I have had enough of your harassment. Read the 3 links I posted from USAToday, Washington Post, and Haaretz regarding the question of whether Trump has contributed to or inspired mass violence with his rhetoric. My prose was nearly verbatim taken from the USAtoday article. The administration took this seriously enough for Pence himself to issue statements in response. Some “kindling”. Please stop following me around desperately looking for anything to report me on.it is harassment, and you are wasting the time of the community, and is ultimately just pathetic and sad. When you have any individual comments on deficiencies in individual edits, I’ll be happy to hear them. Otherwise, I’d ask that you quit wastinf everyone’s time with this obnoxious mass posting of all my edits without any effort to explain your objection to them, let alone to substantiate your baseless bloodlust for sanctions to be levelled against me for unspecified reasons. Enough with this nonsense. The fact that you just posted edits in which I clearly give references for claims that I state nearly verbatim from the sources should show all with eyes to see what a farce this is. Deconstructive Editor (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

This IP editor has now suggested creating "Donald-Trump Inspired Mass-Violence" (diff) as a WP:COATRACK for anything vaguely related, which I feel would inherently be a WP:NPOV violation (and possibly a WP:BLP violation as well). power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

why not voice your disagreement with my proposal in the relevant talk page? I have sourced a number of articles discussing this pheomenon, including the administration’s denial. Surely the voicing of a suggestion (backed by references) on a talk page is not a reasonable basis for seeking sanctions. Deconstructive Editor (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

First, I did disagree on the talk page. Second, I didn't specifically seek sanctions. Third, you seem to be admitting you are the IP editor, is this correct? power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I have boldly blocked both of them, as almost certainly sockpuppets of LTA User:Kingshowman. And yes, the IP did say that they were the creator of the user account. --MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

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

There may be some competence issues here

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

---

• BrandonXLF (talk · contribs)

There appears to be a history of disruptive edits with templates, none of which I'd have seen but for this exchange: [161]; [162]; [163]; [164]. Inability to acknowledge the initial errors, restoring the warning to my talk page, then saying they didn't know about the policy are all unusual competence concerns for a four-year-old account. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to say I only really started editing a year ago. I legitimately didn't know about the policy. I did acknowledge the initial errors, but you told me rather then saying sorry I should just think about my editing this morning, so i stopped using huggle and did just that. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 15:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

That's not what I wrote: [165]. Which sort of underscores the point about competence. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Well not word for word but you said Rather than apologize for restoring unencyclopedic content and giving me a spurious warning and take a moment to rethink your editing this morning. Which is basically what I said above (and did). – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 15:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, you have twisted the context by omitting part of the sentence: Rather than apologize for restoring unencyclopedic content and giving me a spurious warning, you doubled down here... And no, you never acknowledged mistakes in the restoration of content to the article, nor the warning to me. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I acknowledged it mentally. Sure I didn't say, but when you said take a moment to rethink your editing this morning, it didn't imply I should add my acknowledgement to a talkpage. If you still need it: I acknowledge my mistakes this morning and am taking the time to think them over and learn from them I will not be using huggle for the rest of the day as a result. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 15:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment There have been quite a few problems here. While we don't do WP:COOLDOWN blocks, I think something to force BrandonXLF to change their behavior is necessary. Perhaps 0RR (appealable after a month), and possibly a ban from Template space for the same period of time? power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

This wasn't done in the template space, but 0RR for a month or two seems like a reasonable approach, I do realize I need to change my editing, doing that would as you say force me too, which I'm all in for. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 15:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) The thing I find most troubling is BrandonXLF's edit summary ("unexplained content removal" and warning) even though the IP provided a clear (even valid) reason for removing the content ("rv unsourced, trivial and promotional"). BrandonXLF, if there's any suggestions I can offer, please make it your business to know what you're reverting before you revert it. Falsely labeling the IP's edits as "unexplained content removal" and issuing warnings like this and this is sure to WP:BITE the newbies. I suggest you familiarize yourself more with our processes before invoking them, like for example, users are free to remove warnings from their own talk pages, that and you shouldn't restore promotional content.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mythdon: Ok, for some reason I didn't see the edit summary (I'll be more careful next time), therefore I didn't realize it was promotional content. I will be reading WP:OWNTALK, thanks for these suggestions. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 16:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Also a complete list of our "processes" whenever you got some free time (Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines).—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Unreasonable block. Unreasonable editor

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

---

I made six edits today, adding delete tags to articles that are clearly non-notable musician or album pages. The first two articles were indeed deleted. The other four edits were reverted and my IP address was blocked by User:Bbb23. This is really uncalled for. Every one of my deletion tags was placed with a comment explaining why the tag was valid. These articles are Jeff Oster, Alexi Musnitsky, Richard Carr (pianist), and The Fire Within (album). None of these are notable enough to include on wikipedia. As I have said, my first two delete tags were honored without question.

The editor who blocked me said these edits were disruptive. How? How about some good faith? Did you read the articles? Did you see my edit comments? Does it look like I'm a vandal? Have you heard of WP:BITE? I added the "unblock" tag on the IP address page, and also added a note for User:Bbb23. He reverted my edit on his page, too, saying that I'm avoiding a block or something, and didn't even bother to offer a response.

Wikipedia, what is going on here? I have done nothing to deserve a block. Did my IP address change between edits? I have no idea. I use a cell phone. This looks like another power-grab by a wikipedia editor. It certainly wouldn't be the first time. In no way is that editor acting in good faith. Please review the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.153.100.105 (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2018‎ (UTC)

(non-admin) Looking through its contributions, I recommend this IP be blocked as well. SportingFlyer talk 00:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Block evasion; see 99.203.17.48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 99.203.17.53 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). General Ization ^Talk 00:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not block evasion. I'm using a cell phone. I'm not in control of my IP. Please look at the four edits from today. I did not make the previous edits. I made six edits today. Two of the delete tags were honored. I was blocked after putting delete tags on these four articles. Does that honestly look like a vandal to you? Look at the proper deletion tags. Look at the comments on those edits. You're not acting in good faith. Do the edits from today resemble previous edits from the IP address?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.153.235.72 (talk • contribs)

By "four edits from today", you mean the ones from this IP address, right? The IP address that was BLOCKED, after which you used another IP address to make any edits outside of your user talk page, and are now using a third. If you don't see how that's not block evasion, you must not understand what the word "evade" means. Maybe you mean that it's accidental, but you should have gotten the point to stop by now. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Like, seriously, he says he tagged those for deletion in his first post, then says that wasn't him tagging them, we can close this and move on. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Where did the IP deny being the one speedy tagging? The changing IPs makes it difficult to follow their edits, but the only ones I noted them denying are the older ones. I assume they mean the racist and 'played too much' ones, and the Hitler one, and I guess also this one [166]. I'm pretty sure older ones doesn't mean the speedy deletion tags since they talked about them in the very same post. Their numbering is a little confusing, but I think they aren't counting their edits here and to Bbb's page which is dumb and confusing, but I wouldn't say is intended to mislead since they are clearly acknowledging all over the place they did it. In other words, 6 edits seems to refer to the 6 speedy deletion tags they place. They've also made about 5 edits now outside articles or article talk pages. 3 here. 1 to the IP which was initially blocked talk page requesting an unblock. 1 to Bbb's talk page saying they were wrong blocked. They aren't denying any of these edits anywhere, simply not counting the ones outside article space when they say 5 edits. And claiming they weren't block evading because their IP changes without them doing anything. (As I said below, I think we all know that's clearly wrong and they need to stop doing anything other than requesting an unblock on their talk page.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The IP editor clearly doesn't understand what WP:Speedy deletion is supposed to be. This will likely be a boomerang. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I do understand speedy deletion. The articles I tagged today -- two that were already deleted and the four remaining -- are db-band or db-album articles. IF I don't understand speedy deletion, why were my first two tags, you know, deleted?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.153.34.160 (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict) On The Fire Within (album), WP:A9 doesn't apply because the artist has an article. Others, such as Jeff Oster, have enough (crappy) references that AfD is necessary to sort it out. I'm not sure I agree that these were so disruptive as to justify a block on their own, but there seems to be clear evasion as well. If you want to regularly do speedy deletion nominations, you're probably going to have to sign up for an account. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

After re-reading this, I'm not convinced the evasion was intentional. Regardless, I advise this person to take a week away from Wikipedia and to sign up for an account when they return if they are interested in deletion processes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with power~enwiki that it's probably best for the IP to simply stay away for a week. As I said below, I'm not sure whether the block was justified. Unfortunately your evasion seriously damages your case. You need to understand that as long as you the editor behind the edits are blocked, you can't edit with any IP to do anything else but request an unblock on your talk page. Do not edit ANI or the blocking admin's page. It doesn't matter if your IP changes outside of your control you should behave as if it didn't. And you need to be willing to listen to what others say. Even if 2 of your speedies were justified, it's looking like 4 weren't. As others have said, speedies are intended for certain clear cut cases. Anything else needs to either be WP:prodded (if it's still allowed) or AFDed. And while you're not required to sign up for an account, it makes it a lot easier particularly when you are dealing with policy related issues (including deletion in any form). It also means that provided you always edit with the account, you can't block evade. Nil Einne (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked the range. They clearly understood that they were blocked and at multiple points decided against abiding by the block, so either they don't understand what "evade" means or they don't care about operating in good-faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (non-admin) Given the poor quality of the deletion tagging in this case, can someone review the two that were deleted? It seems likely that they were similarly of questionable qualification for speedy deletion, and deleted by someone a bit trigger-happy. (One of the albums they listed is on not one but two Billboard charts right now, and the artist does have an article. If they do understand speedy deletion, they are not following it.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I've looked but see no evidence that any of the IPs mentioned here have edited any pages that were deleted in the past year. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• I have to admit, I don't understand the reason for the original block. The 5 edits in May were atrocious and well worth of a block. The edit in September wasn't much better. The most recent speedy deletion nominations, even if they weren't justified, don't really seem worth of a block especially since they don't seem to have been told to stop before being blocked. 6 in fairly rapid succession (I assume, I don't know when the other 2 were nominated) is quite a lot but again it seems a simple request to stop first would have been a better solution. Even more so since 2 of those tags were honoured and even if this happened after the other 4 tags, and if the 2 that were honoured shouldn't have been, all this suggest it's not super clear cut.

  If the earlier edits were by the same editor, I may agree with the block but barring CU evidence which wasn't mentioned so I assume isn't the case or some similar editing in the deleted articles which I can't see, I doesn't seem that compelling to me. Yes the subjects all being music related is suspicious, OTOH it does look like this is a mobile device and range. The evasion ironically partially supports the idea the assignment pattern for this range makes it fairly unlikely someone had really kept the same IP for several months unless this is some sort of fixed mobile broadband shared by wifi or whatever, or perhaps if they really kept their mobile device on and without ever going out of range etc in all this time.

  Of course the post blocking evasion makes it difficult to have that much sympathy for them now. Even if they didn't intentionally change IP, if they really understood evasion they should have understood they needed to wait for their block to be lifted, either by time or by an admin rather than posting to Bbb's talk page and to here. And even if they didn't initially understand it, the fact they kept at it when people told them they need to stop sort of destroys any case.

  Still, none of the evasion I've seen more has been any more than silly 'unblock me'/'I was wrongly blocked' rather than actually editing articles or talk pages. And I'm not entirely comfortable on 'it was okay to block them since they were going to evade their block once blocked to say they were wrongly blocked' rationales.

  Nil Einne (talk) 09:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Yeah, the response here is a little bizarre. I mean, the IP nominated articles some for deletion using CSD tags, rather than nominating for XfD, and I don't see what the big deal is. Yes, that would be disruptive if attempts are made to communicate and they don't stop, but an outright week-long block with no warning? That's draconian by anyone's standards, and I really don't understand it. We don't treat vandals that harshly. And then, when the IP goes to the blocking admin for information on why they were blocked, they're simply reverted without explanation, and when they come here, they're met with absolutely no consideration or good faith as to the point they're trying to make, just a bunch of robotic regurgitation of blocking policy and a range block so that they may not ask any questions. This would be a warranted response if the block was assessed to be necessary and/or reasonable upon review, but it's asinine to mindlessly enforce a block upon somebody who's only pointing out that they were unfairly blocked, and at first glance appear to be correct, and the blocking admin is not actually making any effort to justify the need for the block.  Swarm  talk  20:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

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

IP ranges calling each other the same sock puppet and disrupting articles

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

---

Hi everyone! I'm starting a discussion related to the IP ranges that are editing my user talk page in this discussion, as well as this discussion and this one. One IP (58.126.14.221) is saying that "212.95.8.148 is a sock puppet of blocked users WorldCreaterFighter / AmurTiger18 / Satoshi Kondo", while the other (212.95.8.148) responds by saying "I am not this person, you are the sock of user:bookworm8899 and user:gustmeister and vandalize this pages with tai-nationalism. Maybe you are also the sock of WorldCreaterFighter as you always claim that other users are him".

Basically, they're saying "You're the sock puppet", "No, YOU'RE the sock puppet", and on and on (both on my user talk page and in edit summaries when one reverts the other). The disruption has spilled over into the Yayoi people, Nanyue, and Baiyue articles (all in which I protected pending an in-depth look at what's going on and who is who). Other articles include Xianbei, Xiongnu, Japonic languages, and others (which you'll see spill into more ranges, and more articles, more ranges, over and over). Is there anyone here whose familiar with this ongoing disruption, block evasion, and socking that can take a look and sort this mess out? I don't want to duplicate work and look into what's already been investigated in the past if someone else is familiar with this already and can shed light. I'd be very grateful for any input, and it would be extremely helpful. Thanks in advance :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, i am one of the accused “socks”. I am not the sock of any mentioned user, nor am i here to vandalize articles. I saw the edits of user:gustmeister and his tai POV. I started to search about the topics and found out that most of his edits are pure POV. He is blocked and confirmed to be a sock of user:bookworm8899. He now uses many different vpn IPs (what is already against wiki policy) to stop my reverts of his actions. I suggest that other user as well reverted his edits as he accuses several different editors and IP adresses including me. Most of his edist got reverted by me or other users, including the admin user:zzuuzz which he also accuse to be a sock. And if we all look at the given sources and conpare it with his edits it is clear that he push a Tai-only-agenda on this topics. It is well known that baiyue spoke more than one language but he keeps his tai only POV and ignore all discussions (or delete them). His account gustmeister is well known for that if you look at the edit history. He also seems to have a personal problem with japanese or vietnamese people. 212.95.8.148 (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

and to his claim that i am vietnamese, i am not. I am half-malay which i stated already in 2016 where i reverted edits of satoshin kondos sock “GoguryeoHistoryan”. Strangely these topics have much international interest since 2015. I reverted some of his edits in 2016 about Altaic theories where he pushed a austronesian and kra-dai agenda. This is also why i suggest that bookworm8899/gustmeister is somehow related to satoshin kondo because he as well push tai related topics. Maybe someone can check the used IP?. And to my IP, this is from my mobile device and change every time i turn on/off my internet. So these ranges are used by all that have the same provider i quess, i is not in my interest to change it everytime, this happens automatically. 212.95.8.148 (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned above and elsewhere, my only entry into this arena was randomly blocking a couple of VPN proxies several days ago. I assume it's the same user saying all this and more. I don't actually know what's going on, but the VPN user doesn't look like they're up to some good. And I have no idea who 212.95 is either, though I notice they've now been checkuserblocked along with some other socks. Sockfest all round perhaps? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Zzuuzz - *Shrugs* ... I guess. I just protected an article due to disruption by two IPs earlier and suddenly I find myself in the middle of this "sock calling" between IP ranges... Oh well; not the strangest or craziest thing I've seen or had happen... not even close... lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23 - Not sure if you saw this ANI discussion before applying the CU block on the IP or not, but I thank you nonetheless. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I've extended Bbb23's block to the /24 range. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector - Gracias! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Black Kite and his aspersions

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

---

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

I have never had any disputes with Black Kite and I am not sure what beef Black Kite has with me, but it seems he has some real issues with WP:Casting aspersions.

He is an administrator and yet he believes it is ok to blatantly accuse another editor of imaginary stuffs that he makes up in his own mind. (and without giving any diff or evidence) In his ANI comment[167] today Black Kite has accused me of trying to settle scores with another editor. To quote Black Kite "although it doesn't surprise me given that it's come from an editor who regularly opposes SIIT (User:SheriffIsInTown ) on many articles and has an interest in them being 1RR'd"

Now as far as I can remember I have never had any kind of content dispute with User:SheriffIsInTown in "any" article on Wikipedia but Black Kite thinks opposite and has openly accused me of "regularly opposing User:SheriffIsInTown on "Many articles"."

Even the Editor interaction tool failed to bring up any such article between me and User:SheriffIsInTown

I had to bring it up because such blatant lying and false accusations on another fellow editor is not the kind of behavior expected from an editor, much less from an Admin and that too on ANI. I am not sure if this issue has been going on in past as well with BlackKite but I am sure other editors would know more. Black Kite has been admonished in past by Arbcom before, and I guess things have deteriorated again. And should be addressed properly --DBigXrayᗙ 01:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Ah hello. Can you explain then, why you inserted yourself into a dispute between Sheriff and Debresser (i.e. nothing to do with you at all) and asked for a 1RR restriction on Sheriff, which is a sanction that would never be a sensible one for someone accused of WP:HOUNDing? As I explained above, a sanction for such an issue would be a block or (more likely) an interaction ban. Why didn't you ask for one of those? Obviously, if you've got a good answer for both of those two questions, I'd be happy to strike my comment. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

1. why you inserted yourself into a dispute between Sheriff and Debresser (i.e. nothing to do with you at all) -- Black Kite

I am not involved with either of these 2 editors and there is no reason. Tell me do I really need to be involved to be able to propose something on ANI ? Also tell me "why did you (Black Kite) inserted yourself into a dispute between Sheriff and Debresser" ? I am very curious now after your Casting of aspersions on me --DBigXrayᗙ 01:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

2.(WHY) asked for a 1RR restriction on Sheriff, which is a sanction that would never be a sensible one for someone accused of WP:HOUNDing? Black Kite (talk) -- Black Kite

If you would have read my reply here I have clearly explained the reason for my proposal of a problem of edit war that I had noticed in this thread. If you believe my proposal is bad, you are welcome to ignore or even oppose my proposal, just because you hate my proposal is it a reason enough to start blatantly lying and WP:Casting aspersions ? --DBigXrayᗙ 01:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oh, incidentally User_talk:SheriffIsInTown#Your_recent_edits_on_Siachen_Glacier_despite_topic_ban. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tiger_Squad. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zahid_Ali_(politician). These are all recent. Black Kite (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• User_talk:SheriffIsInTown#Your_recent_edits_on_Siachen_Glacier_despite_topic_ban This was a heads up for self-revert, and not dispute.
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tiger_Squad This is an AfD and we had SAME opinion, as is usual in any AfD . Is it a dispute ?
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zahid_Ali_(politician). This is an AfD and we had different opinions, as is usual in any AfD . not a dispute --DBigXrayᗙ 01:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

It would be good if instead of asking silly questions like above you address the actual topic of this thread. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 01:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I am going to do you a big favor by closing this, before you stick your foot in your mouth even further. Don't go around accusing editors of lying. And next time you're on this forum, trying to convince other editors, please write stuff up more clearly and more cleanly--and provide evidence. After discussing it with the editor. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)}}

The 1RR restriction seemed to me to be of the form "we must do something; this is something; therefore we must do this". I'm not sure if DBigXray is familiar with the excessive noticeboard sniping that several of the India-Pakistan regulars have been prone to; it's possible this can be called an honest mistake. (I'm ignoring the Black Kite remarks and just considering possible boomerangs). power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I had already said in my proposal that edit warring was an issue I saw in SIIT's edits and hence I felt 1RR can help alleviate that. If one disagrees he can oppose my proposal. but What Black Kite did was completely unexpected and shocking --DBigXrayᗙ 01:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The thread was about HOUNDing of Debresser. The only person that brought up edit-warring was you, and none of the articles you brought up were anything whatsoever to do with Debresser and the original complaint. You've simply derailed the conversation. And that's my last comment here, since apparently my questions are "silly". Goodnight. Black Kite (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• 613 commandments, Posek, Help Hillel the Elder All these 3 articles that I linked were edited by Debresser after which SIIT hounded him. Also I can see SIIT Edit Warring in all these 3 articles. So clearly you are not able to see things that I am seeing here. As I said, I honestly felt my proposal was trying to address a problem and not really derail it in any way, 3 other editors also supported my proposal. If you believe my proposal derailed the thread why didn't you propose a better solution of that problem ? But instead of finding a solution to the problem that Debreser had brought here, you decided to attack me. Is your comment attacking me, "not a derailing" of the discussion on SIIT and Debresser. Clearly you are accusing me of crimes that you were doing there. --DBigXrayᗙ 02:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oh, for goodness sake - you still don't get it. Yes, he edited them after Debresser, we know that - that was what the original complaint was about. However, he didn't edit war with Debresser on them - that was with someone else (in fact, the same person in two cases). If you wanted to report him for edit-warring there's a place for that. But as a response to the original complaint it's simply a derailment. A 1RR restriction isn't going to fix the original complaint - if you'd angled for a block or a topic ban you'd have been on solid ground. Now, it's 2.20am here, and I really must go. Black Kite (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• SIIT was edit warring with multiple editors and yes I see that as a problem and I proposed a fix. If you believe that my fix doesn't address the problem does it mean you will start attacking the proposer with frivolous allegations? You said I am here because I opposed him on many articles and yet you are unable to bring up even 1 such article. Your aspersions are the problem here which is why I have raised here so that it can be addressed.--DBigXrayᗙ 02:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• DBigXray, why have you opened this thread on ANI? See up top: This page [ANI] is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Black Kite's single comment was made one hour prior to your opening this thread. If you took issue with it, you could have responded to him on the thread where it was posted, or you could have queried him on his talk page. Instead, you immediately opened up an ANI thread about a single comment made an hour previously. I recommend a BOOMERANG for disruptive and retaliatory behavior. Softlavender (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support a boomerang, really should have listened to Drmies and Ivanvector while you had the chance. If this is the hill you want to die on, so be it. zchrykng (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, when Black Kite says that DBigXray had a conflict with me on several articles, it should not be taken word to word as it is taken in a bureaucracy. It is true that DBigXray had previous conflicts with me if not necessarily on articles then other venues. I always feel like I am being hounded by them and they are one of those regular visitors I mentioned above who somehow always show up to oppose me. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Please remind me where exactly did that "conflict" between me and you happened? Because I really dont think any conflict between us happened.And even the Editor interaction tool between us cannot find any such conflict. -DBigXrayᗙ 03:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support closing - Nothing good will come out of this. –Davey2010^Talk 02:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Striking per my comment directly below. –Davey2010^Talk 04:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly support closing. No boomerangs, no blood sacrifices, just close FFS. Many are forgetting that their are human hands typing these words in this thread. BigX is angry. He misunderstood a point, or something got to him. He is an experienced editor in good standing. Everyone should chill and reflect, and for fuck sake someone close this down. No damage has been done to the project, no need for punitive sanctions. FWIW I think sherif should be compelled to add cit needed tags instead of removing material. Simon Adler (talk) 03:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

  Simon Adler, normally I would agree, but they reopened this thread twice after others closed it. If nothing else they need to cool off for a bit. zchrykng (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

DBigXrayᗙ You were the first editor that helped me when I was a newbie back in the day, near 7 years ago. I love you. Chill for 24 hrs I beg you, and I don't beg. There crowd, that's the 'boomerang', let Big X take a break for 24 hrs to chill. Do it bro, and then we can close. And for the sake of sanity (mine) Don't reopen anything! Do it bro. Simon Adler (talk) 03:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Simon Adler I am chill. I was annoyed by the ridiculous aspersion, and was really wondering why would Black kite do such a thing considering no prior dispute with any of them. Clearly it was a case of assuming bad faith against me and without even any valid grounds. If some folks have this bad habit of aspersions, then they need to fix those issues. --DBigXrayᗙ 03:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

User:DBigXray It has got to you. Let it go. Please. I'm saying no more my friend. Follow your heart, not your anger. Si. Simon Adler (talk) 03:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe my points deserved discussion and hence the thread, anyway I closed the thread and was reverted. --DBigXrayᗙ 04:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

You were reverted because you can't close your own thread, particularly not when your behavior is being discussed. You may state at the bottom of the thread that you wish to withdraw it. Softlavender (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Davey2010 and Simon Adler: It was already closed by Drmies [168] and Ivanvector affirmed the close [169]. DBigXray reopened it via edit-warring with Ivanvector [170]. It's now time for a boomerang as the thread was entirely out of process in the first place -- the issue was never discussed with the editor in question. Softlavender (talk) 03:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah right thanks I wasn't aware another admin got involved, In that case I too would support a BOOMERANG blocking, If an admin closes this and a completely different admin reverts you then common sense tells you to walk away and do something else...... –Davey2010^Talk 04:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Now withdraw the thread User:DBigXray. The very fact that you reopened the thread twice should indicate to any mindful colleague that you were temporarily severely stressed out. This is a respected colleague of long standing who has done good work for years. Any 'boomerang' should take account of that. I hope an admin warning should be the extent of any retribution. Simon Adler (talk) 04:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Simon Adler I was edit conflicted while posting my reply to Black Kite and then my reply was reverted. I had opened the thread only once to post my comment. I have replied and noted my concerns, So I am ok if someone decides to close this now. --DBigXrayᗙ 04:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Open proxies

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

---

Will someone block all WP:PROXY listed at [171]? E.g. those "suspected proxies" resolve to proxy.ec.europa.eu for a reason. (It's not about the editor, it's about the proxies.) Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

They already are blocked: one directly, and one as part of a larger rangeblock of 158.169.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Carrie 94 not understanding OVERLINK

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

---

Would someone mind discussing WP:OVERLINK with Carrie? It seems that because other infoboxes link to Canada, CBC Kids should have it despite the guideline, which the editor does not seem to want to read. Not really a 3RR issue, more like an opportunity educate a new editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I understand the "rule" but then that means that other articles (such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YTV_(TV_channel and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treehouse_TV - by the way, I have never edited the YTV article nor did I put the "Canada" link on either article I am referencing)should have the links removed as well. Carrie 94 (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for finally engaging in a discussion. This should be happening on your talk page, but you blank it without engaging in one.

The articles you pointed to have been fixed. As I was about to discus on your talk page, I was looking for infoboxes with WP:OVERLINKs. Not at CBC Radio One, Murdoch Mysteries, The Nature of Things or Schitt's Creek. Do you have other specific examples of where you have found some that violate OVERLINK? They should not and it's a very easy fix. Unless there is a contextually important reason to link the nation, it should not be linked. That's what OVERLINK states. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I only blanked because you did the same to me; also thank you for fixing the other articles - however, there is no other part in the article (CBC Kids) linking to Canada so why should it not be linked? The closest link to it is Canadian Television. I do understand that linking to major geographic locations is generally not advisable but from past experience, when I was an editor years ago (just using IP Addresses), I had the same sort of argument with another user who said countries should be linked in infoboxes even if the article isn't about the country. I hope you understand what I mean and why I linked to the country. I was not trying to be disruptive; I just went by past experiences. Carrie 94 (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Carrie 94. :) You are welcome to edit any other infoboxes to conform to policies and guidelines, if you choose, although it seems that those have been done. However, if you run into opposition, you should raise discussion on the talk page of the article. If you're unhappy with the guideline which explains that we do not link common location terms such as Canada, you are always welcome to bring that up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. These rules were created by agreement, and people may agree to change them. They do not generally agree to major changes without a very good reason, however. We do not link to "Canada" because it is commonly known to people who understand English well enough to read Wikipedia articles. This is an agreement that we made years ago so that we could draw attention to things people generally do need help understanding more about. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, Moonriddengirl; I explained why I did what I did (past experiences). I know not every editor is "right" and unfortunately some like to think they own the article (which they don't). If I came across that way, I am sorry. I hope we can now say that this issue is resolved. Carrie 94 (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's not quite the case. I applied a script to remove the link. You reverted and then kept pointing to infoboxes that ignored the guideline instead. If you mean that I blanked my talk page, yes, because I have an edit notice on my talk page to discuss all in one place. I placed a warning and started a discussion on your talk page. And based on your talk page history, you don't engage in discussion there anyhow.

Glad this has come to an amicable conclusion. I have removed the OVERLINKs on the sister articles (not all of which had OVERLINKs) and applied a standard time format. Are there other articles that need to have their infoboxes reviewed?

If the OWNership comment was directed at me, you might want to review the previous comments on your talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I suspect it was simply reflecting knowledge of the issue and wanting to be clear that wasn't the intent, after this notice. Maybe further discussion about this can move to one of your talk pages, if there is any, although I realize this is likely resolved. :) Carrie 94, if you run into a disagreement again in the future, I strongly recommend that you stop and talk it through. We don't have our disagreements in articles because that isn't helpful in building an encyclopedia. Doing more than three reverts in 24 hours is breaking a "bright line" rule, but problems can happen if you do more than one. I usually won't unless there's a very good reason. You can read the page on "edit warring" for more information on why. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, the ownership of the article wasn't directed at you - I should have been more specific and given an example. In 2014 I was editing an actor's page and someone came on, saying they were the actor's representative and added several pieces of information without references, removed information that had references, and was also vulgar in their edit summaries. I'm not following or editing that actor's page anymore, but the representative received a warning for their behavior. I may be editing other articles related to actors now, but have not run into any representatives so far (regarding articles concerning actors). Also, as of right now, there are no other articles I can think of that need their infoboxes reviewed - I am from Canada and the articles you edited (regarding the infoboxes) are all TV stations that I have looked at during some point of when I was on Wikipedia, years ago and recently (CBC Kids, Treehouse TV, and YTV - the others Teletoon and Family Channel were looked at back when I was an editor for several years, until I took a break in December 2015 - I wasn't planning on returning but recently decided to; I'm not sure why though. Carrie 94 (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm sorry you've had a bad experience in the past. You seem to be a diligent editor and I look forward to more good work. Could you be a bit more careful to 1) use edit summaries and 2) discuss rather than use edit summaries to communicate? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic, did you shoot yourself? I informed you that using a bugged script that made by others in User talk:Walter Görlitz and your subsequent "edit summary" in association football. Matthew hk (talk) 03:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Comparing counterparts to supporters of Holocaust denial

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

---

There is an RfC weather Hitler is a clear case of vegetarian or a disputed one. While most debaters are being civil, user: guy macon is comparing 3-4 supporters of Hitler not a clear case of a vegetarian to supporters of Holocaust denial. This is not only insulting to me personally. It's also an explicit attempt to lower the standard of debate. Also important to note the indirect smear on whole Wikipedia, where the argument this user is compering to Holocaust denial held status quo for years.

I ask administrators to request this user will apologize this comparison and retain civility.

Thank you,

Mateo (talk) 09:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Boomerang - He never ONCE said Holocost Denial. He said WP:FRINGE, which it is. Those two are VERY different things and it is disingenuous for you to claim such a thing when it's an outright lie. I suggest you retract this statement or you might end up blocked for such an egregious personal attack. --Tarage (talk) 09:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

You also failed to notify Guy about this, something that is REQUIRED. I have done it in your stead. Again, I STRONGLY encourage you to retract this personal attack. --Tarage (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Tarage, he did say "Vegetarian: Hitler's vegetarianism is "disputed" in the same way that whether the Holocaust happened or whether vaccines cause autism is "disputed"."[172]. Fram (talk) 09:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I still think there's a big difference between saying "You believe in a fringe theory like X and Y" and saying "You are a holocaust denier". The latter is a very serious claim and must be backed with actual evidence. --Tarage (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say he accused anyone of being a holocaust denier, but that he compered the supporters of and argument to supporters of holocaust denial. This is totally backed by evidence. So you just marched in with bold and ALL CAPS state of mind, calling me a liar and trying to intimidate me with a block (which you are not authorized to do) - everything without reading through. I suggest you stay out of this matter, and let the admins decide what's best. Mateo (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Fram. He actually said this twice and when i politely requested he stop he pushed further. talk, you should be more careful before using the inflammatory language you used against me. I also tagged him, which i assumed has the effect of a notification. Mateo (talk) 10:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the reference to Holocaust denial was gratuitous, but Guy Macon never compared anyone to Holocaust deniers. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

If a user is referencing Holocaust denial and says an argument is similar, the comparison between supporters of Holocaust denial and supporters of that argument is clear. This reference was a deliberate attempt to degenerate users who disagree with Guy Macon and to aggressively frame their argument out of debate. It's not only an insulting way to discuss, but also lazy. Now I'm not an expert in Wikipedia code of conduct, but i would like to believe this behavior violates more then one norm of this community. Mateo (talk) 10:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) @Mateo: GM corrected you on "counterparts" vs. "sources" the better part of three days before you opened this thread. Please retract and apologize for the above misrepresentation, and then we can have a discussion as to whether the comparison was appropriate or not. Or, rather, we should not, as that is something of a content dispute, and has been soured by your repeated insistence that he said something he didn't. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Pushing forward by saying sources for an argument (and we are talking about known historians, writers and others) are compered to holocaust deniers is not a correction of a previous statement. Contrary. This is done to prevent people from using these sources and just adds to this volatile and gratuitous comparison. Mateo (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

So ... you admit that you lied upfront, and are now saying that despite this fact, this is still a valid topic for ANI? What admin action are you requesting, anyway? Do you want GM to be blocked and his comments stricken so your "side" will have a slightly larger proportion of the "votes" in that RFC? It seems like a given that vegetarian sources, and vegetarian Wikipedians, would be biased against the idea that Hitler was a vegetarian, relative to the general population. If the vast majority of respectable Hitler scholars consider him to have been a vegetarian, then it is indeed a fringe point of view to say otherwise. I don't know, though: ANI is not the place to have that kind of discussion. GM made a factual claim that X is a fringe POV, and made a subjective comparison to another well-known fringe POV in a related area of history. You can say his comparison was flawed (and User:Betty Logan would appear to agree with you on that point despite agreeing with GM and disagreeing with you on what should be done with the article; but I doubt she would see it as GM Godwinning the discussion like this dude by comparing his opponents to Nazis. For one thing, if anything he's accusing the sources in question of trying, inappropriately, to dissociate their group from one particular Nazi, which is the opposite of what you are accusing him of. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

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

IP user deleting content on UAE

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

---

Hiya. Got an IP user deleting images, blanking pages of UAE notable figures such as Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan. IP is ‎86.98.79.26. Ta. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Alexandermcnabb: I believe you want Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. SportingFlyer talk 09:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Eyes requested on Talk:Jair Bolsonaro...

...For obvious reasons. I'm signing off for the night, but your help is much appreciated. GAB^gab 01:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

There is an anti-semitic comment on the talk page of Jair Bolsonaro

"Well, he's been elected. So, Wikipedia 0, Brazil 1. (Not that an article on English wikipedia would've made a big difference, but I'm sure [REDACTED - Oshwah].)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jair_Bolsonaro#Biased_article_failed_to_prevent_Bolsonaros_victory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:4100:9800:4864:94AA:944A:2EAA (talk • contribs)

Comment in question was left by this German IP address. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

GeneralizationsAreBad - Sure, I'll keep it open on one of my browser tabs and keep eyes on it. Have a good night! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Will watchlist it as well.  Swarm  talk  21:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

David Tornheim canvassing RFC with misrepresentation of its question

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

---

[173][174][175][176]

Questioned about it here and dismissed question here. Also made bizarre attempt to defend these actions by claiming that since women get harassed on Wikipedia, WP:FEMINISM and WP:WOMEN must be particularly interested in the use of the word "fuck".[177][178] I don't know what to say beyond that I can't believe he would think this behaviour appropriate. Could someone please tell him to knock it off?

Also pinging User:Guy Macon who also questioned this on Jimbo's talk page.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) His post on Jimbo's talk page was how I found the RFC (because I have it watchlisted), but yes, it's indeed canvassing.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Since I commented in the RFC, I figured I'd make that disclosure (since finding the RFC was the result of David's actions), but I didn't think too much of the post on Jimbo's talk page at the time (since I've often seen people ask "Jimbo, what do you think about this?"), but these diffs are troubling. Wouldn't be a bad idea for someone to investigate how some of the participants found the RFC, since that'll definitely influence the discussion.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The title of this thread should have been Is "(Delete unwelcome comments and accusations)" a civil way to address good faith questions asked of you at your talk page? I hadn't noticed this until now, but this is seriously not cool. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I saw it on one of the projects most respected admin's Talk page. Something should be done, as such a long term editor has no excuse for not knowing better. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 07:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Urge to tell David to fuck off... rising... --Tarage (talk) 08:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• It's rare that accusations of canvassing are this cut and dried, but the blatant misrepresentation of the question quite straightforwardly makes this canvassing, specifically, "campaigning". @David Tornheim: make no mistake, this is an incredibly serious offense that fundamentally destroys the system by which the entire project is governed. I'm removing the messages, and you need to immediately provide us with assurances that you understand that you screwed up big time and that it will never happen again, this type of thing reasonably puts you in indef territory IMO.  Swarm  talk  09:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• I refer David Tornheim to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. He did canvass, but I don't see that it had had any real effect. More troubling is the conversation he and I had on Jimbo's talk page[179] where he was a poster boy for WP:IDHT. The question is what to do. Although a short block would be justified, how about letting this one go with a strongly-worded warning? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, when I wrote this I held out some hope that David's recent disruptive editing was just the result of a good-faith misunderstanding (hence my apologizing in advance if it turned out that was the case), but his behaviour since (including not only the above unambiguous canvassing but his responding to me by attempting to ping in five users who he probably thought would disagree with me) has pretty well convinced me that he's trying to be disruptive at this point, and it's somewhat gratifying to see that Swarm, above, agrees with my opinion (unstated, except here, more than a month ago) that he might be en route to an indefinite block. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• by claiming that since women get harassed on Wikipedia, WP:FEMINISM and WP:WOMEN must be particularly interested in the use of the word "fuck" Which is correct. Women have been harassed with incivility, especially the 'C word' has been an issue. See the ArbCom case WP:ARBGGTF. It's pretty obvious that abusive language is counterproductive to welcoming a diverse userbase. As for David's comment at Jimbo's talk page: yeah, he could have just used the wording of the RfC instead of the conclusion. It's not a massive strecht to say that if telling people repeatedly to "fuck off" isn't being sanctioned, then de facto we're not applying WP:CIV to that phrase. Also Jimbo's talkpage has so many watchlisters it's hardly the best place to canvass people with a specific POV, and I doubt anyone !voted on the RfC without actually reading what it's about. --Pudeo (talk) 10:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Women have been harassed with incivility, especially the 'C word' has been an issue. Which would be great, if the C word (or the B word or the W word, for that matter, although I've never actually seen the latter used as an insult in Wikipedia project discussions) were under discussion; "fuck off" is only gendered insofar as saying "this sucks" is -- yeah, the logic that fucking is not a bad thing while being fucked is, and that sucking is a bad thing but being sucked is fine is an unfortunate relic of a pre-1970s world where sex was inherently about male dominance, but very few people who use these expressions nowadays are even aware of their sexist origins. Furthermore, David's history of permissiveness when it comes to citing Breitbart.com as a source would appear to indicate that he's not actually a great advocate of diversity and welcoming of women and ethnic minorities on this project; it's just a cover. And it's precisely because of the large number of watchers of Jimbo's talk page that telling them that the question of whether "fuck off" is a civil expression is under discussion is problematic: he's implanting his deliberate misrepresentation of the issue on the largest audience he can. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• This section says someone is canvassing to get people to comment on an RFC. But the poster, User:Hijiri does not tell us which RFC, instead leaving us to follow likes to comments by the person accused of "canvassing". Can someone say how he misrepresents the question? This question, quoting verbatim, is this: "Request for comment on the specific term "fuck off" – sanctionable or not!" The so-called "canvassing" says " hope you all weigh in on Wikipedia_talk:Civility#Request_for_comment_on_the_specific_term_"fuck_off"_–_sanctionable_or_not! this discussion on whether it is civil to repeatedly say "fuck off" to other editor." How is that a misrepresentation? At WP:Canvass it says "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". His comment just says "I hope you weigh in on" the matter. That is neutral. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Seriously?

The RfC question is...

"Should the repetitive usage of the term "fuck off" by an editor targeted at other editors be considered "sanctionable""

...which David Tornheim changed to...

"Is it perfectly civil to say "fuck off" to other editors?"

and you can't see any difference between those two questions?

