Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1001

WP:NOTHERE editor using an article's talk page as WP:FORUM

• Fariborz26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, this user is using Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis like a WP:FORUM. first i answered him with sources but he does not get the point and keep feeding the talk page with his sole POV. Then i removed the discussions per WP:FORUM, WP:TROLL and WP:DONTFEED, but now, he's edit warring in order to reinstate his irrelevant edits and says that this is his "freedom of speech" or WP:BATTLEGROUND comments like "you could not stop me" on his talk page : [1]. IMO, it's a clear case of WP:NOTHERE troll. Admins attention is required. Thanks very much.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Obvious WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:SOAP case. Looking at their comments shows the reported user thinks WP is a forum and articles should be rewritten based on their nationalistic fantasies. --Wario-Man (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I wrote a few sentences in "talk page" and share my concern about the article, at first Wikaviani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) deleted my writings and called me troll and diversionist ( while I did not change the main page). Then I undo my section (in talk page) and described my reason, after that again Wikaviani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) delete my writings, threated me to block and accused me of using the talk page as the forum (while I just respond to his concern), so now somebody else, Wario-Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) delete my writing, threated me to block, and call me a nationalist who wants to write my nationalistic fantasies, who is Wario-Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ? is he an administrator with such pre-judgemental mind? How could I write a few sentences and share my concern in talk page?Fariborz26 (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Content dispute? Background: Iranian Azerbaijanis is about Azerbaijanis living in Iran. Not surprisingly, whether they are Iranian or not Iranian is a topic of discussion. Before Aug 2018, the Origin section of the article began by discussing a 2013 Russian DNA study that concluded not Iranian (or more Georgian than Iranian). In August, Wikaviani added content sourced to two Iranian studies that concluded Iranian. [2] [3] On 4 Jan, Fariborz26 posted on the article's talk page and a discussion ensued about the Origin section and the studies cited. [4] On 15 Jan, Wikaviani deleted the talk page discussion, [5] Fariborz26 undid [6] and added more comments, [7] [8] Wikaviani reverted [9] and posted a warning, [10] Fariborz26 undid, [11] Wario-Man reverted [12] and posted a final warning, [13] about the same time this ANI was posted. Fariborz26 posted an additional article talk page comment. [14] Seems to me the objections are centered on WP:NPOV, WP:DUE and whether the entire DNA/origin issue should even be in the article at all. I express no opinion on that but if this is a content dispute about the studies, perhaps third opinion or dispute resolution is the proper forum. Also I'm curious about reverting a bot's edit with the edit summary "removed an unreliable source" when the source is an MIT Press book. [15] Levivich? ! 05:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

No, this is not a content dispute and what you have posted is irrelevant to this ANI case. User:Wikaviani's edits are another story and if any editor thinks they're wrong, they should discuss on article talk page. This report is about the behavior and comments of reported user on talk page. It seems you're not familiar with this topic and that's the reason why you think his comments are content dispute stuff (as if they're caused by Wikaviani's edits). Even his last comment does not make any sense at all.[16]; e.g. he said: "You could not find the Origin section in the rest of the ethnic groups' pages." Really?! Almost all articles about ethnic groups have a section named "Origins" and many others have "Genetics" too. Don't you think posting such comments on talk pages is some kind of trolling or inappropriate behavior? He wants to remove some content from the article only because of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Per his comments, he also likes to insert his ethnocentrist POV and nationalistic rants instead of sourced content. And finally his behavior fits in WP:FORUM and WP:BATTLEGROUND. That's all. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: This has nothing to do with a content dispute, this is about a WP:NOTHERE ethno-nationalist troll who wants to rewrite the Iranian Azerbaijanis article in the way he likes. My mistake was that i began discussing with him on the article's talk page instead of simply ignoring him or, better, removing his WP:FORUM-like unsourced comments. Also, the "third opinion" was Wario-Man. As to your remark about my removal of a source, please take a look at who Brenda Schaffer is and you'll understand why i removed her.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I looked into her. Brenda Shaffer is a professor at Georgetown University [17] and the University of Haifa, former research director for Caspian Studies at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government [18], a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council [19], published by MIT Press, University of Pennsylvania Press and others, testified before the US Congress, quoted in the media, and generally appears to me to be a recognized scholar in the area. I'm guessing this is about the accusations in Huffington Post [20], The New Republic [21], and OCCRP [22]. I call it a content dispute because the dispute appears to be about what content should be in the article or not be in the article, or what source should be cited or not be cited. Levivich? ! 15:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Clearly, you're off-topic, this is not the place for such a discussion, i will gladly discuss about Schaffer with you on the article's talk page. But to make it short, yeah, it's about those articles you linked above and others.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. I like your both suggestions; please tell me what I should do for the next step. Also, I believe for such a sensitive subject, we have to use the most reliable, international and impartial studies with high impact factors, which unfortunately the 1 and 2 content sources which added by Wikaviani do not meet these qualifications.Fariborz26 (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Fariborz26: My first suggestion for "next step" is to wait and do nothing (at least for a few more days), to give other editors a chance to comment here, and see what others think. I only speak for myself and not for anyone else, and others may have a different point of view on this issue. If there is no progress here or on the article talk page after a few days, you might want to ask for help on the dispute resolution noticeboard. If you do post to DRN, keep the issue as narrow and simple as possible (don't complain about mistreatment of entire groups of people generally, but rather ask for opinons about this edit or that section of a specific article). I hope this help! ^Leviv_ich? ! 17:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