Note that this was` in the context of a strong consensus that the phrase is uncivil and the user should stop saying it, combined with a strong consensus that in many cases it is not a blockable offense -- exactly what David Tornheim purposely misrepresented. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, MH is hardly a neutral observer here. DT was one of a few editors who defended MH's own grossly uncivil behaviour (and attacks on MPants) during a recent arbitration case, and shortly before I opened this discussion (when DT could probably see it coming), DT directly requested MH contribute more to ANI discussions as a "neutral editor" and "voice against harassment".[180][181][182] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Not canvassing - per WP:Canvassing:In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. It is also acceptable to notify Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) . It does not prohibit paraphrasing what the discussion is about. Some editors seem to think it is only acceptable to notify others in the manner delsort does at AfD. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 18:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• The notifications are required to be neutral and to be focused. Are you claiming that was the case here? I can't see that those requirements were met, so I'd would say that it was definitely CANVASSING. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• BMK - the opening statement of the RfC states: There are a few terms that may be derogatory to some but are generally acceptable in talk page/edit summary usage; amongst these, one such term is "fuck off". What statement in DT’s notice are you claiming is definitely canvassing? I’m doing my best to see all sides of this case but quite frankly, it is quite difficult to stay focused after reading the unwarranted accusations made by the OP in what appears to be an attempt to totally destroy the credibility of another editor. I find that very disconcerting, particularly this diff wherein he implies DT has something against women and minorities simply because he cited an unreliable source. WTF? And then he proceeds to attack Hardy for no apparent reason other than he simply doesn’t agree with the OP. Is the goal to polarize, intimidate and denigrate those who are opposed to the f-bomb being used in certain contexts? I consider that kind of behavior far more disruptive than using Jimbo’s highly trafficked TP to notify others about the RfC. And for what it’s worth, my grandchildren read WP, the youngest now 8 yo, and I certainly don’t want them to think it’s ok to tell people to fuck-off because they read it in WP. I think it’s time for us to start paying closer attention to how things we say effect our readers, and less about ourselves and our need to vent or let off steam. We have user TP to do that. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 03:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Atsme asks: "What statement in DT’s notice are you claiming is definitely canvassing?"

The RfC question is...

"Should the repetitive usage of the term 'fuck off' by an editor targeted at other editors be considered 'sanctionable'?"

to which the consensus is clear: often yes (out of the blue on an article talk page, for example), sometimes no (on your own talk page, responding to someone who has been hounding you across Wikipedia and who has repeatedly called you a shithead, asshole, retard and nigger, for example).

But David Tornheim didn't ask that question in his notice -- knowing that a lot of people would come to the same "context matters" conclusion. No. That wasn't acceptable to David. He had to misrepresent the RfC to make it sound like something that pretty much everyone would answer "no" to. So David Tornheim, in his notice, claimed that the RfC question was...

"Is it perfectly civil to say "fuck off" to other editors?".

Not "sanctionable".

Not even "civil".

No. he had to transmogrify the question to "perfectly civil", just to get a few extra no votes.

He knew from reading the many comments on the RfC that most of the people who responded "depends on the context" to the "is it sanctionable" question also would say "no" if asked "is it civil" and "yes" if asked "should the editor who keeps dropping the F bombs stop".

So he misrepresented the nature of the RfC in order to attract !voters who would agree with his position.

And THAT is clear and unambiguous canvassing. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Guy, I disagree, even though we've pretty much been on the same page in the past, give or take a few times. The arguments I've seen so far appear more like inadvertent preconceived notions as to what DT might have been thinking. We all know the RfC is about civility that may or may not require sanctioning - it's taking place on Talk: Civility - so there's no reason for the RfC to say the word "civil". DT's use of "perfectly civil" is nothing more than bad grammar - an editor's behavior is either civil or it's not - it's either sanctionable or it's not - nothing is "perfectly" anything, so go ahead and chastise him for crappy grammar but he wasn't canvassing. More importantly, I think the attention here needs to be focused on how DT was notified per Wikipedia:Canvassing#How to respond to canvassing (a behavioral guideline, not a policy). Nothing DT has posted in his notices or here was "disruptive". A few of the objections to DT's notices have been more disruptive than anything he's done. We can start with the procedure we're supposed to follow for suspected canvassing which requires a polite notice on the TP of the alleged offender. That isn't what I saw on DT's TP - the OP demanded and made allegations in his first notice to DT on Oct 27th. Look at the date/time stamp - DT did not post any notices after the OP's demand to stop. Yet, the very next day , the OP notified DT of this ANI. I just hope the behavior that needs to be noticed here is not going unnoticed. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 23:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Observation: The only way a notification of a contentious RfC is not canvassing is when it is neutral and brief, and placed on an appropriate (non-biased, non-partisan) noticeboard or non-user talk. User talk:Jimbo Wales could conceivably meet the latter requirement (although that's debatable since it is generally a space for ranting). But the first two conditions were not met, so this is indeed WP:CANVASSING, particularly since, after the initial (in this case non-neutral) post, the thread was certain to devolve into rants as noted in my previous sentence. The place to centrally advertise a contentious RfC is WP:Centralized discussion, which the RfC creator attempted to do but was over-ruled. David Tornheim's posting at Jimbo's talk seems to be a POV and non-neutral run-around. Had the user posted merely a pointer to the RfC, without commentary, and insisted that all commentary be held at the RfC and not on Jimbo's talk, that might have been acceptable, but still highly problematical since it's hard to keep rants off of Jimbo's talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  I am the very model of a highly problematical. EEng 23:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Fuck off. Softlavender (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

That's it. I'm reporting you at ANI. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

"Softlavender gave me advice about sex and travel". 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Not canvassing - per Atsme, whose reasoning and follow up comment make a lot of sense to me. Jusdafax (talk) 05:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Canvassing per WP:TRANSMOGRIFYTHEQUESTION and WP:PICKANDCHOOSEYOURCANVASSEES. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 07:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• This isn't a straw poll to determine whether or not it was canvassing, certainly not by involved users who agree with David in the RfC. WP:CAN specifically explains what forms of notification are considered to be "inappropriate", and manipulating the wording to get a desired reaction is quite objectively a prohibited notification practice. The RfC question was "is saying 'fuck off' sanctionable", and David, in all four notifications, falsely presented the RfC question as "is saying 'fuck off' civil". Obviously, if it were actually the latter question that was being asked, there would be an overwhelming 'yes' response, because no reasonable person would classify saying 'fuck off' as a 'civil' phrase. However, the actual question is substantially more nuanced and deals with the controversial practice of civility enforcement. David expressed a strong opinion in the RfC, and misrepresented the RfC question in his notifications in a way that would blatantly provoke a strong emotional response.  Swarm  talk  09:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Swarm, just an observation - DT asked Jimbo a question: Jimbo, I'm curious whether you think it is perfectly civil to say "fuck off" to other editors? He did not select Jimbo on the basis of his opinion; rather, he was asking for his opinion. His comment on the TP of Snow Rise was simply "I hope you all weigh in on Wikipedia_talk:Civility#Request_for_comment_on_the_specific_term_"fuck_off"_–_sanctionable_or_not! this discussion on whether it is civil to repeatedly say "fuck off" to other editor." The heart of the RfC is civility, so what difference would it have made if, instead of using "civility", DT had said "....on whether it is "sanctionable" to repeatedly say "fuck off" to other editors."? At the RfC, the OP had to qualify their use of sanctionable by adding "Sanctionable" refers to the broad universe of escalating warnings, which may lead to blocks, bans, restrictions etcetera if the editor ignores these warnings. Civil was a much easier choice for a summary without having to add the details. Now on the flip side, if he had said, "Spewing profanities like "fuck-off" are unprofessional and rude so is it civil to repeatedly say fuck off to other editors? Weigh-in at this RfC." <--- now that would be Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 02:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Not canvassing WP:CANVASSING states plainly that "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions". The postings in question seemed reasonably open, limited and neutral and so were compliant with that guideline. Meanwhile others are trying to suppress listing of this RfC at centralized_discussion and that seems more remarkable. We should encourage a wide participation in this matter so that a good consensus is obtained. Of course, listing the matter at ANI will tend to have a similar effect – see the Streisand effect. Andrew D. (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The above blatant hounding of me is unacceptable and will have to be dealt with in due time, but needless to say the opinion stated therein is nonsense, particularly the jab at me in the last sentence: I'm not trying to hide the RFC, so the Streisand effect has nothing to do with it; my problem is with the blatant misrepresentation going on in DT's "notifications". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Why, after it was already pointed out that this was not a straw-poll, does it still seem like it's just editors who like DT (or don't like me, of MPants, or whoever) showing up to say it's not canvassing against everyone else? DT has gone silent since this thread was opened (his longest time not editing in two weeks), apparently in the hopes that Swarm's ultimatum will get archived before he "gets a chance to respond". @Swarm: I'd suggest you place your warning and request for an explanation/apology/promise-not-to-do-it-again on DT's talk page so that doesn't happen. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • That observation about not-a-straw-poll strikes a chord with me. There are a couple of battle-lines that go back to the ArbCom GMO case (and an unrelated one that is specifically about Hijiri88), that seem to be replayed here. Whoever the admin is who decides about this should approach it with that in mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

For the record, my past "beef" with David is limited to this ANI thread and its fallout (my memory of it is that David undermined a legitimate discussion I opened about a problem user with the claim that all they needed was mentoring, volunteered to be their mentor, then aggressively refused to do anything, but if I'm wrong I'd be happy to retract this if presented with evidence), and these two ANI threads and another incident related to GMO (I wasn't involved in the original case, and just commented to the effect that I thought David's block had been too short). Ironically enough, MPants actually was, basically, on David's side in the former (ANIArchive949) and that was one of the incidents I was referring to when I described MPants as having a frustratingly high tolerance and being too civil when interacting with disruptive editors in the discussion that brought on this RFC. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, wait, I see what was being referred to. Yes, I suspect at least one editor showed up here specifically to undermine me without even looking at this context enough to know that the Streisand effect doesn't apply. Yes, I too hope whichever admin closes this takes factor into account before they start counting "votes". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I meant the latter. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. The discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Civility#Request_for_comment_on_the_specific_term_"fuck_off"_–_sanctionable_or_not! is really enlightening. And, intended or not, the present ANI thread has been an efficient canvassing/forum_shopping maneuver to attract more eyes to this main discussion. Roughly summarizing, the question turns around with the premise that Wikipedia should be inclusive for all global communities involved in editing ... re-assess [the] current community consensus on the talk page usage of the term "fuck off" targeted at other editors. Part of the participants appears to be afraid that more formal civility could really attract a more diverse set of writers... while another part appears to not understand that being treated as an endangered species is rather repulsive.

Anyway, pretending that this tally at the main discussion is not representative of en:wp is surprising... and moreover has not been sustained in any convincing way. May be it's time to snow close this discussion (and the main one as well). After all, articles could exist to be created/expanded about the 2019 nominees to the Nobel Prizes. Pldx1 (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Holy shit! Now a second editor with a bone to pick with me (who I'm frankly shocked hasn't been indeffed already, after this and the two previous discussions linked at the top thereof) is showing up to have a crack at this. I'm really considering asking for a one-way IBAN, since no one seems to be willing to indef a troll who makes content edits in topics that are niche enough that few good admins are willing to assume they can recognize the trolling. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

BTW, "global communities" in the above editor's post refers to Korean nationalist editors who insist on disregarding the best international scholarship in favour of ROK school textbooks. User:SMcCandlish can perhaps back me up on this, if he remembers the dispute at all; I hardly do, but clearly Pldx1 does. Granted, I never actually sought sanctions against the latter for their Korean nationalist POV-pushing so much as their simple trolling, but I did open or significantly contribute to the ANI discussions that got the openly racist KoreanSentry (talk · contribs) and the sinophobic serial plagiarist Richeaglenoble (talk · contribs) banned; am I now being called out for that? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

At worst only the post to Mr Wales can be even vaguely seen as canvasing, the other (literally) are a one word posts just informing users of the thread (and this is not canvasing, as stated in policy, you are allowed to inform users). It is also hard to see the post to Mr Wales as canvasing, as it does not take sides in essence.Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• So many seasoned editors are happy to let direct insults slide, but a slight rewording when informing others about an RfC needs sanctions? This is squabbling. Close this thread, please. Fences&Windows 18:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
• I agree, Fences and windows - it also appears the OP has been canvassing - inadvertently perhaps but pinging for support nonetheless - while he's off on a tangent about Korean nationalists and believing that everyone who doesn't agree with his POV are motivated by ill-will. I'm also hoping an uninvolved admin will close soon. We all have bigger fish to fry. 🎣 ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 19:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

This was a dubious (and I think outright spurious, and malicious) ANI that had no validity. This (at the very minimum) should be closed now.Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment post-close. I have no opinion about whether or not it was canvassing, and I have no objection to the close. But I think that some of the last comments, that were cited by the close, were needlessly insulting. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC) The original close was reverted, so this comment does not apply to the final close. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

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

User:SportsFan007

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

---

SportsFan007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Today, this user try to move page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soccer and move page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject football without any discussion first. Then some admins and some experienced editors leave some messages on their talk page (now removed by this user), perm links: [183] [184] [185] [186] [187]. However, this user regarded this edit as rude comment per [188] and this edit as rude comment [189] and threaten GiantSnowman and Govvy that they would be reported. So I think we should have some comments about SportsFan007 here Hhkohh (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Hhkohh: I already apologized for that, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#My Apologies SportsFan007 (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

GiantSnowman's comment was indeed rude; Govvy's not so much but they were being bombarded. As noted, they've already apologized for the whole incident, there's no need to raise more drama here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much!!! SportsFan007 (talk) 12:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

(edit conflict)Note that when I typed this, SportsFan007 apologized, but what about your comments on these two users talk page? Hhkohh (talk) 13:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Reset a rangeblock for North Carolina

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

---

Can we re-block Special:Contributions/2600:1700:F91:A610:0:0:0:0/64? The genre warring has resumed.

Last year at this time the range was blocked for six months. Other ranges have been involved in the past, which is why the long block. Binksternet (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Some of the old history of this IP is documented at User:Binksternet/Goldsboro. In the past, most admins did /64 blocks but see also this /48 block for 6 months from 3 July, 2018 by User:Berean Hunter. EdJohnston (talk) 04:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Previous thread. I've hardblocked the /64 for a year. Only one IP user and no accounts seen on the range.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Indef blocked editor has returned & making personal attacks under new IP

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

---

See previous ANI thread here. Editor has returned as 2600:1:91ba:8f32:5425:969f:4199:cf35 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and left the following message on my talk page Warning: I am unblocked now. I got blocked because of YOU. If you do that again I will kick your butt. Do not erase things either, so if you do that, you’re topic banned for 3 months. Got it? [190] ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  04:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You can use WP:AIV quoting his statement as evidence of block evasion. Matthew hk (talk) 05:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Nary have I seen such a fine example of shooting one's self in the foot.--WaltCip (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

TPA removal

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

---

• SIVASANKAR G A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:SIVASANKAR G A was blocked for repeatedly creating autobiography, and socking. Now he has created in his user talk space. Given his educational background, he should be able to understand the messages delivered to him, and how wikipedia works. TPA removal is fair here. Regards, —usernamekiran(talk) 04:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Support Since user talk page contain old warning and should not G11 just due to the current version of the content. Also Draft:SIVASANKAR G A may need to SALT too. Matthew hk (talk) 04:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Moreover, he had issues of writing his CV in the talk page, then blanking it for some reason, and then restore it again. Keep on looping in this cycle. Also, his user page User:SIVASANKAR G A was SALTed already. Matthew hk (talk) 05:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Addy. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Potential sock puppet removing deletion tag at Cavis Appythart

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

---

I see that two accounts named @Augu3934: and @Auge3934: have been removing deletion tag on Cavis Appythart without a consensus. It looks like a single user is using both of those account and using them interchangeably to avoid a block. INeedSupport^{(Care free to give me support?)} 17:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Obvious socks of Wil93948 are obvious. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Which made the article eligible for speedy deletion as G5.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

It is worth noting that an article on the character is likely not a hoax, unlike their other contributions; I believe it's a real VeggieTales character. It's the movie/soundtrack/whatever named for the character that's a hoax, not the character itself AFAIK. That said, that article needed deletion regardless. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I will amend my AfD closure--Ymblanter (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

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

User:EspinosaLuisJr1791

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

---

I have been trying to communicate with this editor since November 2017, and have sent about 15 messages during this time. Other editors have sent them multiple messages on the same topic - repeatedly creating unreferenced articles. They have edited their user talk page during this time and at other times, but only to blank their page. They have been editing for two years.

Many of their creations have ended up looking like this: 2018–19 Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference men's basketball season, which has been moved to draftspace three times, but this editor just keeps moving it back to mainspace without addressing the issues. They have been offered help, links to Help:Referencing for beginners, support at the WP:TEAHOUSE, policies on referencing and communication, but they simply refuse to respond and continue to create unreferenced articles. After a year of this editor ignoring m y messages and seeing them ignore so many others, I have run out of other options and feel action needs to be taken.

This was brought to WP:ANI by Barkeep49 here [191] but the discussion doesn't seem to have got underway really and was closed without any decision being made. Boleyn (talk) 08:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree this is a problem editor. Has not responded to a single talkpage notice; instead routinely blanks the page: [192]. Has not posted on a single talkpage, period. What do you suggest? Attention-getting block? Force going through AfC? Ban on new-page creation? Etc.? Pinging Vermont, who posted on the last ANI thread. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I’d support a requirement to go through AfC, and a block if they ignore that or continue to refuse to communicate. Vermont (talk) 10:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that is a decent solution, unless someone has a better one. I support that. Softlavender (talk) 10:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd support that - hopefully it will be enough to get them to engage. If not, a swift indefinite block would be best. Boleyn (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I think their problem is new article creation as there's really only an obligation to communicate when someone raises an issue. This editor appears to be productive outside of that. I would suggest a ban on new article creation given their disruptive recreation of articles and because AfC would mean wasting time of other editors trying to decide what to do with poorly created articles on notable topics. I would support an Afc requirement as a second choice though. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, a ban on new article creation is a stronger option, but one that's possibly necessary if the new creations have been irredeemable and time-wasting as he creates them. I support that as well as the most efficient solution. Softlavender (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I actually think now a full ban on article creation is necessary - they've continued to create unreferenced, uncategorised articles since this discussion was opened (e.g. 2018–19 Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference men's basketball season) and haven't commented here. Boleyn (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

(non-admin) From a cursory glance, many of the newly created articles may fail WP:NSEASONS as well. SportingFlyer talk 06:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

So what sanction, if any, do you support SportingFlyer? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

(non-admin) I'd support either an AfC requirement or ban on new page creation - a full ban is probably cleaner - but was mostly just pointing out there may need to be some cleanup, as not all of these articles will be notable. SportingFlyer talk 20:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Note to administrators: There is consensus among five experienced editors that EspinosaLuisJr1791 needs either a requirement to go through AfC or a complete ban on new article creations, with the latter being the most efficient as it would prevent wasting AfC reviewers' time. Softlavender (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

They are continuing to edit but not engage - can this please be closed by an admin? Boleyn (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Looking into it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Userpage violating POLEMIC

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

---

Norbson12's (talk) userpage seems to be a clear violation of WP:UP#POLEMIC; indeed, they rail against Wikipedia admins and are compiling a list of enemies. I noticed when I myself made the list for tagging one of the editor's articles for speedy deletion (G4, and later for violating copyright policy). I notified Norbson12 at User talk:Norbson12#Enemies list on your userpage, citing policy and asking they remove the list of enemies, but their response [193] to me makes it clear they are not understanding the message. Requesting an admin take a look.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• I have given him a second, slightly stronger wording. If that fixes the problem, we'll be good. If it does not, it will be fixed for him. --Jayron32 16:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• I have removed it for them. Having a "list of enemies" is not okay. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

  That's fine too. I tend to give editors the chance to self-correct, but the end result is the same. If he adds it back, he can be blocked. --Jayron32 16:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: [194], [195]. Raise your hand if you didn't see that coming... No, put your hand down... --Jayron32 17:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

That escalated quickly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• I've undone my close, Something tells me this is gonna need to stay open beyond 31 hours (which is how long they've been blocked for). –Davey2010^Talk 19:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Personally I think for that edit 31 hours is a bit generous. I'd have been tempted to go straight to an indef for that until they give a good unblock reason. Canterbury Tail talk 22:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Because of the vile and libelous nature of one of the edit summaries, I have extended the block to indefinite. If anyone disagrees, please make a case as to why this person is an asset to the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is going to take you up on that challenge. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Closing admin requested

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

---

Would an interested admin please take a look at THIS RFC and provide closure? -- has been inactive for close to a month. Thanks. Mercy11 (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Requests for close go to WP:AN Mercy11. There's a specific section there for them. John from Idegon (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Matthew hk (talk) 04:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock request

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

---

Hi. Another rangeblock request from me. This time the return of the 39.57 IP vandal. Previously blocked for one week in September, after a previous 1 month block had ended. Now they're back doing the same vandalism to cricket articles. Some from today that I've found:

• 39.57.51.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 39.57.44.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 39.57.77.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I'd be grateful if this range could be blocked again, ideally for a long time. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• 39.57.0.0/17 contribs
• /17 block log

Anonblocked three months. Although it is a /17 range, he accounts for the majority of anon edits and shares the range with UPE socks.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Humayun Akhtar Khan

We've had ongoing problems for two weeks now with a SPA Jawswade (talk · contribs) who continually adds original research and promotional material to Humayun Akhtar Khan. When I tried to remove the OR, the user engaged in edit warring which led me to left numerous warnings on their talk page User_talk:Jawswade#October_2018. I tried to communicate with this editor via article's talk page Talk:Humayun Akhtar Khan but xe does not care to respond. --Saqib (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Might need a topic ban if he can't abide by Wikipedia policies. Pinging Diannaa and DMacks, who have also left him talkpage messages. Softlavender (talk) 09:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Yup, refuses to abide by WP:V (mostly uncited or not-supported-by-cite) despite saying that the content is cited and supported. I don't know about the reliability of the claimed sources (this topic is not my expertise). And refuses to discuss it? That's not how we build a collaborative encyclopedia. DMacks (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

And now a newbie Maniiminhas (talk · contribs) has restored the OR. --Saqib (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, the same user reverted again. I blocked them for 31h as a sock of Jawswade and for edit-warring. This is awkward, because edit-warring by itself would not be sufficient for blocking the user, and I can not prove they are a sock, otherwise the block would have been indef. The user also has a lot of noticed for deleted content, and the deleted edits show content was really inappropriate, which suggests WP:NOTHERE, but I got very recently some strong comments on AN which suggest that my understanding of NOTHERE is different from that of some other users, and I am hesitant to apply it in this case. If another sock emerges, the page must be protected. For the time being, I am afraid, by my revert of the edit of the presumed sock I made myself involved in the situation, and another sdministrator will have to make decisions and close this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter - Happy to take over and steer the ship from here ;-). The SPI report returned a result of possible when a CheckUser looked at the technical information for each user. Since they're indeed possible, I'll add that within one day after Jawswade was blocked for edit warring on Humayun Akhtar Khan, a user (Maniiminhas)... an account that has existed for over five years and with only three total edits to the project, which has been mostly completely silent on this project... suddenly begins to edit this very article and with the exact same edits as Jawswade by reverting the article and continuing the edit war. Given the possibility cited in the SPI, as well as the timeline of events that fit, the exact same edits made, and the extremely low probability that this user coincidentally decided to contribute to this article and coincidentally by making the same edits and continuing the edit war, I'm confident that Maniiminhas is very likely a sock puppet account of Jawswade and I have blocked it indefinitely based on my observations and findings stated here. While this would also indict Jawswade and justify a block against this account as well, I've decided to hold off on doing so and hold the user to a final warning basis instead.

I've left Jawswade a final warning and notice on their user talk page, which gave clear examples of issues observed and discussed with the user in the past, and gave clear expectations regarding the user's editing and the behaviors and policy compliance expected as well as the consequences that will follow should further issues continue. The user was made aware that, should any further violations of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines occur on this article and related discussions and talk pages, he/she will be blocked from editing Wikipedia without further warning or notice. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm being harassed across multiple Wikis again

This user with a single contribution on English Wikipedia left me a comment on my talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Clothpillar

After somebody reverted it, they left the same comment on my Spanish Wikipedia talk page:

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario_discusi%C3%B3n:ChiveFungi

They (I'm imagining it's the same person as it's the same tactic within a short period of time) have previously harassed me on French French and Meta.

What should I be doing here? Previously I've report it here on ANI, then somebody tells me to take it to the appropriate Wikipedia's ANI (of course I don't know where the French, Meta, or Spanish equivalents of ANI are so somebody has to tell me), and then I report it there in English and I do it incorrectly because I can't read the instructions. That doesn't seem like a sustainable approach. Does Wikimedia not have a centralized way to deal with cross-wiki harassment?

Thanks. --ChiveFungi (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not sure if there is a centralized way of dealing with cross-wiki harassment, but those are serious violations of WP:NPA (and being their only edits, could get them indeffed for WP:NOTHERE alone). I'd say report them in each of the wiki's they're harassing you on and see how that goes.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 13:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• I removed the trash at the spanish wiki.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 13:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• Do you actually participate on other wikis? If not, you can turn cross-wiki notifications off. It's in the preferences tab under notifications. Of course if you do need notifications on other wikis, this won't help. In that case, you could try meta:Steward_requests/Global, where at least you don't have to worry about the language barrier. I'm not 100% sure that's the right place, but I'm like 85% sure... --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam and ChiveFungi, yes, that would be the correct place. I've requested a global lock on the account for cross-wiki abuse. Home Lander (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• Hi, I'm looking at this. Do you know the sockmaster's username? (You may email me, if you wish) — regards, Revi 15:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

  Asked local CU but they didn't have any idea as well. Locking anyway, I don't have policy-wide approval to delete on eswiki (they are way too big, and Stewards do not intervene on big wikis where there are enough admins who can do it locally [unless emergency]) so you will need to contact Spanish Wikipedia admins to delete that page. — regards, Revi 15:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

  @-revi: That's grawp. Compare User:Jetsslier et al. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

  That's awesome, zzuuzz. Thanks! — regards, Revi 16:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

  It's possibly also SoftSkin/RefDeskNazi, or Grawp mimicking SoftSkin. The format of the post mirrors the recent SoftSkin attacks, but the target is unusual, as is the cross-wiki problems. I suspect that makes it more likely to be Grawp. --Jayron32 16:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@-revi: I have to suspect Lad Blackpool as they've directed personal attacks at me for their entire short career as a Wikipedia editor, and have even tweeted about me [196]. I also contributed to TaylanUB being banned recently, so that's also a possibility.

Thanks everybody for the help and suggestions. I know the harassment is pretty minor at the moment, but I'm not going to shut up and take it :) --ChiveFungi (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Crockmaris == sulutil:Parrymanes == sulutil:Cadizthais == sulutil:Scentgotta et al. Not sure if this one is the same one. — regards, Revi 16:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

User forcing their edits through

jmyrtle13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is forcing edits through on the Hot Wheels World Race article, despite being told that their additions are excessive; Their additions are a plot section at 3,500 words, when MOS:PLOT mentions that for feature films, 400-700 is enough, and this is a direct-to-video title. Eik Corell (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

To start, I issued a final warning... But the history of this and related articles suggest that's some socking and block evasion going on. -- ferret (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Logged-out editing, yes--but nothing major or (right now) blockable. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Logged out editing is not blockable? --Tarage (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• User officially warned on usertalk against WP:DE and editing logged out. If there is suspected socking via named accounts, please file a report at WP:SPI. Softlavender (talk) 07:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Hot Wheels: World Race

Following on from the discussion started yesterday by Eik Corell, Brigskick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) persists in adding a ridiculously long-winded plot summary to Hot Wheels: World Race (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – over three and a half thousand words long, a major violation of MOS:PLOT, which recommends a plot summary of 400-700 words. I suspect the user may be a sock puppet of jmyrtle13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who yesterday made similar edits. Citizen Canine (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Citizen Canine, I moved this thread under the similar one, which I have unclosed for now. The appropriate place to file a sockpuppet investigation is WP:SPI, although it's so obvious it should probably be blocked as a DUCK. Ferret, Drmies, Bueller? Softlavender (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Well, he's breached 3RR now. Can someone block and save us the trouble of an ANEW report? Softlavender (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Opening this again because the latest iteration of the sockpuppeteer is making the same massive edit. Pinging @NinjaRobotPirate, Eik Corell, Citizen Canine, Ferret, and Drmies:. This has been going on since August. I have also requested semi-protection of the page at WP:RFPP. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Latest duck blocked, article protected. Changed jmyrtle13's block to indef. -- ferret (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Guys, wait. Jmyrtle13 is  Unrelated to Brigskick and Mrends. Those are probably Architect 134 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for checking that, or getting it checked. Clearly they were a returning user who knew the buzzwords. Jmyrtle13 = probably NOTHERE, so s/he can stay indeffed, right? Softlavender (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't know. Isn't that a little bit harsh, considering the person just got streamrolled at ANI courtesy of a troll? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
      • @NinjaRobotPirate: I don't check ANI frequently so missed this. If you've checked on it and they aren't a sock, I'm fine with reducing the block. However I don't have much hope. -- ferret (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
        • I unblocked Jmyrtle13. If the editor causes more trouble, it's not like we have to go through a whole long process to decide what to do about it. It seems wrong to keep Jmyrtle13 blocked when the most of the disruption was coming from an unrelated troll, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Editor repeatedly adding unsourced/poorly sourced content

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

---

Hi, Aydinyol is repeatedly adding unsourced content at Azerbaijani language while having been reverted by two different users (Wario-Man and me). He has been warned several times on his talk. He uses unreliable forum like website to push his agenda. Some diffs of the user's changes :

• [197]
• [198]
• [199]
• [200]
• [201]
• [202]

Some diffs of other users' removal of these unsourced changes :

• [203]
• [204]
• [205]
• [206]

I have not reported this case to the e/w noticeboard since the wording of the edits differs slightly from one edit to another. I would welcome the eye of an admin to deal with this case. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

We have currently a dispute over the page. He has removed my changes many times by ignoring my sources and keep repeating unsource. My source is in Azerbaijani Language (we are editing the Azerbaijani language page). Another Persian source showing how satellite TV channels of Azerbaijan Republic has got popularity among people in south Azerbaijan (iranian part) protesting the central government of Iran. I tried to get a consensus with him by keeping his source, but he keeps trying to continue his destructive behaviour by abusing Wikipedia's complain mechanisms. I have asked a third party to have a look into the issue. I ask the administrators to ask him not to dictate his opinions on other users by threatening them by blocking in talk pages by aggressive language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aydinyol (talk • contribs) 16:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I explained you on your talk how your sources are unreliable and you've been warned by 3 different users on your talk page for edit warring. first you added a blog as a source, after that a forum like site in Persian. The source used in a great many language related articles is ethnologue, which supports significant differences between north and south Azerbaijani languages, i explained all this on your talk : [207]. you sound like a WP:CIR user who keeps reverting the article with no reliable sources. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

" I tried to get a consensus with him" : This comment of yours show that you're not here to find a consensus.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment : Administrators, Aydinyol is now also reported by another editor at the edit warring noticeboard. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Challenging the Blexit article merger

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

---

A few days ago, editor Hyperbolick created an article on Blexit. When I saw the article, I added additional material and reliable sources into the article to ensure that the article is well sourced. Unfortunately now, the article has been merged into the Candace Owens article, without any prior meaningful discussion to achieve consensus. On the article's talk page, editor Hyperbolick suggested merging the article, and only 15 hours later, without waiting for any editor (e.g. those editors who contributed to the Blexit article) to appear to make their opinions known, the article was merged into the Candace Owens article. I protest against this merger as it violates WP:MERGE: there was no merger proposal, there was no merger discussion, and the time between the suggestion and the actual merger was just 15 (fifteen) hours. I hereby ask an admin to please kindly restore the Blexit article, so that we can have a meaningful discussion on whether or not the article should be merged. This way we can achieve community consensus in the usual proper way. Thank you. 77.9.45.189 (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

77.9.45.189 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), WP:MERGE isn't policy or a guideline. I would suggest that you start the conversation on Candace Owens's talk page since the merge has already happened. I would expect the consensus to be to merge it there anyway and it easier to talk it out before we end up with it being unmerged and remerged multiple times. zchrykng (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Noone claimed that wp:merger was policy or guideline. Tell me please, which policy or guideline is responsible for a merger? My main argument is that the merger took place without achieving any community consensus. Achieving consensus is Wikipedia policy, and I mentioned community consensus three times in my request. This issue has been brought here at WP:ANI at the suggestion of an administrator. 77.9.45.189 (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not complicated: Start the discussion now, at Talk:Candace Owens and request that the merger be undone. If there is consensus to return to the state of two separate articles, we can go back to that. There isn't any impending need to return everything the way it was to have that discussion. The discussion can still happen, and if consensus is to maintain two articles, then we can go ahead and do that. What we want to avoid doing is going back-and-forth unnecessarily in lieu of a discussion. Whatever state we are in now is irrelevant. It's whatever state consensus eventually determines to be the correct one. Have the discussion, and establish that consensus, and then we'll make a decision as a community. --Jayron32 16:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I mentioned it not being policy since you said the merge violates it. If it isn't policy or a guideline, I think using terms like "violates" just ramps up tension more than needed. As for the actual discussion, yes maybe they should have waited longer, I just don't think undoing it, discussing it, and then potentially moving it back is the best approach. Why not discuss it on the talk page of the article it is in now? zchrykng (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Adhering to Wikipedia's consensus policy should not be complicated. The merger, that was done without any prior discussion, should now remain the way it is? What Wikipedia policy/guideline allows you to do this? Why not simply delete the entire consensus policy altogether since apparently it is ok to merge an article without any prior discussion. I disagree with your suggestion, because your suggestion encourages editors to violate Wikipedia's consensus policy. Because the article is not available now, the article itself cannot be worked on, new reliable sources that have been written by independent sources on the Blexit subject matter cannot be included into the article because the article is not there. Did you admonish the merging editor for merging the article without any prior discussion? This is the issue here. Please restore the article, and then people can take a look at the article to decide if the article should be merged or not. This is in line with Wikipedia's Consensus Policy. I'm surprised that you as an admin will uphold editing behavior which is out of line and in clear violation of one of Wikipedia's Policies. For reminders: the article was merged 15 (fifteen) hours after the article creator suggested the merger on the talk page, with no merger proposal, with no merger discussion, without having achieved any community consensus. Please restore the article. Thank you. 77.9.45.189 (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Would a short range block work here?

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

---

One byte won't hurt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked 14:49, 18 June 2018

2A01:119F:21D:7900:43A:E64E:53E3:6656 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) objected to block at 10:14, 19 June 2018‎

Recently, a bunch of IPs all starting with 2A01:119F:21D:7900 have started vandalizing and edit warring on the same narrow range of subjects.

Not sure whether they are the same as the blocked user; there is that three month gap in time.

So far I have identified:

• 2A01:119F:21D:7900:1DB:BBFB:83F0:3423 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2A01:119F:21D:7900:2157:F0A1:824F:A1A3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2A01:119F:21D:7900:43A:E64E:53E3:6656 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2A01:119F:21D:7900:501:2CBC:671E:993E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2A01:119F:21D:7900:5C45:5175:70D7:C4A7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2A01:119F:21D:7900:6C9F:1DFC:B464:CF37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2A01:119F:21D:7900:89A7:4322:8B46:1724 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2A01:119F:21D:7900:BCC0:CFF8:A57F:15FE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Would this be a candidate for a short range block? Or would the collateral damage be too high? Many vandals give up and go way forever when they get the block notice, not realizing that the block will expire. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Note the edit filter log for 2A01:119F:21D:7900:501:2CBC:671E:993E --Guy Macon (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

A /64 looks viable to me. [208] ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Clearly used by just the one vandal with an interest in character encoding. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Range blocked for 6 months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

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

SheriffIsInTown

SIIT one-way IBAN from Debresser, and topic ban from Judaism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs) started with removing a lot of information on the 613 commandments article. His removals were major and of paragraph that were previously not tagged as in need of sourcing. When several editors reverted him, or tried to reason with him on his talkpage, like me, he finally consented to tagging them instead. His next step was to remove major unsourced portions of text from 79 other articles. All 79 were article that I had edited recently. This seems like a clear example of stalking and taking revenge resulting in disruptive behavior, so I have reverted those edits per WP:REICHSTAG. I would like this forum to assess both SheriffIsInTown's behavior in this case, as well as mine. Debresser (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC) Comment This seems like an accurate summary, and is certainly concerning behavior. I'm curious what SheriffIsInTown has to say. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC) It does look like they went on a bit of a reversion bender after the dispute at 613 commandments, mass-removing any unsourced content they could find in articles related to Judaism exclusively. That's ... not a good look. I would like to hear what SheriffIsInTown has to say about it as well. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC) I happened to notice his comment on one of the talkpages. In this comment he shows that he has no clue regarding our WP:RSPRIMARY/WP:PRIMARY policy. Debresser (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC) He is also reverting on Posek where I informed him that it might be better to tag/notify a project than mass delete of content. I also echo Ivanvector's concern. It is clear that we can always improve our articles and references but not this way. I suggest at the least he stop from deleting content from articles. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC) I note that SIIT is currently indefinitely topic banned from India Pakistan conflicts.[209] Though his recent participation on a closely related subject (Talk:Regional power) was beyond disruptive as he was misrepresenting both the sources and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Seeing him export the similar tendencies and disruption to an unrelated topic is probably not surprising. Rzvas (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC) Comment The accusations made by Debresser are totally wrong and kind of an one-up action as I just told Sir Jospeh here that I might be forced to report them if they keep restoring unsourced information without adding the sources. If they add the sources to the unsourced content at the same time when they restore them, I definitely have no problem with that. I am just trying to enforce the policies such as WP:RS, WP:BURDEN, and WP:ONUS. I removed unsourced information from Royal Photographic Society which has nothing to do with Judaism. I recently got interested in Judaism and was researching information about it and countered unsourced information on articles regarding which I am not sure whether it is authentic or not. In-line with the Wikipedia policies, I removed unsourced information hoping that it will stay removed unless someone is willing to source it but to my surprise editors in that topic area are hell-bent to keep it unsourced and on top of that they are accusing me who is only trying to do the right thing here. What is wrong in asking them to add the sources if they want to keep the content? Why keep it unsourced? Furthermore, Debresser has over 98,000 edits and their main topic area is Judaism, they must have edited all articles related to Judaism out there so does that mean that me or anyone else who is trying to expand their reach into that topic area cannot edit any new articles just because Debresser have edited them before. Looking at the article history of few of those articles, I can say that I did not touch any of the content that they have edited recently so I am not sure how they can claim stalking or taking revenge. I just removed the unsourced content from those articles according to Wikipedia policies and being a long term editor for 11 years, Debresser should be endearing those policies more than me instead of being stubborn and keeping unsourced content. My role model in this is Yamaguchi-san, I have seen them remove unsourced content all the time and I support them in this that we should be keeping just the authentic information on Wikipedia and the only way to ensure that is to remove any unsourced content. Let me know how I was wrong doing the same as everyone else is able to do. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC) Support indef The Interaction Tool makes clear that SheriffIsInTown is lying; he very clearly picked out articles Debresser had recently made edits on. There also is no rule that unsourced content must be removed (other than for BLPs); doing so en masse without attempting to look for references is disruptive. After already being troublesome in India-Pakistan, I don't see any reason they should stick around here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC) @Power~enwiki: the interaction tool results are more easily explained by the fact that Debresser went around reverting SheriffIsInTown's reversions afterwards. If you compare Debresser's contribs from before SIIT started their mass removals, there's little indication of deliberate article selection. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC) They seem to have realized their mistake; hopefully we can get out of this without an indef being necessary. I'll let other editors figure out what should be done. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC) Comment My reach into Judaism topic already started before my interaction with Debresser as I have edited 613 commandments, Ger toshav, Talmud, Tetragrammaton, Seven Laws of Noah, and Noahidism before interacting with them. The articles that edited after interaction with Debresser was continuation of my research and reach into that topic area. Nothing more than that! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC) OK, I'll spell it out: Posek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - SIIT removes content on Oct 28, after Debresser edits on the 27th. Agunah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - SIIT removes content on Oct 29, after Debresser edits on the 23rd. Tzniut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - SIIT removes content on Oct 28, after Debresser edits earlier on the 28th. Lifta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - SIIT removes content on Oct 28, after Debresser edits on the 25th. West Bank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - SIIT removes content on Oct 29, after Debresser edits on the 22rd. Rosh Hashanah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - SIIT removes content on Oct 28, after Debresser edits on the 25th. Holy Land (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - SIIT removes content on Oct 28, after Debresser edits on the 20th. And there are more. The last three I've listed could be coincidences, but the first four certainly aren't. You've done this on substantially all the articles Debresser edited in the past 10 days. This is WP:HOUNDING and disruptive editing, and you're repeatedly lying about it here. Good riddance. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict)x2 Comment I checked three of the pages where he removed information: Ger toshav, Seven Laws of Noah, and Posek. For Posek, the information is contained in a source just not in-line referenced, and Sheriff should have shown judgement when reverted rather than stopping only when he abutted 3RR, I suspect that the information removed from Ger toshav could be cited to either Lichtenstein or Novak but don't have current ready access to either of those sources, and while I suspect the information in Seven Laws of Noah to be true I think the removal was fair. I would suggest an editor diving into a topic that is not one of expertise exercise more caution and restraint in the removal of material, including by doing things like starting talk page discussions. These topics are neither promotional nor BLP (nor particularly high trafficked articles) so there should not have been any urgency behind removal. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC) Comment (edit conflict × a few) - our policy on the matter (WP:BURDEN) says that it's the responsibility of the editor restoring content to provide verification in the form of an inline citation, but a parallel policy (WP:PRESERVE) says that content shouldn't be removed without good reason. This is effectively a dispute between the two policies. Is the single fact that content is without a source a good enough reason to remove it, or is going around removing large sections of content from articles only because it's unsourced and for no other reason inherently disruptive? I think the latter, personally, but the policies are not unambiguous on this matter. I think SheriffIsInTown ought to tone it down, and maybe that ought to be in the form of a sanction saying they may use {{cn}} tags in articles but may not remove content just because it's unsourced. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC) That's not what WP:PRESERVE says. It says: Wikipedia:Verifiability discusses handling unsourced and contentious material, and that policy explicitly states: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. So yes, lack of sourcing is considered a good enough reason to remove, our policies are unambiguous on this matter, and since it is our policy, cannot be considered disruptive. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC) Of course it is, if it is done to spite another editor. Debresser (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC) I accept that I have made a blunder here. I did not review WP:HOUNDING recently. My understanding was that it only involved when an editor made direct reverts of another editor's edits on multiple articles. After having a conflict with Debresser, I should have been careful editing further articles in that topic area which I will try to avoid going forward. I also thought that I was serving the encyclopedia by removing original research from articles and it did not matter what topic area they belonged to unless I was not restricted from that area. I promise to be more careful in the future. This can be considered a one-off blunder from me which I do not intend to repeat! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC) I randomly looked on three articles and the tendency for edit warring in these articles is quite evident here in the pattern of reverts. Posek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hillel the Elder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 613 commandments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) On Posek The user only started a discussion thread on the talk page when he ran out of 3 reverts. "Lack of refs", unless its a BLP violation isn't enough reason for repeatedly Edit warring. And a clear disregard for the WP:BRD policy is seen here. The reverts on a totally sperate Royal Photographic Society was also made just for good measure. On top of that, the confrontative and aggressive tone of the discussion at Talk:613_commandments#Sourcing is also does not inspire confidence. On seeing the possibility of an Indef block this user has accepted his mistake and is repentant.So I believe an indef is not needed here. I do believe a 1RR is in order though --DBigXrayᗙ 21:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC) Comment I find it very difficult to believe if SIIT was only committing innocent mistake like they claim above, while they don't entirely accept they were at fault. I also find it difficult if we should continue sanctioning them indefinite times in place of giving them a more stringent sanction which would be an indefinite block. SIIT is topic banned from India Pakistan conflicts and has already violated the topic ban two times,[210][211] and have been already blocked once for violating topic ban. None of that has helped him. Given that their content removal seemed more of POV pushing and they continued to edit war and wikihound until they were brought here, I believe that a topic ban from WP:ARBPIA would be better. But then again, why we should use these smaller sanctions anymore when indefinite block is completely justified? Rzvas (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC) Block SheriffIsInTown has admitted they picked all of these articles just to take revenge on me for pointing out that their behavior was less than ideal. That is being disruptive, and a bad community editor. I think a limited block might be in order. Debresser (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC) Indef block or topic ban from WP:ARBPIA would be better per my comments in above section. Rzvas (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC) These don't seem to be ARBPIA articles though, although there are a lot of them and I haven't looked at them all in great detail. If there's a topic ban it ought to be from the area actually being disrupted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC) I haven't checked all either but Lifta, Hillel the Elder are clearly WP:ARBPIA. Rzvas (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC) Lifta probably yes, but I don't see how Hillel the Elder is. It's under WP:ARBLONG though. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC) The attack was made on Judaism-related articles. ARBPIA is not related. Debresser (talk) 07:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC) The removals were all from articles on Judaism. I suggest a topic ban on Judaism. Softlavender (talk) 07:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC) Support topic ban from Judaism. --Tarage (talk) 09:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC) I'm not opposed to a topic ban from Judaism since SIIT does seem to be a bit in over their head in a sensitive topic, but I'd prefer if we addressed the root cause, otherwise this is likely to just migrate to SIIT's next topic of interest. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC) We could have a t-ban with a note that if SIIT shows this behaviour in future editorial areas they could expect to pull a block. Simonm223 (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC) Support T-Ban of JUDAISM project and broadly construed. Oppose block or indef Sir Joseph (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC) My removal of unsourced content had nothing to do with Judaism, it could have been any topic. It was more to do with my understanding of unsourced content being not authentic as I removed unsourced content from Royal Photographic Society and previously might have removed from other articles as well but since it has been noted by Ivanvector and others that mass removal like that (even of unsourced content) was disruptive so I accept that and I would change my approach and would tag the content first instead of straight away removal so I request that I should not be t-banned as it will create an unnecessary hardship. I do not plan to be regular editor of that topic area anyway but I want to avoid the nuisance. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC) It is clear now that those reverts on a completely different topic Royal Photographic Society was done for exactly this purpose, i.e. to present it as it is being presented above. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC) Proposal for a sitewide 1RR restriction The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The user admittedly WP:WIKIHOUNDED Debresser and carried on Edit warring on multiple articles some of them just shy of the 3RR. The user is already on an India-Pakistan conflicts Topic Ban[212] and to avoid future disruption spilling over to other areas and to encourage this user to engage in collaborative and cordial discussion, I think putting a mandatory 1RR restriction across the site will be helpful here. The user should jump to the talk page after first revert and not after exhausting 3 reverts. Support as a nominator. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC) Support Hothead editors like this need to be restricted. Still think a limited block would be better, though. Debresser (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC) Support Although this does not address numerous other problems noted above , still supporting this as final straw. Rzvas (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC) Support --Tarage (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC) Honest question here: if the issue is that SheriffIsInTown responded to a content dispute by following an opponent to other articles, how does a revert restriction help? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC) Comment I have no disregard for WP:BRD or for any Wikipedia policy whatsoever, actually in my mind I was trying to only enforce the relevant policies regarding sourcing. It's just that sometimes you cannot bring yourself to talk when there is clearly a policy matter and not a content dispute itself. Some times you just think that it is better to convey the message through edit summaries when there is a clear black and white matter such as in the case of content lacking sources. Furthermore, there are always two sides in an edit-war. In all those instances, there was another editor who made two if not three reverts. That does not exonerate me though and I think I should have engaged in discussion sooner than later but it is also evident that I did not violate WP:3RR in any of those instances. I was just at a loss regarding what else I can say in a discussion in addition to what I have already said in the edit summary that the content is unsourced. On the contrary, if you examine carefully, the editors on the other side of spectrum does not have any regard for any policy more specifically about sourcing. They edit-warred to restore unsourced content, a clear violation of Wikipedia's sourcing policies and their edits are still standing. They found one reason or another to restore unsourced content and keep it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC) The removal of article text that doesn't feature blue superscript numbers isn't an enforcement of policy. Yes, the text might be dubious or misleading, in which case by all means remove it, but it might also have been the case that no inline citation was given because the content was common knowledge supported by most of the sources and no-one imagined that it would be challenged. Apart from the obviously bad cases, distingiushing between the two is a judgement call that relies on content expertise. I would recommend reading Wikipedia:When to cite and choosing a different role model. – Uanfala (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC) @Uanfala: Please have a read of WP:OR and let me know how it was not a violation to keep original research in the articles and what policy did I violate to remove that content and I was not hell-bent to keep it removed. When they added sources I accepted the content but when they restored without adding sources then I was right to not accept it. Yes, it might be sourced somewhere else in the article but as I stated that I am not some super being who would just find invisible things! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC) OR is not a synonym for "unsourced". Recognising OR is even more dependent on content knowledge. – Uanfala (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC) Comment My statement is being misrepresented by Debresser and DBigXray, I did not accept that I picked out these articles to take revenge on them. I was already expanding my reach into that topic area before interacting with them, I could have continued editing that topic area even if I would not have interacted with them and the articles would have been those which they already have edited as with 98,000 edits I expect them to have edited all Judaism related articles. I accepted that if I had a better understanding of WP:HOUNDING, I would have been more careful in selection of the articles. My understanding was that it is only bad if you directly revert the other editor on multiple articles. I wanted to check articles for unsourced content that afternoon and the articles which came in my browsing happened to be related to Judaism. I would have chosen some other topic to avoid the impression of hounding but my intentions were not to hound so I went on with editing that topic. Yes, I edit is sprees, I reFill sources at times and continuously do that. I edit Pakistani election related articles and continously do that. Yesterday, I was in a mood to check articles for original research and I continuously did that. It was not to target anyone, the intention was to improve encyclopedia but I unknowingly have given an impression of hounding with my editing. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC) Comment. This incident falls within the pattern that I've seen in Sherif's editing across various topics and areas of wikipedia. He would take up some task that's not completely within his expertise, he wouldn't quite do his homework, and then when the inevitable negative feedback comes he wouldn't take it on board but would instead carry on until several people have become involved and there's some big drama like the one we're seeing here. Something probably needs to be done, but I'm not sure I know what. – Uanfala (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC) Comment I had another read of WP:HOUNDING and it reads Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. and there were violations of WP:OR on those articles as it contained unsourced content. Although, I accept that I should not have removed unsourced content from other articles in that topic area when I clearly had a conflict with an editor in same topic regarding a similar issue on another article but in face of the quoted excerpt above, would not this be a correct use of following someone's edits as resultantly the content violating the Wikipedia policies was removed. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC) Well, no, not really. Content that isn't supported by an inline citation is not the same thing as content that's an editor's original research, and neither one is a "revert immediately" situation anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC) This is nonsense. If an editor is WP:HOUNDing someone else, how on earth is a 1RR restriction supposed to combat that? I could still hound someone if I could only revert them once - I'd just follow them round and revert all their edits. This is nonsense - either you block someone for this, or you impose an interaction ban. A 1RR is a ridiculous sanction, although it doesn't surprise me given that it's come from an editor who regularly opposes SIIT on many articles and has an interest in them being 1RR'd, and I suspect that's exactly what Ivanvector was getting at above. Black Kite (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC) I have had that in mind, yes, but in this case I do think the request is in good faith and something should be done. I don't think a 1RR restriction is that something, though, but I don't have a good idea what else to suggest. I don't think an interaction ban is it either, SIIT doesn't have a prolonged history of following Debresser around, nor a pattern of hounding editors generally. The problem really is with indiscriminate removal of unsourced content, and responding poorly when confronted about it (with revert warring and hounding). Furthermore SIIT seems to be digging in his heels on that issue. I'm still not sure it's the best solution, but I suggested earlier a restriction on removing content for being unsourced (he should tag {{cn}} instead, or {{or}} if he believes that's the issue although I also think he's confused about what constitutes WP:OR). I'm not sure how enforceable such a restriction would be, and regrettably enforcement would be based on editors following him around. But at any rate he should be warned that if he's seen to be doing things as purposeful retaliation again, he'll be blocked for a good long time. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC) Oh yes, the OP (Debresser's) request is definitely in good faith. I just don't think DBigXray's is. I see below that he's got annoyed by that, but I can't see any other reason why he'd suggest a 1RR. Black Kite (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC) Comment I am all for following the policies, if an admin points out the things I did wrong or violated a policy, I will try everything in my human power to avoid those in future. That is what I can promise, what is done is already done, it's not in my power to change the past. As for the regular visitors of the complaints against me, I will not accuse them of anything, although if I want I can bring and highlight diffs from those past disputes. I had forgotten them and never quoted them and I request you to please let them ago now! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC) Moral support No idea what this dispute is about or who the editor is, so no !vote, but 1RR is a good idea for everyone. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC) The IP's suggestion is the only version of this sanction that I would support. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC) Comment @Ivanvector: Here is the problem with citation needed tags, these tags were added in 2007, that is eleven years ago and they were only removed and replaced now because of my efforts for which I am here. This was the result of this discussion. The editor Sir Joseph fought back hard and did not want to source the content and asked me to add citation needed tags but I insisted on sources and pointed out how citation needed tags can remain for years on possibly wrong information (without me knowing at the time that there are tags which were added on this article in 2007) and then he took the required action and honestly I did not even check the source he added to see whether it supports the content or not. I just assumed good faith towards him and accepted the source. So, this is one example to show that my intent is not to disrupt but to build and improve! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC) Read WP:BLUDGEONING. Why you are replying at the bottom every time and repeating same thing you have already said more than 4 times? You can use indents to reply the comment you particularly want to discuss. Rzvas (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC) I agree; SheriffIsInTown, this is a poll – stop "Commenting" here. If you have a response to someone, post it under their post, not as a bolded "Comment". If you have a comment unrelated to anything in this poll, post it in the thread above the proposal. Softlavender (talk) 06:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC) SheriffIsInTown can reply to my comments wherever he finds most convenient, whether it's below mine, or below his, or on some different page entirely (but in that case please ping me). It's hardly bludgeoning to do so, and it is especially not bludgeoning to respond to allegations about one's own misconduct. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC) Responding to the comment: @SheriffIsInTown: the benefit of a {{cn}} tag, even if it sticks on an article for a decade, is that it preserves content while signifying to the reader that further investigation may be required. When the information is not something qualified by WP:MINREF, that is preferable to blanking. Now, I presume someone's going to point out to me that the second item in the MINREF table reads: "Any statement that has been challenged (e.g., by being removed, questioned on the talk page, or tagged with {{citation needed}}, or any similar tag)", and you'd be correct. That "by being removed" bit is meant to excuse newbie editors who don't yet understand how our consensus model works, but an editor who's been here 4 years and 4 months is expected to know by now that discussion is always preferred. To that end, the list describes two things you can do which are not mass-removal of content, which several editors here and elsewhere have tried to explain to you is disruptive. It's not our opinion that it's disruptive, we're telling you that it is disruptive, and you need to stop doing it. So with that option removed, you still have talk pages and citation tagging available to you to challenge unsourced content. But mind you don't tag bomb articles, you will be justifiably reverted. You also just absolutely cannot follow someone around the project that you're in a dispute with. The harassment policy is pretty strict on even giving the impression that you're doing something with the intention of causing distress to another person. If you have a problem with an editor that you can't settle through discussion, there are many noticeboards available to you to raise the issue for third-party review, WP:RSN for example, or this board if you really thought that Debresser was deliberately adding original research to many articles (they are not). Though I can understand your not wanting to comment on this board, what with the inevitable appearance of several editors in this thread who are obviously just out to settle ARBIPA scores (they should also take note of the harassment policy). And also, in general, when editors challenge your interpretation of a policy, you should discuss it with them instead of digging in your heels and insisting that your interpretation is correct. We seem to have been here a few times over various different things that you might have misinterpreted, and it seems to me that all of those times could have been headed off if you just asked more questions. I'd like it if you would respond here that you understand what I'm saying, or ask questions if I'm not being clear. If you don't get it, you're going to keep digging yourself into holes like this and a site ban is inevitable. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC) @Ivanvector: I appreciate such a thoughtful response by you and I plan to address my weaknesses in editing further. As this has been a very close call, coming out of this debacle I plan to start discussions sooner than later when my edits are reverted. I also plan to start the usage of necessary tags in future in place of removal of unsourced content to give others more opportunity to address those concerns. I cannot promise to stay away from Judaism related articles forever though as it would be a big promise to keep, I only want to make promises which I can keep but I plan to avoid editing that topic area as much as possible. As I have said, I learn from my mistakes and I try my best to not repeat things which already has brought me so close to getting in trouble. Although I was a bit disappointed and feeling like that it's a done deal now as I do not think I can come out of this thread without one restriction or another so I thought there is no point defending further and wanted to take a break from commenting in this thread because I feel like whatever I would say, in one way or another it can be interpreted to be used against me so instead of creating further problems for myself by commenting here, I thought I should stop doing so and let all of you decide whatever the outcome. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC) Support 1RR, which will encourage SheriffIsInTown to focus more on discussing and listening to others in place of edit warring.. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC) Oppose as not addressing the central issues at hand, plus 1RR doesn't prevent edit-warring, it just slows it down a tad, and anyway, there was edit-warring only on a couple of articles. There was rampant unwarranted deletion particularly on many articles relating to Judaism. Perhaps a topic ban on Judaism is necessary. Perhaps also a requirement to tag with {{cn}} or {{refimprove}} instead of deleting. Then there are also the WP:CIR issues that Uanfala mentioned above: [213] (see two posts top and bottom); and [214]. If Sheriff keeps getting in trouble like this and going on incompetent sprees, we have to assess whether he has the competence to edit Wikipedia without severe restrictions, and thus whether an indef block is in order. Softlavender (talk) 07:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC) There's more than what they have pointed out. Read Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive300#Vandalism, which is another recent example of his aggressive POV pushing and it ended with warning from Nyttend These examples comes after he has been already topic banned from India-Pakistan conflicts and was warned that any further disruption would get him indeffed.[215] We can easily assume that SIIT has reached well beyond that requirement. This is why I stated above that why we are still resorting to smaller sanctions? He has violated his topic ban two times as well (see my comment in above section). 1RR doesn't address POV pushing, source misrepresentation and battleground mentality. Indef block is completely justified at this situation. Rzvas (talk) 07:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC) I agree; this new behavior -- rampant mass deleting, targeting articles on Judaism, etc. -- speaks to a wider problem of deliberate disruption, POV-pushing (in the form of targeting Judaism articles), and incompetence. Softlavender (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC) Oppose 1RR - it is indeed nonsense. Nobody has given anything even resembling a reasonable explanation for how a revert restriction addresses a hounding problem. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC) Comment. How do we parse the name "Sheriff Is In Town" ? The parsing "I am the Sheriff"+"Me and Myself, we are in town"+"Abide to Me, before I and Myself put you in jail" should be answered by a "please cool down a pair of months"+"remember that sheriffs are elected, aren't they?". Another parsing could be "Eternal Love to anyone, Peace and Success upon you". I have no doubt that a forceful Talmudist could infer such a parsing, I only want to see and believe, me poor ignorant person.Pldx1 (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC) Comment I encountered this individual a few months back. WP:CIR was an issue then around BLPs. Looks like CIR is still an issue now. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC) Oppose 1RR because it doesn't seem to be any way a mitigation of the actual problem. I thought these sorts of measures were designed to be remedial, not punitive. Simonm223 (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC) Oppose 1RR in favour of a brief block for cooling down. The reason is that the energetic removal of un-sourced material discussed above, plus four years and 38,000 edits on en.Wikipedia, makes it impossible to believe that the user is unaware of WP:RS. The edit that brought me to this discussion is this edit on 24 October by the user under discussion, which added nickname = The Vulture<br />Vampire with the Beard to the info box of a BLP page that is presently close to the top of world news — Mohammad bin Salman — with the edit summary Arabic to English translation of his nicknames. This edit added content that was quite likely to be perceived as pejorative by a majority of readers to a BLP article and no reference was provided. 1RR would not have prevented this edit; the edit waited for 15 minutes before someone else reverted it. The heavy use of an automated tool for "filling out" reference information again makes it difficult to understand how the user could not have understood the need to have some solid references, and to preferably have also sought consensus among editors about the acceptability under BLP. I agree that WP:CIR is an issue here — avoid editing subjects, articles, templates, and other pages where their lack of skill and/or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up — where here the "lack of skill and/or knowledge" is unfamiliarity with WP:RS and WP:BLP despite four years of en.Wikipedia experience, 38,000 edits, heavy usage of an automated tool for extending bibliometric information, and edit summaries clearly indicating the reason as "Unsourced" prior to the above episodes during July 2018, Sep 2018, 3 Oct 2018, 4 Oct 2018. Boud (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Use of semi-automated tools The issue is probably not completely ANI-worthy by itself, but it's part of the pattern of making edits that are sometimes problematic and then ignoring any feedback. SheriffIsInTown is a regular user of WP:REFILL, a tool that expands bare url references into formatted citations. His use of this tool was at the centre of some drama earlier this year, with some more recent posts on their talk page here and here. The major point was that when formatting the reference, any user of reFill should preview their edit and check that the url that their tool is getting the metadata from continues to contain the same page as the one that was used in the article, so that for example they don't end up adding a citation to what is now a website's "Page not found" message. Now, I've had a loot at a dozen or so of SheriffIsInTown's recent uses of reFill, and I'm seeing the same issues. Here the url currently redirects to the website's main page, so the added citation metadata is incorrect. In the second citation there the metadata doesn't correspond to the actual webpage. And here, there are two instances of expanded citations to what is now a "Content not found" error page, one instance (the second to last ref) where the url is now a redirect so the expanded citation contains, incorrectly, the metadata for the website's main page; and there's also one ref (the third from the top) where the |website= parameter is used incorrectly. Now, we can't expect everyone to know how the citation templates work, although if an editor has made (tens of) thousands of edits to citations, they really should be a bit better prepared. The main point, however, is that these issues have been raised on Sheriff's talk page several times, by various editors, but he has apparently continued to make the same errors over and over again. – Uanfala (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC) Comment I have made thousands of edits using reFill and corrected thousands of bare urls this way. These are only few edits where I have misjudged. There are times when I notice the issues right away and I go back and correct those for example second url here was a broken link and I went back and corrected it. There are other examples where folks have pointed out issues with citations which I later corrected. I will like to point out that my contributions in that area resulted in humongous improvements in look and feel of the articles overall while bare urls just look like a clutter at the end of pages. Some of the stuff Uanfala highlighted in their thread was already addressed in another ANI thread previously. For those who might not know, Uanfala and myself have a bit of history starting from our dispute at Saraiki language and Hindko (then both of them dialects) where we opposed each other vehemently, they were of an opinion that both are languages while I was in favor of them being dialects, we edit-warred[216] and opposed each other during the discussions[217][218] but I left on semi-break after that and never tried to come in their way, the pages were changed per Uanfala's wishes, I let it go but since then they seem to drop everything else and religiously show up whenever there is an ANI against me and tend to pile up stuff whenever I have been already lynched enough, they come and add stuff to exacerbate things further, I never stated this before but I feel like they are not letting go of those past disputes. If they get an opportunity to embarrass or demean me in front of community by pointing out any mistakes in my editing, they avail it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC) That may be so, but 3 bad edits out of a dozen or so, is too much. Debresser (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC) That was three out of thousands not three out of dozens! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC) The number of introduced incorrect citations is 6, and all the edits are from 25th October. 3 bad edits out of 12 is itself not an acceptable error rate, but that's not what's at stake here. You wouldn't have made these errors if you had used the tool the way it is meant to be used and done what people have asked you to: preview your edits before saving them. Several editors over the course of this year have expained to you the need for previewing these edits. You have either ignored or dismissed them, as you are also doing now. This is the main problem. I haven't brought this up, as you suggest, because you have dared to disagree with me in a move request two years ago. I've brought this up because I'm frankly tired of having to both clean up after your every edit to an article on my wathclist, and deal with your invariably obstructive behaviour. I've had to do that for years, and of course that doesn't make me as unreservedly willing to continue extending to you the benefit of the doubt as someone who encounters you here for the first time. And, in the interest of fairness, this "history" predates the Saraiki and Hindko RMs: the first encounters I remember having with you were from 2015 at Talk:Kalash people#Scottish people from Germany were in Alexander's Army? and Talk:Bulgarian language#Redundant material about Proto-Slavic. They follow the exact same pattern, but of course, no-one should be judged for something they did years ago. – Uanfala (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC) SheriffIsInTown, you're doing it again [219]. Could you at least acknowledge if you don't understand what is at issue here so that it could explained to you? – Uanfala (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC) @Uanfala: I took a note of it. I knew there was a problem with the edit and I was going to correct it, like I did with this[220], [221], [222], [223]. I was just not feeling well and went to take a rest as a full correction was going to take some more time! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC) So, as I noted in the summary line, this has to be done in the steps. The first action of titling it is still an improvement in itself over keeping it bare because next step of rescuing it is independent of first act as rescuing part and then grabbing the title manually just does that. It does not affect the redirection of original url. If someone clicks on original url whether you keep it bare or title it. It will still redirect. I am only a human as all of you are, I can only do what I can do. Your action of reverting it did not improve anything. It just left it bare. We are all volunteers here, we all do our part, we should all do whatever we can do to improve Wikipedia. If you notice something wrong, you just go and correct it instead of leaving it as it was before. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC) Thanks for fixing it. Just to be sure, you didn't note in your initial edit summary that you were about to come back and fix this, and after that you have made edits to other articles. True, the edit in question didn't change the url, but it did add bibliographic information for the wrong page: this is not an improvement. A bare url is unsightly but it's better than a citation to the wrong page. In future, would you be able to make sure you "complete the steps", please? Given that the second step is the use of another automated tool, I don't believe this is too much to ask for. And just a reminder that the six errors from a week ago that I pointed out at the start of this section are still standing. Thanks. – Uanfala (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC) One more note, since you forced me to come out and comment here again, there are 247,478 articles with bare links at this time, I am trying my best to decrease that number. If I stopped, it would keep increasing. If community at wider scale thinks I am doing wrong by selflessly spending time to improve encyclopedia then I will stop on my own but at this time, this is only you. I get appreciation in form of Thanks more than complaints of problems so I felt I am doing the right thing and should continue. I request you to actually help instead of complaining about my use of semiautomated tools each time a complaint opens against me for some other issue and what you can do to help is to correct the issues yourself if you notice them, if you do not have time to do that, you can leave me a note and I will go back and correct it but leaving them bare and rotting forever is not an option! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC) There was an edit conflict with above edit, yes those are still outstanding and I will correct those, they required a special setting for me as on certain devices and on certain locations, I cannot perform certain actions. As I said I am doing what I can. There is another problem as to why I go ahead with the edit instead of dropping it right there and then as those articles keep showing as bare, making me waste my time by choosing them multiple times and then abandoning the edit. That does not serve me well. So I go ahead with the edit just to go back and correct them when I can but hey we all do what we can. You recognize a problem and you have more time, you can go ahead and correct it. It's not all the time the use of another tool, for example that Olympic page requires more than that! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC) There have been posts on your talk page by Redrose64 and Atefrat asking of you the same thing I was asking now. – Uanfala (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC) Yes, they did not right thing, you should have done the same instead of waiting for an ANI report and then going out to find what other problems you can find with my editing and report those as well. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC) There was nothing wrong with bringing concerns about your semi-automated editing here since this report concerns your overall behavior. Rzvas (talk) 05:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC) Indef block proposal The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Replies from SheriffIsInTown on this thread fail to assure if they understand the problem.[224] SheriffIsInTown merely suggests that he would try to be more careful, however he won't really change approach as much as it is necessary to. He is instead trying to find faults in the complainant than addressing his own behavior.[225][226] After discussing this for long enough, I am seeing that people have supported 1RR or topic ban or block. While people are unsure if 1RR or topic ban will work, there maybe no serious objections to an indefinite block/site ban since SheriffIsInTown is already under a topic ban from India-Pakistan conflicts and have already subjected to an AN thread.[227] He has violated his topic ban two times,[228] and had been once blocked for a topic ban violation.[229] He also considers anything a "harassment",[230] which shows his approach is not suitable for this environment. Except these issues, there are problems with his semi-automated editing as explained in the section right above. Enough editors have also raised concerns with SheriffIsInTown's WP:CIR. This means that a topic ban or 1RR, or in fact both restrictions would not be able to solve the problems with SheriffIsInTown, but merely push him to disrupt any other subjects. Even if any of these sanctions have been imposed, it seems that we will come back here with more proposals for further sanctions, and therefore I propose indefinite block (aka community ban) as the better option. Rzvas (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC) Oppose - this is redundant to Debresser's block proposal a few sections up. More to the point, if SheriffIsInTown has shown anything in this thread it's that they're willing to acknowledge their own faults when someone makes an effort to explain (versus the digging up dirt and finding fault that a lot of editors in this thread are doing). I get pretty frustrated with the "ban everyone" approach of editors experienced in the ARBIPA topic area, the approach that Rzvas has taken repeatedly in this discussion. There are better ways to build an encyclopedia than kicking out everyone who ever makes a mistake, in particular when there is an indication they're willing to hear criticism. SheriffIsInTown needs to be more willing to take on constructive criticism and work to improve their own editing, now that several people have pointed out problems, but a mob of opponents showing up here demanding that he must be punished does not accomplish that effect. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC) That one was about "limited block" while this is about "indef block". How we can say that Sheriff is being honest with their claims? For example he claims he has bad understanding of WP:HOUNDING[231], contrary to his edits outside ANI which show that he has a far better understanding of WP:WIKIHOUNDING than what he is claiming here.[232] He is not actually accepting his faults but instead saying that he either had a misunderstanding or others are being disruptive, in place of accepting that he was sole responsible for his deliberate behavior. Rzvas (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC) This was my acceptance of wrong approach and a promise to change it. The issue of edit-warring was highlighted and I said that I will start the discussions sooner than later. The issue of removal of unsourced content was highlighted and I said I will make more use of tags instead of straight away removal. I was honest when I said that I had a misunderstanding about WP:HOUNDING so as to your question how can you know if I am being honest, you can never know about anyone whether they are being honest or not unless you give them a chance so I will remind you of WP:AGF in this matter. So, if someone tells you that they will change their behavior, either you can assume good faith and accept it or you can assume bad faith and not accept it. I also said that I will try to avoid the Judaism topic area as much as possible but I cannot promise that there would not be occasional editing. In last four years, this was my first attempt to edit that topic area and first inadvertent violation of a policy. The topic ban violations you are highlighting were addressed when they happened. The first one was a misunderstanding, three other editors had that misunderstanding as well and we all four were blocked. The second was a ref fix which was also done inadvertently and it was discussed by ARBCOM and they already had a say on it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC) Ivanvector, you state "There are better ways to build an encyclopedia than kicking out everyone who ever makes a mistake,", This is not the first time SIIT has done that, he has 2 topic bans already and now a third one (Judaism) is clearly coming. You say kicking him out is not a solution, what about the dozens of editors on multiple topics who after getting disrupted by SIIT lose interest and abandon editing. We should look at both sides, and overall benefit to the project. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC) @DBigXray: You need to understand the circumstances of those two topic bans to understand their gravity. I am not defending my behavior but the first ban was issued without any warning and on just one edit, it was not even a revert or edit-war or anything. The second topic ban was issued to 10 editors out of which one was me. A lot of editors stop editing when they are topic-banned from their preferred area, I took the challenge of contributing somewhere else and I am continuing to do that because I have an urge to improve encyclopedia. Continued contribution comes with a risk of mistakes and challenges of its own, no one is perfect. As to your second point, can you please list the names of dozens of editors across multiple topic areas who got disrupted by me, lost interest and abandoned editing? Please remember you just survived a boomerang below, you should not accuse people of crimes they did not commit or provide evidence. As long as I remember, nobody ever pointed out to me that they are losing interest and abandoning editing because of my disruption. If that would have been the case, I would not have been here for this long already. As long as I remember, I always defended good contributors against bans and blocks and harassment from POV pushers so they do not lose interest and abandon editing. One such example is Saqib, despite all my disputes and conflicts with him in Pakistani Members of Parliament topic area, I defended him whenever I felt that he was right. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC) SheriffIsInTown, You are not accepting responsibility of your behavior. Regarding the “dozens of editors” you should be aware that disruptive editors are site blocked so that they cannot damage the project or other editors. Regarding the topic ban you referred, I checked the topic ban page once again after you asked me to see the circumstance. You are the only one out of “10 editors” who is being discussed here, so focus on that. Understand that topic ban of somebody else doesn’t excuse your disruption. Apart from actively participating, you have been seen defending disruptive socks,[233][234][235] copyright violations,[236] BLP violation, [237] among other serious policy breaches. It overall shows the big amount of disruption not only you engage in but wholeheartedly support. DBigXrayᗙ 18:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC) Comment - can we at least try to not derail what is already a trainwreck of an ANI thread? zchrykng (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC) Support. Apart from existing topic ban from conflicts between India and Pakistan, he was also topic banned from "Muhammad Images" in 2016.[238] On September 2018, he was brought to ANI[239] for supporting BLP violation on Nabil Gabol and the long discussions on ANI failed to convince him otherwise.[240] It is not surprising that this long term disruptive behavior is being moved to other subjects more frequently. Above bludgeoning and attempts to obtain "The Last Word" by SheriffIsInTown is just confirming that there would be no improvement in his non-collaborative approach. Lorstaking (talk) 03:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC) Oppose. Indef is a bit extreme, especially considering that Debresser, the victim of the hounding, doesn't want that. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC) @Bellezzasolo: It should be made clear that there are more issues than just hounding Debresser. Orientls (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC) Support- SIIT already has been topic banned from multiple ARBCOM sanctioned areas (Muhammad images, India-Pakistan conflicts) and has now established they still need more topic bans and a interaction ban. I dont think we should be adding more topic ban sanctions when overall problem can now be handled with indef block. DBigXrayᗙ 12:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC) Just wondering, what made you change your position from 1RR restriction (a milder restriction) to indef (the harshest restriction possible) despite my reassurances all around these threads that I am willing to modify my approach according to the guidelines provided by admins in this thread, does it have to do something with my comment at below thread Black Kite and his aspersions where I opposed your point of view regarding him and supported his point of view? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC) No, You are misrepresenting my position. I have "not changed" my position. This is my opinion on this proposal that has introduced some facts I was not aware of. Your re-assurances and then violation of the re-assurance are nothing new or else we would not be discussing you here on ANI in spite of an active ongoing topic ban on you. (regarding your diff, you were clearly trying to falsely claim disputes then[241])--DBigXrayᗙ 18:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC) Support per his continued badgering and display of battleground behavior while playing a victim. Given the proposals in below section and history of sanctions, it seems that SIIT is getting topic banned wherever he moves. This only proves that he will be disruptive no matter what he edits. Indef ban is better. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC) oppose Debresser has been blocked ten times there is a clear concern with his contributions as well. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC) What concerns do you have with Debresser in this case? Sir Joseph (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC) That is a non-argument. Not to mention that the issue didn't start because of my edit. I just reported it here. Debresser (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC) Support because by this point the issues and problems have become too many and pop up too often, and point up an inability to edit substantively on this encyclopedia without recurring problems. We don't have time to babysit this editor. Softlavender (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC) Support per my chat with user:Debresser here [242], [243]. I think being experienced editor, person should not support others wrong behaviour specially when it is about BLP's. 122.8.27.201 (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC) block evading comment struck Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC) Oppose The user has taken responsibility for their actions. At most a limited block should be warranted "to cool down", as I proposed above. Debresser (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC) They may have taken responsibility for their actions of the past week, but we can't ignore the fact that those extensive actions were only the latest iteration in a long-term pattern of deliberate disruption and incompetence. Softlavender (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC) @Softlavender: Ma'am, I will like to address your concerns regarding disruption and incompetence. I have no idea how you developed such a bad overall impression of me, as long as I remember, we never even directly interacted with eachother (the claim is without checking interaction tool, so please forgive me if I am wrong). I never said that unsourced is synonym to original research. That was Uanfala's interpretation of my comment which is totally wrong. Unsourced content is not always original research and OR is not necessarily always unsourced. I know that. The content which I removed was not all original research. If you developed the impression of incompetence due to my use of semiautomated tools, that is also wrong impression. I know how to manually format the citations and I have done that in the past but that takes time and we have tools which save us time then why not make use of those. Furthermore, I have created hundreds of articles, tens of templates, argued successfully at talk pages, investigated socks, collected evidence regarding them, proved them socks at SPIs, have been active on Wikipedia for more than four years but no one noticed any incompetency issues. The problem with these ANI discussions is that no one ever highlights anything you have done good. Regarding long term pattern of disruption, If I was so disruptive, I would not have lasted more than four years. During last four years, this is first meaningful complaint against me. No 3RR violations in the past, no meaningful report of edit-warring, no meaningful report at ANI. One report and it is leading straight to an indef block. Ma'am, I ask you for a chance here, if you would not give me chance, we would not know if I am able to change or not. That would be an end of story for me. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC) Are you sure that "this is first meaningful complaint against" you? Weren't you recently reported on WP:AN[244] where editors and admins found your conduct disruptive? I also object "we never even directly interacted with eachother", because no one is obliged to interact with you in order to evaluate your behavior. Rzvas (talk) 04:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC) Support - SheriffIsInTown claims here that he is "active on Wikipedia for more than four years"[245] but this statement heavily contradicts his earlier claim that he has "been only on Wikipedia occasionally most of 2016 and 2017".[246] SheriffIsInTown here criticizes an involved editor that they got "an opportunity to embarrass or demean" him.[247] SheriffIsInTown also discards criticism from an uninvolved editor by saying that "we never even directly interacted with eachother".[248] These comments proves that SherrifIsInTown will continue to mislead us and find problems in others in place considering their own behavior. Problems also extends to WP:ARBIPA, BLPs (per diffs presented above[249][250]), and above diffs also show that SheriffIsInTown has been problematic on SPIs and semi-automated editing and he has been already topic banned multiple times. Orientls (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Two issues The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. After carefully reading this thread and examining the evidence, it seems to me that there are two issues here. The first is SIIT's WP:HOUNDING of Debresser. The second is the quality of SIIT's edit on articles related to Judaism. Obviously, an indef block would solve both those problems, but I think it's somewhat like killing a mosquito with a hand grenade. Instead, I would suggest: (1) A one-way interaction ban from SIIT to Debresser, since there's been no evidence presented that a two-way IB is necessary, and (2) A topic ban for SIIT from articles having to do with Judaism, broadly construed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC) Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC) Support This seems like a reasonable solution to the immediate problems. I truly hope that SIIT has learned some valuable lessons in this discussion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC) Support --Tarage (talk) 06:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC) Support Def. seems the best outcome for this. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC) Support - reasonable solution, and ought to appease the mob. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC) I want to note explicitly that I'm supporting this sanction not because I feel it's necessary, but because I'm quite certain based on recent experience that editors that run in circles with Rzvas, DBigXray, and Lorstaking, will not stop hounding SheriffIsInTown about all of these old issues until some kind of over-the-top formal sanction is imposed. This is the only sanction suggested so far which actually addresses the matter at hand, and thanks to BMK for considering the entire situation and suggesting a constructive course of action. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC) Support - this is what should have been proposed in the first place. Black Kite (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC) Comment. Frankly, I don't belive this is necessary. This long ANI case, I believe, has already taught Sheriff to stay out of trouble with Debresser, and I don't expect they would continue making major edits to Judaism-related articles. Judaism just happened to be the topic they were editing now, and Debresser the editor to stand in their way. The underlying issue is elsewhere, it's Sheriff's habit for jumping into things without doing his research, then arrogantly dismissing any negative feedback, and carrying on unless the matter has escalated to ANI or AE. He is likely to cause similar problems whatever area he starts to edit next, unless he fundamentally changes his approach to wikipedia and his attitude to the other editors here. – Uanfala (talk) 11:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC) Comment - I strongly object using the reference of ‘mosquito’ for SIIT. Clearly from the evidence of diffs posted above by Rzvas, Unfala and Lorstaking, the problem is much bigger than what has been described here. I agree with Uanfala above and don't think this is sufficient. If SIIT really sticks to his words above of no further disruptions towards Debresser and Judaism then this is unnecessary. I am not opposing this proposal, by all means we can put these IBAN + Judaism topic ban. Overall, this proposal underestimates the bigger problem of disruptive editing (reckless editing, edit warring and hounding) because evidence of actions of SIIT outside this area indicates that SIIT has failed to keep his words of not disrupting. SIIT has been already topic banned from multiple ARBCOM sanctioned areas (Mohammad images, India-Pakistan conflicts) in only 2 years. We can keep adding more topic bans, but ignoring the primary issue and hoping that these two sanctions will solve the overall problem will be a mistake. DBigXrayᗙ 12:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC) Support This seems more remedial than other proposed solutions. SIIT shouldn't be hounding people, especially when it leads to edits in contentious areas where they're not properly informed to edit correctly. And this action actually addresses that rather than just seeking to punish them for transgressions. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC) Support Sir Joseph (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC) Support both parts of this proposal. (I will comment that I disagree with the commonly stated view that interaction bans should normally be two-way. They very seldom should. Two-way interaction bans between editors who do not like each other often set up baiting.) This is a clear case for a one-way interaction ban and a topic ban. SIIT should see how close they have come to being site-banned. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC) oppose Debresser has been blocked ten times there is a clear concern with his contributions Govindaharihari (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC) What concerns do you have with Debresser in this case? Sir Joseph (talk) 4:28 pm, Today (UTC−4) Govindaharihari, Let me get this straight, you are opposing sanctions on an editor for their own behaviour because you think a different editor has problems? Seriously? zchrykng (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC) Support but with a 3 month time limit. Debresser's original proposed remedy was a short block. For the reasons smartly detailed by Uanfala, there is no evidence that there is anything particular to the topic of Judaism that motivated SIIT's behavior, and I too am skeptical this is necessary. Nonetheless, if a topic and interaction ban is preferred by the community to a short block, then let it be time limited, as a cooling off. As Uanfala says, only time will tell if SIIT keeps to the assurances made that there will be no further disruptions. Within the next three months, we will know one way or the other whether SIIT is demonstrating good behavior, and, if not, likely we will be back here to consider a stronger remedy. --Bsherr (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC) Support with reservations. This will eliminate the immediate problem, but I feel this is merely a stop-gap measure for what is essentially a longterm WP:CIR issue (he already has one broad topic ban), and is not going to prevent further disruption, such as mass unwarranted deletions from articles unrelated to Judaism, and heaven knows what else. For instance, the user does not even remotely understand what WP:OR means, and other problems pointed up by Uanfala far above: [251] (see two posts top and bottom); and [252]. -- Softlavender (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Mentorship? I think we need to start thinking of a solution to the root causes of the problems. SheriffIsInTown may get banned from Judaism-related articles but similar situations are likely to occur unless they develop a better understanding of how sourcing works, and they learn to engage with the feedback they receive. I think both prongs of the problem could begin to be addressed by adopting a mentorship arrangement, in which they will receive guidance from an experienced editor in any content-related edits they want to make. Of course, this will depend both on the availability of a suitable mentor and SheriffIsInTown's own willingess to accept one. Could this be the way forward from here? At any rate, I don't believe the alternative of letting them back into the wiki unsupervised is desirable: at the very least, the shaky grasp of sourcing and the BLP issues pointed out above by Lugnuts and Boud are not safe in an editor who creates articles about politicians. – Uanfala (talk) 12:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC) I believe mentorship is for new editors unaware of policy. It is not for a 4 year old editor with HOUNDING, POV, Edit Warring, BLP and CIR issues who are assuming bad faith against everyone (uninvolved or involved both), and have repeatedly gone against previous re-assurances. DBigXrayᗙ 12:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC) The serious problems all add up to a CIR issue that is not fixable at this point. The user goes on rampages making senseless edits that create massive, serious problems. There comes a time when one needs to show such a destructive editor the door. This is what WP:CIR means. Softlavender (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC) I am fine with any proposal, hey, as a matter of fact I consider all of you as my mentors, I learn from all of you and have no problem doing so in the future as well. If I have to choose one editor as my mentor, I will choose Ivanvector, I am fine with Softlavender mentoring me since she is seeing issues in me so why not learn from someone who is aware of your problems. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. @AGK: one quick thing: I think you should consider striking from your close the specification that appeals go to this noticeboard. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC) Hi @Ivanvector: that's generally the done thing with community restrictions; see eg Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, may be revoked at the same venue by the community when the community believes that they are no longer necessary. I didn't include any appeal provision in the restrictions I quoted and logged, so it isn't part of the sanction proper. Consequently, it'd be perfectly fine were SIIT to appeal, for instance, to WP:AN rather than WP:ANI. Was that what you were thinking? AGK ■ 16:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC) More or less, yeah. It's just that were SIIT to appeal to AN (as one might typically expect an appeal to be made, there are several on that page right now) rather than ANI (as you appeared to have directed) I'm very confident that certain editors who keep appearing in these discussions would make a circus of it for having been made against your instructions, and I'd like to remove that possibility. But if you did not intend that as a requirement, then I'm satisfied. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Marine678