As per the above diffs, comments, and the reported user's WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT comments (like "I believe for such a sensitive subject, we have to use the most reliable, international and impartial studies with high impact factors, which unfortunately the 1 and 2 content sources which added by Wikaviani do not meet these qualifications") who sounds like having some serious WP:CIR issues (one more example here where he believes to have provided a reliable source with high impact factors with a random company article full of mistakes and poorly written ...), i make the below proposal :

===Topic ban proposal=== An indef topic ban on all topics related to the Azerbaijanis and Iran broadly construed.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, for three reasons:

1. I don't see what the editor did that violated any policy; raising objections about an article's content on its talk page is exactly what we're supposed to do. This still seems like a content dispute, not a conduct dispute, to me.
2. There appear to be good-faith reasons to have concerns about the two studies (1 and 2 in Wikaviani's comment above the proposal). Both studies suggest that Iranian Azeris are Iranian; both are from Iranian universities; neither is highly cited; and both are published in what may be low- or no-impact or non-notable journals: International Journal of Modern Anthropology (can't find on RG or SJR, 6 cites on WP), and International Journal of Immunogenetics (Ovid IF 1, SJR H-Index 43, 21 WP cites). Fariborz26's objection to the two seems to be a good-faith one to me.
3. Wikaviani's third link, in the sentence "one more example here", is to Fariborz's post on the article talk page, in which Fariborz linked to National Geographic Society's Genographic Project 2.0's article about reference populations, which Wikaviani characterizes as "a random company article full of mistakes and poorly written". But if you read the talk page post, Fariborz isn't arguing for including the Geno 2.0 article as a source, he's arguing for removing the Origin section altogether based on, as I understand it, genetic diversity and the challenges that arise in using DNA studies to categorize people into definite groups, and he was using the Geno 2.0 study as evidence of the broader point about classification of ethnic or nationality groups by DNA. To quote Fariborz: People in one country or region have different roots from different parts of the world so we should not use the term of the Origin anymore, it is the concept of the 19th century not 21st.

I don't know if Fariborz is right or not right about removal of the studies or the Origin section of the article, but I don't see how his bringing it up in any way merits any kind of sanction whatsoever. ^Leviv_ich? ! 00:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