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

---

I'm not sure if this is right place to report this, but in browsing a few articles today I came across the edits of User:Marine678 who I noticed has been persistently vandalizing or disruptively editing articles of various 2018 U.S. elections and political candidates. They have changed candidates' infobox information to show them winning their races and update their office titles, etc. (before the election has taken place). For example, making Ron DeSantis the new governor of Florida (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_DeSantis&diff=prev&oldid=861099015), Jon Husted the new lieutenant governor of Ohio (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jon_A._Husted&diff=prev&oldid=866015132), and Marsha Blackburn the new Tennessee senator (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marsha_Blackburn&diff=prev&oldid=853185105). I only looked at a few edits prior to 2018 but I came across ones in 2016 as silly as changing a Trump cabinet member's title to Secretary of Animals. I don't know what can be done about this, but I wanted to make someone aware of it since this person's only apparent purpose in editing Wikipedia is to cause problems. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Note this vandalism of the Barack Obama article: [253]. 86.147.197.124 (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• Straightforward case for indef NOTHERE block. EEng 15:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Two previous short-term blocks and 481 edits. This editor had been doing this for 2 years. — Maile (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

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

User has issues with image licensing info

Mino348 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has uploaded a lot of images since August, none of which have proper licensing information. In some cases other users fixed their uploads, in some cases the images have been deleted. Their talk page is almost exclusively a long list of bot warnings about this, and yet they show no sign of changing their behavior. They've also never made a single contribution to a talk namespace, so trying to communicate with them might be difficult. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hundreds of garbage articles created by blocked user

John Carter (who is currently blocked indef) has created 655 pages. So far, 103 have been deleted and another group are at AfD. They are nonsense. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabal ad Dayt for an example. I clicked on some of the notices on his talkpage about other creations that were deleted and they are nonsense as well. It would probably be a good idea for someone to review all of these articles, because this is a pretty poor track record. I do not want to go through 500 pages on my own. Natureium (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI Alexandermcnabb is meticulously combing through these. There are several threads on A's talk page regarding these including this one User talk:Alexandermcnabb#A cup of coffee for you!. MarnetteD|Talk 19:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Wow, what a saint. Natureium (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I accept the beatitude with grateful thanks. Mind, I could use some help. There IS some good in there, the odd nugget, but there's an awful lot of total rubbish and over the past ten years it's spawned hundreds, if not thousands, of WP-derived web pages in/about the UAE. Each of those damn stubs has, in ten years, created a virtual universe of non-existent places offering tours, trips, car hire, shoes - maps citing WP, WP citing maps. He made his whole own UAE on WP. I've been AfDing the articles individually (which has caused some irritation, I know, but a) I didn't know how to bulk AfD and b) I was scared of WP:Traincrash. There were a few of the 'settlement' stubs which had their staunch defenders despite the places totally lacking in notability, for instance this Dahir, Fujairah and this one, which is a residential block in the city of Ras Al Khaimah Al Mataf). I'm now trying to bulk AfD them where relevant but have to admit the task is Augean. I didn't know he'd created 655 pages and do fervently hope they aren't all UAE stubs because it's caused an immense amount of confusion and damage. Hey ho! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

These really need a Neelix-esque nuke approach. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I think I reached the end. He's created thousands and thousands of categories and redirects, but appears to have only (relatively) briefly focused on the UAE's geography. Someone may like to take a look at the rest of the creations... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Dang... that's a lot of articles. Thank you, Alexandermcnabb, for going through them. Looking at the user's contributions and filtering to show only mainspace edits that are page creations, there's... wow... a ton of redirects that go many years back. If I can be of any assistance, or if any tools like Special:Nuke might make anything go faster, let me know and I'll be happy to help. We just want to make sure that we don't go crazy and delete anything that is legitimate and shouldn't be. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Oshwah but I'm done with my bit - I got involved when his edits touched geography in the UAE and I stumbled on the considerable mess that got left behind - and that's what I've been cleaning up, article by article and AfD by (sometimes contested!) AfD. But I'm no good on the Wiki procedural stuff (what's a valid redirect, what's not? Are all those thousands of categories necessary/needed?). I'm a little concerned that if all that other stuff is of the same quality/utility of the stuff I found, and where I have occasionally dipped in while paging through his edits to find if he'd done any more UAE stuff I hadn't so far found (I didn't see that he had) it was of dubious utility as far as I could see. But I am no WP procedural wonk, I have to leave that to you guys! Even making a bulk AfD work had my head bursting... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Lugnuts, given the scale of the issue here, why don't we simply nuke first and ask questions later ie delete them all, and if any turn out to be notable (unlikely) in the future they can be restored? GiantSnowman 15:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: it seems like Gazetteer of the United Arab Emirates (1987; see Google Books profile) was cited, but without page numbers. I think Wikipedia:RX might be able to supply a copy? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I have took a couple more articles of the UAE stubs that are not notable to AfD. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Alexandermcnabb: Did you find any of the articles to be correct or were they all garbage? Natureium (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Natureium: There were a couple of names were right (but they were still nine-word stubs with wacky pins), a couple of the settlements scraped through AfD. 98% cruft, I'd say. Are there any left to nuke? Thought I'd got 'em all. It's the non-UAE stuff I thought might need a bit of scrutiny!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree all of the UAE stubs need to be mass nuked. It's exhausting AfD and exhausting the time and patience and research of many users to have to deal with them. I agree this is a Neelix-level cleanup, but unfortunately unlike the Neelix creations, since these are articles (as opposed to redirects), the hundreds of inaccurate decade-old stubs have created a massive amount of misinformation spread all over the internet. This is, literally, a Wikipedia's worst nightmare scenario. Softlavender (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of slightly changing the title of this thread to emphasize the scale of the problem. Softlavender (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support a mass delete, to make it crystal clear/easy to see for reviewing admin. GiantSnowman 15:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment even though he cited the Gazetteer of the United Arab Emirates (1987), he never cited page numbers, ISBNs, etc. There really is a Gazetteer of the United Arab Emirates published by the Defense Mapping Agency so hopefully someone gets a copy of it and actually uses it... WhisperToMe (talk) 08:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • As per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#Gazetteer_of_the_United_Arab_Emirates I am checking to see if I can get the table of contents and/or the index from this book. That way I can share it with other Wikipedians and it can be determined which pages are needed. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• support nuking all the articles. I will go through all the creations after 18 hours from now. If something that exists and is notable, someone would create it again eventually; and these creations can be reviewed as they come in. There is no point in wasting time and energy veryfying everything that this editor has created. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I do think people are scared away of re-creating deleted pages, even if the topics do turn out to be notable. However I am not opposed to a mass-delete as John Carter did a poor job of citing things. By getting the index it can make verification much easier. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Funnily enough, I took another one of these stubs to AFD as John Carter pin-pointed the location directly in the sea. This is absolutely awful and the creator said that it is "a location in Fujairah". I support a careful mass-deletion of these stubs. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
      • All valid arguments. But I still feel this is the best option. Or maybe we can draftify everything? Upon verification, it can be added back to mainspace. Is there any way to avoid deletion of drafts after the inactivity period? —usernamekiran(talk) 01:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
        • We've already gone through and sent a number of these to AfD. I think we're nearly done. No reason to nuke everything now. A pinpoint into the sea for a coastal area is common where the point is only accurate to degrees and minutes, between 1.1 and 11km... see: Decimal_degrees SportingFlyer talk 02:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. I think we need to be careful not to delete anything that has survived an AfD. A few of these places really do exist. The errors in the pin positions are largely due to rounding (not using enough decimal places) and are easily corrected. It would appear that an entry in the Gazeteer cannot be taken as proof of existence. That same data is also in online databases like geographic.org which contains all the many entries we now know definitely don't exist thanks to Alexander's work on the ground. SpinningSpark 23:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Spinningspark: do you think draftifying everything can be an option? (Kindly see my reply above.) —usernamekiran(talk) 01:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
    • No. It will just lie dormant for six months and then get G13'd. SpinningSpark 11:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• WhisperToMe Asked me to share how I think this all happened. In 1959, the Trucial Oman Scouts did a survey of the area by basically wandering around and asking people where they were (imagine a couple of Brits in short trousers bombing around in a Land Rover Defender). So if they stopped (and they often did) at a well with a couple of tents by it, they'd ask 'Where's this?' and the locals would shrug and say 'Well' or 'Wadi Helou' (literally, BTW, 'sweet wadi') or whatever. As far as I can tell, the Brits also used data from John Lorimer's 1915 Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf which is compendious, but contains some very quaint spellings/transliterations from Arabic. So we have a couple of VERY out of date sources (given that in 1959 the interior of the Trucial States was still bandit country and even the oil companies were having a hard time getting access to the interior and then the breakneck development of here since then, it's safe to say 99.9% of things have changed. Some haven't, which is always nice to find!). ANYWAY, that survey was picked up and used as the source of a Gazetteer in 1974 by Abu Dhabi and that source was in turn picked up by the American Defence Mapping Agency in 1987. Hope they don't use that data for targeting otherwise a bunch of wells and seasonal Bedouin encampments are really going to know what's hit 'em. So the info you're looking at is at least 59 years out of date and features mad transliteration. We still have issues with transliterating from Arabic today and place names in the UAE can often be spelled 2-3 ways on different signs. I remember going to the village of HabHab and seeing a sign on the police station 'HebHeb Police Station'. End result? Mr Carter would appear to have happily banged all those place names into WP along with 'is a city in Sharjah' or 'is a location in Ajman' or 'is a mountain' or 'is a tribal area in Dubai'. I'd say the mess is pretty much cleared up now, but the above is how I reckon we got here. What scares me is the information STOOD FOR TEN YEARS mostly unchallenged. I mean, good grief. Best to all Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • And I could understand someone saying "well the Defense Mapping Agency has to know what they're doing!" Yet it turns out they had bad data. This is why I'm glad I inquired on the source: that way people can learn from this and take more due diligence on their sourcing. While I could understand Carter believing in the verifiability of the agency's work, I still think there should have been an effort to get page numbers, and also to get some background info on the source before using it. That's also why I have Wikipedia articles written on books being used by Wikipedia as sources: so people know about the sources they're using. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I think he batch-created these articles from a geographic database which already had input the outdated information. I highly doubt he actually had the page number of anything in the gazetteer. SportingFlyer talk 00:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
      • wow. Under these circumstances, I think we should not keep any margin for error. What I mean is, we should not have articles about towns-settlements and similar things if they dont exist. And we have no way to verify these articles; as most of the usual RS are now flawed (and/or based on something which is flawed). As I said in my fist comment, we should delete everything. If it exists, and is notable; someone would eventually create the article for it. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
        • It should be cleaned up now. Someone might want to page through the thousands of JC's redirects and category creations and decide whether they're valid, someone might want to close the UAE AfDs now (the bulk ones, of course - after some complained loudly about the volume of individual ones - have attracted few votes) but the UAE geostubs are gone, baby, gone. We've retained the few valid/semi-valid ones. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Assuming John Carter did just batch create it... it's too bad. Anyway I got scans of the original Gazetteer of the United Arab Emirates (1987) and according to that work, these are the "principal sources":

• The United Arab Emirates, 1:750,000, GEOProjects (Beirut) in association with Oxford University Press, 1981.
• Joint Operations Graphic, 1:250,000, U.S. Defense Agency or U.K. Director of Military Survey, 1966-1984
• United Arab Emirates, 1:750,000, Ministry of Cabinet Affairs, Abu Dhabi, 1974.
• Trucial States, Muscat-Oman, 1:100,000, U.K. Director of Military of Survey, 1959-1971.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• oppose a batch delete of all articles created by John Carter. Some of the articles created by this user have passed AfD: e.g. Lulayyah, [254], [255]. The most recent AfD's can be seen at User_talk:John_Carter. It's true most got deleted, but not all of them.

We need a list of the entire subset of 655 articles in question that are proposed to be deleted. We need an opportunity to consider all of them, and each of them individually, as necessary. Just because 100 have been deleted, doesn't mean that entire oeuvre of the editor who has been here 10 years is equally bad. Perhaps the 100 deleted are the worst ones, and the reason so many of the others have remained is because they are not as bad as those 100? I don't know. Without the list of what is left, I cannot assess.

I do appreciate the work of Alexandermcnabb and Natureium in putting the questionable ones to AfD. It sounds like s/he might need help with that work. I might be interested in that, if the list is given and is easy to work with. Perhaps a work area that lists them all, offers opportunities for feedback on each of the articles proposed to be deleted, before they go to AfD.

Are there other examples of mass deletions? If so, where? I am disinclined to any kind of mass deletion unless it is easy to prove that *every* item in the list should not be in the encyclopedia. I am not convinced every article created by John Carter needs to be deleted.

If a group of articles were all created on one day with a piece of software as a batch file with little or no effort, and no one has touched those articles since then, I might support a batch delete of articles that were batch created. But we need to have some sort of clear standards on differentiating articles that have been around and improved and deserve to stay from articles that should never have been created in the first place.

It would be nice to hear what John Carter would say. Does he even have talk page privilege? --David Tornheim (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Articles created by Sander.v.Ginkel were mass-deleted (actually, by me) after an extensive community discussion and some salvage attempts.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter Where is that discussed? I don't see it on his talk page. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

See User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up, it has further links--Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support mass deleting all of the stubs. While it's clear John Carter made a lot of friends on article talkpages discussing things (50% of his edits), especially in his first couple of years on Wikipedia, his mainspace edits were only 13% of his editing and left much to be desired [256]. The distressingly inaccurate and unresearched stubs, relying only on an inaccurate and extremely outdated source, are too problematic to let stand, and too numerous to pore over singly at this point after Alexander McNabb has found 99% of them to be demonstrably false (he has lived in the UAE for 25 years and has even driven to the putative sites to check on the putative locations of these inaccurate article stubs). The good will JC garnered on article talk has seemingly blinded the community to the problems of his mainspace editing. His indef is sort of symptomatic of that, in that we didn't see he was a disruptive or problem editor until well down the line. Softlavender (talk) 06:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment: As WhisperToMe shows above, the stubs are based on hopelessly out of date information and archaic transliteration of Arabic that that's been through a sort of government to government Chinese Whispers process and bears almost (like 99%) no resemblance to the modern human geography of the UAE. ALL of the UAE geostubs that SHOULD have been AfDd have been nominated (it would be nice to close them all, BTW!!!!). So as far as this stuff goes, we're good. Whatever ELSE Mr Carter created needs to be scanned by an admin, IMHO, but the UAE stuff has now been cleaned up. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Nuke him Better that 100 valid articles be deleted than that one blatant garbage article remain. EEng 02:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

None of this encyclopedia would be left if we nuked 100 valid articles for every 1 garbage article. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I meant blatant made-up garbage articles from an editor known for making up blatant garbage. EEng 16:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• It'd be more productive if a couple of people could look for the AfD nominations and slip a vote in so we can get the bad articles deleted: there's a danger they'll fail AfD because of lack of consensus and remain by default simply because nobody's voted on 'em. This one Bani 'Udayd, for example. It's noteworthy that the individual AfDs I did created a fuss with some users shaking fists at me for overloading Articles for Deletion and yet the bulk AfDs have generally attracted fewer votes. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Alexandermcnabb, if you want the articles deleted, then !vote support for mass deletion. At this point no one wants to wade through another hundred AfDs. Softlavender (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose There are a number of articles he created about the UAE which are still up, all over a decade old. Some articles are okay, like Habhab. Most are not. I support bulk deletion, but I think the articles should be carefully identified - either unreferenced stubs or only stubs referenced to the 1987 Gazetteer, which has been shown to be an unreliable source for this sort of work. SportingFlyer talk 12:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support It's better to err on the side of deletion, because if the article is legitimate, the sources for it will be out there and the article will be eventually reconstructed. It's far more damaging if misinformation is left in place, because as Softlavender has said, this misinformation has already spread all over the internet. This is not only very bad for Wikipedia's reputation, it's also terrible for internet users as a whole, since search engines (for some reason) have decided to use Wikipedia as a primary source of truth. In an era where "fake news" is far too common already, the deletion must be done as soon as possible to avoid further damage. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 01:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I went to the start of his creations and did an AFD on what I think might be some nonsense. I've just had to withdraw it Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diarmait ua Tigernáin. Much as I'd like to mass delete him I think we're just going to have to go through them individually. Szzuk (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: (additional reason to oppose) Isn't the proper process for bundling AfDs to use WP:MULTIAFD? I still haven't figured out why this request is posted here rather than AfD. I support using that process. However, from many comments above, I think the question is moot, and would probably support closing this thread and moving the discussion to AfD where I think it belongs (whether open or closed). --David Tornheim (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying I should have multi-AfD'd 600 pages? Natureium (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. I am primarily asking a question about policy. From reading WP:MULTIAFD, it appears to me that is the policy for handling the bundling of multiple articles proposed for deletion, which includes articles created by WP:SPAs and "clearly in bad faith." There is no special exception for hundreds or thousands of articles or for articles created by blocked editors, by batch create, by templates, etc. Perhaps there is an exception or should be an exception, but, if so, I believe such exception should be clearly mentioned at WP:MULTIAFD to avoid confusion.

Above Ymblanter pointed to User:Aymatth2/SvG_clean-up where over 1,000 articles were up for possible deletion. I don't know what process preceded that centralized discussion. For example, was it advertised at WP:AfD?

My main point, as a regular at WP:AfD, is that I feel that discussions of deletions of articles or batches of articles belong at AfD, or if they are not at AfD, then there should be a big pointer saying, "There is a discussion about deleting a batch of 600 articles here." It seems somewhat out of process to have the discussion of deletion of so many articles so far removed from AfD without even a mention at AfD--if there was such mention, I didn't see it. But I'm not claiming to know. I'm surprised no one else has mentioned this. I'm asking whether having a discussion of multiple deletions here rather than AfD is normal. I don't know.

@DGG: As a regular at AfD, do you have any thoughts on whether discussions of bundled AfDs should be at AN/I, AfD or both? --David Tornheim (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Normally, I would say deletion discussions should be at AfD, but the advantage of doing it here is that it will get a good deal more general attention. I am not generally in favor of mass deletions, except when they all came form the same questionable source, and have none of them been expanded. In previous cases, like svG, there were a number of pages worth rescuing. So, like David Tornheim, I think we need to go through them, and then do a mass AfD on the others--which seems to be what we already decided to do. The alternative is mass deletion, taking note of the ones that are worth re-creating, and actually re-creating them, not just waiting for someone to do it some day. Just deleting and hoping for someone to come along eventually is I think less than fully responsible unless there is no practical alternative.

There's a much more serious problem however: if I understand the discussion correctly, the data for these came from what we would normally use as unquestionably reliable sources. Apparent they, like us, were susceptible to not sroperly screening input from older possible unreliable sources. We rely on the expert secondary sources, such as USDMA, to use professional expertise in analyzing and including data, such as the survey data here. To the extent that we cannot do this, we are faced with a situation actually requiring Original Research to validate the information we enter. I've said it before as " no source is totally reliable for all purposes. We were depend on experts to identify the problems here--in other fields we do this also, as with academic bios I know what is expected and can be accepted at face value if there's an apparently RS , and what is unlikely, and needs to be checked for accuracy and exaggeration, even though there might appear to be a RS. Others do this elsewhere, and the best areas of WP are the ones where we have such expertise.

I thing we've all been particularly aware of this sort of problem with respect to Wikidata, which has in the past been very casual about sourcing, but it has from the first affected us also. Since the rest of the world, quite unaware of our limitations, seems unfortunately determined to use WP and WD as reliable sources for everything, the way we work needs to change. We certainly didn't want the responsibility, but since people rely on us, we have to do what people do in the RW when others rely on them for something: try as hard as we can to meet their expectations, while also giving cautions. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, lads lads! What a thread! I agree (FWIW) with DGG above, but PLEASE bear in mind the UAE stubs have been dealt with now. We had to pick through 'em one by one because in amongst the considerable cruft were salvageable articles. Some with moves or redirects, to be fair. I agree there's a larger problem with sourcing blindly (and glibly just slipping in a reference to a whole body of work as a single source with no reference to page numbers or other sources - to be fair, these wouldn't have passed AfC but then Carter was autopatrolled, no?) and POSSIBLY a larger problem with other Carter Creations, but where I've dipped in (like Szzuk above), I've found good information there - and a LOAD of Categories and Redirects which I'm not qualified to judge on. I don't think you can Nuke Carter (I tried to find a reason to use Get Carter but failed) on the evidence of the UAE work alone. He's created thousands of other articles and they may well all be valid as far as I know. Just because he slammed a load of dubious info in from the US Gazetteer doesn't mean his other work is invalid. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• @DGG: Thanks for your input. Your posts are always well thought out and well reasoned. I had hoped to meet you at the WikiConference 2018, but you were too popular, and always surrounded by other editors and admins.  :)

Two questions: (1) Should the WP:MULTIAFD be changed to reflect the option of doing a mass deletion discussion here for the reasons you suggest? I'm on the verge of making such a proposal at the talk page, but want a little more feedback first. (2) If mass deletion discussions are to take place at somewhere other than WP:AfD, shouldn't we have a requirement of a big notice at the AfD board about that mass deletion discussion? Shouldn't we have a notice at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Current_and_past_Articles_for_deletion_(AfD)_discussions. Even though I go to AfD frequently, I did not discover this discussion until after it had been going on for quite some time, and as far as I can tell it's still not there. I feel like there are some process/notification issues that should be codified and followed so that regulars at AfD don't miss out on mass deletion discussions and WP:MULTIAFD discussions. I believe a separate section in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Current_and_past_Articles_for_deletion_(AfD)_discussions for WP:MULTIAFD discussions might be in order. That would get even more eyes on those discussions. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

you are right: wherever the discussion is held it needs to be advertised at other appropriate places. I too am one of the editors more likely to be found at AfD than at ANI, bjt it remains true that ANI is the more likely to bring it to the notice of a wider range of editors, I wouldn't want tot institutionalize a requirement on where to post:: we gave more than enough bureaucratic requirements, and should rely more on common sense, and individual initiative. Mt own view remains that multiple afd nominations are rarely a good idea, and tatr mass speeedy deletionsd are almost never appropriate, unless it is clear that everything from an editor is useless junk. DGG ( talk ) 08:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

205.189.94.17

205.189.94.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This editor has a habit of adding the {{linkrot}} tag to articles. Many of these have 50+ references and only one or two bare URLs; it would be far better to fix the links. When I brought this up on User talk:205.189.94.17, their response was abusive, and that IP has made hostile remarks in the past. I think some form of block is needed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

And they just spammed another link rot tag into another article (Greenland) I left a warning for them. JC7V-talk 21:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Request not-here block. User has used slurs to describe other editors and refuses to collaborate in a positive manner. [257] [258] [259] [260] --Tarage (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I feel that there is a misunderstanding here. To start please see Wikipedia:Bare URLs. If there is even one bare url in an article then the linkrot tag is appropriate. Fixing bare urls is something that a few of us work away at and having these tags added to articles is a help in finding the ones that need fixing. The person editing from this IP likes adding the linkrot tag (it can be seen as a form of Wikipedia:Editcountitis) and can seem to be adding too many of them, but, that is not the case. I should say that I used to feel that these were a nuisance like Power~enwiki does now. Then a year or so ago I started working with refill and reflinks and realized the mistake that I was making. There are times that I wish they would slow down a bit but, again, the bare urls need to be fixed eventually. Also, the IP occasionally adds the template to articles that don't have bare urls but that is not a major concern. OTOH their hostility is problematic. This is just one editors experience and others may disagree but I wanted to try and explain why some editors may be at loggerheads with the IP. MarnetteD|Talk 21:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I left out the fact that the IP is not the only editor who adds the template. There are several other editors including Northamerica1000 who add them to articles as needed. Maybe they can explain things from their perspective. MarnetteD|Talk 22:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

That does explain the edits a bit better. If they'll walk back some of their hostility hopefully they can continue to contribute. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Speaking from both perspectives, I add the template, and where possible make the corrections, using the same two tools MarnetteD does. Sometimes while running those tools, I'll get sidetracked on a different article, and by the time I get back to it to save the changes, Derek R Bullamore will have already made the corrections. Other times, I'll add the template (simply so I can run reflinks), run the tool, and it won't fix all the raw links. Those times I leave the template so that someone like Marnette or Derek will finish the clean-up. But anyone who looks at my talk page knows what a stickler I am for civility, and the IP really needs to make some changes to their tone. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The main complaint is invalid and the Level 4 Warning of the IP is abusive- the IP is performing a useful maintenance function. The uncivil comments in response to people complaining about his/her long history of useful actions are somewhat understandable and pretty tame compared to the rude uncivil comments glossed over on this very page in the last several weeks. This is clearly not actionable and one of the editors that reverted my very valid NAC knows it very well having argued that vulgar insults are perfectly fine. I stand by my right and ability to do good NAC's and urge other editors to respect them. Legacypac (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I have never called another editor the R word. Look, you made a close, I reverted it. That's how it works. If someone feels a close was hasty or incorrect, they are allowed to revert it to continue the discussion. You are not an administrator, so your close does not carry the weight of one either. Multiple editors have spoken about this issue and it's importance to being resolved. You coming in and making overarching statements is not helpful, especially when you are trying to apply your own frustrations with past issues to this one. That's not fair to any of us. --Tarage (talk) 09:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Also I should note that an editor who has been blocked for personal attacks and uncivil comments should not be making statements about how they are glossed over... --Tarage (talk) 09:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I've never been blocked for personal attacks or uncivil comments - so you can rescind your personal attack. The rest of your comment is pretty lame. Less established editors bringing such a weak complaint as the OP might face a boomerang. The diffs in your first response hardly support what you said about the IP. Legacypac (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Your block log says differently. 15:59, 16 May 2016, 19:21, 14 February 2018, and 11:13, 19 April 2018. Regardless of the rescinded nature of two of them, the comments on your talk page from the unblocking admin show that they were not unwarranted blocks. Again, please keep your personal grudges out of this section please. Your close was uncalled for. --Tarage (talk) 09:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) 205.189.94.17 was tricky, which keep asking to add the template in Talk:Juventus F.C. in September. All but one link were already fixed by this edit (Special:Diff/859662513). Instead of fixing himself by posting edit request of that specific link (the page was indef semi-protected since 2010, which may be too high), he keep asking to add the template, nor point out which link need to fix. Thus causing the personal attack in User talk:205.189.94.17#Link rot can be fixed with WP:REFILL. While the rest is depends on other editors on judging his communication and edits are collaboration or not. Matthew hk (talk) 09:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with the OP that spamming linkrot tags onto hundreds of articles when there are only one or two bare URLs and the majority of the the citations are filled out is disruptive editing, because the appropriate response to one or two bare URLs is to fill them in instead of tag. This is particularly easy to do with WP:REFILL. The editor already has seven or so warnings on his talkpage and several discussions about the linkrot tag and REFILL. I'd say it's time for a block unless he has stopped and agrees to fill out bares instead of blindly tagging. Softlavender (talk) 09:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

  Pinging Ad Orientem and Vaselineeeeeeee. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The tag exists for a reason and as long as it exists it is fine to use it. I have over 30,000 pages on watchlist, and many are new with bare urls. I see these tags added and then solved quickly all the time. The problem here is the editors attacking the IP for doing a boring but evidently desirable task. Lots of editors DO NOT use Refill and we can't and should not force anyone to fill in refs. Legacypac (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

But people don't personal attack (see edit summary) or ask other people to fix the bare url for him. Sometimes we post task to some noticeboard for others to follow up, but not ask, command them to do so. Matthew hk (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd prefer the IP was more polite but attacking them for doing a lot of tagging with a correct tag is not correct. Legacypac (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest a topic ban of using that template. From recent edit the finally fix some url by himself, but still some communication issue such as this one (Special:Diff/866669016). Matthew hk (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Please see the template documentation for {{linkrot}}:

Before adding this template, please head over to toollabs:refill, paste into the text box the name of the page with bare references, then click the "Fix page" button. Wait patiently for the program to finish filling in all citation templates for each bare reference. When the result page is loaded, please double-check the changes made in the diff preview on the result page and fix the errors before clicking the "Show preview" button at the bottom. References that could not be filled in with the tool will be listed on the page. On the actual editing interface on-wiki, you may wish to check the changes once again and use Ohconfucius's scripts to automatically correct some mistakes. When everything looks fine, click the "Publish changes" button to save your changes.

-- Softlavender (talk) 10:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• He uses multiple IPs:

Multiple IPs (modified)

Has used these addresses: 205.189.94.11 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 205.189.94.12 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 205.189.94.13 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 205.189.94.14 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 205.189.94.15 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 205.189.94.16 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 205.189.94.17 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Only one other IP used in range; not necessarily related to him 205.189.94.70 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

...to elaborate on his activities.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

All of the ip were linked to Scarborough Public Library of Toronto Public Library system. It just means more than one person using the library to edit wikipedia, as well as he can jump to another up of that range by change to use another public computers of the library. Matthew hk (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, very rude editor, and also very lazy in my opinion. Adding this template to thousands of articles as their sole job, probably half of which if not more can be fixed almost as fast by using REFILL—something that actually helps the problem. To me, this editor does not care about the bare links as an issue itself, and only wants to cause disruption, further seen at his talk page when more experienced editors try to give them suggestions to actually help fix the issue. If the bare links were actually an issue to them, they would try to fix some, especially where only one or two are broken instead of adding the template. Pure disruption in my opinion and a net negative to the project, especially with their toxic behaviour. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 12:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Are you blind?"..."Bungler" is him and is currently blocked there as 205.189.94.13. I believe the one he calls "shithead" for being responsible for the block was sitting in his chair. He then made a personal attack and followed up with attacking the admin corps with "incompetent, power-crazed bunglers"...."You clowns"...sounds just like "Some misinformed clown"...

• 205.189.94.11 just came off of being blocked for a year and a half between two blocks (log)
• 205.189.94.12 was blocked for one year by NeilN on March 10.
• 205.189.94.13 spent the last two years blocked but it expired recently. block log

• 205.189.94.0/27 is the range. Anon blocking it may be in order...he looks to be already blocked and evading. Objections or support?
   — Berean Hunter (talk)

Well, they've earned a block anyway with these comments even if they're not already blocked, which I think it's pretty obvious they are. I don't recognize the abuse, it's probably just some bored kid with a library card. Block away. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

/27 range anonblocked one year. Based on what I've seen, it won't surprise me if the talkpage access will have to be revoked soon.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

strongly oppose blocking any public library for that length of time, even as an anon-only block. I've been receiving multiple complaints about such bocks, and in almost all cases, I agrrr with the poeople complaining. We need tio encourage new users, and it is entirely reasojable that a new user might first want to edit from a library. We sghould block for only the minimum period necessary to stop the immediate absue, The practice of using long clocks in such cases started in the days before we had edit filters, where vandalism was even more serious a problem than now. I do not mean to imply we should not act to stop vandalism, inly that a range block to stop it should be the minimum that seems possible, I'm going to shorten the block to one month, If it continues after that, we can discuss again how tro deal with it. DGG ( talk ) 07:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

They could use ACC. "We sghould block for only the minimum period necessary to stop the immediate absue," It has been going on for many months with this particular user. Previous blocks on multiple IPs were lengthy and this only covers a handful of machines. "I've been receiving multiple complaints about such bocks, and in almost all cases" but not this one so don't make generalizations that do not apply. You didn't receive a complaint about this one and if you did, it was from a sock.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 09:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

More on range block of character encoding vandal

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

---

Previous: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Would a short range block work here?

2A01:119F:21E:4D00:35E9:48B:4265:5E02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): character encoding vandal managed to escape his /64 rangeblock.

Also see [261] and [262].

@NinjaRobotPirate:

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. I think that'll do it, but I'm not sure. If not, that's a pretty wide IP range. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

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

116.87.11.141 block request

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

---

116.87.11.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is back at it after the last 3-month block. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Kuru666 blocked, similar edits continue?

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

---

I have noticed continued addition of an edit made initially by Kuru666 on the Battle of St. Quentin.[263] Once Kuru666 was blocked indefinitely, multiple IPs have continued to make the same edit.

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

Perhaps an Admin can address this issue. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Both IPs have been blocked for block evasion. One by me and one by another administrator. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Talk page problems

Ouranista has been leaving hostile messages on my talk page at User talk:Lullabying#Civility in Editing (but removing them later on), some of them over edit warring over changes made to Free! (TV series). lullabying (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Messages left include the following:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lullabying&oldid=866965309
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lullabying&oldid=866963559

lullabying (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I admit to a short message that I tried to delete. I thought it was, but somehow it was reposted with a response from Lullabying. I have not left multiple messages nor have I engaged in editing wars. However, much of the editing that has stood in place for years has now been altered by Lullabying with the terms "Flowery" and "Fancruft" as justification. I have left lullabying's edits as valid, though personally deemed unnecessarily curt, but have made some factual edits since and reverted what seemed to be a retaliatory edit to include information critical to the protagonist of the series. I do not see my actions as hostile. On the contrary. I tried to correct an error I made and lullabying has escalated this into something else altogether. Please respond as to how I should proceed from this point as I wish to remain a contributor and positive member of the Wikipedia community. Thank you for your attention to this matter. luxartisan 19:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ouranista (talk • contribs)

I have left lullabying's edits as valid, though personally deemed unnecessarily curt, but have made some factual edits since and reverted what seemed to be a retaliatory edit to include information critical to the protagonist of the series. Regarding this response, I did not make the edit with the intention of retaliating and have only gone out of my way to shorten summaries as I have been doing on other articles due to extra information already implied in the current text and WP:NOTFANWEBSITE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free!_(TV_series)&oldid=866965839 This edit was also reverted without explanation. lullabying (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I see a couple of issues here, mostly on Ouranista's part.

• First and foremost, I'm bothered by the lack of unsigned or improperly signed comments from this individual. Messages are signed with four tides; even a beginner knows that. You've been here for 3 years, so there's absolutely no excuse for this.
• Secondly, you don't seem to understand that Wikipedia isn't a fansite. On a fansite, you could add as much info as you want; on Wikipedia, we keep things brief. Lullabying is doing the right thing by abiding by site policy, which you don't seem to see as important.
• Lastly, if this continues to be a problem, then you may have competence issues. Hopefully, you'll take this opportunity to read the policies Lullabying had linked to you. I do not think a sanction is necessary at the moment. And if you ask me, this shouldn't even be on ANI. Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for a quick turnaround in responding. I agree that this should not have gone to ANI. I am now adding four tildes - hope they show up. luxartisan 04:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ouranista (talk • contribs)

Chris Janson

Lboullt (talk · contribs) appears to be a sockpuppet or closely related to Kibus1 (talk · contribs), a user that was previously removing content from Chris Janson back in 2012. The Kibus1 account claimed to be one of Janson's reps, and was constantly removing valid, sourced, and neutral content from the article. Much of the removal is the same -- such as the passage on Janson doing duets with Holly Williams, or arbitrary changing of chart peaks to charts other than Billboard. Note that at the time of the Kibus1 account's edits, two of his reps contacted me through outside sources. One found me via Facebook made legal threats, which I did not act on at the time because they backed down. The other was far more sympathetic and agreed that the material on Holly Williams was not harmful in any way. A friend of mine who was also my editor when I still wrote for the blog Roughstock.com, and said friend told me that he talked to Janson personally about his Wikipedia article, and that he confessed to both overreaction and ignorance on how Wikipedia works.

tl;dr: can I please get a few more eyes on this? I don't want a six-year-old edit war to flare up again. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed for block evasion

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

---

• 2601:1c2:4e02:3020:58b6:3bf9:1f74:9353 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:1c2:4e02:3020:1:d1ae:8321:edb7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An IPv6 user (2nd linked above) has been disruptive on Talk:Cultural appropriation. Looking at the /64 range, I noticed a single IPv6 (1st linked above) had been recently blocked and the block was still active. I'm requesting the entire /64 range be blocked.

Range: 2601:1C2:4E02:3020::/64

EvergreenFir (talk) 06:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Range blocked for three months to match the IP block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Range block request

Howdy, a range block should be in place for the Stauner sock-puppet. Its latest incarnation Die Stauner linked an inhuman video to the User page of a recently deceased editor. GoodDay (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked the user indef. A checkuser would be needed to look at anything else, and whether a rangeblock would be possible. Raising an SPI would be useful here. Black Kite (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Kokborok language / topic ban for editor

Editor Abel Tiprasa has been active since March 2018 on topics relating to the Indian tribal language Kokborok. My first interaction with the editor was during NPP reviewing his article Kokborok script. The article had hallmarks of POV fork soapboxing while at the same time being poorly sourced. The deletion discussion led to the article being redirected to the main topic about Kokborok. By way of background: a) the Kokborok language is a tribal language spoken by various tribes in India; b) the written system of the language has been lost since the 19th century; c) the official writing systems are Bengali or Latin scrip; d) the choice of script is a contentious issue along a political and tribal divide; e) there is a faction within the native speaker group proposing to revitalise a native Kokborok script; f) since the ancient script is lost, the new script is at this point mere proposal, there are many proposals, none of which are adopted. This is supported by these sources: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6). In this diff the user expressed his view that the deleted article about Kokborok script would serve as platform for editors to share ideas about the future of a new script and develop a script. This is clearly not a purpose of Wikipedia. Other disruptive edits include the arbitrary change of native speakers here, addition of a proposed script from a self-created file here, unsourced POV edits such as this. I appreciate the editor's good intentions, however his edits amount to Soapboxing. In line with WP:CASTE I therefore request a topic ban on Kokborok language and script for the editor. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• I am not sure we're at the point of a topic ban right now. He was warned about the discretionary sanctions on October 23 [264]. Since then, he has conducted just two edits, both of which are non-disruptive [265][266]. It's worth keeping an eye on, but I do not think action against him is warranted at this point. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: the second of the diffs you provided may be considered disruptive: he re-instated the POV-esque content that was previously removed and which he was warned about. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 15:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe. I'd get discussion going with him and see where that leads. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

There have been a number of conversations, such as this, where he called an edit "nonsense" assuming the other person does not speak the language and should therefore refrain from edits. This is continued here. Clear in-article soapboxing here. There is this conversation on my talk page in April about the same topic, referring him to key principles of Wikipedia. Yet the edits along this line have continued. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 15:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• I don't disagree with you, but since the notification about discretionary sanctions was made, there's only been two edits. Other opinions may vary certainly. But, I don't see there's a need to topic ban him under the discretionary sanctions when he's barely edited since being notified of them. If the pattern continues, perhaps. For now, I think it's too early. I'm not the final arbiter here. I'm just suggesting trying to engage him in discussion again, given that he now knows about the discretionary sanctions. It's worth a shot. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I see your point, however I'd argue that the discretionary sanctions had been mentioned in the AfD in April (in which he participated), the articles are tagged as in scope and there have been attempts to communicate with the editor in March, April and September about the purpose of Wikipedia, however the edit pattern appears to indicate either a lack of understanding or a lack of regard._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Addendum. Further clarification has been sought, the user has been made aware of this discussion. However, without response and participation, there has just been a new article creation on the same topic, Khorongma script. No sourcing, links to blogs as currently only external source. Essentially similar contents to previous soapboxing about a made up script. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I guess there's a competency issue here. It's always hard to decide what to do in these circumstances. Deb (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Deb: I tend to agree. I do see where the editor is coming from and he probably has good intentions, however the execution is defective. It's quite amazing: I did not even know this language and those tribes existed half a year ago and now I can almost give lectures from what I learned using the few sources that are online. I was thinking that maybe I could mentor the user, but the communication channels seem somewhat closed. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Mr rnddude

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

---

User:Mr rnddude has been granted rollback rights and therefore knows what it is and more importantly, what it is not and when never to use it. We have an ongoing problem on Liberland.

• This editor boldy asserted himself by blanking an amassment of edits including copyedits, all on the pretext of "last good version". If he believed there was a problem, nobody stopped him hitting 'edit' and making adjustments. As his summary is a clear fig-leaf for his own wikipedia:correct version, I felt vindicated in reverting him.
• Knowing he is welcome to use the talk page, this editor reverted content dispute under the guise of "vandalism".
• The editor was warned that what he was blanking was NOT vandalism. Content dispute maybe (not that he explained his demurrals) but vandalism, not a chance.
• The editor ignored TWO courtesy notifications explaining that it was not vandalism and abused Rollback[267].
• The editor was then informed that this was not the correct way to use Rollback, needless to say he was engaged in an edit war (as I too had been but have stopped), and he responded by flagrantly abusing Rollback a second consecutive time.

Please note that the terms and conditions of Rollback are clearly and prominently displayed at its article. To claim vandalism in one edit and then use it twice, one would expect the editor in question to have issued warnings and eventually reported me (or the IP to this very article). However, one look at this editor's activities and it is clear that he knows that to report me (or the IP I used as I got logged out involuntarily) for vandalism is without hope, and it is also clear that he doesn't give a monkey about WP policy as he is clearly slapping the admin to grant him Rollback in the face and looks like he has no intention of stopping. I strongly suggest a temporary block of this editor along with his unconditional withdrawal of Rollback. --Ishmailer (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

So you're also sockpuppeting. Well for one, the vandalism was reinstated by you editing as an IP (so I couldn't exactly report your account). For two, I am currently writing a request for PP, though your pinging me keeps diverting my attention away from that. Anybody who looks at my editing history can easily determine that I don't use rollback often, and that I don't use it for no reason. I have a solid editing history. Do I need to request a CU for Ishmailer and their IP, or has that been determined by the fact that an admin has revdelled their logged out editing. violation of 3RR, btw: 1, 2, 3 and 4 Strike reason: They've self reverted their fourth revert, that makes the 3RR issue moot. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

OK as I have nothing to hide, you're welcome to request SPU in my name. But as the system goes, the socking has to be established first before the Rollback can be used. You're jumping to conclusions by putting the cart before the horse. And besides, you didn't say "rv sock", you said "rvv" which tells admins and observers that you're reverting vandalism, and you know there was no vandalism. --Ishmailer (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, Ishmailer indicated above that the IP edits on Liberland were them and made accidentally due to being logged out. I don't see any need to file an SPI or have information "brought to light" that the editor has already brought to light themselves and openly. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't noted their disclosure that the IP was theirs. I only noted that the IP had been revdelled, and that I was now suddenly receiving a notification from Ishmailer (rather than the IP who was threatening me). For the record, that 'amassment of edits were entirely Ishmailer's, continuing their editwar with another editor. I am not an involved editor at the article, and have not edited the article in any capacity other than to revert vandalism. E.g. this. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

That wasn't WP:VANDALISM either. Even I admit it was disruptive because Liberland is not sovereign, but some look at it that way. That was just a POV issue. Liberland is a micronation but the edit war I had with Thomas.W was down to him constantly calling it a microstate as he clearly has no idea the difference between one and the other. --Ishmailer (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to the edit war over this edit a couple days ago, in which you remove "micronation" from multiple places in the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Because Ishmailer indicated here that they edited the article while accidentally while logged out, the IP information has been suppressed for privacy reasons. Since Ishmailer edited while logged out during the time that is relevant to the issue they're reporting here, I'm listing the three edit summaries that Mr rnddude used while reverting Ishmailer's edits on Liberland with the IP information redacted as to make any relevant information available for scrutiny in this ANI report:

• (diff) 01:40, 6 November 2018 Mr rnddude (Reverted edits by IP ADDRESS (talk) to last version by Mr rnddude) (Tag: Rollback)
• (diff) 01:37, 6 November 2018 Mr rnddude (Reverted edits by IP ADDRESS (talk) to last version by Mr rnddude) (Tag: Rollback)
• (diff) 01:35, 6 November 2018 Mr rnddude (Undid revision 867488442 by IP ADDRESS (talk) Rvv) (Tag: Undo)

Please let me know if anyone has any questions about this and I'll be happy to answer them so long as they don't make any private or redacted information public. Regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

That is a lot of overdramatic statements in one post Ishmailer. You might want to take a few deep breaths and have some coffee for you seem very worked up over a little editing. Legacypac (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not that Legacypac. A short time ago I got carried away in an edit war with Thomas.W and had quit my session when all along I was being reported and then I found myself blocked. Yet he was the one with the audacity to report me, and whilst I was in the editing wilderness, he expeditiously reverted me thus breaching 3rr himself. I reported it when my block was lifted but it was dismissed because we were "out of time". Now this is the second time an editor has breached policy over the same issue and I am rapidly concluding that rules don't mean anything when veteran editors with gold-plated reputations violate them, but only when those viewed as less favourable to the cartel overstep the terms. But thanks for your well-meaning sentiments. It's very kind. --Ishmailer (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Summary: Mr rnddude used Rollback in good faith once, and then used it again either in good faith or in the heat of the moment. The OP is advised to avoid editing logged out, particularly to edit war. The end. Are we done here, or does the OP need a boomerang for socking as an IP to edit-war? Softlavender (talk) 03:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Unsourced POV-pushing by User:Arbaz khan Tanoli

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

---

Arbaz khan Tanoli (talk · contribs) is of the strong opinion that the Tanoli are Pashtuns. He created POV forks like Tanoli (pashtun) . Practically every edit in articlespace either emphasizes that the Tanoli are Pashtuns (without sources) or sings the glory of the Tanoli, either as a tribe or by highlighting individuals (again without sources). Examples are Tanoli, Kangra (Khyber Pakhtunkwa), Amb (princely state), Nawabzada Salahuddin Saeed. In the last few days there are also a bunch of IP edits that likely are Arbaz khan Tanoli editing without logging in, e.g. from 103.255.7.16; the pattern is the same. I have tried to explain the issue here; I don't think I succeeded. There are multiple messages by others left on Arbaz khan Tanoli's user talk page; most haven't been acknowledged, and when there was a reply it didn't show any understanding of the problems. Most of the content Arbaz khan Tanoli is removing or modifying wasn't sourced either, so for all I know he might even be right, but repeated additions of unsourced content and POV-pushing is not acceptable. Given the lack of communication and WP:CIR issues, a block may be necessary to stop further disruption. I have by now become involved in the content issues, so I don't want to do it myself. Huon (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done, user blocked indef and advised to post an unblock request detailing how they are going to edit if they get unblocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Recruiting, COI accusation and intimidation by User:R3ap3R

Evidence suggests that R3ap3R (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edited Gab (social network) in response to a recruiting/canvasing effort from the entity in question.

This user added obvious marketing claims [268] to the first sentense ("that focuses on freedom of speech without censorship") despite the same content is already covered in lead with a neutral tone ("purported itself as an "alternative of Twitter" and "champions free speech""). The user then drive-by flagged [269] the page with COI, POV and tone templates, without providing any explanation on article talk page, as required by the Template:COI. The user has not contributed anything to the article or talk page previously, and has not been active in recent 2 months. When I reverted his edit and provided my reasoning, the user threated me with 3RR report and said "take it to ArbCom if you have a problem" which I perceive as an act of intimidation, and refusal to discuss with other editors to reach consensus. [270]

The user then added Template:Uw-tdel1 and Template:Uw-tdel3 to my talk page. [271] Replying to my question, the user used "been here for over 9 years" hinting they have more authority or ownership to edit the page, and again said "Any further issues with my edits should be addressed to ArbCom", intimidating that I should not change or question their edits. The user has not replied to my further questions. User talk:Tsumikiria#November 2018

The user seems to have a history in drive-by flagging controversial articles they don't like, accusing other editors of COI and intimidating other editors to go to ArbCom from questioning their edits: [272] [273] Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive151#User:R3ap3R.inc reported by User:C.Fred (Result: 48h)

Tsumikiria (T/C) 02:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Except my history shows no evidence of ArbCom, no COI, a left-leaning POV bias when not cherry picked out of hundreds of old edits, and the accuser removed valid maintenance tags without making any changes. The article in question clearly doesn't meet POV standards, that simple, and an edit war with accuser hitting 3RR wouldn't go anywhere. Also, "drive by" is called being an RCP. 03:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by R3ap3R (talk • contribs)

Can you explain why you keep suggesting people should take stuff to WP:arbcom? Arbcom is generally the absolutely last resort when the community has been unable to deal with a problem. (There are exceptions like de-admining which only arbcom can deal with.) I see absolutely no reason why any behavioural issues that may exist with your edits will need to be taken to arbcom. They could be dealt with at ANI some other appropriate noticeboard like ANEW. Ideally of course, if there are any they should be dealt with by listening to other editors long before it gets to ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 12:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by IP

42.107.200.43, 42.107.217.211, 42.111.248.139, 42.111.228.171, 42.111.228.154, 42.107.196.46, 42.107.201.249, 42.107.201.105, 42.111.18.6 - Dynamic IP editor is repeatedly performing disruptive editing on certain Malayalam film articles - Harikrishnans ([274], [275], [276], [277], [278], [279]), Mampazhakkalam ([280], [281], [282], [283], [284], [285]), Natturajavu ([286], [287]), Mr. Brahmachari ([288], [289], [290]), Poovinu Puthiya Poonthennal ([291], [292], [293]) and others (Fazil - [294], [295], MAS - [296], Hitler - [297], Kunchacko Boban - [298], [299], Oru Naal Varum - [300], Black - [301], T. A. Shahid - [302], Panchavarnathatha - [303]). Apparently, the editor is either trying to add his POV about box-office status of these films or rearrange cast and is insistent on that. Editor also seems to be a fanboy of actor Mammootty from the reordering of cast to give prominence to the actor. It has been days since this started. Requesting to please apply a range block as early as possible. Thank you. 2405:204:D28D:65D6:CC77:3DEF:52C6:CB5E (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

R.A Huston making personal attacks

User:R.A Huston was edit warring for which I opened a discussion at ANEW [304]. They have also repeatedly made personal attacks, insinuating and outright stating that anybody removing something about Liv Hewson being gay must be a homophobe.

The edit warring has stopped (only after being reported). But they have continued to make personal attacks after multiple warnings.

• A direct accusation: "stop being homophobic" [305]
• An insinuation: "I am not sure what certain users problems are with gay people, but it sure is weird." [306]
• Defending their personal attacks: "The fact that you both seem so adamant in keeping this info off their page is very strange and telling, which is my base for calling out homophobia." [307]
• Once again defending their personal attacks: "Ok, then what is the problem with putting their orientationon this article?Because I'm not seeing any rational reason, hence my "personal attack" (which wasn't at all)." [308]
• Another personal attack: "boy you are really full of yourself." [309]

The last one was after the second time I gave them a (user talk) warning for personal attacks and civility (they were also warned in edit summaries and on Talk:Liv Hewson). The first warning they removed with the edit summary "please dont" [310].

They didn't stop edit warring until after they were reported to ANEW. Perhaps they'll stop the personal attacks after I report them here. Either way, I think a block would be appropriate after all this disruption. (I'll note that they also haven't acknowledged any wrongdoing whatsoever - they stopped edit warring but have defended their actions [311]).

Thanks. --ChiveFungi (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems" — quoted from the top of this page, with the original bolding. I really don't think this disagreement qualifies. As for blocking the reported user, that won't happen. Bishonen | talk 19:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC).

• @Bishonen: My apologies, but if not ANI then where do I raise the issue of a user repeatedly making personal attacks? WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE suggests that ANI is the correct venue: "If the issue is a conduct dispute (i.e., editor behavior) ... If discussion with the editor fails to resolve the issue, you may ask an administrator to evaluate the conduct of the user. You can ask for an administrator's attention at a noticeboard such as the administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI)." Thanks. --ChiveFungi (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Well, I would try to talk out the content isse on article talk in a friendly way, then if you really think his conduct is bad, on one of your own talkpages, or else take it to dispute resolution. AN/ANI should be a last resort, and accusations of disruptiveness, personal attacks, etc, should come last of all. It's a question of psychology: would you, yourself, feel inspired to continue discussion in mutual good faith, if the other party came out with things like "I won't engage with the arguments presented by somebody who's being uncivil, and you will probably get banned."[312]? (The fact is Huston probably won't be banned, and I don't think they have been that uncivil either.) It's better to defuse tensions than exacerbate them, and actually better to cite as few policies and guidelines as possible. Reasonable persuasion is simply more effective than lobbing policy shortcuts at the other person. Once you've tried the sweet reasonableness and it doesn't work (but you may be surprised to see how often it does) — then it might be time for ANI. In my opinion. I know you have read WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE and are quoting from it "If discussion with the editor fails to resolve the issue, you may ask an administrator to evaluate the conduct of the user." And now you have asked the administrators; it's just that I don't think you've given the "discussion with the editor" enough of a chance first. Nowhere near. But if you want me to evaluate the conduct of the user now, at this early point in your communications, I evaluate it as really not very heinous. Especially since they had some provokation. Bishonen | talk 00:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC).

User: Julian mrz1999

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

---

Julian mrz1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has been consistently removing my comments on American Horror Story: Apocalypse talk page. Removal has happened approximately 3 times and only of my comments. I have restored but each time except for the most recent have they been removed.

Diffs of comment removal:

• [313]
• [314]
• [315]

I have warned the editor three separate times using the multi-level template of Editing, correcting, or deleting others' talk page comments. Each time these have been removed by the editor from their talk page and replaced with a response, so one can safely assume the editor has seen these warnings. Most recently, the editor has responded with what could be interpreted as an ad hominem and/or personal attack (diff 6).

Diffs of warnings and editors responses:

• [316]
• [317]
• [318]

Because of the editor's behaviour this may continue to happen in future, possibly to other editors other than myself.

Brocicle (talk) 10:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

This will actually not happen in the future at all. You see, i'm a college freshman who just wanted to correct a mistake on the AHS Apocalypse. This user here has been continually harassing me and bothering me for the past couple of weeks. He is beginning to annoy me and i just want him to leave me alone. I know i am never going to do this to other editors. Just please tell this editor in particular to please leave me the hell alone. Sheesh. Julian mrz1999 (talk) 5:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Please show me where I have allegedly been harassing you. Brocicle (talk) 10:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: This editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE. He has been nothing but deliberately disruptive, despite warnings, and look at his talkpage: [319]. Time for an indef. Softlavender (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

User blocked for not being here to work on the encyclopedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

You know, I wish people would be clearer in these kinds of comments. "This editor is clearly NOTHERE ... User blocked" ... Which editor is NOTHERE? Which user was blocked? Use their names, please. EEng 16:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Julian mrz1999 was blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Mine was a general plea for all threads in the future, and especially closes. EEng 19:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• @RickinBaltimore: Wait up, please. Unless I'm going gaga, there's been some biting going on here. Julian mrz1999, with his first edit, proposed a change to the plot section, with references, even. Brocicle objected to the length of the suggested addition, so Julian mrz1999 proposed something much shorter, modifying his own post - but also removed Brocicle's post objecting to the original proposal. Brocicle restored his objection; Julian pointed out he had changed his proposal. Brocicle makes a further comment objecting to Julian's removal of his first comment. The proposal was accepted and meanwhile Julian removes Brocicle's second comment. I haven't looked at when the templating started, and Julian obviously shouldn't have kept removing Brocicle's comments, but nobody welcomed him and Brocicle was being unduly truculent about what may well have started out as a misunderstanding about talk page etiquette. I'd have been a bit miffed myself had I been teh new editor, and his first few edits do demonstrate a desire to contribute to the encyclopedia—and responsiveness to an interruption. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

At the same time, they continued to remove comments on the talk page, after being told not to, and the responses were rather extreme to say the least. As with any block I give, I'm willing to unblock if they are willing to not do the edits that led to the block in the first place. I of course understand biting the new comers, but responses like on the talk page don't show me a willingness to work with others well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: In the first template warning, the welcome page was linked twice along with suggestion of looking at it, along with links to talk page guidelines. While it may not have been a specific welcome template, the links were there. It was up to the editor whether or not to read it, which I can safely assume they did not. May be the block can be reduced, that's not my decision, but if that is their response to warnings which are intended to help editors avoid further mishap then I have to agree with RickinBaltimore with their comment regarding not wanting to work well with others. Brocicle (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Yingvy, I submit that not removing other people's posts on an article's talkpage is a pretty basic concept for any internet participation, especially when notified about it three different times. I also suggest you take a look at what sits atop the user's own talkpage:

I don't give a fuck

dude get a life leave me alone

Okay asshole i don't even fucking care. All i wanted was to fix someone's obvious mistake on here. Go find a hobby or something since you're so obsessed with being the wiki police. I mean seriously, do you even fucking take your eyes off this screen? You're such a weirdo.

Leave me the fuck alone you psycho

Does that sound like a good-faith editor who is here to build an encyclopedia? Softlavender (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing from User:Vestapol

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

---

We have had a problem this last week with a number of disruptive edits from User:Vestapol. He keeps on bringing back content that has been reverted by multiple editors. I have attempted to open dialog with him on the talk page, which he has completely ignored, as well as leaving three warnings on his talk page, which he has also completely ignored.

At this point, after being told by another editor to attempt to have a dialog about his edits, and him completely ignoring any request for dialog, I think we are going to have to resort to temporarily blocking them from editing. Defendingaa (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the edits made to Alcoholics Anonymous by Vestapol have issues, and I also agree with the edit summaries left by other users when they reverted previous edits. I noticed some edits by Vestapol while patrolling recent changes, and I also felt that they injected commentary and opinionated thoughts as well as ideas and words that were absolutely not in compliance with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, and added information that appeared to me to be based off of original research. I'm going to apply temporary extended confirmed protection to the article so that the user will discuss the matter on the article's talk page as they've been repeatedly asked to do. This will hopefully resolve the issue as well as be helpful to the user and give them an opportunity to receive feedback and learn about some policies and guidelines they may not have been aware of. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Some of his contributions are positive and I hope this new user can become a productive editor. Defendingaa (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. I hope so too. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Meat problems on Indian rail station articles

A number of IPs have been adding content which appears to be a complaint about the broad-gauge rail installation causing service problems. Example. Also addition of a number of twitter links. Example. Different IPs seem to be doing different tasks.

• Bahraich railway station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Bahraich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Bahraich district (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kaiserganj (Lok Sabha constituency) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jarwal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Would someone please PP the pages? Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course, as soon as I leave this post, all activity stops... Jim1138 (talk) 12:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

It would be great if we could stop all disruptive activity so easily.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Doncram

Over the past few months Doncram (talk · contribs) has developed a one-sided vendetta against me, stemming from a dispute over the proper title of Little Falls and Dakota Depot. The discussion is mostly at Talk:Little Falls and Dakota Depot; there were precursor discussions at User talk:Mackensen#Stop with moves of railway stations.

During this discussion, Doncram challenged the maintenance deletion of Category:Northern Pacific Railway stations in Washington (state). This was a simple maintenance task, but he forced an unnecessary CfD: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 4#Category:Northern Pacific Railway stations in Washington (state), apparently out of personal spite. At the same time, he challenged the notability of an article I'd just created (Depew station (Lehigh Valley Railroad)), and left a strangely-worded message on the talk page. I left several comments; he never responded.

Anyway, that was months ago and I'd put it out of mind. He randomly turned up on my talk page earlier this month complaining about another move I'd made at the same time as all the others. Today, Doncram created Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railroad and linked it from Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad (which is why I noticed, I've had it watch-listed for years and headed up the discussion that led to its current location). I determined from reliable sources that the correct name for the new article is actually Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railway ("way" vs "road", it's a common issue), documented such on the talk page, and moved the article. I believe Doncram derived the name from the Route 66 Bridge over the Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railroad, which he also created. I made a few other changes:

• Recategorized the new article from Category:Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad to Category:Predecessors of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad, as the company merged into the parent in 1948. This is a common practice and how this category scheme works.
• Corrected the name of the company in Route 66 Bridge over the Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railroad, and left an explanatory note that the names didn't match.
• Removed the NRHP banner from Talk:Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railway. I didn't see how it was relevant, and assumed Doncram copied it from Route 66 Bridge over the Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railroad and neglected to remove it. I've done that before.

I was surprised when Doncram reacted negatively to all these changes:

• He reverted the recategorization twice, first calling it "wrong" and then saying he was "removing stupidity". This last edit removed the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad categorization tree altogether.
• He reverted the explanatory note and the name change on Route 66 Bridge over the Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railroad, calling it "derogatory".
• He reinstated the NRHP banner on Talk:Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railway, while removing the WikiProject Trains banner. His last edit summary explaining this action was simply "disrespect". I do not know what he means by this.

In addition, after all this, he removed the WikiProject Trains project banner from Talk:Crescent Warehouse Historic District. I have never edited this article. Inasmuch as the article is about a property which includes former Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad buildings, the banner seems appropriate. I cannot conceive of a neutral justification for this edit; it feels like retaliation, though for what I don't know.

I reached out to Doncram on his talk page, but his response (which weirdly refers to "the other editor", as though I'm not the same person), showed no indication that he was willing to back down: User talk:Doncram#Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railway. This is clear WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, it's harming the encyclopedia, and I'd like for it to stop. Mackensen (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Umm, I created an article on a highway bridge over a railway right-of-way, and another about the railway that was missing from Wikipedia. I put in WikiProject Trains on one or both, because I thought they'd probably be thrilled or whatever, which perhaps caught Mackenson's attention and then they started. I reverted Mackenson where I perceived they were being derogatory in mainspace (my interpretation, but informed by interactions with this editor). I don't think Mackenson should be deleting WikiProject NRHP from Talk pages. If they don't change NRHP banners I won't change Trains banners, if they agree. I don't think there is anything for ANI here, unless to warn Mackenson not to follow closely and contend on new articles. --Doncram (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

If they have a content disagreement, like they want to continue to assert that a 1902 new subsidiary of an 1866 railway is in fact a predecessor of the parent, they should discuss at Talk page of the article. --Doncram (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

This illustrates perfectly the mentality I'm describing: I don't think Mackenson should be deleting WikiProject NRHP from Talk pages. If they don't change NRHP banners I won't change Trains banners, if they agree. I've added NRHP banners in the past, where appropriate. Did a good deal of NRHP categorization on Commons as well. Note that Doncram ignored almost everything I wrote (including why I noticed the new article). Mackensen (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

This kind of quid pro quo proposal by Doncram, if it was serious, is not a replacement for editing based on Wikipedia:Consensus. It's concerning. I continue below. --Bsherr (talk) 00:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, Doncram retitled this thread to "Historic sites intersection with trains-related stuff". I changed it back, because this is a dispute centered entirely around his battleground behavior. As far as I know there is no broader problem with the intersection between these two subjects, which obviously have a good deal in common. Mackensen (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding this to the discussion since it's relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram

Frankly the fact that there is another issue with Doncram in this area makes me wonder if the topic ban should have stayed in place. --Tarage (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I think a complete topic ban would be the wrong approach. Doncram is one of the most productive editors in the NRHP Project, and the project would be worse if he could not continue to contribute. We need to find a way to curb his (occasional) BATTLEGROUND behavior, while at the same time encouraging his productive involvement. Perhaps a one revert limit? Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Yikes, yet another incident of Doncram being disruptive for absolutely no reason. The fact that he is a skilled content creator does not excuse his behavior whatsoever. His bizarre obsession with preserving certain names for no apparent reason - including NRHP names, which are widely known to be unofficial and often inaccurate - needs to be curtailed. I think two rules would suffice:

• 0RR for Mackensen's edits, given his demonstrated one-sided antipathy and history of attacking other editors
• No interfering with railroad-related maintenance and cleanup, including moving articles to names that match WP:USSTATION and other relevant guidelines, or perhaps a topic ban from railroad-related articles period. There are plenty of non-railroad-related NRHP articles out there.

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the relevant edits, I see Mackensen's use of the talk pages to try to discuss, but no use by Doncram. @Doncram: why wouldn't you have discussed any of these disputes on the talk page, or joined the discussion Mackensen initiated? An editor with an intransigence about discussing on the talk page to arrive at consensus ought to expect the possibility of XRR-type sanctions.

This cuts both ways, as I think Mackenson should Wikipedia:Assume good faith of Doncram's removal of WikiProject Trains project banner from Talk:Crescent Warehouse Historic District and revert and discuss on the talk page. Though I understand that this may have seemed futile after what had already occurred. --Bsherr (talk) 00:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bsherr:, your point is well-taken, but it's difficult to assume good faith in this specific instance given the behavior at the time and past patterns. I didn't want to take further actions which would exacerbate the situation, which is why I brought the matter here for review by external parties. Mackensen (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Bsherr, I have in fact opened numerous Talk page discussions, including:

• User talk:Mackensen#disaster with respect to Soo Line Depot disambiguation (2 August)
• User talk:Mackensen#Stop with moves of railway stations (2 August), which involved
• Talk:Little Falls and Dakota Depot#article name/move (3 August), in which Mackensen does not answer but makes an odd statement which in my view miscounts and mischaracterizes previous discussion, as if it justifies dismissing what I had to say.
• Talk:Depew station (Lehigh Valley Railroad) (9 August) I see no justification for Mackensen complaining about that, or any other discussion I opened, in their opening this ANI.
• User talk:Mackensen#Stop with moves of railway stations (2) (27 September), which IMO was quite reasonable and clear, yet Mackensen does not reply at all, instead leaving stand a blithe dismissal by Cuchullain that "Mackensen’s moves have all been perfectly kosher according to consensus and the guidelines", with no engagement at all about the general principle that disputed moves should not be inflicted.
• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)/Archive 4#Status as "guideline" disputed. By what authority is this labelled a "guideline"?, in which I feel I was harassed unfairly, with false accusation and threat by Pi.1415926535: "Domcram, drop the stick. You are acting in an incredibly hostile manner and making wildly baseless accusations. I'm about ready to seek a a topic ban from you and railroad stations because you're taking such a narrow-minded view of naming and creating chaos while you do it." Which they seek to accomplish, more or less, in this ANI.

My experience from repeated attempts to engage about the issues, is that others mostly would just badger, verging on bullying. Upon re-reading the discussions, I think it is possible that later my memory was somewhat blurred and I did not distinguish between Mackensen's direct statements vs. the more incivil statements by others, in informing how I responded to Mackensen's later edits. However Mackensen condoned the more incivil statements, or at least did not disavow them. About the incivil statements, I mostly did not do anything much directly, i just took the hits, like probably an administrator should (i am not an admin; Mackensen and Cuchullain are). And then, when I respond a tad strongly to Mackensen's later edits but acceeded to their request to pause at the articles, I feel they should have just taken a minor hit from my reply to them at my Talk page, and responded to what I said, instead of running here unnecessarily. --Doncram (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Chiming in (much to the consternation of the apologists) that this is not the first time that Doncram's actions with respect to National Register of Historic Places related content has landed them in the hot seat to the point of Blocks, NRHP Community bans, and many other sanctions. I posit that Doncram's repeated caustic brushes with other editors does not outweight benefit that they provide, nor should they (WP:VESTED). I therefore vote a '0RR restriction with respect to Wikiproject Trains, and a 4IM warning against caustic editing with immediate block for infractions. Doncram has been reminded previously about disruptively changing other projects banners over the objections of editors who can judge context. Hasteur (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support Hasteur's proposal. The contrast between Mackensen's studied courtesy and Doncram's conduct is painful. I daresay a different editor would have brought this here far earlier, and made a bigger scene. In any case, the parallels with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram are troubling. AGK ■ 22:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• I think Hasteur's memory is faulty about disagreement back in 2012 or so. I think they refer to my objecting, back then, to editors not at all associated with Articles For Creation changing the AFC editors' "Start" ratings on new articles I had created, based on AFC standards. My objecting was justified. There was also disagreement within WikiProject NRHP about how "Start" vs. "Stub" should best be defined, which led to a consensus against my preference, which I have abided with forever. Ever since in fact I always use "Stub" rating on my own articles and I simply avoid ratings. I do object to "outside" editors from changing a WikiProject's banners against its own members' wishes, then and now. It was a mistake, which I apologize for below, for me to temporarily try out a "tit-for-tat" tactic in removing Trains banner after their editor removed NRHP banner, but I lost that anyhow because a Trains editor continued after I stopped.
• About studied courtesy, I frankly think I very much provided that in my interactions with Mackensen, besides in one brief spat, in which I think the worst thing was that i used the words "wrong" and "stupid" to describe the incorrect categorizing of a railway, imposed into a new article I had just created. I am sorry if those words stung too much at the time, for an administrator to simply let that go by, but really a lot worse is said at ANI and Talk pages and in edit summaries every day by a whole lot of editors, including swear words and including phrases directed personally at other editors. --Doncram (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Doncram and I have disagreed many times and he can be persistent, but he shouldn't be subject to zero revert restrictions on undiscussed page moves when the problem here is not one-sided. This is part of a larger clash between train people, who often see names in a cookie cutter fashion and NRHP people, who tend to look at the scope of history for a particular location, including the present name. Both have their places and there needs to be more discussion on talk pages, not just moving articles. Jonathunder (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No, the problem is the exact inverse. Doncram is attempting to enforce the NRHP names no matter how incorrect or ridiculous they are, and he completely ignores their actual use as railroad stations when considering naming, while the railroad-related editors seem to better understand the scope of history. It's also clear that most of Doncram's move-reverts are not based on any actual evidence that the NRHP names qualify as the COMMONNAME (and common names are specifically listed in USSTATION), but based on unjustified antipathy to a small number of editors. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I absolutely do not "attempt to enforce the NRHP names" as projected. See Talk:Little Falls and Dakota Depot#article name/move in which I provide balanced discussion about sources, and even lean to support a different-than-the-NRHP name which was supported by sources. --Doncram (talk) 04:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Jonathunder: I'm sad to see this issue reduced to train people...and NRHP people; it's reductionist and inaccurate. I would note that in this instance I was editing an article to add the context that the name of the bridge differed from the name of the company it was supposedly named after, and was reverted by Doncram. I agree with you that there needs to be more discussion on talk pages, and I wish Doncram would use them, instead of attacking people in edit summaries (such as here, also linked in my original statement). It's difficult to work collaboratively when one particular editor is so (in my view) needlessly obstructive. There's his behavior over the Northern Pacific category, which you don't address, unless that's your idea of someone being "persistent". The other CfD participants took a less charitable view. If you think his behavior in these matters is acceptable, then we part ways there. If not, how do you propose we move forward? Best, Mackensen (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Right, again, I am sorry i used strong statement "remove stupidity" in that edit summary. At the CFD, I did not even "vote", i just explained why I had concern about a Speedy Deletion request, and expressed that I hoped others more knowledgeable about category naming would consider the situation and do the right thing, content-wise. That is not reason to open an ANI proceeding. --Doncram (talk) 04:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• • Noting to @Jonathunder: that 0RR is not the death penalty that they are moaning about. 0RR only requires Doncram to secure a consensus through discussion prior to reverting a Trains related item. It does not restrict their NRHP activities. I would also note that remedies from Doncram's previous brush with arbitration have been suspended or revoked by motion (with one case recently having passed the sunset provision). Hasteur (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm neither an "NRHP person" nor a "train person" but I've worked on articles relevant to both. I don't see much issue from the vast majority of people on either side, the current issue is certainly one-sided.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

That would be perfectly fine by me if there is not in fact a cabal of obsessed editors. I myself have created and improved lots of trains-related articles, including adding Wikiproject Trains banner routinely, including by my (almost completely singlehandedly) taking on a reworking of List of railway roundhouses, with creating of a number of articles and with supporting discussion at wt:NRHP#Railway roundhouses.

I don't know what "the current issue is certainly one-sided" is supposed to mean. The one proper discussion was a requested move where the name used in sources, rather than a made-up name, was supported. --Doncram (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support Hasteur's remedy. I've only encountered Doncram recently but the battleground mentality Mackensen describes is fully evident. When he sticks to the talk page rather than edit warring, as here, the issues can be worked around, and his point of view can be discussed and accommodated. However, when it comes to edit warring and obstructing uncontroversial changes, something needs to be done. The 0RR restriction will keep the dispute on the talk pages where it belongs.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Let me explain a bit and apologize somewhat here.

I cumulatively got a bit frustrated and perhaps angry over others' editing, including about unjustified dismissals of National Register documents as sources, and including collective behavior that seemed like unjustifiable attempts to intimidate me for my views, in several discussions with Mackensen and what seems to be a group of other train stations editors at Talk pages. The discussions establish a deep disagreement, between train station editors asserting that their preferred names for stations should be used, based on their having produced a guideline allowing them to do that, vs. myself asserting that sources must be used and defending the use of NRHP documents as sources. It is hard to be completely polite because the content disagreement is so fundamental (in my view it is about whether coverage should be encyclopedic or not encyclopedic at all), and the quality of listening/discussion was in my view horribly poor.

Some time later, unrelatedly, I happened to develop some new articles, and encountered what seemed to me to be obtuse and inappropriate editing consistent with the bullying type behavior, and I edited fast and furiously briefly. Mackensen posted to my Talk page at 22:03, 29 October 2018, suggesting that I pause, and i immediately did, completely. I have not edited at any of those articles since that moment, even though other(s) have, since, including someone again removing the WikiProject NRHP banner, perhaps to goad me. I replied to Mackensen at my Talk page, still a bit irked, challenging them about the use of a category which seemed simply wrong to me, and I expected that there would be some discussion. I was surprised and irked to see Mackensen open this, which is not conducive to discussion of the actual content disagreements, and which seemed consistent with the bullying type behavior, instead. It would be extraordinarily convenient to train station editors to shut me down entirely, as my views directly challenge their own. I have expressed that I think the wp:USSTATION guideline should be cancelled or heavily modified, and that the train station editors should be enjoined against making any further moves, and I (and them too probably) expected to get around to opening a big RFC. I perceive that editors highly invested in the naming issue consider my stance to be a real threat on some fundamental level.

About use of Talk pages, I highly endorse that, and do use Talk pages politely and extensively all the time, and I seek to understand others' views rather than dismiss them. In the brief episode that Mackensen posted about to my Talk page, I was impatient and did not. I apologize for that. I think I had in mind that a little bit of tit-for-tat was justified, about removal of Wikiproject banners, as a matter of responding on same low level as I perceived others' actions to be, which is silly. In general, I don't have any settled view about when and where tit-for-tat treatment is justified or works in Wikipedia processes (although there is considerable academic literature supporting tit-for-tat treatment as often being appropriate/effective). Probably going high is usually better, and I did not try to sort out a better way at the time, during the brief episode. I think now that I miss-perceived Mackensen's willingness to act reasonably, and I apologize for underestimating them.

I'll comment more later. --Doncram (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

including collective behavior that seemed like unjustifiable attempts to intimidate me for my views, in several discussions with Mackensen and what seems to be a group of other train stations editors at Talk pages Here abouts, that's called a consensus (especially in light of an invading external brigade). I could be wrong, but aren't almost all of these primarily Train entities first and NRHP entities secondary (i.e. If there was no train, the NRHP nomination wouldn't exist), therefore it would be prudent to yield to the primary specialty's naming convention when there's disagreement. I edited fast and furiously briefly by that you mean WP:FAIT? The way to suggest a guideline be changed or modified is to challenge it at the talk page of the guideline, not to wage a "The guideline does not reflect the practice" campaign. I refer you to WP:NOTTHEM as again you've pointed out others perceived misbehavior as a shield for your own. Having been a significant editor it's expected for you to nearly always take the high road. Hasteur (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Not fair. There is apparently a local consensus at Mackensen's Talk page, and at wp:USSTATION, not surprisingly. I don't think there is any general consensus, i.e. I think that general consideration of the issue, based on fundamental principles of Wikipedia, will come down against the recent practice of editors merely invoking wp:USSTATION as justifying moves to names not supported in any sources. (Note the wording of USSTATION in fact allows for sources to be used, but practice has been different). The one relatively neutral forum where the topic was discussed properly is the move discussion, which went in favor of NRHP name rather than the name which i perceive to be simply made up. And it would be very unfair to paint me as knee-jerk in some way about NRHP names or the quality of NRHP documents (which often includes excellent sourcing and justification for names, but do vary in quality). I have been very clear about the limitations of them. On the other hand, there have been completely unjustifiable dismissals of NRHP documents, to the extent of asserting that because the NRHP document justifies a name for a place, that name must be ruled out. There has been extreme "I didn't hear that" and "I don't like it" type voting/assertions.

It is unfair, here, to invoke wp:NOTTHEM "Do not complain about other people" automatically, because I speak of others here. There is no way to win in an ANI section named against one editor, it is automatically a vendetta against the one. And every critic is violating the dictum.

That is unfair also to assert I was trying to subvert the guideline about naming of train stations or any other guideline. I created an article about a road bridge over a railway right-of-way, and I created the missing article about the railway. In the railway article I immediately, up front acknowledged existence of two names for the railway (one using "Railroad" coming from the NRHP document and one using "Railway" coming from a Texas handbook online source which I identified, for what is in fact was a new subsidiary, i believe a 100% owned subsidiary, of a "Railroad"). I objected to the insertion of negativity, in the mainspace article, about the NRHP, i.e. an unnecessary and deprecating statement saying the NRHP is wrong, when the "Railroad" term is in fact a common name that has been used. I also objected to another editor removing the NRHP wikiproject banner that I had put in. And I objected to the addition/modification of a category to assert that the new subsidiary was a parent of its parent.

I did exactly what you ask for, raising a challenge at the Talk page of the wp:USSTATION guideline, in which I pointed out the guideline was drafted by Mackensen and promoted by Cuchullain in 2014. It has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)/Archive 4#Status as "guideline" disputed. By what authority is this labelled a "guideline"?. It was not at all resolved and should not have been archived, IMHO, but a bot did the archiving. I also commented at ongoing Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Irish stations) in opposition to extension of the guideline. I am not at all asserting that I and others have achieved a different consensus than the local one. It would/will require bigger discussion involving more editors to rollback the moves already done. However, I do think that the objection stated by me and another editor at User talk:Mackensen, plus the wp:RM which was concluded, should have put them on clear enough notice that they should not make further moves without use of wp:RM, which they proceeded to do anyhow. Mackensen has been an administrator forever, and should know to abide by the imperative to not make disputed moves of long-stable articles. --Doncram (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Your refusal to understand consensus is astounding. The discussion was archived because it was explained to you exactly why the guideline is agreed on, and you refused to acknowledge it because it doesn't agree with what you have decided names have to be. Your bizarre conspiracy theory that Mackensen and Cúchullain are somehow in violation of policy for taking normal administrative actions is precisely why 0RR and/or topic ban is necessary to stop your combative disruption. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

What??? A bot archived the discussion. I call for sources to be used, per policy, in naming of articles. I have no conspiracy theory; I don't believe that Mackensen or Cuchullain took any administrative actions at all. I do perceive that you, Pi.1415926535, wish to shut me up, where i disagree in proper discussions about use of names not supported by any sources vs. names supported by sources. --Doncram (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

If this were just about talk page disputes, even heated ones, we wouldn't be here. This is about Doncram's battleground mentality and habit of edit warring. There's no excuse for that, and their comments here don't suggest the problem will go away without remedy. Hasteur's suggestion wouldn't do anything to "shut down" Doncram's views, it would only make them to use the talk page to gain consensus before unilaterally reverting.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I said already I am sorry that, between 21:09, 29 October 2018‎ (when Mackensen arrived at the new article I had created an hour earlier) and 22:01, 29 October 2018‎ (my last edit there) that I twice deleted the category added by Mackensen, which I believe is incorrect and misleading. Note they twice added the category, changing the article from its good correct state, without securing consenus, i.e. unilaterally reverting my work. Note they moved the article from "Railroad" to "Railway" name without any discussion, and I didn't complain, then or later, i.e. they unilaterally reverted my work. I am also sorry that Mackensen opened this ANI proceeding at 23:02, 29 October 2018, instead of noting that I had complied with their request to my Talk page, and not involved others unnecessarily. They stated "This gives me no pleasure" to open this ANI. Does it give pleasure to anyone else? I certainly experience this as hurtful.