1. Well, as far as i can see, using an article's talk page to give his opinion about the article with no source is prohibited. Making battleground comments is prohibited. Edit warring, is prohibited. Need more ? what about this this section title ? I would be curious to know why Fariborz finds offensive for Azerbaijanis to be described as having Iranian origins. Clearly ethno linguistic nationalism.
2. So, according to you, since the sources i cited in the article are Iranians and support an Iranian origin of Azerbaijanis, then they may be dubious ?! So let's remove all non notable (BTW this is yet to be demonstrated and the links you provided do not discredit these sources, they have few cites because Iranian sources are, often, less famous than westerners) English sources for UK-related topics, non notable American sources for US-related topics, non notable French sources for France-related topics, etc ...
3. If this Nat Geo society source is not to be included, then why quoting it on the talk page ? You're quite wrong when you say Fariborz isn't arguing for including the Geno 2.0 article as a source, and this shows, as Wario-Man said above, that you're not familiar with this issue yet. Fariborz claimed to have "tons of references" for his claims and he posts that poor one thinking that it's a high quality source. Did you take a look at it ? i forgot the number of spelling mistakes it contains. Also, it is strongly controversial. Fariborz made his first edit on january 4, 2019 then 16 other edits have been made and not a single of them is actually improving the project, instead, we have WP:FORUM and WP:BATTLEGROUND contributions. Seriously ?! Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The articles Iranian peoples and Azerbaijanis have sections on origins and genetics, but those are articles about ethnic groups. Iranian Azerbaijanis is an article about a particular ethnic group (Azeris) in a country (Iran). In similar articles, Kurds in Iran, Iranian Georgians, Iranian Assyrians, Iranian Armenians, Iranian Turkmen...none have a section about origin, DNA, or whether the ethnic group is "Iranian" or "Kurdish", "Georgian", "Assyrian", etc. Iranian Kazakhs has a section on Origin but it doesn't mention DNA or whether they are "Iranian" or "Kazakh". The suggestion that an Iranian Azeri is Iranian and not Azeri, or Azeri and not Iranian, is surely a controversial one. Seems to me like exactly the kind of thing that should be discussed by editors on a talk page. As for the editor not editing more, my assumption is the editor isn't editing because the first time they posted something on a talk page, it resulted in them being brought to ANI. But it doesn't matter; even an IP editor should be able to post this on a talk page without getting dragged to ANI over it. ^Leviv_ich? ! 02:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

IPs can post what they want (just like any other user), but on one condition (just like any other user too), it should be sourced and verifiable, per WP:EQUAL. Also, your remarks about other articles not having an origin section does not justify to remove sourced content from the Iranian Azerbaijanis article per WP:OTHER. And, with all due respect, you're a 2 months old account and the more i discuss with you, the more i realise that you're not familiar with many Wiki guidelines and policies. Now, i would suggest to let other contributors give their opinion. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong: Fariborz did not remove anything. Fariborz posted to the article talk page, and you removed those posts, and then posted here. Are you suggesting WP:RS is required for talk page posts? I do agree it will be helpful to hear from other editors about this. ^Leviv_ich? ! 03:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Just take a look at my above diffs, you continue to misrepresent what happened.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not misrepresenting what happened. The editor has never removed content from an article. The editor has never even edited an article. All the editor has done is post on talk pages. Anyone can see this by looking at their contribs. ^Leviv_ich? ! 17:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but it seems that you fail to understand that articles’ talk pages are not for posting WP:FORUM, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:SOAP or WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT messages. The editor did not provide a single source, he just came up and said « offensive title » with his POV, refused to engage in a constructive discussion since all he did was refuting what the sources say while providing only his POV, made battleground comments on his talk page, edit warred against me and Wario-Man, etc... this is not exactly what i would call « All the editor has done is post on talk pages. », so yes, according to me, you’re actually misrepresenting what he did. But as i said below, since both of you guys oppose a topic ban, then no problem, i’ll drop the stick, but trust me when i say that if Fariborz keeps editing this place, then sooner or later someone else will report him again, just because this guy is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, per Levivich. Honestly, back when I first started using Wikipedia, I had no clue what a talk page even was for. Fariborz26 while they are first starting out used it correctly here. User:Fariborz26 deserved a much better welcome than what they received. They clearly are trying their best here (even if their English could use some improvements admittedly). As User:Levivich stated, this is clearly a content issue and not a conduct issue. I find Wikaviani's dismissive attitude towards New Editors to be the most concerning conduct displayed here. User:Wikaviani would be best served by reviewing WP:BITE and avoid such mistakes in the future. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 05:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I reported Fariborz here because of his behaviour, not because he's a newby (also, FYI, i consider myself quite a newby too). I'm aware of WP:EQUAL and for your information, i engaged in a discussion with him and provided him some sources showing he was wrong (not really WP:BITE attitude IMO), but while i was providing sources, he was just posting WP:FORUM-like messages, this is why i removed the thread. It looks like a duck to me that Fariborz is a WP:NOTHERE user, but admins are free to sanction me if they think that i'm breaking Wiki rules with this report. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikaviani, you are not breaking any rules that I am aware of. However, it was not in good spirit to delete Fariborz26's contributions to the article's talk page as this violates WP:TPO. As Levivich correctly noted, the material was on topic and should not have been deleted as a result. The secondary example I would include of WP:BITE behavior would be when you wrote this to Levivich: And, with all due respect, you're a 2 months old account and the more i discuss with you, the more i realise that you're not familiar with many Wiki guidelines and policies. Now, i would suggest to let other contributors give their opinion. This is what I mean when I say dismissive behavior. I have seen no indication that Levivich is unfamiliar with WP:GUIDELINES in any respect. If I were to feel this is the case, I would point to the specific guideline that needs review (as I did for you and WP:BITE).