To put it politely, there does exist structural/built-in disagreement between two groups of editors. Repetition of the term "one-sided" in this ANI proceeding is, I think, intended to suggest that I am the only editor with the position that use of sources and regular encyclopedic practices matter, as opposed to a group of editors which has obtained privilege to do what it wants in article naming, including interpreting their guideline to mean what it does not say. "One-sidedness" is not borne out in the one proper wp:RM discussion which has happened and was closed by an uninvolved party, Talk:Little Falls and Dakota Depot#Requested move 3 August 2018, where multiple editors settle on a different name than the made-up name. There is not edit warring going on. It is a stretch to say my two removals of a category was edit warring; it was my strong view that the category was completely wrong. One is allowed to remove completely wrong stuff, like it is okay to remove vandalism, and in fact I rather think it would be appropriate now for me or anyone else to remove the category, as being challenged information, not supported by any source calling the new railway a "predecessor" of its parent. It sure would be convenient to one group of editors to be given control, though, so that the other editors cannot edit anything unless they obtain agreement at a Talk page.

Back to the railway new article, neither Mackensen nor I discussed anything at its Talk page until 02:49, 3 November 2018, when Mackensen commented there, about when they re-added the disputed category, without securing any consensus. I replied there yesterday, and no one else has commented. It would be helpful perhaps if editors here could see their way to commenting in the actual content disagreement there, whether to use a category asserting a child is parent of its own parent, or not. It could go either way. --Doncram (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Doncram, you've edit warred repeatedly over this stuff. At Bristol station (Virginia), you repeatedly reverted edits by three different editors to restore an objectively poorly supported, ambiguous name. This goes back years, and it needs to stop. And yet you obfuscate the real issue by trying to make it a philosophical content dispute instead of a case of you edit warring and displaying battleground behavior.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is bullshit. At Talk:Bristol station (Virginia)#Article name and lede text asserting name, I opened discussion and comment about the usage in sources, on 27 September 2018. This is textbook-correct usage of a Talk page. I did and do object to editors putting stuff into the mainspace text (setting aside the article naming) stuff which is not supported in any sources and which is contradicted by sources. And the quality of response is exemplified by another editor participating here, who blithely asserted "USSTATION is a widely accepted and used guideline, and your efforts to undermine it - which have been clearly based in bad faith and poor udnerstanding from the beginning - are not appreciated." That sucks, in terms of quality of discourse about content. Cuchullain, your argument there amounts merely to assertion that you prefer your made-up name, i.e. there are different names used in sources "so it seems like the best bet is to default to the WP:USSTATION version as a descriptive title." I don't agree; the different proper noun names used in sources are candidates for the best name for the article, and all the proper noun names can be stated as alternative names in the lede. At that article, I was outnumbered by a local consensus. It was asserted that my edits in the text were "vandalism", which is bullshit. I don't know exactly what to do now about the incorrect, unsupported text in the article. I expect that a proper wp:RM and/or a proper RFC, which attracts wider attention from editors not invested in the USSTATION's assertion of privilege, will go differently about the naming. This is a content disagreement. This is not a matter for ANI, unless as a case study about a group of editors pressing for advantage in a content disagreement.

Actually I did try moving that article, which Cuchullain reverted. Actually perhaps Cuchullain did use administrative power in a content dispute, in order to do that. Also I corrected article content in this edit: restore lede statement of name of place, as used in sources. It is not acceptable to put factually disputed statements into mainspace, without support. Use Talk page. "Bristol station" is disputed. And that was reverted by this edit with edit summary "standard format per RfC. "Bristol Railroad Station" is not used outside NRHP documents, which are known not to use official names". This is another example of unjustified blithe dismissal of available documents. I dispute that NRHP documents are "known" to be bad. --Doncram (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Anyhow, that was back in September 27, and it was part of determining that there is a widespread/bigger problem, involving entrenched position/editors. So on that date I followed Hasteur's recommended approach of opening discussion at the USSTATION talk page, at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)/Archive 4#Status as "guideline" disputed. By what authority is this labelled a "guideline"?. There is not edit warring going on. This ANI, instead, is about less than one hour on October 29 during which I twice reverted addition of erroneous information to a new article I had created. For which I apologized, at least for the curtness of my dismissal using words "wrong" and "stupid". And the erroneous information was returned to the article, and is still there, to boot. Great. --Doncram (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

More excuse-making. You haven't once acknowledged the real problem and tried to correct it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

By erroneous information I believe he means the correct, legal name of the Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railway. Doncram's responses at Talk:Route 66 Bridge over the Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railroad#Explanatory note continue to demonstrate battleground behavior even now and an unwillingness to acknowledge that reliable sources undermine his position. I'm particularly astounded by the idea that stray mentions in a Texas newspaper could establish a common name for a railroad. Mackensen (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Nope, I didn't mean that. As I stated clearly at the Talk page of the railway article, I see there are two valid alternate names for the railway, and I point out that in my creation of the article I put in the Texas historic dictionary source which uses the "Railway" name vs. "Railroad" name, and I right away set up redirect from one name to the other. I granted that the "Railway" name might be more official, and I did not dispute or even complain about Mackensen's unilateral move of the article without discussion. At the Talk page of the highway bridge article, I note that I consider it wrong for disparaging comment about the NRHP as a source to be put into mainspace. It has been spewed in multiple discussions now that some editors dismiss the NRHP documents automatically as wrong about anything and everything, which itself is wrong when you don't provide any alternative source. Dismissing sources is useful when you want to impose a private official system of naming, set up by USSTATION, not supported by any official source, into article naming and what is written in the articles. It is inappropriate for mainspace to reflect that private agenda with disparaging comments about the National Register. I explain well enough at the Talk page of the highway bridge article, why not discuss there instead of at ANI? About the railway name, I'm frankly "astounded" by Mackensen's assertion that Texas newspapers' usage could never establish what is common usage for naming of a Texas railway. That is raising an extremely hypothetical content issue at ANI, about what Texas newspapers might say. The disputed information put into mainspace is the assertion, by use of category, that the 1902 Texas subsidiary created by the 1866-founded national railway, is the "predecessor" of its own parent company. I explain my view at the Talk page of the railway article, why not discuss it there instead of at ANI?

I am cumulatively discouraged by repeated misunderstandings and/or willful misrepresentations of what I have said and done. --Doncram (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

User continually recreating deleted pages

Fwaig This user continually recreates pages which were deleted through AfD. I have told them not to before here. They have recreated Street Profits, Angelo Dawkins and Montez Ford so many times they were all WP:SALTed. Now to get around that they have created Street Profits (tag team), Angelo Dawkins (wrestler), and Montez Ford (wrestler). I request a block of this user to stop this disruptive editing, and under WP:GS/PW. Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 17:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Galatz, you were supposed to notify Fwaig of this conversation. But you didn't so I placed a notice on their user talk pages for you. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

You are correct, I pinged them so I didnt, but I probably should have. They already saw it since they commented on my talk page about it. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Occassionally, IPs are helpfull. ;-) 209.152.44.201 (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I've applied a G4 speedy to all three pages. Legacypac (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

There were AFD tags at the top of the articles. — Moe Epsilon 00:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

That matters not. We routinely speedy tag with appropriate tags to save pointless discussions. Legacypac (talk) 04:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted them all as G4. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Report of Intractable Behaviour over Article Content

I am writing to detail the hostile and intractable actions of @Ryanoo: against me on my user "talk" page, theirs and the talk page of Wikipedia's English "North Africa" article.

After editing the article, I did my best to include my reasons regarding to why I thought it was appropriate and added what Wikipedia defines as verifiable sources to support my doing so. The introduction to the page was a quote from an academic journal on what formed the Sahara and geographically related Sahel, who contributed in suggesting its boundaries (Arab geographers, European naturalist explorers) and how it all came together. After consistently reverting my edits with no verifiable sourcing to justify them doing so (they cited a governmental website of the United States, an online dictionary) they visited my page to add a sockpuppet warning accusing me of being a banned user "Middayexpress" and 3 block warnings with no proof or justification simply because we had differences on the topic of North Africa. I did try to at least explain why their sources were not verifiable besides Wiki's reasoning, explaining that all the organizations Ryanoo listed were interested in geopolitical lines and not the physical or historical geography of North Africa. I also asked that they provide verifiable ones to provide them a chance but every source did not meet Wiki's standards. A user @Roxy the dog: attempted to arbitrate between us on the article's talk page and both our user pages but they continued to insult, taunt me with blocking and accusations of vandalism. I also emailed Wikipedia on this topic and an admin Ron Jones was kind enough to provide suggested steps to take in a situation like this. I read over them and noticed that I had done most of the steps already as I genuinely wanted to engage in good faith discussion. So, I am escalating the situation to this admin board so someone can step in and do whatever they think is appropriate in this situation.

As I am new to Wikipedia, I'm unsure if I'm able to ask that a user be blocked from engaging with me or reverting my changes to the article with unverifiable sources but it is my opinion that this would solve the issue. I feel uncomfortable personally reverting the page back to my own changes as I do not want to violate the 3 revet policy. Below I will list diffs to the best of my coding ability for the use of the administrators here. I also would like to apologize in advance for any editing errors, like I said, I'm new here!

Thank you, Itaren (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Diffs:

1: these were my additions to the article with all my verifiable citations 1a: Ryanoo's edit comment for this is: "Removed totally wrong and misleading information, trimmed the article and returned to the encyclopedic text" 1b:Here I reverted the text back to my edits with the following comment: Reverted page back to my edits that were supported by verifiable secondary sources, all either academic or historical. Edits made to this page should include citations. The version this article was reverted to had little no sourcing. User Ryanoo should provide sources in their explaination of *why* they found this academic information to be "false" and "misleading." Otherwise the article should stay as is. Kept "Arab Spring" addition (it was cited) 1c:Ryanoo then engaged in an edit war without providing sources as can be seen here. Ryanoo also left this corresponding comment: Reverted 2 edits by Itaren: Removed misleading and poorly sourced information and returned to the enclyopedic text. North Africa is a geographical region located in the Northernmost of the African continent, it is not a political or ecenomic organization which needs to be defined. The definition is clear as the name itself, It is simply North Africa. Chad, Niger, ...etc aren't North African countries and they aren't considered by anyone as so . (TW) * this in fact contradicts the article version they formerly reverted back to because the article claimed there was no single definition of "North Africa" and leads one to believe they did not check any of my citations, many of which are viewable online. These would have contextualized my reasoning for the selected map, by which, I didn't list every state highlighted on the map in the 'sovereign states / disputed territory section as North African.

2: Here's one of the things left on my user page almost immediately after one of their reverts, accusation of vandalism, block warning re: editing privileges 2a: Sock puppet accusation 2b: First taunt, block threat 2c: Second block threat, third taunting template on my page 2d: third block threat, another taunting template on my page 2e: Roxy the dog attempts to intervene

3: Ryanoo is warned by Roxy and myself but does not change their behaviour

4: Proof I tried to discuss the content dispute on the article at its talk page, the next diff will show how the conversation went 4a: uncivil discussion

5: I warn them on their user page not to be so hostile and tell them not to disturb my page further 5a: User Roxy intervenes again, they do not express any willingness to change, I notify them that I'm bringing their actions to the attention of Wikipedia Administration 5b:Ryanoo suspiciously removes my notice from their user talk page

There is some discussion of this at User talk:Ryanoo including Ryanoo receiving an NPA warning. Ryanoo in turn claims Itaren is a sock of Middayexpress, a banned user who Ryanoo has been battling for a while. I haven't looked into it and don't have a view about it. Itaren's diff templates aren't working properly but Ryanoo's big revert with the hostile edit summary is here. Ryanoo hasn't yet opened an SPI but supposedly intends to do so. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@173.228.123.166: Thanks for your input. I see someone was kind enough to fix the diffs so they should be working now. Also, you may be able to see what they've done to my user page here and here. As a side note, would I be justified in reverting the page back to my changes now (despite the 3 revert rule, only got to that number because of Ryanoo's disruptions and hostility) or would it be best to wait and see how the admins address the incident? Thanks again. Itaren (talk) 09:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I think you and Ryanoo should both not revert or edit the page for now, until your SPI resolves one way or the other, and Ryanoo's other post is examined. He is editing more calmly now on his talk page, which is always a good thing. I haven't looked at the surrounding issues enough to weigh in on them. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Puritans???

-EEng

I'm usually the guy that gets pinged when middayexpress socks are suspected to editing; while i can not confirm anything here I will say that I find no puritans in this disagreement. This came here way too quickly, and I see no attempts be either editor to assume good faith. I say let it ride and we will see where the chips fall down the line. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Correction: I now find one puritan in this disagreement. A Massachusetts puritan, apparently. And one who takes a strong, firm stand on these matters. I also see what appears to be some sort of rule book being carried firmly into this disagreement, which will hopefully help us resolve this matter quickly :) TomStar81 (Talk) 08:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

An alarming tag

-EEng

Hi @TomStar81: and thank you for weighing in. The reason why it may appear that I didn’t assume good faith is because the user had put alarming tags on my user page which you can see under “November 2018” for doing something as harmless as adding sources and clarification on an article that was lacking it. I now understand that the correct term is hounding. They opened an SPI on me using my old edits on pages they never even contributed to in justification. I became blue in the face repeating why I contributed as I did in the context of geography (physical and historical geography to be precise) and that enraged Ryanoo ... to the extent they assumed I was some former nemisis of theirs sockpuppeting from beyond a ban. The whole situation would be amusing if it weren’t so disruptive. When I tried to engage the user on the article talk page, they didn’t criticize my verifiable sources and counter the content they presented with work of the same calibre. Instead, I was met with rants. In the request for investigation they make against Arboleh below, I’m characterized as an Afrocentrist trying to hijack the history of his Egyptian ancestors for some reason? I haven’t the remotest interest in ancient Egypt on Wiki. I’m pretty confused about these accusations.

Itaren (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

In a best case scenario you've encountered a wiki-ass, we've had a few and while no one like dealing with them sometimes its just a matter of denying recognition and waiting for these tarzans to find some other vine to swing on. In a worst case scenario you've encountered one the editors (or their affiliates) listed at WP:LTA, in which case this could take an ominous turn, but that's not typically the case. In this case it may be in your best interest to simply strike the colors and sail away, all the more so since doing so will let us better gauge whose having the real issues with the edits here. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Ishmailer edit-warring across several articles out of spite

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

---

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

Ishmailer has spent most of his short wiki career edit-warring on Liberland, for which he was blocked 24 hours a month ago. When the block expired he went right back to edit-warring, including edit-warring while logged out. When Dlohcierekim full protected the article to stop the edit war just now, Ishmailer went on a spiteful rampage edit-warring on the redirect to the article, and on the last article I had touched (apparently because I had made the last revert on Liberland before it was full protected). Could someone please put an end to this disruption? It is becoming more and more apparent that the editor is here for disruption rather than to collaboratively build an encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 12:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

When Softlavender and his ignoramus acolyte Thomas.W quit their involvement on Liberland, a subject on which they collectively know zilch, Wikipedia will once more become a positive constructive place. Elsewhere I have self-reverted. --Ishmailer (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked for a week due to the personal attack. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Good block, I was still filling out the paperwork for AN/I. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 12:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Need more eyes at Rent regulation – the topic involving a big money political battle

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

---

The silly season of political fights is upon us, and the article about rent regulation is under fire. California is voting to determine whether local municipalities can enact their own flavor of rent control laws, or whether the whole state must follow the same guideline. A ton of real estate money has been spent to fight something called Proposition 10 which aims to return local control to cities and counties.

• "Big money pours into California’s rent-control initiative"
• "Big money already entering California rent control campaign"

Editor Avatar317 has expanded several articles to bring in text about the housing shortage in California, including California housing shortage, Plan Bay Area, San Francisco tech bus protests, San Francisco Bay Area Renters' Federation, YIMBY, Homelessness in the San Francisco Bay Area and rent regulation. All of the edits are non-neutral, bringing sources and text that promote the anti-regulation position of real estate developers. At no time does Avatar317 describe neutrally the reasons that municipalities and/or voters have historically chosen to limit rents, nor why some city planners have advocated rent control, or why it might be beneficial for a city to limit growth. It appears to me that Avatar317 is here to push a political agenda which is pro-development and anti-regulation. Binksternet (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

That's a rather biased description, don't you think? You are assuming that rent control is beneficial. Rent_regulation#Economists'_views shows several high-quality sources that don't agree with you. And the claim that municipalities and/or voters have historically chosen to limit rents is demonstrably untrue. Historically rent control measures have gone both ways - some places adopting them, some rejecting or repealing them. The latest polls in California show that 41 percent of Californians support the rent control ballot measure, 38 percent oppose it, and 21 percent remain undecided, so it could go either way. And the fact that corporations spend big money opposing laws that will hurt them financially tells us nothing about whether the laws are good or bad; they oppose what hurts them either way.

Of course none of the above implies that either Avatar317 or Binksternet are violating NPOV in this area. For ANI to determine that, someone will have to post actual evidence in the form of diffs. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

This really seems like a simple content dispute. This editor might be pushing an anti-regulation point of view, but that POV is supported by the vast majority of economists [320] and in California by the independent Legislative Analyst's Office [321]. Pushing a particular point of view is fine when expanding that point of view's presentation in the article is supported by its weight as presented in reliable sources.

Additionally, article history shows that this editor has never once edited Plan Bay Area, and last edited San Francisco tech bus protests in June, and Homelessness in the San Francisco Bay Area and San Francisco Bay Area Renters' Federation in July. Your accusations of POV-pushing in those articles either impossible (how can an editor POV-push in an article they've never edited?) or clearly stale. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah the Plan Bay Area accusation is really weird. Are you thinking of another editor or another article? The only thing they seem to have done at all related is create the redirect Plan Bay Area 2040 [322] but they obviously aren't the one who added the 2040 mention in the article itself [323]. (And in any case, the official websites seem to use the 2040 name so a redirect seems fair.) I do hope you didn't just find a bunch of articles in their edit history and not actually at what they actually did to those articles. Nil Einne (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IP 226/228/79

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

---

An Australian IP is making disruptive edits on India-genetics related articles:

• IP 212.95.7.228 diff
• User:212.95.7.226; diff; at Peopling of India changed

According to Reich et al. (2009), "the indigenous Andaman Islanders are unique in being ASI-related groups without ANI ancestry."

into

According to Reich et al. (2009), “the indigenous Andaman Islanders are unique in being without any ANI or ASI ancestry."

• User:213.225.38.79 diff

Warnings have been given at various talkpages diff diff diff, and @Vanamonde93, Doug Weller, and Bishonen: have been pinged at Talk:Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia#Ping. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I have made this edit, yes. Because the statement is not correct. Reich say that the andamanese are closest to other negrito people. He says that ASI are not related to any people outside of India. The andamanese have got some gene flow from ASI and that the onge are relative closer to ASI than other andamanese. He did not say that they are closely related. I am not here to make disruptive edits. Here is the source: "Gene study reveals Indian origins". www.abc.net.au. 2009-09-24. Retrieved 2018-11-07. "Different Indian groups have inherited 40% to 80% of their ancestry from a population that we call the Ancestral North Indians, who are related to western Eurasians, and the rest from the Ancestral South Indians, who are not related to any group outside India," says Harvard Medical School geneticist David Reich. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help) 213.162.68.226 (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

213.162.68.226 (talk · contribs) has been CU blocked for 30 days by another Admin. Note that I had to revert an edit by 212.95.7.228 for misrepresenting the source. Might have been incompetence of course. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

And a steward has blocked a range globally, I think this is over. I've reverted something at Ainu. I guess there might be other IPs (now blocked) who have edited. Doug Weller talk 19:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The Andaman Islands, where there is no ANI

-EEng

• the indigenous Andaman Islanders are unique in being without any ANI – Sounds like paradise. EEng 02:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Block evasion

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

---

Hey guys, I'm pretty sure Vaishak1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is actually Vaishakparamb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is a sock of Suriyaaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) evading their indef block, due to the similarity in usernames and the return to editing pages that Vaishakparamb had edited (ex: Sree Narayana College of Management Studies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Varsha Bollamma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Kanhangad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), etc). Not too familiar with dealing with block evasion/socks, so if this is better suited for SPI, feel free to trout me and I'll post over there. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 15:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

This does belong at SPI, but I could see why you would think to report it here, I've made the same mistake in the past. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

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

IP address and new account

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

---

An Omani IP 5.37.187.78 address started editing the Durand Line article was reverted by a user and by me again. Then a newly registered account reverted me back, and started adding the exact same content as the IP. The account is from Oman as well and makes edits from mobile same as the IP. This is in all probability the same person as the IP. Could be that the IP created a new account just now or that the IP and account are being socked. Please see what should be done here (the account should definitely be notified to not abusively use IP addresses). Gotitbro (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gotitbro: Please see WP:SPI. It sounds like a more appropriate venue. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 13:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Logs show that the account was created after the IP's last edit, so this is in all likelyhood the IP user deciding to register an account. There is nothing wrong with doing that. I have no opinion about the edits themselves. Reyk _YO! 13:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

5.37.187.78 and Special:Contributions/Romanov67 clearly are not parallel. So as Reyk said, this is not an issue needing admin intervention. Gotitbro please start a thread and invite the new user to a discussion on talk page. If there are no other concern about this editor, then I suggest closing this thread. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• If the IP and the account are the same person (which seems likely) they stopped editing logged out at 21:16 yesterday and created an account at 10:09 today. That's not sockpuppetry, that's just creating an account. I don't see anything else here that would warrant admin attention - there's a content dispute and it's being discussed on the article's talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
• I see, I was not sure that is why I came here. I filed an SPI after the above advice, what should I do now? Gotitbro (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
• @Ivanvector: Please close this ANI report. I agree with your statement on the SPI. Gotitbro (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Chris Troutman

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

---

I would like to file a complaint about the administrator named Chris Troutman. I have tried to make a minor change to the page for Joanne Nosuchinsky. She now works on a radio show, with a paid audience, and I wanted to mention that. Mr. Troutman has called me a vandal and a fanboy, and that I was trying to promote a podcast. None of this is true. I apologized if I made any mistake, and I posted a URL for the reference to her paid site.

This was my first time doing this, and I went in with enthusiasm. Mr. Troutman squashed that with his very rude comments, and his misinterpretation of the show and what I was trying to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveC1967 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I have full-protected the article for 12 hours, as you were both edit-warring on it without meaningful discussion. However, I think Chris troutman is more at fault as a) as an experienced editor (he's not an admin), he is supposed to know better and b) he's been warned in the past about incivility. (And, for the record, this is a good example of how you can be incivil without using the word "fuck"). So Chris, dial it back a bit, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I think Ritchie333 is wrong and I've told him so. If the consensus thinks I've been uncivil then they'll take action against me. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• I have no desire to "take action" here, but IMHO Ritchie is right, that vitriol was unnecessary. -Floquenbeam (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Academic [[324]], not really sure what all the drama was about.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Per the above, Troutman should be, erm, WP:TROUTed for being dismissive and rude towards the above user and for edit warring instead of discussing. I don't know that we need blocks yet, but an ounce of honey is worth a pound of vinegar, and educating new users involves more than simply telling them to "go back to Facebook". --Jayron32 17:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IP

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

Hi, could any admin block this IP? Single-purpose mission, adding unsubstantiated categories to articles, never bothers to respond to warnings on his talk page.[325] Every time he gets reverted, he just reinstates his edits. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• OK but this one seems legit. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I went through some of their recent edits and many do appear to be legit, although a few perhaps could use sources, and there were some edits that were rightfully reverted. I do have a question about this one: One of the categories the IP added seemd correct. Was Quli Qutb Mulk not actually an Indian of Iranian descent? The other categories and the article itself suggest that Quli Qutb Mulk is considered Indian and he is from Iran so this edit seems to be in good faith, at the very least. Runawayangel (talk) 03:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: Please allow me:

• IP in question added Category:Bahraini people of Iranian descent to Nabeel Rajab.[326] Unsourced, no mention of supposed Iranian origin/descent in the article.
• IP in question added place of death to Qutb al-Din Aibak.[327] Unsourced, no mention of supposed place of death in the article.
• IP in question added Category:Pakistani people of Iranian descent and Category:Pakistani Shia Muslims to Fateh Ali Khan (Qawwali singer).[328] Unsourced, no mention of supposed Iranian origin/descent or Shia adherence in the article. He reinstated his edit on no less than two occassions.[329]
• IP in question added Category:Pakistani people of Arab descent to Category:Abbasi family.[330] Unsourced, no mention of supposed Arab origin/descent in any of the articles within the category.
• IP in question added Category:Pakistani people of Arab descent to Category:Qureshi family.[331] Unsourced, no mention of supposed Arab origin/descent in any of the articles within the category.
• IP in question added Category:Turkic dynasties to Shah Mir dynasty.[332] Sources in the article clearly show that the origin of the dynasty is uncertain.
• IP in question added Category:Indian people of Iranian descent to Shah Jalal.[333] Unsourced, no mention of supposed Iranian origin/descent in the article.
• IP in question added Category:Pakistani Shia Muslims to Badar Miandad.[334] Unsourced, no mention of supposed adherence in the article. Reinstated the same edit a few days later.[335]

..And so forth.

Combine that (^^^^) with the fact that he 1) never bothers to respond to warnings[336] 2) never writes edit summaries 3) is willing to edit-war over his edits,[337]-[338] and you've got yourself a disruptive IP methinks. He has made a few good edits here and there, but his overal editorial pattern is very much WP:TENDENTIOUS I'm afraid (and time consuming as others have to clean up his mess). - LouisAragon (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Mino348 has issues with copyright

Mino348 (talk · contribs) has continued to upload copyrighted images without proper licensing information since I made a report here about the behavior and it was archived. They show no signs of being aware that their actions are a problem, despite a proliferation of bot messages on their talk page. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Mino348 has made precisely zero edits to the User talk or article Talk namespaces; clearly, the many concerns raised do not seem to have been addressed. I am inclined to block Mino348 until they acknowledge the issue and explain what they are going to do differently, any objections? Fish+Karate 14:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

And Ritchie333 has just indefinitely blocked them at the same time I was writing the above, so problem solved. Fish+Karate 14:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Although a number of uploads have been kept, this has been entirely down to other editors adding appropriate fair-use rationales. This is very much a "we need to talk" block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

User:JJMC89

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

---

User:JJMC89 is making a lot of unhelpful edits and is annoying a lot of individuals. As petty as this might seem, they are undoing a lot of good work by a lot of individuals. Littlemonday (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you give me some diffs? Hhkohh (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

This appears to purely be around the fact that JJMC89's bot (correctly as far as I can see) removed a non-free image from the page Deputy Leader of the Labour Party (UK) that it didn't have a rationale to be used on, and the OP doesn't understand why. I'll grant the explanation on JMMC89's page wasn't hugely clear. Canterbury Tail talk 15:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• WP:NONFREE enforcement strikes again. It's a hard concept for new and infrequent users to grasp, a hard concept for experienced users to explain. While I don't know JJMC89's work in particular, I've noticed that in general people who tend to enforce this are often not the most patient in explaining things. Which is unfortunate. That may or may not be a problem here. Surely someone has created a semi-decent, Goldilocks-like (not too confusing, not too oversimplified, but just right) explanation we can point to? WP:NONFREE isn't easy to parse. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I guessing most people focused on this area burned out their ability to explain the issues after the first few hundred people ignoring them or blaming them for something that isn't their fault. Just a guess, but it can wear on you. zchrykng (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
    • My explanation works like this: "Unless you took the picture on your own camera, and thus own the copyright yourself, don't try to upload it. It is technically possible to do so, but you'll screw it up and someone will delete it and you'll get mad and it'll be a bad time for all. So only upload pictures you yourself have taken, on your own free time, using your own camera." If anyone wants additional instructions, I direct them to the policy page and say "If you can figure this out on your own, and want to try, feel free to, but be aware that someone will probably try to delete your picture without warning and it won't be clear why that happened." That usually works for me as an explanation. --Jayron32 15:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Hi, yes User:JJMC89's response was unhelpful and uninsiteful. If you look at their edits/the edit's of their bot you'll see this is effecting a lot of people. The issue I had was regarding the photo of Jim Griffiths, which is already on Wikipedia, I added it to a second article and it was removed. I fail to see any logical argument (or rule on this site) that prevents that. There are plenty of photos which appear on numourous articles, and the inclusion of that photo on the second page added something to the article. It's also not helpful (or polite) when someone is so dismissive of something you are trying to help with.Littlemonday (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
        • Ah, since you've given us a specific example, I can help you understand the problem. The image in the infobox at Jim Griffiths is currently a copyright photograph. Normally, we do not accept copyrighted photographs, unless the copyright own releases the image in a way that is compatible with Wikipedia's licensing. HOWEVER (and this is where people get all turned around), in a LIMITED number of situations, we can republish a copyrighted work under the guise of fair use, which among other things under U.S. copyright law, allows us to do so only when no other alternative exists, and even then we may only use it in highly restricted ways. By a combination of Wikipedia policy, Foundation-level policy, and U.S. law itself, that usually means that we can only use a single copy of such a picture in a single article, where the picture itself is illustrating the subject of the article. There are probably a few other exceptions, but in this case, the picture at Jim Griffiths can only be used to illustrate that one article. You can read more about these restrictions at WP:NFCC. --Jayron32 17:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
          • (Non-administrator comment)@Littlemonday: JJMC89 basically gave a shortened version of the same response here that Jayron32 posted directly above. Not every file you see on Wikipedia is licensed the same way, and how a file is licensed largely determines which Wikipedia policies it's subject to and, therefore, essentially how it may be used. All files are subject to Wikipedia:Image use policy, but those uploaded and licensed as non-free content are further subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy (or NFCC for short).
            The NFCC is similar to the concept of fair use, but it has been intentionally made to be much more restrictive for Wikipedia's purposes. There are ten non-free content use criteria which need to be satisfied each time a non-free file is used. You added the Griffiths image to an article, but didn't provide the separate specific non-free use rationale required by criterion 10c for that particular use to the file's page; so, it was flagged as a violation and subsequently removed by a bot and this edit sum was left. The bot did what it was supposed to do according to WP:NFCCE, and the edit sum contained links to relevant pages where more information could be found or clarification could be requested.
            You did ask for clarification at User talk:JJMC89#Jim Griffiths photo, where more links to relevant pages were provided for reference, but apparently still don't understand why the file was removed. Relevant policy does allow a non-free image of a deceased person to be uploaded per item 10 of WP:NFCI pretty much only when the image in question is being used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the individual in question; it may be possible to use such a file in other articles, but these additional uses tend to be much harder to justify and require a pretty strong contextual connection between image and relevant sourced content about the image itself in almost all cases. A list article is "Deputy Leader of the Labour Party (UK)" is basically a list of names with some short biographical information about each entry. The use of non-free images in such articles has long been considered to be something not acceptable per WP:NFLISTS. The other images used in the article are all "free images" (public domain or otherwise freely licensed), so they are not subject to the policy on non-free content use. This might partially explain why you see so many similar list articles using pictures, but which also have entries without images. You may have also come across some cases where a non-free image is being used in multiple articles, but that doesn't mean it should be being used in multiple articles or that the circumstances of each use are the same what you're discussing here.
            My suggestion to you for future reference is to first determine how a file is licensed before adding it to any articles; you can do this by clicking on the image itself. If it's an image from Commons or otherwise a "free image", then you can probably add it to any page without any problems; on the other hand, if it's licensed as non-free, then you are going to only be able to add it to articles if the way you want to use it satisfies relevant policy. If you're not sure about this, you can always ask for help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

            My suggestion to you for future reference is to first determine how a file is licensed before adding it to any articles – That's super-practical advice that editors won't have any trouble remembering to follow, even though not one in 100 times would that find a problem, so that the exercise is almost always a waste of time. An even more practical suggestion might be for the small fraction of nonfree files to carry NONFREE (or maybe FAIR_USE_ONLY) in their filenames. EEng 21:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

            This or an edit warning feels like a good way to avoid confounding editors with an unusual exception is to normal procedure. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 08:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

            Thank you, Barkeep. I'll have another Shirley Temple, please. EEng 17:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Someone is removing nonfree images with a bot? Anyone who remembers Betacommand should know that is a bad, bad idea. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

User:FairuseBot managed to remove nonfree images without trouble, at least until bugs in the Wikipedia API made it too much of a pain to keep working. --Carnildo (talk) 23:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• The above discussion distracts from the fact that this is unequivocally a frivolous and inappropriate complaint by Littlemonday. There was literally nothing rude or dismissive about JJMC89's comments to LM at User talk:JJMC89#Jim Griffiths photo. He just straightforwardly stated that the use of the image did not satisfy the NFCC, specifically explained which of the NFCC were not satisfied, and why, specifically, the image was removed. He literally just explained that there were policy violations, with links to the relevant policies. I understand that copyright policies are a nuanced concept that can be difficult to get a grasp of, but you don't immediately drag someone to AN/I because you don't understand the policies that are being cited to you. If LM actually took the time to read the policy pages that were provided to them, then JJMC's comments would have been understandable and reasonable, and if they were still confused about the concepts discussed in those policies, they could have easily asked followup questions. But instead of even making any sort of effort to collaborate reasonably, they went straight to AN/I to report JJMC for "making a lot of unhelpful edits and is annoying a lot of individuals". Unreal. Is it any wonder why these users are short on patience, Floquenbeam?  Swarm  talk  22:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Swarm Three things, first of all Hello. Secondly I asked JJMC89 to explain in plain English why he/his bot removed removed some improvements I'd made, he was unable to do that in Plain English. Others have explained it to me. I think the rules are silly, and confusing to people but rules are rules. Thirdly and finally, I 'reported' him as there are lots of users who are upset/confused by his work and he was offering no explanation and just deleting people's work. If you look a little closer you'll see plenty more people like me. Littlemonday (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Littlemonday: JJMC89 did explain things in plain English. If you didn't understand the plain English explanation, you could have sought clarification. You did not do so instead started a pointless ANI. What you did is clearly not blockable, but JJMC89 seems to have done nothing wrong instead they've correctly enforced cornerstone policy which you violated, and then provided a plain English explanation when asked. Having done nothing wrong can't be said for you. And please provide examples of where editors are upset and confused and for which no explanation was offered. In all the examples I see on their current talk page except for a very new one, someone has responded when questions were asked. Some of these may not be JJMC89 themselves, but it's often pointless to respond if someone has already said precisely what you will say or at least offered enough of an answer that what you would have said is redundant. There is a long discussion in the "#Please Discuss Your Citation to a Subjective Policy section" but while it's clear not everyone is happy, it also clear it's way too complicated a dispute to suggest no explanation was offered or that JJMC89 is at fault. If you are unable to provide evidence, IMO you should withdraw the claim or it becomes a personal attack. Nil Einne (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I've looked at User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2018/October and it's the same, actually even less of a case for any problems. Nil Einne (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Yeah, this is definitely an inappropriate complaint. JJMC89 assumed ignorance of policy rather than assuming bad faith, they clearly explained what was going on, and provided links to further reading. I've seen them interact with several editors over non-free file use issues, and have never known them to be anything but correct in their application of policy and polite in their explanations. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 15:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Leha Ovch adding unsourced material

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

---

Leha Ovch added unsourced material to Neon Future III here and here. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, but like there's no evidence of any edit warring or article talk page discussion. You threw up a templated warning and then went here pretty much immediately. Let's try not to WP:BITE too hard, OK? Simonm223 (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply @Simonm223:, Leha Ovch did so after two warnings by Ss112 and one warning by me. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

19 months ago? --Bsherr (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply @Bsherr:, yes, 19 months ago by Ss112, and about 19 hours ago by me ;) --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks like there have been no edits subsequent to the most recent user warning. Why don't we assume that takes care of it for now? It doesn't seem to me to rise to being intractable behavior requiring action here yet. --Bsherr (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply @Bsherr:, Lena added unsourced "Credits and personnel" on November 2 after my warning on November 1, and still has not added sufficient sources to the article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Very sorry, I didn't notice the change of date. The warning and last edit were so similarly timed. --Bsherr (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Reply - Bump. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Reply - Bump. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: bumping doesn't actually do anything except prevent the post from archiving. I've added in a DNAU tag to this post, which will extend this out for another 4 days without the need for bumping. --Blackmane (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Reply - @Blackmane:, delaying archive was my goal. I hope to get more feedback on this before this discussion goes away. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: You can use Template:DNAU for that purpose. Cheers --Blackmane (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Reply - @Blackmane:, I know that now. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Bump - Bumping thread. Jax 0677 (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm guessing you can probably stop the bumping now, Jax 0677; it's been here for over a week, vast number of admins and ordinary folk have clearly seen this, of those not one has picked up on it? Let it go; if the issue recurs, then bring it back another time, eh? Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 12:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
• Jax 0677, adding uncited material to an article is not sanctionable, and is definitely not an ANI issue. It is a content issue. If someone adds uncited material to an article, and you find that problematical, you can do one or more of the following: (1) add a "citation needed" tag to the item or an "unreferenced section" template to the section; (2) Find the album credits somewhere (AllMusic, Discogs, official sites, etc.) and add a citation yourself; (3) Bring up the matter on the talkpage of the article (pinging the user if needed); (4) remove the material from the article. It's best not to remove the material, however, before you have tagged it and allowed a sufficient amount of time for someone to find and add citations.

  Since this matter is not appropriate for ANI, I am going to close this thread. Softlavender (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Cléééston as a suspected sockpuppet of Guilherme Styles

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

---

I don't know what to do about this, so posting here. There is a thread started by Cléééston at GAC:Open reviews for over two months, regarding lapsed reviews by another user. When I clicked Cléééston's user page, it comes up showing a notice he's a suspected sock. That notice has been on his page since 2015. He had been blocked by DrKay in 2015, and unblocked also by DrKay in September 2018. Is this user a sock or not? If not, why is that notice still on his user page. If he is still a sock, why was he unblocked? Kind of confusing. — Maile (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Maile66: I was blocked for suspicion of being a sock, but nothing was ever proven and I was eventually cleared. I'm not a sock puppet, I just forgot to remove the tag. Cléééston (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

OK. — Maile (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Austin crick and legal threats

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

---

This looks very much like a legal threat mentioning both Courts and lawyers in the same sentence.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a veiled legal threat. A NLT Template is needed now. nothing more. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I've left a note too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, he's explained what he meant, and IMHO it's a credible explanation. He's not threatening legal action against other editors, he's saying if someone wants to sue him for copyvio, they can do so in the courts. Which is still a misunderstanding, but not a legal threat. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Still probably needs to be blocked for continuing copyright violations on Draft:King_Lear_(1957),_a_painting_by_Werner_Drewes_(Bauhaus_School) (and there's some RD1 revdelling that needs to be done there too) Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I have caught up the revision deletion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• This is an obvious CIR case and I can't imagine why so much time was wasted on this person, nor why the block isn't simply indefinite. Hopeless. EEng 03:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I have given this editor an indefinite block. If any administrator disagrees and thinks that there is any hope that this editor will become a productive contributor, then please feel free to unblock. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Believe this is an open proxy

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

---

The ref desk vandal was just using 209.152.115.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). It has been blocked 60 hours, but I believe this may be a proxy and therefore might need a longer block. [339] says it detects a proxy on that IP, but I'm not an expert on determining that. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Not notifying the IP of this discussion. Home Lander (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Now used 175.139.218.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which I've also reported at AIV. Home Lander (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

He rarely uses the same IP twice, and so it's probably not a big deal. --Jayron32 04:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

If we check every IP he uses, he might be doing us an inadvertent service by finding and identifying open proxies for us. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

While the honeypot nature of this is mildly useful, the scale of this means, no, we're not going to do so in our lifetimes. There are 4 trillion IPv4 addresses and 3.4×10^38 IPv6 addresses. If only 1 in a thousand of those was an open proxy, that would still live us with more addresses to block than it would take till the heat death of the universe to exhaust. Nice idea, though. --Jayron32 05:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually there are 4 billion (not trillion) IPv4 addresses. A little old lady goes to a lecture on astronomy. Afterwards she asks the speaker, "Did I understand you to say, professor, that the sun will burn out in 4 million years?" "No madam, I said 4 billion years." "Oh thank goodness," says the old lady, "I'm so relieved!" EEng 00:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Brute force searching the IPv6 address space for open proxies is obviously not feasible (though IPv4 is, see Censys), but that wasn't being suggested. Also, there are certainly not 3.4×10^35 (1 in 1000) IPv6 open proxies in operation for us to find. TheDragonFire (talk) 06:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

ProcseeBot automatically blocks open proxies. So, we're not completely defenseless. It is annoying, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

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

copyright violations by Chanuka Konara

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

---

Chanuka Konara (talk · contribs) added copyrighted material to Wariyapola Sri Sumangala College [here] and again after being warned on their talk page [here]. Rather than appear to edit war I bring it the issue here. Gab4gab (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted the copyvio (it is blatant), and given a stronger warning message. I'm inclined towards giving this user a bit more ROPE (1 more strike), as the previous warning feels more like a level 1/2 than a level 3/4. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• After the two warnings, the same text was inserted by an IP, 2402:4000:2182:e013:2dfe:1121:adf4:46f. The quacking is quite deafening, so I've blocked both Chanuka Konara and the IP for a couple of weeks. Bishonen | talk 20:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC).

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

User:Fred Bauder

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

---

I would like to see sanctions against User:Fred Bauder for his deeply hurtful, slanderous, sinister and threatening words on his arb com elect page.[340]. Is this how we enforce CIV; by denigrating and making broad treats against anybody who questions the basis of an arb candidacy and request more transparency as regards intent- He said: I can see that you feel free to act as ugly as you wish here, an assessment which I believe is true. I would change that and enforce Civility. You, should you continue to engage in ugly behavior, would be subject to sanctions, and, if you are unable to control your behavior, which I suspect is true, would not be able to participate on Wikipedia. So, in a way, you are fighting for your life. I have been here since mid 2006, am dedicated, and this is just horrible behavior. I prodded him because he is making noises about digging up old woulds and settling old scores. This is far worse behavior than swearing. Ceoil (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Your OP was needlessly antagonistic, he responded in kind. Neither of you has demonstrated conspicuous civility here. I suspect I know were this is headed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

In fact, I was responding in kind to his earlier and similar statements above. But I take your point. Ceoil (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

What is a "caste conscious warrior"? Bus stop (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

You might wonder:) I meant viewing buttons as sources of status and power; admins over editors, arbs over admins. Sorry for the drama, but evidently I am "fighting for [my] life", which I suppose I should take seriously. It would seem an indeff is on the way, and that would upset me no end. Ceoil (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

What am I missing here?Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I think "caste conscious warrior" is too colorful to serve a constructive purpose. Bus stop (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

For colour—of a florid hue—I don't think anyone can beat User:FredBauder's comments at that page. ——SerialNumber54129 19:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. We are getting away from the point here. Ceoil (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Ceoil: You are required to notify Fred Bauder of this thread. I've done so.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I had typed it up, but got distracted by Slatersteven's question (which I though was fair). Thanks anyway. Ceoil (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil, I can't predict what anyone will do, but I think it highly unlikely that Fred will block you. I agree with Slaterseven that your question to Fred was antagonistic (exacerbated by your flair for language), but I also think that Fred's response was inapproriate, more so than your question. Still, I don't think any administrator is going to block Fred based on your conversation with him. My suggestion is to let it go.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Grand, Bbb23, I agree with this analysis, now that I have time to clam down, properly assess the threat level and conclude it was empty bullshit; you can hat at will. Ceoil (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Pot calls the kettle black. This thread smacks a little too much of "don't vote for Fred Bauder" for my liking. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 20:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Not exactly nor even close. Fred explicitly said that if he was elected I was toast: "So, in a way, you are fighting for your life". Apparently thats not actionable, so I'm calling it quits in frustration, reading the tea leafs "I don't think any administrator is going to block Fred". I know gathering around and boomerang when I see it. Ceoil (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Surely it doesn't need an AN/I thread for editors to know what they would be voting for. ——SerialNumber54129 20:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

This 'might be' a first. A call for sanctions against an Arbitrator candidate, while he's seeking the position. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Well I think that ship sailed, and worse. "You sank my arbcomship!". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Spamming ELs

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

---

Please block User:Smellyshirt5 who is edit warring to spam ELs to École Polytechnique into multiple pages. Some kind of weird internal WP spam. See Special:Contributions/Smellyshirt5. Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

This is not a spam. I am a real human bean trying to note the historical importance of one of the first technical schools by adding it to known technical school's "See also" sections...Smellyshirt5 (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

That's not what a "See also" section is for. It's for articles that are closely related to the subject at hand. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Even if you were right (you're not), edit warring is still wrong. Experience suggests that someone passionately insisting on links is spamming or inappropriately boosting something. Both are incompatible with Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Your claim	My response
This is not a spam.	Yes, it is. You want to use Wikipedia to promote your favorite university. It's great that your proud of your Grande Ecole, but you'll need to find somewhere else to promote it. See Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism and WP:NOTADVERTISING.
I am a real human bean trying to note the historical importance of one of the first technical schools by adding it to known technical school's "See also" sections	Adding an internal link to your favorite university to every college and university offering a remotely technical curriculum just because your favorite is "one of the first" is promoting your favorite. See Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism and WP:NOTADVERTISING for why you shouldn't do this.

-- DanielPenfield (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I blocked this editor for edit warring, tendentious editing and spamming external links. Plus stubbornness and refusal to listen to other editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Winged Blades of Godric and rollback right

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

---

I believe that WBG misused the rollback right to perform three reverts in eight minutes. I don't think WBG should have the right, and I support its indefinite removal. WBG had had it revoked previously. wumbolo ^^^ 18:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• I think this is probably not a good time for this. Oppose for the sake of rationality. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Abuse of administrator rights

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

---

In a routine request for permissions [341], Swarm incorrectly said I was not recognizing vandalism, after I emphasized that I was recognizing it and reverting vandalism. I pointed out to him that I was taking a softer approach with edits like [342] and [343] by Assuming good faith. I also pointed that I had marked more than 40 edits as vandalism. He retorted to his administrator-ship. Instead of realizing that there is more than one way to do things he just said "an administrator" is saying so and so, without giving any real policy answers. I found that very arrogant, and pointed that out to him, and made clear my intent to walk away from the disagreement. He, without any warning, blocked me. I have no history of disruptive behavior and I find this abuse of administrator rights.

If he took offense to "high horse" then he proved my point by blocking me. If he took offense to questioning his maturity, then not only proved me right, but is also guilty of same behavior. By blocking me, he went against this, as I have not history of any kind of disruptive behavior. The block was totally unwarranted and served no purpose than to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they were involved. IT is my understanding that administrators are expected to have a better understanding of rules than a new editor like myself. I find this refusal to see a different way of doing this and taking care not WP:BITE, and just saying "an administrator" is saying so, and blocking me contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 13:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Seems like more of a WP:AN issue. I've been on a long enough wikibreak I won't comment on whether it was technically a bad block before reviewing WP:ADMIN and WP:BP again in detail. That said, if you were insulting Swarm with immaturity-related labeling, a second admin might well have issued a civility block anyway, so it may really be a moot point.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: TGWL already went straight to ArbCom with this and is in the process of being kicked back here; it's not clear exactly what he's looking for, but the choice of venues implies he's gunning for a desysop, which, honestly, doesn't look likely. Swarm is one of the few active admins who I think doesn't deserve to have his mop privileges reviewed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse block - while I might not have blocked a user with a clean record blowing off steam over a declined permissions request, the comments were unambiguous personal attacks and Swarm was within admin discretion to block. Swarm is not WP:INVOLVED: this is not a content dispute and Swarm has participated only in an administrative capacity, and furthermore there is no "catch-22" that users can't be blocked by the admins they insult. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Spamming ELs

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

---

Please block User:Smellyshirt5 who is edit warring to spam ELs to École Polytechnique into multiple pages. Some kind of weird internal WP spam. See Special:Contributions/Smellyshirt5. Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

This is not a spam. I am a real human bean trying to note the historical importance of one of the first technical schools by adding it to known technical school's "See also" sections...Smellyshirt5 (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

That's not what a "See also" section is for. It's for articles that are closely related to the subject at hand. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Even if you were right (you're not), edit warring is still wrong. Experience suggests that someone passionately insisting on links is spamming or inappropriately boosting something. Both are incompatible with Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Your claim	My response
This is not a spam.	Yes, it is. You want to use Wikipedia to promote your favorite university. It's great that your proud of your Grande Ecole, but you'll need to find somewhere else to promote it. See Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism and WP:NOTADVERTISING.
I am a real human bean trying to note the historical importance of one of the first technical schools by adding it to known technical school's "See also" sections	Adding an internal link to your favorite university to every college and university offering a remotely technical curriculum just because your favorite is "one of the first" is promoting your favorite. See Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism and WP:NOTADVERTISING for why you shouldn't do this.

-- DanielPenfield (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I blocked this editor for edit warring, tendentious editing and spamming external links. Plus stubbornness and refusal to listen to other editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

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

SPI vandal at it again

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

---

• Mudospfjod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tobnadkcf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Theinstentmatrix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MangoChkUser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Some quick admin intervention is needed here. Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 10:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

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

User:PrimeBOT

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

---

This bot which is owned and operated by Primefac recently started performing a large number of edits. These edits have resulted in thousands of errors with pages being dumped into Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls because of various issues with the script. My concern here is that as a bot operator I know we are required to file new WP:BRFAs every time we start a new bot. That clearly was not done here and no trial edits or tests were performed. The edit summaries are referencing a WP:BRFA that is vague and from February. It seems to have no relevance to the current bot run. At the very least a WP:TROUT is warranted but it concerns me that the WP:BRFA process was intentionally skipped and that this bot has introduced so many issues. Multiple unanswered messages have been left on Primefac's page. It appears there is simply no oversight on this process. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

It looks like bad timing where Primefac went offline a few hours ago and missed the problem reports at User talk:Primefac. The bot seems to have stopped at the time of the first report at User talk:PrimeBOT. It would only be worth posting at ANI if the bot had not stopped (so a temporary block might be required) or if Primefac were still editing and had not responded to discussions. Stuff happens. Some examples that uninvolved people can follow would have been helpful but that does not matter now. Johnuniq (talk) 10:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: what concerns me is the fact that there was no WP:BRFA. This was a MASSIVE series of untested and unapproved edits by a bot. I've operated numerous bots and so I know that anytime you change anything about a bot, you need a new WP:BRFA. There was no such request. Primefac unleashed a new and untested bot that caused thousands of errors. I'm not necessarily advocating a block here. We absolutely all make mistakes, lord knows I've made tons of them. Were this simply a broken bot I'd say WP:TROUT and move on. My concern is the that I want to understand why the WP:BRFA process was circumvented. That is what concerns me much more than the fact that the bot didn't work. The process is in place to prevent these sorts of mistakes from happening. If you look at the contributions of the bot, nearly every edit in the run is broken. This indicates to me that very little testing (if any) was done. So I would like an admin to investigate why no BRFA was filed and how this bot was able to be unleashed in such a broken state. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 10:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

First, yes, I cocked this one up. I made an assumption (and yes, we all know what that means) based on the number of posts made on my talk regarding the subject that the merger was ready to be implemented. This will not happen again, and I will clean up my mess. second, I'm a bit disappointed that this escalated so quickly to ANI (instead of just stopping my bot, leaving me a note, going to WP:BOTN, and then coming here after I had not responded and/or responded disparagingly). Third, to address the BRFA issue, my bot was given permission to implement the outcomes of TFDs. Primefac (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

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

IP user spamming help requests

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

---

An IP user is spamming the request to help improve a page about some semi-celebrity (Maureen Wroblewitz) to quite a lot of random editors. A message on his talk page doesn't help. It's not a disaster, but i think rapid intervention is required. This is annoying to the tens of editors who get this random message. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 09:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@PizzaMan: I've reverted all the spam, but I agree an admin should review this situation. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 09:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: Thanks. It seems to have stopped for now. Still wonder how this editor came to pick me as the first person to spam and how he selected the other editors. I can't think of any way how i'm related to the subject. Anyway, is there a way to automatically keep tabs on future edits from this IP? PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 09:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@PizzaMan: Alex Shih has blocked them so I think you are good. :) --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 09:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Zackmann08:, @Alex Shih: thank you both fot the rapid reaction! PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 09:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Editing against policy and guideline

Bsems is being disruptive by editing against policy and guideline. Per consensus here - use only the first three characters of a month when abbreviated and no full stop after the abbreviated month, or in the alternative spell each month out. Same thing it says at MOS:DATESNO, which also links to the consensus. I fixed all seasons of The Voice to be consistent and compliant with the consensus and editor has reverted all changes, at least 14 or 15 reverts. Editor needs to be warned not to edit against policies - WP:CONSENSUS, and guidelines - MOS:DATESNO. I've warned him previously and tried to engage in talk page discussions, but editor refuses to discuss and rarely leaves edit summaries for any edit as can be seen by his contribution history and warnings on his talk page. Editor also seems to own these articles as seen in Season 15 where editor reverts everyone and everything without explaining why. Diffs of selected reverts (but certainly not all) - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Isaidnoway (talk) 09:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Has made two more reverts since this report was filed: here and here. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Their non-article edits are... interesting. "Do it again and I will suspend you." WP:OWN+WP:CIR? —Wasell^(T) 11:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) They have done the same at The Voice (U.S. TV series), sans edit summary, despite the edits being explained upon their original removal. Seems as if they might not be here for the right reasons where their editing patterns are concerned. I agree that WP:OWN might be playing a part here. livelikemusic talk! 13:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• According to their contribution history, so far in the first 7 days of this month alone, they have made 66 reverts with 4 edit summaries - p. 1 Nov, p. 2 Nov, p. 3 Nov. In the month of October they made 148 reverts with only 5 edit summaries. And apparently they use an app for sourcing - app, app 2 - instead of using reliable sources, I recently added 5 sources showing this young lady was only 13 at the time of her performance, but yet they persist they are right, according to their app. I propose an indef block until this user understands they must communicate with fellow editors and use edit summaries and use reliable sources. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I really need to clean out my watchlist and set Twinkle not to add user pages to my watch list lol. With that aside this is a normal pattern of behavior for Bsems based on my past experience where the user will keep making edits against policy, guidelines and even consensus. Bsems doesn't want to leave edit summaries in most cases or shows signs of WP:OWN and doesn't want to discuss controversial/reversed edits on the talk page. In the past the user has violated the WP:3RR rule which resulted in a 48 hour ban on March 22 2018. Bsems was also blocked for 72 hrs for similar behavior in regards to the article WrestleMania 34 as seen here from April 2018. Bsems was also involved in a dispute with World of Dance (season 2) which in the page being fully protected on September 18 2018. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 00:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Also based on their talk page it seems the user has been notified nicely about using the edit summary on September 16, 2016 so really there is no reason for this type of behavior to keep continuing from an account that has been around since 2015. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 00:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Six more reverts, with no regard whatsoever to what they were reverting, some of these reverts putting back numerous reference errors (author's names who didn't write the article) and numerous dead links, external links being used as refs, back into the articles, and still no valid reason given in any edit summaries. Still refuses to communicate, still owns these articles. - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Isaidnoway (talk) 07:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I blocked Bsems for a week for edit warring and article ownership, but I agree that seems to be a long-term problem. I think we're heading toward an indefinite block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Agricolae WP:BATTLEFIELD

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

Agricolae is taking an aggressive WP:BATTLEFIELD approach to a content discussion with me at Talk:James Balfour (died 1845)#Claimed_Royal_descent, and being overtly bullying, whilst projecting their aggression into me.

In 12½ years of editing en.wp, I have not been subject to such a bullying, hectoring approach to content discussion since the long-departed User:Vintagekits. Please can someone persuade him that a consensus-forming discussion requires WP:CIVILity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I tried persuading Agricolae of that once...at Philip II of Spain. They didn't like an edit I made and undid it. So I took it to the talk page, got other editors to agree with the edit...and Ag still wouldn't take no for an answer, continuing to edit-war over the discussion. Ag is probably due a block for BATTLEfield and edit-warring. pbp 03:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

(ec)Indeed, PBP. Before coming to ANI, I looked a little at the history of Agricolae's (unarchived, repeatedly blank) talk page, and found this[344] telling you to grow up, and this[345] accusing you of BATTLEFIELD and urging you to Go #^$%&^($% yourself.

It was those diffs, on the first screenful of Agricolae's talk history which persuaded me that what I encountered was not just someone having a bad day, but part of a pattern.

I was particularly interested to see that amidst all Ag's aggression to you, he also accused you of taking a BATTLEFIELD approach. That projection into others of his own aggression was one of the things which I found most unsettling in my discussion with him. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

As long as we are sharing particularly interesting observations, 'projection' is precisely the word that occurred to me as you leveled at me accusation after accusation, including BATTLEFIELD (I was not the person who invoked 'retreat'). Even here, in the very same response, you all but call me illiterate while at the same time declaring that I am incivil. Irony much? Agricolae (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Agricolae, I will set out the sequence in full below. In that you will see that the BATTLFIELD conduct was initiated by your post of 17:52, 8 November 2018[346], in which you

1. used the phrae ancestor-fawning trivia both in body text and as an edit summary
2. used shouty CAPS

In my reply[347], I asked you to to take a less combative tone

You responded at 20:00 [348] Wow, into the twilight zone we go.

That's the projection which I was referring to, and fits the same pattern as your exchange with PBP in August on your talk page.

Note that in your reply of 20:00 your wrote I am perfectly familiar with NOTGENEALOGY, just not your special reading of it that draws a distinction between 'family history' and 'just a little bit of family history'. I have not retreated from NOTGENEALOGY one iota. This is why i have asked you explicitly below to clarify whether you still hold to your claim that 'just a little bit of family history' is simply my special reading of a policy which says in full "Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic".

So I ask again: do you still think that NOTGENEALOGY's wording "only where appropriate" justifies your claim that 'just a little bit of family history' is fordbideen?

You were being bullying and sneering on the basis of a policy which you flat-out misrepresented. I AGFed that that the misrepresentation might not be intentional, so I phrased my challenge gently ... but even now, you deny the misrepresentation and instead complain that I wrote you repeatedly namechecked WP:NOTGENEALOGY, but apparently without scrutinising its text.

This sort of thing is why I came to ANI. You attack, bully and sneer on the basis of a flat-out wrong claim about policy ... and then when you challenged you apologise for nothing, and claim that you are the victim because you were asked to act with civility and desist fro the battlefield behaviour. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh come on. You have been insulting me and dismissing me and completely mischaracterizing my position and actions from the start, while explicitly stating that I have to completely abandon my position in favor of your POV before we can even have a real discussion (in which case there would be nothing left to discuss). It is fully indicative of your approach to this whole sorry scenario that you repeatedly have claimed it to your credit that you only accused me of not reading the policy I was citing, because the only alternatives you can envision for someone disagreeing with your self-evidently correct interpretation is incompetence or bad faith. And I am the one supposedly not interested in consensus. Agricolae (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

[e/c] This from the person who accused me of citing policy I had not read, of 'retreating' and mentioned my "horror" at the content in question, but apparently that was all my fault too. I have faced one accusation of bad faith after another. (And now it seems that the text in question they so much want to retain was derived from a Google Books snippet alone. Sigh.) Agricolae (talk) 03:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that uninvolved editors read the discussion, and note Agricolae's rapid resort to shouty caps, hyperbole, and straw men, sarcasm and insult: e.g. ancestor-fawning trivia. The interpretation which Ag placed WP:NOTGENEALOGY is not supported by the text, so I was being charitable in suggesting that they had not read it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah, yes. We disagree about the meaning of a policy so obviously either I can't read or I didn't read it. This is civility? Agricolae (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTGENEALOGY says in full "'Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic."

So it does not ban the inclusion of family history. On the contrary, the policy explicitly allows it "where appropriate". I suggested that you seem unfamiliar with the policies you cite, but why don't you explain? Did you a) not read "where appropriate", b) not comprehend it, or c) misrepresent it?

I tried to give you a graceful way out from your misunderstanding, but you were already in the battlefield mode which I have since learnt that you have displayed elsewhere.

I invite uninvolved editors to review your comments such as 'It is not family history because it is only a little bit of family history'? That is a non sequitur,, and compare them with the policy you were citing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. Not here too. Please consider, just ever so briefly, that the phrase "where appropriate" is by its very nature imprecise, such that someone might in good faith read the phrase, comprehend the phrase, not misrepresent the phrase, and yet still to not agree with your interpretation. Solely because I don't share your view on what is and is not appropriate, you say I must have misunderstood the words and thus need a graceful way out. That is insulting. Yet again. Agricolae (talk) 05:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's keep this simple, Agricolae.

Do you agree that:

1. WP:NOTGENEALOGY does not impose a ban on inclusion of family history?
2. That it requires a judgement on what is appropriate? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

As illuminating as it may be, this is not the place for a discussion of the policy disagreement that gave rise to this report. This discussion is about behavior, mine and yours. Agricolae (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is central to the conduct issue.

You acted aggressively and sneerily, on the basis that even a little bit of history was a breach of the policy[349] . 'It is not family history because it is only a little bit of family history'? That is a non sequitur.

It is important to clarify whether you stand by that view of policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, you seem not to have even tried to to understand my position if you so mischaracterize it. I have let you get away with a whole lot of what I consider to be totally unfounded accusations, but I am done with that. Here is my perspective on what has happened: months ago I had the temerity to question the propriety of a single sentence from a page you seem to think you WP:OWN, and all of the sudden and inexplicably two days ago it became a crisis that you couldn't allow to stand even while it was discussed. You dismissed my position out of hand as self-evidently wrong, a red herring or worse without making any effort to even understand what my position way was, you insulted my reading skills, questioned my good faith, argued as if it had the weight of fact a bold-faced assumption that the cited source probably has more relevant content just because a lot of books do that, and topped it off with reporting me here just to be sure I got taken out of the discussion completely, and you then would get to implement your position as the only valid one with nobody left to argue otherwise: all to prevent the intolerable proposition of a change to your page. And now, of course, you have restored the challenged text, because nothing says willingness to reach a consensus like acting unilaterally after telling the other person that they have to admit they have been wrong all along for the discussion to move forward. As I am sure is evident, my perception differs markedly from the version where I am the evil nasty incompetent person acting in bad faith to victimize you. Go figure. Agricolae (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

So, diffs showing the alleged behavior would be nice.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, here is BHG insisting that I must not have read the policy I cite (which, as BHG states unambiguously above here, is code for me either acting in bad faith or being illiterate), and the characterization of my behavior as expressing horror that the disputed text should be included, and in the next paragraph, characterizing my listing of a second policy that I considered to be relevant as a retreat from your misplaced reliance on WP:NOTGENEALOGY: [350]

Here is BHG is accusing me of acting in bad faith (I don't believe that you genuinely hold to that reading): [351]

And here is BHG, just this morning, telling me that if I want to work toward consensus I must first abandon my entire argument as a red herring (last paragraphs): [352]

BHG considers themself the innocent victim here, but that has not been my perception. This most recent contribution by BHG summarizes their tone throughout: the suggestion that in order to demonstrate my willingness to seek consensus I must accept that I have been acting (in ignorance and/or bad faith) in support of a position that has never been anything but a red herring - that is just dressing up 'my way or the highway' in the language of desire for consensus. Agricolae (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• RfC The problem here seems to be the usual issue of "two cooks in one kitchen" – a disagreement in which neither party is willing to give way. The way to resolve this is to establish a consensus by getting more editors involved using dispute resolution such as WP:THIRD or WP:RfC. This does not seem to have been tried yet at Talk:James Balfour (died 1845)#Claimed_Royal_descent and so escalating to WP:ANI seems premature. Andrew D. (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

TBAN and Block Needed

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

---

Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This chap, User:Andrew_Davidson, constantly deprods prods without providing a rationale. Policy around this allows this deprodding without explanation, but editors consider this rather rude, as providing the reason for an edit is kinda meat and drink to all of us!

His MO is to find an article that has been prodded, and remove the prod. That's it - nothing more. He clearly does no due diligence checking before deprodding. Normally these articles are slam dunk deletes, the reason for the Prod in the first place is uncontroversial. This is of course the reason for having the PROD process. a simple way of removing uncontroversial rubbish articles.

He has performed this uncollegiate, disruptive trick three times since I complained to him a couple of days ago, and unless stopped will doubtless continue. His response when challenged is to wikilawyer, and never provide a rationale. Please block until this uncooperative fellow agrees to change his ways, or apply a TBAN preventing Davidson editing in any area related to Deletion of articles. (I would also like to see him TBANNED from attending any wikimeetups where he would be able to influence good faith editors to his disruptive behaviour, something that should be strongly discouraged. He appears to do a lot of wikimeetups where the influence of such a bad example should be curbed.)

Rather than provide diffs to his deprods, I have provided links below to entries on his Talk page complaining about this behaviour. At least two of those are since my own complaint a couple of days ago. -

This from January this year.

here from March this year, where the complainant stated "I am well aware that you don't have to explain. I was asking you please to do so instead of being uncollaborative. Your constant resort to lawyering is wearing and disruptive"

topic Two requests here, including my own, and slightly classier wikilawering directed at myself. At least I got his attention, but unfortunately without any positive results.

contains two complaints from the same editor made since my own complaint.

It may also be worth reading this village pump discussion where Davidson was roundly condemned for just this sort of uncollaborativeness.

In summary, stop this editors "IDHT, I know best" behaviour. Thanks. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 16:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The examples you have come up with are hardly 'slam dunk deletes'. While it would be preferable to explain in an edit summary why deletion via prod was objected to, it's probably safe to assume that the deproder believes the subject may be notable if they don't specify a reason. --Michig (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

None of the requested admin actions are going to happen. You're free to WP:AFD nominate any page where a PROD is declined; if Andrew D. doesn't give a rationale there his opinion will be ignored. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I had a similar interaction with Andrew regarding List of Batman storylines. His reason for keeping the article in the subsequent AfD made no sense. Matt14451 (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• The result of that AfD was that there was no consensus to delete the page. This was therefore not an uncontroversial deletion and removal of the prod was appropriate. Andrew D. (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I see you complained here about User:Andrew Davidson's removal here of your PROD here. Was your prod rationale "See Rope" a valid reason for deletion or even any sort of reason at all? Was it unreasonable to remove this prod? Was your reinstatement of the prod here within policy? Why were you reluctant to submit your deletion argument to community scrutiny? What is your view about another editor removing your second prod? Are you satisfied with your editing of this article? Thincat (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, I consider Andrew Davidson to be an extreme inclusionist and sometimes I find him to be a bit irritating. He may feel the same way about me. However, there can be no doubt that he has the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. He is not obligated to explain why he removes PROD tags. That deletion process is for uncontroversial deletions and if any editor in good standing removes a PROD tag, deletion is by definition controversial. You will not improve your communication with Andrew by dragging him to ANI without good cause. As for your proposal to ban Andrew from attending public Wikimedia events? In a word, absurd. Our deletion processes work best if editors representative of the full range of philosophies from deletionism to inclusionism can participate without being harassed by their opponents. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

You will not improve your communication with Andrew- That would not be worthwhile endeavor. You've misidentified which end the failure of communication is coming from. He talks at people, not to them, because he thinks other people are contemptible, and he's figured out a way to irritate people with mass deprods and refusal to communicate. Nobody who remembers what he used to get up to under his Colonel Warden persona could think he's anything but a pompous, dishonest troll. Reyk _YO! 23:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Andrew's recent comments on my talk page are the exact opposite of what you describe, Reyk, and your comments against him are personal attacks, in my judgment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I have found Andrew's tendency to make counter-policy arguments at AFD to be extremely frustrating, and his tendency to remove PRODs without explanation, apparently so as to prevent the subsequent AFD nomination from preemptively addressing his counter-policy reasoning, is definitely cause for concern. Indeed, when I tried to propose mandating explanations for deprods here, based primarily on my experience with Andrew, I was uniformly opposed with the main argument being essentially "Yeah, that editor's behaviour is problematic, but ANI is the place to deal with individual problem editors; don't change policy just for Andrew" -- in other words, even those who think providing explanations for deprods is not necessary think Andrew specifically should be required to do so. I've also found his tendency to create garbage sub-stubs like the atrocious Water roux troubling; I would have been justified in PRODding that page when I first came across it, as it was complete nonsense with absolutely no basis in the cited "sources", and I have no doubt that he would have deprodded without explanation, forcing me to go through the increasingly bureaucratic mess of AFD, which is made all the more difficult by his wikilawyering and counter-policy arguments (which work well on low-traffic AFDs where it can come down to 2-1 !votes more often than not), so I was left with really no choice but to essentially blank and/or rewrite the whole thing. (I keep a record on my user page of articles other people started but where almost all the content was written by me; I don't want to have to include pages where the article creator -- a problem editor -- left a completely bogus sub-stub in the mainspace without using AFC or the like, and I had to come along and blank/rewrite the whole thing, not to my normal standards but just so it meets the barest standards of inclusion in the encyclopedia. These kinds of messes should take place in Andrew's userspace, not the article space.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• Andrew has been doing this for years, but knows that no-one will ever stop him from doing it (search "Colonel Warden" in the ANI history). It's completely disruptive, but we've never had a consensus to stop him doing it, so he'll carry on doing it. Just another Wikipedia failure, as Reyk mentions above. Black Kite (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• for the PROD system to work, we need to people using it, to act in good faith. De-prodding on the principle of inclusionism thwarts the intention of the community in putting the PROD system in place. The principle of PROD is that a) there is a valid reason for deletion and b) nobody is going to care enough to fix it, if that is even possible. Hence, tag, wait, and then delete. This sort of drive-by de-prod is exactly the kind of thing Andrew D does -- that was back in March and per his history there, he never made another edit, and had made none before that. Many of these complaints are like that - Andrew D thwarts the PROD and then community time (our lifeblood) gets wasted, deleting obviously deletable stuff (like the parks, back in January, linked above). The complaints have a hook. User:Cullen328 surely you don't support somebody thwarting the intention of the community? (real question)

In any case I support TBAN from de-prodding. Gaming the system to thwart the intentions of the community is not OK and it is about time we stopped this behavior. Jytdog (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The "intentions of the community" are expressed through policies and guidelines, and through broad community discussions where consensus is achieved and the discussion is closed by an uninvolved editor, Jytdog. Please provide links to policies, guidelines and community consensus that justifies sanctions on this editor. A bunch of people bitching and moaning is not enough. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Please don't put scare quotes around important things -- the spirit (the intention) of the P&G are what matter. Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I used quotation marks only because I was quoting you directly, and for no other reason. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

That is clearly disingenuous. No one writes The "intentions of the community" are expressed through policies and guidelines "only because [they are] quoting [someone] directly"; those are scare-quotes, and were clearly used dismissively. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Your interpretation of my intention is incorrect. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Jytdog is talking about the World Beer Cup – a substantial page which we have had for many years (285K accumulated by 152 editors over 11+ years). It's easy to find a good independent source for this such as the Oxford Companion to Beer. Peremptory deletion of this page would not be uncontroversial because the topic is far from hopeless. Andrew D. (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• It's now 7K, not 285K: I've deleted an unsourced and obscenely long list of "Beer awards" that's clearly promotional and likely added by a COI editor. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban unless convincing evidence of Andrew's failure to comply with policies and guidelines is presented. Andrew's position is clear and is stated quite politely. He believes that detailed discussion of specific deprods is neither appropriate nor wise. He believes that kind of discussion should take place either at the article talk page or at AfD, or both. His stance is entirely in line with our deletion policy. Those who think that rationales for deprodding ought to be mandatory are obligated to gain consensus for that. Once you have that consensus, then Andrew must either comply or be subject to editing restrictions at that time, but not now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • he should indeed not be TBANed for not supplying a rationale for de-PRODing. He should be TBANed for abusing the PROD process. The whole purpose of PROD is to get rid of deletable articles that no one cares about. Patrolling PRODs to strip them for the sake of inclusionism has nothing to do with why we created PROD or why we created the easy escape hatch, and nothing to do with building a high quality encyclopedia. Andrew D has shown a severe lack of self-restraint around de-PRODing, wasting a bunch of community time. So - enough already. Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
    • • You are correct that PROD is only for articles that no one cares about. No one. If Andrew (or any editor in good standing) cares enough to remove the PROD tag, then someone clearly cares, and then the next step for the tagger is clear: Either drop the matter or take it to AfD. It could not be more simple. Andrew has said that he is willing to discuss these articles at AfD, as part of a community discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
        • • actually cares about. That is the spirit of the PROD process. Patrolling PRODs to keep stuff, and stripping the tag from pages you never edited before and never edited again, is gaming the process. I'm trying to articulate why so many people are annoyed with Andrew. This is right down at the core of it - this exploiting every loophole and saying anything and doing anything just to keep stuff. Its not about building a high quality, or even reasonable-quality, encyclopedia. Quality isn't in the picture - it's just about keeping stuff. Which is the wrong aim. Jytdog (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I only count 11 deprods in the last 5 weeks. Many if not all of them need to be sent to AfD, IMO, but you could make the argument both ways. I wouldn't TBAN because I still think it's being done in good faith, but issue a warning and request a rationale in the edit summary for each deprod from this user. SportingFlyer talk 03:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
      • • He has been requested multiple times, it has not worked and will not work. ∯WBG^converse 03:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support Tban from De prodding - - A IDHT behaviour and indulging in mass deprodding runs despite being requested several times to provide some reason behind the deProd.But, on lines of wot BK had sed, this will lead to nothing; people have a liking for invoking extremal process wonkery even if it is directly contrarian to a collaborative environment esp. whilst dealing with long term editors. ∯WBG^converse 03:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support tban from deproding as well. I don't have direct experience with his deprodding activity but I do recall very well the nonsense he posts every time we try to improve how we manage Drafts (G13 expansion for example). It appears Andrew D is intent on making clean up as painful amd slow as possible. Legacypac (talk) 04:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• I don't often agree with Andrew, but in this case he's frankly 100% correct, and IMO there's absolutely no evidence of disruption here, let alone grounds for a sanction of any kind. This is how PROD is supposed to work. If you don't like it, try to change the process, not ban the people using it. ansh666 04:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ansh666: See WP:VPP: that already happened, and the (near?) unanimous consensus was "No, Andrew's behaviour in those situations is disruptive, but you don't change policy to deal with one editor; that's what topic bans are for". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Unless there are dozens of diffs showing a pattern of deliberately disruptive de-PRODs or deliberately targeting one editor's PRODs (neither of which has anyone provided), there is no reason for a TBan or a block. PRODs are merely one option for deletion and are a deliberately low bar to decline (no explanation needed). If someone disagrees with a de-PROD, even numerous de-PRODS, all they need do is escalate to CSD or AfD, as desired. It's really very simple. Softlavender (talk) 05:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC) Striking this because dozens if not hundreds of diffs over the years are most likely unavailable because the article in question was subsequently deleted. Softlavender (talk) 09:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Softlavender: few things on Wikipedia are truly gone forever. I looked at one full year's worth of de-prods in his deleted contribs. If you're curious:

Article	Result	Notes
Veekshanam	Went to AfD	Deleted
Azia	Went to AfD	Speedy deleted G12, recreated at Azia (town)
Elliot John Crosby	Went to AfD	Deleted
Eisoptrophobia	Was not eligible for PROD	Deleted at AfD
Leonora Summers	Went to AfD	Deleted
Joseph Piggott	Went to AfD	Deleted
William Beardsall	Went to AfD	Deleted
Good Samaritan (comics)	Went to AfD	Deleted
Gruagach (Hellboy)	Went to AfD	Deleted
List of mammalian aliens	Went to AfD	Deleted
Tregunter Road	Went to AfD	Deleted
Bobby Lester	Speedy deleted G5	recreated as a redirect
Spiral galaxy dynamics	Went to AfD	Deleted
List of Dirty Harry cast members	Went to AfD	Deleted
List of Kung Fu cast members	Went to AfD	Deleted
Tanner Park	Went to AfD	Deleted
Lasser Park	Went to AfD	Deleted
Overlook Park (Towson, Maryland)	Went to AfD	Deleted, recreated as a redirect
Overlook Park (Tallapoosa County, Alabama)	Went to AfD	Deleted
Overlook Park (Tallapoosa County, Alabama)	Went to AfD	Deleted
Overlook Park (South Burlington, Vermont)	Went to AfD	Deleted
Overlook Park (Murrieta, California)	Went to AfD	Deleted
Overlook Park (Melbourne, Florida)	Went to AfD	Deleted
Overlook Park (Longboat Key, Florida)	Went to AfD	Deleted
Overlook Park (Linthicum, Maryland)	Went to AfD	Deleted
Overlook Park (Lawrence, Kansas)	Went to AfD	Deleted
Overlook Park (Frederick, Maryland)	Went to AfD	Deleted
Overlook Park (El Dorado Hills, California)	Went to AfD	Deleted
Overlook Park (Burlington, Massachusetts)	Went to AfD	Deleted
Overlook Park (Bethel, Connecticut)	Went to AfD	Deleted
Overlook Memorial Park (Prattville, Alabama)	Went to AfD	Deleted
Overlook Park (Benicia, California)	Went to AfD	Deleted
Diesel Loco Shed, Kalyan	Went to AfD	Deleted
The Loft (Kent)	Went to AfD	Deleted
The Independent (Dominica)	Went to AfD	Deleted
Andrew de Leslie (d. c. 1352)	Went to AfD	Deleted

That's about 36 deleted articles, most of which went to AfD. One was not eligible for PROD but got deleted anyway because it was a copyright violation. This is the span of 19 November 2017 through 5 November 2018. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that work! Nobody but an admin could have done that, so really, thanks. is hours and hours of community time to get rid of things that should have been gotten rid of. Jytdog (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that proves my point. As Jytdog says, no one but an admin can see those redlink de-PRODs, and your list proves my point that the articles more than likely should have been deleted at the PROD stage, so AD's de-PRODs really are disruptive. Softlavender (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per my below reasoning for the PROD process not mandating a rationale and also for the fact the policy specifically permits any editor to remove a PROD tag. And 36 in a year is not a lot. Fish+Karate 11:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended content

Amber Amundson - at AFD The Alberts, The Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band, The Temperance Seven Jazz in Africa Synthetic rope Homerton College Music Society - at AFD List of megaprojects in India The Two Ronnies 1987 Christmas Special Oracle Office Cultural consumer Spontaneous glass breakage Engine cooking Aani Rashtra Deepika - went to AFD, result, merge and redirect The Munsif Daily - went to AFD, result - keep Pudhari - went to AFD, result - no consensus Saamana - went to AFD, result - keep The Samaja - went to AFD, result - keep The Samaya - went to AFD, result - no consensus Sambad - went to AFD, result - keep Dharitri (newspaper) - went to AFD, result - keep Imphal Free Press - went to AFD, result - keep List of scholars of African music George Merck - PROD was placed on a redirect Bikaner - Bilaspur Antyodaya express Associative browsing MV Global Mercy - went to AFD, result - keep Geriatric fellowship Cedel - went to AFD, result - redirect D'Isigny - went to AFD, result - keep Afşin-E coal mine - went to AFD, result - redirect Afşin-D coal mine - went to AFD, result - redirect Afşin-C coal mine - went to AFD, result - redirect Hail fellow well met Mathematical practice - went to AFD, result - keep Infomania Nature deficit disorder Conference microphone Public health engineering - went to AFD, result - redirect List of Batman storylines - went to AFD, result, merge and redirect Descriptive knowledge - went to AFD, result - keep Bubble chair List of offshore financial centres - later redirected

The list above is an evaluation of the PRODs that were removed and the articles are still in the encyclopedia. I looked back at all the deprods back to the beginning of September. Andrew made 42 deprops that have not been deleted. Of those 42, 2 are currently at AFD. An additional 19 were sent to AFD and the discussion is now closed. Results of 10 were keep, 7 redirect (with some including merge) and 2 were no consensus. Of those not sent to AFD, 1 was an invalid PROD, 1 was later redirected and 14 have no action taken. This is compared to the last year of 36 deprods that were later deleted at AFD. I oppose taking away his ability to deprod articles. ~ GB fan 12:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban and oppose block, essentially for the reasons explained by User:Cullen328. There's no policy breach here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  Again, I find it weird that we're talking about whether Andrew is technically violating policy by engaging in behaviour that, by definition, is not a violation of current policy, but is perceived as being disruptive and so is the subject of a ban discussion. It's a truism that a number (I'd guess at least half) of Andrew's AFD !votes have been policy breaches (or ... "advocating for policy breaches", I guess?), and so if he were required to provide rationales for deproddings we can assume a similar proportion of them would be too; the problem is he never does provide rationales, even when specifically requested to do so on his talk page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  You find it weird that when trying to impose sanctions on someone, some of us require some evidence of actual policy violation? I find that weird. WP:PROD policy says anyone can remove a PROD for any reason and it does not require any explanation or edit summary. If you want to change that policy then seek a change to the policy - but trying to impose restrictions on one editor that do not apply to anyone else when that editor is not in any way in breach of any policy is just plain wrong in my view. Sure, we sanction editors for disruptive behaviour, but there must be some policy basis to it. And nobody has demonstrated that AD's de-prods are disruptive, as far as I can see - all I can see is "I don't agree with him so he must be stopped". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

  Re-reading this, I missed "I would also like to see him TBANNED from attending any wikimeetups where he would be able to influence good faith editors to his disruptive behaviour"! I obviously Oppose such a disgraceful suggestion - thoughtcrime anyone? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose t-ban and oppose block - having faced similar issues working at NPP, I can certainly understand the frustration expressed by the OP and those in agreement but I also agree with Cullen and reasons others have given to oppose. Deprodding is a judgment call, and while some may find it to be annoyance, it is neither a policy violation nor is it behavioral disruption to the project. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 22:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  "Deprodding is a judgment call" = bullseye! PROD is specifically and deliberately a very loose judgment call, which means AD is free to use his judgment when evaluating PRODs just as much as anyone else. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose t-ban and oppose block - no policies have been violated. It would certainly lend itself towards collaborative editing if A.D. were to leave a reason, but by policy and years of practice he is not required to. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose t-ban and oppose block per everyone above and below (and per my comments below). –Davey2010^Talk 00:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose the topic ban and block, of course. I also oppose the suggestion that I should prohibited from attending events such as the London meetup on Sunday, where I shall be happy to discuss the details, especially the World Beer Cup! Here's a recent testimonial, for those who doubt my good faith. Andrew D. (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Andrew has remotely supported every event that he hasn't been able to attend in person, and gives such warm welcomes and support to new editors. He takes the time to keep up with events, and to patiently and enthusiastically share his expertise on Wikipedia with others. Many new pages would not exist without his support to help new editors who are from communities that have not previously felt welcome to edit until - his contribution to breaking down those barriers is invaluable, and we Wikimedians in the UK are lucky to have him.