Concerning Fariborz26, we have {{subst:First article}} for a reason. This message or another welcome message would have been much more appropriate for a response to a new user's first set of contributions. This is why I recommended rereading WP:BITE. We all make mistakes, so that is why it is best to assume WP:GOODFAITH. Finally, you are not a new user; you are a rollbacker. Per WP:RBReq, Rollback is not for very new users. If you feel you are not ready for Rollbacker rights, you are free to request an admin disable them for you. I, myself, think you are really doing just fine, but you gotta just go easy on people sometimes. Kindest Regards, ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 19:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, i am a rollbacker, i never said that i'm not ready for it, but i only use this tool to revert clear cases of vandalism, nothing else, therefore, i did not use the rollback tool in this case. what i meant, when i said that i am quite a new user, is that i have many things to learn here, on Wikipedia, not like veteran editors. I cannot agree with you, when you say that Levivich is correct when he says that Fariborz did not break any Wiki rule. As Wario-Man (a veteran editor) said above, Fariborz has battleground mentality, proposes to rewrite some articles he does not like according to his fantasies, posted messages to an article's talk page just to expose his POV, with no source, said that a section of that article is "offensive" just because it describes a reality that he does not like, i hate to say this, but all these are breaches in WP:GUIDELINES (WP:FORUM, WP:SOAP, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:TENDENTIOUS, etc ...). As i said above, it looks like a duck to me that Fariborz is a WP:NOTHERE editor and Wario-Man seems to share my concerns, but if you guys oppose a topic ban, then no problem, i'll drop the stick. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

By the way, if an indef topic ban sounds not good, admins are, of course, free to choose the relevant sanction (for Fariborz, or, again, for me, if they think that i deserve it). Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawn, ready for close? Closer please note the edit summary here indicating the filer is willing to withdraw after discussion (thank you). Fariborz26 hasn't edited for four days, there is no edit war at the article or talk page in question, all is quiet and peaceful. :-) Hopefully if Fariborz brings the issue up again at the article talk page, it will be with a little more calmness and diplomacy, and that'll probably be better received by the other editors. Thanks. ^Leviv_ich? ! 21:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, as i said above, no need to continue this, even if i disagree with what both of you say about Fariborz, i drop the stick due to your feedback and already asked for closure. I would like to thank all involved editors for the time they put on it. Whether we disagree or not about something here, the most important is to work together. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Homeostasis07 requesting interaction ban with Czar.

Apologies for the length of this. I tried to be as succinct as possible, but this ANI has been 18 months in the making. I've even omited several other incidents, but what I've written below should be sufficent in determining whether my request for a mutual interaction ban with Czar would be appropriate. If not, I can expand where necessary.

Background

This entire incident resolves around the nomination of Jill Valentine for Featured Article Candidate. After reading through the first and second FACs (which I nominally contributed to), as well as the subsequent peer review (which I did not contribute to, but Czar was a major participant in; it recast the article almost entirely, and was sufficiently hostile, badgering and argumentative for the original nominator to abandon the article), I spent several weeks in my sandbox and on main-space working on Jill Valentine, making good-faith attempts to address every criticism ever levelled against it by every previous commentator (especially any item relating to sexism). Believing all those issues resolved, I renominated the article at FAC in May 2018. An FAC image reviewer – who determined that one image had an issue with its FUR, but otherwise the images used were appropriate (i.e., had "contextual significance") – was the only person to comment before Czar appeared. Despite this, Czar then began edit-warring over the use of a separate image. That FAC was closed on the basis of Czar's opposition, with the suggestion that I "open dialog with previous reviewers before nominating the article again." I then spent the next 5 months contacting all 21 previous reviewers, 17 of who responded.