— Positive Wikimedian of the Year

Please explain this?. (When you have explained, I have a follow up question.) -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 16:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry for posting inside davidsons post there, but he really should sign them. And his testimony (try using that at FTN) is very unreliably sourced. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 16:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

This here is the problem. Roxy, the Prod. wooF 21:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose block and topic ban if people don't like what "prod" and "de-prod" represent and its current implementation, fix that instead. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I have nommed the page concerned. Let's see if Davidson responds, and how.-Roxy, the Prod. wooF 13:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the AfD is heading for a merge, so it turns out that it wasn't an uncontroversial deletion after all, so the prod was inappropriate. --Michig (talk) 11:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• FWIW, Andrew's disruption at AFD (as opposed to PROD) has continued while this discussion was ongoing. Here he made a notability argument, listing eight sources apparently found via a quick GBooks search, in an AFD that had nothing to do with deletion, and refusing to retract the claim that WP:PRESERVE applies despite having been notified that the opposite is the case (the article in question is the result of a unilateral, selective, and unattributed merger of several previously existing articles, so PRESERVE would favour cutting it up and restoring the earlier redirect) -- his later comment didn't even acknowledge this. I've found this kind of behaviour to be charactistic of Andrew's AFD activity: he will make whatever bizarre, irrelevant argument he can to !vote "keep", then either refuse to acknowledge when others correct him or double down and get into a long back-and-forth that will probably make a closer's eyes gloss over. I'm not confident anyone will actually do anything about this at this point, since this discussion was opened on the wrong topic: Andrew's behaviour regarding deletion, not just de-prodding, needs correction. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Stats There's some helpful analysis above by NinjaRobotPirate and GB fan but it's not complete because they covered different timeframes. I've done some further analysis to summarise what's been done over the last year. I reckon that there will have been about 10,000 prods during that time – about 27 per day. Here's my contribution, set in proportion.

estimated total prods for year Nov 2017 – Nov 2018	10,000
Number of prods removed by Andrew D.	165	1.65% of total
Number of de-prodded articles deleted	36	22%
Number of de-prodded articles not deleted	129	78%

So we see that, even though I look through the list of all prods, only a small fraction of them are de-prodded. In more than 98% of cases, I pass by on the other side but, in a few cases, I intervene to remove the prod. In about 78% of these controversial cases, the article is not deleted. These numbers seem quite reasonable to me but it would be interesting to compare with some other prod patroller. I'm only aware of one other editor that does this regularly and that's DGG. We don't seem to have heard from him yet so it would be good to get his views. Andrew D. (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain this?-Roxy, the Prod. wooF 16:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, there's also the fact that AFDs are difficult to file to begin with, due to the number of hoops the instructions require noms jump through, and the tendency of editors like Andrew to shoot down AFDs that don't appear to have jumped through those hoops correctly. I must reiterate, Andrew tried to have an AFD speedy closed because an editor with an account finished the nomination for an IP but was himself neutral. Look at any AFD where he cites WP:BEFORE and, unless consensus is unanimous that it was a flimsy nomination (i.e., the facts just happened to align with Andrew's agenda), he's usually just wikilawyering over something that's not at issue (making notability arguments in non-notability-based AFDs, etc.). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The speedy keep deletion guideline states If the nominator indicates that the nomination is procedural in nature, then the nomination is ineligible for speedy keep, which certainly applies to Ymblanter's procedural nomination. This was a hopelessly incompetent appeal to WP:SK. Fortunately, nobody listened. Reyk _YO! 08:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• The word "procedural" means that one is following a procedure – some sort of established or formal process. That was not the case here as the nominator had just picked up a vague complaint by an IP editor and then decided to take the matter to AfD. In such a case, the editor taking the action should take full responsibility for it. But, the nominator here said that " I have no opinion on the merits of the nomination". This means that they can't have followed the proper procedure described at WP:BEFORE. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the statistics and evidence above, it is clear that one of the main problems here is abuse of proposed deletion and/or lack of judgment of those placing prod tags on articles, because when so many deproded articles go to AfD and don't get deleted, the original prods are clearly not well considered. --Michig (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I would dispute that. Most of the "articles" are one or two sentences long, and serve no purpose to the encyclopedia by being left as "standalone articles" when redirects would be more helpful to our readers. Even redlinks would be better since they can be redirected without anyone disputing that "you can't just redirect an existing article, which is tantamount to deletion, without consensus". However, when they come to AFD invariably the discussion becomes about "notability", without regard for whether having a single-sentence article would be better than having a redirect (see the hundred or so AFDs of sub-stubs created by Starzynka (talk · contribs) earlier this year), and the result is either "no consensus, default to keep" or "there is consensus that the topic is notable, so keep"; sometimes an AFD results in an article being expanded so it's no a longer a useless sub-stub, and sometimes it does not, but in all cases the pages getting deleted would be preferable to leaving them in the mainspace in the state in which they were found. There are also cases like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azia, where Andrew deprods a fairly obvious copyvio article, it gets brought to AFD, it gets speedy-deleted once I point out the problem, and Andrew complains on the deleting admin's talk page, wikilawyering over ADMINACCT that he was in the right to repeatedly badger SpinningSpark over the issue (sorry, but I only just now remembered that this was another example of a deprod by Andrew, which was clearly disruptive to begin with, and became more disruptive after the AFD, although it wasn't technically covered by the above sub-stub issue). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

It's really very simple - if an article wouldn't get deleted at AfD, whether you feel that's right or wrong, it's not suitable for proposed deletion, which is only for articles which are uncontroversial candidates for deletion. --Michig (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Not if the only reason it wouldn't get deleted at AFD is because of Andrew -- and others like him -- making bogus WP:ILI and WP:TDLI arguments. (As an aside, while enjoying the latest episode of RWBY I was reminded of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional currencies (2nd nomination), which is another one where Andrew's behaviour, trying to find any excuse to keep a crap article, was particularly obvious. It just so happened that a few more editors saw the light in that particular discussion.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose block and topic ban 'Deprodding is a judgment call, and while some may find it to be annoyance, it is neither a policy violation nor is it behavioral disruption to the project. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 22:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)'. Precisely. Simon Adler (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I withdraw my request to topic ban Davidson from wikimeetups such as the beer and cosplay in Holborn tomorrow. I have bought my ticket from Yorvik, and I'll ask him to explain that to my face. Any other points to be made, bedsides the obvious one? -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 08:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Proposal: Require Andrew Davidson to provide a rationale with each de-PROD

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

---

A number of very experienced editors, including administrators, have had long-term problems with Andrew Davidson's behavior concerning PRODs and his apparent targeting of them merely to remove the PROD whether or not the removal appears warranted in any way to any reasonable person. Providing rationales for de-PRODs is not mandatory, but an administrator can enact a community-based sanction requiring Andrew Davidson to provide one with each de-PROD, if there is consensus for this sanction. Therefore I am proposing it. Softlavender (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support as nominator, since the editor's de-PRODding has, over a very long time, been widely viewed as deliberately disruptive. This sanction will not prevent him from de-PRODding, but it will require him to demonstrate good faith by providing a rationale. Softlavender (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support as per nom. I think this is a good final step before a topic ban becomes necessary, though I suspect AD will try to game it somehow. Reyk _YO! 05:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support as per nominator. I suspect the rationales will continue to be along the lines of "prods are for uncontroversial deletions, and this is controversial," as per the talk page. I don't necessarily read bad faith into them, as the synthetic rope deprod was correct, but would strongly recommend either further explanations in the edit summary other than "controversial" or improving the articles which are deprodded, as several of the ones I looked at were completely without references. SportingFlyer talk 05:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support --Tarage (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support per the smug disruption displayed with one foot in the doorway of a topic ban. Nihlus 06:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support but he will likely not provide meaningful rationals Legacypac (talk) 06:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• NOTE for closing admin: I recommend that the sanction include a requirement to provide a rationale specific to the article in question, and specifically refuting the PRODer's concerns with specific facts, as opposed to a generic, non-specific rationale. Softlavender (talk) 06:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• How would this work if the PRODder's concern is not clear? For example, in the case of synthetic rope, their concern was just "See Rope". What specific fact is expected in such a case? Andrew D. (talk) 08:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The question proves the need. Other editors can clearly see that the PROD placer believes this topic duplicates an existing topic. Legacypac (talk) 08:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: In my mind, nothing wrong with a (removed prod) (rationale for deletion unclear). That was also the prod removal I'm least concerned about, though. SportingFlyer talk 09:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, there's no policy that mandates a rationale, removing prod tags is not disruptive, just send the article to AFD if the prod is removed. Easy peasy. Fish+Karate 09:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Unwarranted, knee-jerk de-PRODs are indeed disruptive, especially if they are willfully done en masse over the years, because they place an enormous burden on the community via clogging AfD with unnecessary AfDs which could have been handled at the PROD stage if warranted. Softlavender (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
    • An "enormous burden"? Really? PROD is explicitly for uncontroversial deletions that nobody contests. If even one person contests the PROD tag, the article must go to AFD. I am not saying this is the best way to do things, I'm saying that that's the current policy, per Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Objecting - "You are strongly encouraged, but not required to also .. explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page". If the policy is not reflective of how you feel the proposed deletion policy should work, then work to get the policy changed. Forcing a user to do something that is not mandated by policy, for no real reason other than "I don't like what he is doing at the moment", is not right. To be clear, I would very much support the idea that this policy should say that the removal of PROD tags without a rationale is potentially disruptive and such removals may be reverted, reinstating the tag. But the policy doesn't say that, it explicitly permits removal without rationale. Fish+Karate 10:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
      • It's not an "enormous" burden. It is a burden. Many of these deprodded articles don't have any references, and no one has touched them since they were deprodded. Adding a rationale is incredibly simple. I agree it should not be mandatory, but I don't see a problem with trying to mitigate a small community burden (11 deprods in 5 weeks isn't that disruptive) with a small individual burden where it's justified. SportingFlyer talk 11:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
        • 11 in 5 weeks, or 36 in a year; either way you count it, it's a drop in the AFD ocean (a very cursory check shows about 100-130 articles at AFD each day). Exaggerations such as "enormous burden" and "en masse" don't help anyone. Fish+Karate 11:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Fish and karate: You're right, that is not a policy. I tried to propose it as a policy specifically because of the disruption caused by this one editor, and was met with "Yeah, that is pretty disruptive, but that should be dealt with by an individual sanction, not a change of policy". The whole point of individual editing restrictions is that they are meant to restrict more than the existing policies already restrict everyone, so there's no policy that mandates [that] is quite an unusual rationale for opposing a ban proposal. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The fact you consider "editing within policy" to be an unusual rationale is more concerning than anything else in this thread. Fish+Karate 11:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Umm... all editing restrictions logged at WP:RESTRICT are expansions on policy. If any of them were simply reiterating what policy said, they wouldn't be editing restrictions; they would be policies. Not only is this not an unusual thing for me or any other editor to say, but it's a given; you're not seeming to understand that is far more concerning, let alone your condescending to me as you do above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

BTW: I can provide (and have provided elsewhere) lists of Andrew's counter-policy AFD !votes. His forcing other editors to nominate articles for AFD only for him to show up and make such arguments is highly disruptive (hardly "editing within policy"); demanding that he make these arguments up-front so the AFD nom can address them is quite reasonable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support Dear. God. Yes. Can we also ping in anyone at the discussion I linked above (namely MelanieN, HighInBC, Barkeep49 and Insertcleverphrasehere) as they were actually, indirectly, the ones to specifically propose this? (I pointed out to Andrew on his talk page that there was a growing consensus, even among those who think "Deprodding should require an explanation" is not a feasible policy, that he specifically should be required to do so anyway, and the OP appears to have noticed that message.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

BTW, I would also support a TBAN from de-prodding, broadly construed, as well. He should be required to appeal the one before the other. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Since I was named here I will note that my comments were general and not aimed at Andrew D. Specifically I will (scarily) quote myself that being "considerate" in removing PRODS is the right thing to do. To apply it to this case, 36 dePRODs in the last year, if the correct number, aren't really disruptive to the encyclopedia, but it would be "considerate" if Andrew took the feedback here on board. Even though I agree with Hijiri about deletion discussions more than Andrew, I believe the encyclopedia benefits from us having to live with differing point of views what Wikipedia is and should be. I have to live with Andrew being more of an inclusionist than I think right and he has to live with me being more of a deletionist than he thinks right. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: FWIW, when Andrew is advocating for the violation of copyright and NOR policy, it goes beyond editors having differing views. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: But this is a TBAN about PROD and so I confined my thinking and analysis to that. I am guessing I would find a lot to disagree with, and maybe even think over the line, if we started exploring his contributions at AfD. But since that's not the discussion it's not where I went with my thinking. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but since a large number of his AFD !votes are counter-policy, we can assume the deprod rationales he refuses to provide even when they are specifically requested are similarly non-compliant. Anyway, I would question whether requiring someone do something each time they engage in a process, but not banning them from engaging in that process, is not really a "TBAN" to begin with: yeah, I advocated for both, but the Softlavender proposal we are discussing here is not really a TBAN. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose As per above, he does not do a bad job of deprodding articles. Would it help editors to understand why the article was deprodded, yes, but that is across the board. I see no evidence that his deprodding is disruptive or any reason we need to put additional requirements on him that we don't put on the community. ~ GB fan 12:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@GB fan: Pointing out that some of his deprods are not all that bad (but neither are they all that good) doesn't actually invalidate the claim that a lot of his deprods are bad. Additionally, requiring him to provide a rationale would not actually affect the not-bad ones (he could just provide the good rationale) -- it would only prevent him from doing so when he doesn't have a valid argument, and would make it possible for either (a) the editor responsible for the prod to reconsider in light of a valid argument or (b) the subsequent AFD nomination to address his arguments. Given that Andrew went to the trouble to type out (multiple) comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Lady (character), we can assume he would have deprodded it if ZXCVBNM had prodded the page rather than going straight to AFD; if Andrew had been required to provide a rationale, and his rationale was, like his AFD !vote, "I think we should be allowed WP:NOR in cases like this", then the nominator could have pointed out the absurdity of that argument in advance, and we could have avoided a lot of trouble. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I can not support forcing a single individual to explain their DEPRODs unless there is clear evidence that their DEPRODS are disruptive. 42 DEPRODS in the last <2.5 months that are still in the encyclopedia compared to 36 that have been deleted in the last year in my mind is not disruptive. Should he reevaluate what he deprods, yes. Would it help if he adjusts his criteria for deprodding a little, yes. Do I see enough to force him to provide an explanation, no. On top of that what explanation would be good enough before his deprod is allowed to stand? Would it be acceptable for him to say, "I think there is enough here that this article needs to be discussed at AFD before being deleted"? ~ GB fan 12:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

That depends. Clearly, with any article that I don't think should be deleted, any rationale that aligned with my personal reason for believing as much would be sufficient. I guess some valid reasons were probably presented in those AFDs you referred to that resulted in keeps? My experience with Andrew's detailed AFD arguments is that they are very poor and often show a poor understanding of Wikipedia policy, the topics in question, or both (the above-linked "Dark Lady", Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanka prose, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean influence on Japanese culture and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of General Caste in Sikhism (2nd nomination) are among the worst examples that come to mind; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of the West Indies (Jamaica) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foodflation were bad for a completely different reason); I think allowing such an editor to unilaterally overrule a valid means of deletion without even providing any explanation is problematic; requiring him to make his argument up-front so an AFD nominator can evaluate it in their nomination, rather than just forcing the nominator to wonder to themselves whether Andrew actually had a valid reason, would be better. Andrew's deprods don't come with a notice "Hey, this guy might have a valid point, or he might just be reverting you because he thinks he can get away with it"; most editors will just assume the former, which is a whole lot of extra work. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support the proposal that any "Deprodding should require an explanation" even though it is not an existing policy. The table of DePRODs is overwhelming. And appears to me as a blatant misuse of DePROD policies. We are simply adding unnecessary more work for the volunteers with allowing such behavior. I would also support a TBAN from de-prodding, broadly construed --DBigXrayᗙ 13:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yep. If I nominated articles at AfD with that kind of failure rate, and ignored talk page questions except to say "I'm allowed to do this", I'd have been blocked or tbanned ages ago. Reyk _YO! 13:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose a pointless exercise. Andrew Davidson will simply add "covered in multiple published sources, including [YOUR BOOK HERE]" which is the usual opener at the myriad AFDs that fall out of these de-prods. Mandating he does the work he would do, just a few minutes or hours sooner, will not stop the de-prodding, and will not stop the frustration. 100% guaranteed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The Rambling Man you have explained why this will possibly fail. May we know what is the proposal you feel might work here ? Obviously if the above measures fail to achieve the intended purpose of reducing the number of frivolous dePRODs, then more stricter actions may be proposed. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak for TRM but my proposal would be to either get consensus to change the policy to mandate a reason for de-prodding, or recognise that 36 de-prods in a year is not disruptive, leave it be, and find something better to do. Fish+Karate 13:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, there's no "possibly" about it. This is a non-starter. And I'm afraid "frivolous" is in the eye of the beholder. I don't think Andrew believes his actions to be frivolous in any way, and that the small number of additional AFDs generated in the big scheme of things is really minuscule. This, I'm afraid, appears to be a very large waste of community time. The basic principle of "prod" is to blame, that should anyone for any reason decide they disagree with it, it makes it controversial, and hence prod no longer applies. Just changing the rules for one editor who can simply bypass the change by adding the first line of the AFD in his justification for the removal of the prod is going to achieve nothing at all. I think it'd be better to have spent all this time and energy working on articles rather than working on ways to stop a near-trivial number of puportedly frivolous AFDs being created. If de-prodding has saved one or more articles from deletion, then I suspect that somewhat validates Andrew's occasional actions. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I see so many people saying there is a large number of deprods that shouldn't have been done. What I don't see is people actually supporting that with data. Looking at the information above there were 36 of their deprods that were deleted at AFD or speedy deleted in the last year. There are also 42 of their deprods from the last 2+ months that are still in the encyclopedia, that includes 19 that survived an AFD. If that time frame is typical of a year for Andrew, he would have around 220 deprods that are still in the encyclopedia with around a 100 of those that survived AFD. This tells me there are more frivolous PRODs then there are DEPRODs. ~ GB fan 13:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

This, I'm afraid, appears to be a very large waste of community time.

Yep. And it's Andrew D. doing the time wasting. --Calton | Talk 22:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it's the usual drama mongers. This whole set of approaches is doomed, yet you're all racking up KB of chat, far more wasteful than anything Andrew Davidson has done, and I'm assuming good faith that he's doing it for reasons he believes in, while this is mainly a witch hunt designed to punish someone's extreme (but still legitimate) viewpoint who still operate within guidelines and policies. Some here should know better. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, if I'm to be included among "the usual drama mongers", the reason is that I've been extremely busy in real life for the last month or so, have only come on to Wikipedia to deal with the affairs of the day that are kind of "limited time events", and have been unable to devote time to building articles. (I posted on WT:WAM before any of this came up that I would hardly even be able to participate this year, let alone judge.) I'm a little angry at the OP for, like the OP of the AN thread in June, picking a really stupid moment to open this discussion, and not consulting with me in advance as to the best way to go about it. If nothing comes of this thread, it'll be as much the fault of careless editors who agree with me that something needs to be done about Andrew but did so in an extremely sloppy manner, and if that happens there'll probably be an informal moratorium on drahma-board threads on Andrew for the next few months. He really needs a TBAN from article deletion, broadly construed, and I believe I've got evidence that would convince the community that this is the case, but it's impossible to present it when something like this keeps happening every few months and undercutting it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I think you're getting too involved with this. This is really not a big deal. It's a shame that Andrew's editing style doesn't conform to your expectations, or those of many other editors (myself included) but this pitchfork-wielding approach is counter-productive and provides precisely zero end to the drama. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose (edit conflict × 5) rationale requirement but support broad topic ban from PROD (may not PROD or dePROD any article for any reason, may not request REFUND of a PRODded article, and may not comment on the PROD process anywhere on Wikipedia), per evidence of a problem causing widespread editing grief, and per those who have said that AD would just game a requirement to provide rationales by providing generic rationales to satisfy the requirement and continue the disruptive behaviour. It's fairly obvious that AD is not dePRODding articles because he finds the individual deletion proposals controversial but because he objects to PROD in general (see the third bullet here) and is bringing the controversy to deletions which are otherwise uncontroversial. That's pretty much the definition of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. As for requiring rationales generally, Roxy linked to where we had that discussion just a bit more than a month ago and it was soundly rejected; I see later in the same discussion it's been proposed again, and is being just as soundly rejected. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support - I don't think the PROD policy was designed for wholesale DEPRODing without rationale to the point of disruption. We need to be careful not to live or die on what policy says.--WaltCip (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose we currently have an open RFC about this at WP:VPP, there's no reason to apply it only to Andrew D. Well, there is one reason, which is that people find him generally annoying. But there are many things he does that are more annoying than dePROD without a reason, and several of the support voters are also generally annoying. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment -- this is, in my view, a distraction from the key issue, and too easily game-able. We should just TBAN and be done with it. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support - this mass deprodding is gaming the system and essentially enforcing a policy consensus of one. It is deliberate provocation of other editors, and It needs to stop. Unfortunately, I agree with Jytdog, that it is possible the editor will just scoff at this and provide a meaningless caption to satisfy these requirements. If so, we'll be back here to discuss a TBAN. Nevertheless, this at least gives the opportunity to show good faith!Jacona (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose No policy rationale or such egregious disruption for either sanction. ——SerialNumber54129 16:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Topic ban him from PRODing and dePRODing? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support Clearly, his behavior is bad faith disruption, it seems clear his only goal is to game the system to disrupt the PROD process maximally. That's hardly a useful behavior at Wikipedia. The opposes do note there is no policy forcing him to do so, but at some point we need to look at WP:GAME and look at the clear intent of his actions. --Jayron32 16:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  Based on Andrew D.'s explanation below, I am quite satisfied that my initial assessment was incorrect. He seems to be acting both in good faith and with due diligence. I now oppose any ban. --Jayron32 18:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per opposers. Prodding is easy come, easy go. The rationales provided by many heavy prodders are often nonsense, and this would just get similar vague/standard rationales from AD. The statistics above show his deprods are kept at AFD far too often to justify personal measures. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support I guess but a topic ban makes more sense. This needs to say "a rationale backed up by multiple reliable sources" or something like that, in order to be meaningful. Otherwise, a bad rationale or simple rationale like "deprodded, he's notable" is still a rationale. A better answer is to have a complete topic ban rather than to try to invent a rule to solve the problem. --B (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose although I have a nearly opposite view to Andrew D about how much should be gotten rid of and how much should be retained. I am in general a deletionist, and I have been rebuked for PRODding unsourced articles without doing a BEFORE search to determine whether sources exist. However, if Andrew D wants to make a deletion controversial (that is, not non-controversial) just because he wants to make it controversial, so be it. Anyone whose PROD is deprodded can always take it to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• This editor is not tuned in to the expectations of the community. A scroll through their votes at AfD [353] shows they almost always vote Keep or Speedy Keep (with scores of pages deleted after these votes) and very rarely vote Delete (and a surprising number of those votes are on pages which end up kept). Therefore it is hard to trust their ability to determine a correct or incorrect PROD. Legacypac (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• The problem here isn't whether the deproddings are correct. It's that they're perceived as being done in bad faith, with an aim to deliberately damage the deletion process rather than out of any desire to see the articles kept on their own merits. Voluntarily accepting this restriction would go a long ways toward showing that perception is wrong. Having it involuntarily imposed and then getting blocked when some trigger-happy admin inevitably considers a deprodding reason frivolous (complete with unblocking, wheel-warring, 100-kiloword ANI shitstorm, and arbcom case), or escaping that involuntarily imposition when so such a large percentage of the opposition is based in ruleslawyering, is going to prove just the opposite. —Cryptic 19:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  I think that's a discredit to Andrew. I'm hardly his number one superfan but he's an out-and-out inclusionist and never fails to put forward some kind of argument at every AFD he's caused to exist through de-prodding. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Rather than rob the community of its time discussing unnecessary AFDs, I would like to see Andrew take the necessary time to outline a rationale for every de-prod. Hopefully, a positive side effect will be that community time is also reduced in discussing Andrew's behavior. Binksternet (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  It'll just be a touchpaper for more drama when, suddenly, an enthusiastic-yet-useless admin decides that one of Andrew's "rationales" is insufficient, and bang, here we'll be again. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comments in the section above, and per Fish+Karate, The Rambling Man, GB fan, Johnbod and power~enwiki. Those supporting this restriction have failed to produce evidence of significant disruption, and discussion of various AfD debates has nothing to do with deprodding. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose an imposition that is not required by Wikipedia policy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• user:Softlavender would you please withdraw this and close it? It has no chance of gaining consensus, and ideally folks will comment on the tban which is the open question. thx Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No, because it has wide support (13 Support, 9 Oppose thus far), and enough long-term editors and admins have had problems with AD's behavior that the overall situation is likely to go to ArbCom down the line if a solution isn't reached, and this is the simplest and most supported solution at present. Softlavender (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog whether you agree or disagree with chances of this proposal, enough people have already supported this to merit a closure by an uninvolved admin. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Withdraw a proposal that is currently passing by several votes? Legacypac (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure no admin will enact the proposal without a much stronger consensus. As I post this, there are 15 supports to 15 opposes. I'd hardly count that as solid consensus. --Blackmane (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

If you'll forgive the reminder, it's not a vote, and so it can not be "passing" based on a simple head count. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, with Support providing genuine rationales as an alternate. And spare me the "not required by Wikipedia policy" garbage: policy evolves from practice on Wikipedia and always has. --Calton | Talk 22:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support - This is a reasonable expectation for anyone de-PRODing, let alone someone doing it on a large scale. We're not mind readers. If someone wants to second guess other editors, they owe at least a minimal explanation. - MrX 🖋 22:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose isn't this the whole point of PROD? If the community wants the policy changed, then change the policy Samir 22:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Samir: I already answered you here. The policy change discussion you are referring to took place here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - WP:PROD doesn't require a rationale. The policy would have to be changed first, would it not? Perhaps the latter should be a serious consideration so we're all on the same page and not admonishing a productive editor for simply following policy. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 22:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• You seem to be missing the point, since the discussion here is not about changing standard practice, it's about whether this editor's behavioor, in particular, may merit a requirement that other editors do not have to follow. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: Do you mean that the policy page doesn't requiring deprodders give a reason? My understanding is that PROD does require a reason but DEPROD does not. However, Andrew's deprodding is disruptive. By definition, editing restrictions are not simple reiterations of what is mandated by policy, but expansions thereof. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@BMK - I wasn't aware we had the authority to overrule policy here at AN/I. @Hijiri88 - I should have been more specific in that the policy WP:PROD#Objecting, editors are "strongly encouraged, but not required, to also: Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. (and yada yada)." I'm of the mind that AN/I doesn't truly represent a fair and balanced "community discussion" since there are no notices that go out to the community that such actions are even being discussed. Doing it this way gives a handful of editors far too much authority in the decision making process, and would include editors who were not elected based on the trust factor of the community after enduring an RfA. Does that make sense? ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 23:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

If a policy says that editors are "strongly encouraged but not required" to do X, and an editor's behavior is problematic in that regard, then requiring them to do X is not "overruling policy" any more than blocking an IP is "overruling" the policy that IPs are allowed to edit. Further, your objection to this being discussed at AN/I makes little sense, because it (in addition to AN) is the venue in which sanctions such as this are always discussed. No wider community advertisement is necessary, because no fundamental change in policy is being considered, only a behavioral sanction for a single editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

That's cool, and I respect your opinion, but it should also probably be noted that this ANI thread is a spin-off of a "discussion" (really a careful warning being followed by "I don't care I'm not listening lalalalala") that took place on Andrew's talk page, which spun out of a discussion on VPP, where the proposal to amend policy to require a rationale was shot down specifically because, while Andrew's deprodding is disruptive, it needs to be dealt with by means of individual sanctions, not changes to policy; and AN/ANI is the place to discuss individual sanctions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per everyone above but mainly per TRM - I 110% disagree with Andrews deprods especially when there's no reason provided ... however (and no disrespect to Andrew) but it's not hard to make a bullshit reason to deprod .... which if he started doing he's still going to end up back here, I oppose any sort of block, topic ban or sanction. –Davey2010^Talk 00:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man and Davey2010: Yeah, but if Andrew was forced to provide a terrible argument up-front, that would make opening the AFD a lot easier, as noms would not need to consider whether Andrew might have a decent rationale (he sometimes does -- I personally have no problem with this edit). Yeah, they could ask him, and when the answer is "I don't care" they can reasonably assume he doesn't have one and fire ahead with the AFD anyway, but it would be better if he was subject to an individual restriction requiring him to be more open about his lack of a good reason, no? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it doesn't work that way. And as I've already said, this is just transferring the drama to a time when Andrew either forgets or provides something which a trigger-happy lame admin considers block-worthy. None of this is useful, and as many have said before and since, this isn't exactly one of Wikipedia's big issues. The effort wasted here now by far exceeds that which was required to deal with the last year's worth of AFDs that have come out of the de-prods. And given the fervour to see Andrew punished, this is just the beginning. Tragic misdirection of effort. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

this isn't exactly one of Wikipedia's big issues Andrew's disruption was basically the only reason Korean influence on Japanese culture survived AFD; the shitstorm that occurred in the fallout therefrom played a key part in (CurtisNaito's ridiculous harassment of me at) the Hijiri88/Catflap08 ArbCom case. An editor "in good standing" who is going around taking every opportunity he can to undermine one of our project's core processes (and all of our core policies while he's at it) is definitely more of a cause for concern that most of the stuff that gets brought up on this page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid what you're describing is the classic "drop in the ocean". Wikipedia has more than six million articles. One or two disagreements over a handful of arguments per year is to be expected. If you think Andrew himself is deliberately disrupting Wikipedia then you should be seeking a permanent ban, not some kind of half-arsed ill-thought-out semi-solution which is ineffectual and will result in simply more drama. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Andrew can be a pain, but are we really having this discussion over 36 deprods? I'm a lot more worried about material that gets deleted via the PROD process without anyone really having done a decent BEFORE check. That material is almost always gone at that point. A bad deprod just results in an AfD. Now, if those numbers went up, I'd have a very different opinion. But it does look like a fair percent of his deprods end up making it through AfD. As long as that's at least 15% (and if I understand, he's well above that) I'd say he's doing us a service. Hobit (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hobit: The 36 deprods is the tip of the iceberg. It's his disruptive comments at AFD that are the real problem. However, while dealing with the AFD comments probably also needs to be done, it's particularly problematic when we grant a user with such a low opinion of our content policies (and such a poor ability to cite them correctly when required to) the authority to unilaterally shut down a valid deletion process without even citing a policy. It's incremental: recently (since this AN discussion?) he appears to (forgive me if I'm wrong?) have shifted (relatively speaking) away from direct AFD participation, in favour of deprodding; this allows him to keep a lot more of his terrible keep arguments (see the Dark Lady AFD linked above) to himself, but he really shouldn't be allowed to do that given his record. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you clarify his record? Of the articles he's deprodded in the last X time period (month, 3 months, year, take your pick) how many of them weren't deleted at AfD? 20%? 40%? I don't think there is a way for me to tell as a non-admin, and I'm not clear we know based on the discussion above. Help? Hobit (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Me neither. My problem is more with his comments at AFD: they are often ridiculously out of line with policy. If he were required to provide a rationale for deprodding, then he could be cut off at the pass with an AFD nom that points out how ridiculous his rationale was. There's a serious problem with articles he defends not getting deleted at AFD when they should be: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean influence on Japanese culture is perhaps the worst single case where, had he not shown up and made a bogus argument that looked educated to anyone who didn't read it carefully enough, the two or three others who !voted keep "per Andrew" may not have done so (yes, ideally they should have actually read his comments carefully enough to realize they were gibberish, but that doesn't make his original posting of gibberish any less disruptive). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

My last comment to you, Hijiri88, on this thread, as I don't want to be perceived as badgering you, but if you consider the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean influence on Japanese culture as "no consensus" to be incorrect - and here I can see your point, I would have closed it as delete - then we have a process to deal with this, which you could have started in much less time and using far fewer bytes then you've expended on complaining about the aforementioned AFD. Fish+Karate 10:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comments in the above section. ansh666 00:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The community already decided that no comment is necessary when declining PRODs. That's the policy, like it or not. Drive-by PRODs should not expect much respect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Hawkeye7: Could you link to that discussion? I linked to a discussion where (a small portion of) the community decided that, but also decided that requiring individual editors whose deprods are disruptive to provide rationales up-front was valid. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 92#Require explanation before removing a PROD tag was the one I was thinking of (after Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/Archive 13#Should a reason be required when removing a PROD tag?) But I'm sure the old hands can remember further back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment only . I oppose this proposal, but thank Soft Lavender. We must remember that Davidson is an expert wikilawyer, and would inevitably find wiggle room. He has managed to do a Joe at the community for all this time, I see no reason to think that a behavioural sanction would work. At least TBAN please, though I see no groundswell of feeling supporting a block, and would withdraw that request if asked. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 02:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support required a PROD-removal reason being longer than the PRODer's "reason for proposed deletion". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Although a rational might be nice, removal of a PROD implies that the removing editor believes that the PROD is not uncontroversial. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@I am One of Many: But what if it's only controversial because Andrew doesn't like article deletion and is working to undermine our deletion processes? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Please can you provide evidence of this undermining, as this would change my view on the matter. I assume there is evidence, or you would not be making such an accusation. Fish+Karate 10:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Fish and karate: At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foodflation he requested the discussion be speedy-closed because the OP completed the nomination in someone else's stead. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean influence on Japanese culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanka prose and a bunch of Indian ones whose name escape me at the moment (...castes in Sikhism...? User:Sitush would remember) he feigned a degree of familiarity with highly technical academic fields and argued against editors who had actually read and understand the sources he claimed to have read, with the effect and apparent intent of confusing other outside !voters and closers. His argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of giant animals in fiction, despite him repeatedly doubling down on it in the face of correction by more knowledgeable editors, was gibberish. Here he defended a serial plagiarist who was casually questioning other users' (mine at the time, but there were others) sanity, based apparently on the perception of said user being on his "side" in the area of article deletion. Need I go on? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please provide evidence, without which this is a violation WP:NPA. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

It's always been my understandgng that we are not required to provide the same evidence for the same claims multiple times in the same thread. The "Dark Lady", "Foodflation", "Korean influence" and "Tanka prose" AFDs should be evidence enough. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

It's always been my understanding that if we wish to invoke allegations about other people's motives, we need to get it passed by consensus based on evaluated evidence rather than just on our own personal deductions. Unproven whatiffery about another editor's motives has no part to play in discussions like this, and it merely reflects badly on the person using it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm a proposed deletion patroller and it may help to explain the details of what this means. When someone places a prod tag, typically using Twinkle, this places the article in question into the category All articles proposed for deletion. I review the contents of this category every day or two. It usually contains about 1-200 articles. It would be quite time-consuming to look at each of them so I scan the article titles, looking for topics which I recognise or which look promising. I then drill down on those, checking out the content, history, sources and so forth. If the topic seems to have merit then I remove the proposed deletion tag and update the talk page with relevant templates such as {{Friendly search suggestions}} and {{Old prod full}}. My edit summaries are usually brief and focus on what has been done in the edits. I don't get into the reasons for removing the prod because there isn't space and, per WP:REVTALK, we should "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content ... This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors!". If there's some discussion on the talk page then I might add to it – see Jazz in Africa for a recent example. Note that, in that case, the nominator has replaced the prod template even though the template states emphatically that this should not be done, "If this template is removed, do not replace it." This seems to be the main problem with the prod process -- Twinkle makes it easy for inexperienced editors to place the template without reading it or understanding it. They don't tend to follow the process described at WP:BEFORE because Twinkle doesn't encourage or support this. Twinkle also doesn't provide any support for removal of the prod tag or any of the suggested steps, which all have to be done manually. If people want a better process and outcome, then the tools like Twinkle should be enhanced to facilitate best practice. Until then, I can try doing more to address the concerns above but should be free to explore options without an onerous sanction tying my hands. Per WP:NOTREQUIRED, we should "Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians." Andrew D. (talk) 09:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Neither Andrew Davidson nor Colonel Warden is listed as a member of that project, and indeed hardly anyone has listed themselves in close to a decade, so claiming to be a member of a practically-defunct WikiProject as a defense against sanctions is ... questionable. Additionally, in virtually all of the deprods I've seen you do, the article contains almost no "content" or "history", and no "sources", so it seems like the "and so forth" accounts for virtually your entire process when it comes to deciding whether to deprod; could you elaborate on what it entails? Anyway, you definitely were not "focused on improving the encyclopedia itself" when you left that garbage [[water roux" article in the mainspace for someone else to clean up or delete, and when I asked for an explanation of why you had created more work for me you ignored the question. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Where did he say he was a member of the project? He said he was a proposed deletion patroller, this is someone who patrols proposed deletions, which clearly he is. Fish+Karate 10:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

(ec) I have had the relevant userbox for many years: {{User wikipedia/PROD Patrol}}. This puts its users into the category WikiProject proposed deletion patrollers. The project page should be updated to use the category rather than having a separate list but I suppose that, like many project pages, it has been neglected. Perhaps the project should be revived to review how it's doing and get the patrollers to compare notes. Other people have been doing similar work for projects like the new page patrol but it seems that it's quite a chore to keep these things going. Andrew D. (talk) 10:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

(ec×3) I'm afraid that Hijiri88 is now getting a little too badgery for this discussion. Time to let it go, this will close with no action of any kind, and life will go on. I suggest similar tomes of effort are driven towards articles and main page quality instead of this trivia. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see how the water roux article can be used against Andrew Davidson in a discussion about prod/deprod. Any article that describes a process such that the dough bakes with a soft, fluffy texture and the bread then keeps for longer is of top most importance in writing an encyclopedia. Even the self anointed Encyclopedists aren't living from eating dust fallen of the stars, but from eating terrestrial foods.

(by the way) Perhaps this article, in its present form, is not as best as possible. "Longer" should be qualified by "how longer", and "added to a mix" should be qualified in order to become reproducible. Don't they say: the proof of the recipe is in the eating. But this is a content's dispute, not the remit of this Incidents noticeboard.

(back to the discussed topic). The "Proposed Deletion Process" is not about atrocious articles, but about atrocious topics (whatever meaning is given to this "atrocious" qualifier). Moreover, "providing a reason for deprod" will not solve anything. How long will be a discussion to decide if "Even encyclopedists are eating, aren't they" is a sufficient rationale ? Pldx1 (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose He's not violating policy by removing prods. Period. There's no reason to place unwarranted sanctions just because a few people find his prod removals annoying. Either lobby for polcy changes or AfD the articles. It takes literally 3 seconds to click the xfd button. Jtrainor (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

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