Over the course of those 5 months, an 8-week discussion with Czar was initiated on Jill's talk page. Long story short, that discussion ended up being a continuation of the openly hostile and aggressive tone of the peer review, linked to in 'Background'. Even when it was pointed out to him that he was "reviewing" an older ID of the article, he responded with "but the point similarly applies to instances like...", while going on to quantify his original complaint with completely unrelated points. Another one of his points, beginning "It's a jarring time warp to go from 1996 to 2014 and back again (1998)", actually only developed as a result of a request I'd received from one of those 17 editors—i.e., genuine consensus building. But when the sentence he was complaining about was moved to another section of the article, he complained that "This introduces other problems. This R&L ¶ now reads as a string of facts/claims rather than a cogent whole", which stinks of a user holding their own opinion above all others. Furthermore, Czar never accepted a single argument I put forward, and just seemed to dig his heels in even further; the most productive portion of his review consisted of me removing author names from prose, which I happily did, on all but one occasion: Lisa Foiles, because I argued she was a notable writer. It ended up being the only thing I thought I convinced him of during that entire 8-week discussion. Instead, he went on to redirect Foiles' article without consensus. I know there's a lot in this paragraph, and I apologise that there aren't as many diffs as I'd like, but Czar tends not to time-stamp his responses. Though I was involved in the discussion directly, even I can't find the continuation of the discussion he ended with "Yes, see below c".

With that talk page discussion at an impasse, I renominated the article at FAC. This latest FAC attracted the participation of several previous reviewers, who all supported, except Czar. Many of the points he raised there were simply continuations of the arguments I highlighted here in the previous paragraph. He was also dishonest about his role in the peer review. When it was pointed out by another user that the FAC template requires "significant contributors to [an] article" to indicate their involvement prior to commenting, he responded "Please. All I have to declare is my time spent as a reviewer and copy editor", which was fundamentally untrue. Entire swathes of the article were completely re-composed during the 2-month peer review. He additionally labelled my attempts at establishing consensus by contacting previous reviewers over that 5 month period as disingenuous, arguing that "Most of the editors contacted for feedback since the last FAC were simply exhausted", despite 17 of those 21 users responding. That FAC was closed/not promoted, primarily as a result of Czar claiming that "The interplay of the sources on her sexualization [in the Reception & Legacy section] is nonsensical."

With this in mind, I then contacted Czar via his talk page, requesting his assistance in sorting out any alleged organisational issues in R&L once and for all via a draft page I'd specifically created. Between the 8-week talk page discussion and him subsequently labelling my attempts to rectify his concerns "inadequate", I thought this was the way to go. Instead, he aggressively refused this request, posting another round of badgering, once again claiming that the moving of a single sentence to another paragraph introduced a multitude of other problems, while calling me "openly hostile".

My purpose in requesting an interaction ban is to allow me to non-combatively work on gaining consensus for Jill Valentine, with both old and new reviewers. My interactions with Czar on this article have gone beyond the point of a mere content dispute. This is never-ending, self-contradicting badgering from an uncollaborative editor, and a direct continuation of the hostility and aggression found in the previous peer review. He has genuinely been the most disruptive and downright insulting user I've ever come across on Wikipedia. Plus, his latest response to me doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that he has left his tendentious editing behaviour behind, with regards to Foiles' article. Many of his criticisms have been so intentionally vague that I believe no user could ever resolve them, regardless of the extent anyone attempts to; you fix one alleged problem only to be greeted by another, and then another, and then eventually you're told that something you did several weeks before was "inadequate". His criticisms all seem purposefully designed to convince me that Jill Valentine would never meet the FA criteria, which isn't an especially collaborative mindset to have adopted, but it's indicative of a user who only came to interact with Jill's FACs via this hostile discussion with the previous nominator. There has been no attempt whatsoever on his part to compromise or build consensus ever since, and in fact he continues to argue over matters I've already responded to.

Once again, sorry for the length of this ANI, but there's an 18-month history here which I tried my best to adequately and succinctly explain. I'd appreciate any help in this matter, because I really can't cope with this user any more. Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose two-way iban after reviewing the lengthy history of the article Jill Valentine, about a female video game character (not usually a controversial area). After going through GAN1 (2012), GAN2 (2013), GAN3 (2015), PR1 (May 2017), and GOCE (June 2017)...

• FAC1 (Aug 2017), at which one editor (not involved here) wrote:

FAC1 Comment

The article uses the word "hottest" seven times (in one paragraph); "sexy/sexier/sexiest" seven times; "babe" five times; "attractive" four times; "beauty/beautiful" three times; "hottie" twice; "vixen" twice; "gorgeous" once; "cock teasing" once; "slutty" once; and "douche bag's girlfriend"...Sexist language and trivia. The Cultural impact section as nominated was a long quote farm and very offensive. It called her a "cock tease", "no dick and a set of tits", a "douche bag's girlfriend", "slutty", a "vixen", and, in one paragraph, "hottest" seven times. It compared her to other female characters and asked "who would you rather?". It was also full of trivia: e.g. that she was 26th of 50 hottest game babes.

Homeostasis07 (not the nom at this point) responded here, and the FAC coordinator responded to that response in the same thread. FAC1 was closed with the comment: We all need to remember that an article will not be promoted without the consensus of reviewers, not just how many supports there are...I would recommend working with the reviewers here to achieve a consensus of what should be in the article...the nominator should bear in mind that the same issues could arise again at the next FAC; just because a few editors disagree with the issues raised here does not mean that they can be ignored in a FAC.

• FAC2 (Oct 2017) closing comment: The fact of the matter is that if/when this is renominated, the same discussion will take place over these issues, and unless there is a consensus of reviewers that this article meets the FA criteria, it will not be promoted; there is clearly no such consensus at the moment but one may be achieved at PR, given time and away from the FAC spotlight. Any future FAC will need to run for at least two weeks (so that quick, pile-on supports do not derail the review) and, as the nominator did this time, all those who opposed should be informed and invited to comment (as should all those who supported).
• PR2 (Nov 2017) was closed by the nom, after posting a departure notice on the article's talk page.
• FAC3 (May 2018) was nominated by Homeostasis, who wrote ...I've decided against contacting any and all prior reviewers, whether they were positive or negative. Czar wrote: Bad idea. This is a common courtesy and better done before starting another nom... The closer wrote: Sorry, but I'm going to close this as it's clear that open issues have not been resolved from the last FAC. The last peer review seems to have been closed in frustration with issues still on the table. FAC is not a venue for bringing something up to standard. I'd advise open dialog with previous reviewers before nominating this article again.
• Conversations took place on Czar's talk page, Part 2, and Part 3 (including talk-page-watcher comment: ...this is a serious allegation, and it implicates the three admins who opposed the Valentine FACs.)
• FAC4 (Dec 2018) was nom'd by Homeostasis with: ...A verbatim transcript of my interactions with all of those 21 previous editors is available on this FAC's talk page...Pinging the only users who expressed even the slightest bit of interest in commenting here: followed by five usernames, four of whom had voted support at a previous FAC and one participated at PR (seems legit). Closer's comment: ...I think Czar's feedback here and on the article Talk page are good exemplars of our operational concept of providing broad valid feedback with examples. I'd have to see a lot more support that indicates explicit examination of the article against 1a and the general themes in the article before I'd be comfortable promoting over the existing opposition.
• Conversation on FAC4 closer's talk page
• Conversation Part 4 on Czar's talk page (I happened to post the next thread on this talk page, which is how I saw this; otherwise I'm not involved.)

After reviewing the above, particularly "Part 3" and "Part 4" of the conversations on Czar's talk page, I oppose a two-way interaction ban, as I do not believe it will effectively address the issues. Looking forward to reading others' thoughts. ^Leviv_ich? ! 05:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The issue regarding sexism is moot to this ANI, since FACs 1 and 2, as well as PR2 [all pre-dating my first nomination, FAC3], resolved this. My nominating statement from FAC3 has been taken somewhat out of context here. It continued: "Previous FACs have led to this nomination becoming a loaded issue – to say the least – for some, so I've decided against contacting any and all prior reviewers, whether they were positive or negative. If requested, by FAC coordinators, I wouldn't have a problem with informing everyone that I've renominated it. ... Plus, I think fresh eyes all around may make FAC3 a much more beneficial experience." The quote "...this is a serious allegation, and it implicates the three admins who opposed the Valentine FACs." relates to a separate issue, which I decided against mentioning here because it's bound to get messy: I'd received a series of "poison-pen" e-mails from someone at the Wikipedia Library, in which an administrator allegedly referred to me as a "scumbag" and "sexist asshole" and all sorts of other things. Also, the user who wrote this quoted text was not a "talk-page-watcher", but was involved in the first two FACs and perhaps the largest contributor to PR2. And as I explained in 'Background', FAC3 was closed with the suggestion I "open dialog with previous reviewers before nominating the article again", so the implication that my actions could be considered canvassing is unwarranted.

I would like to believe that there's a possibility of addressing any of Czar's complaints to a point where he no longer felt the need to constantly object, but my experience thus far hasn't left me with the impression that even a remote possibility of that happening exists. As diffs in my post above illustrate, he's been hostile, uncollaborative and tendentious. I've tried – for over 12 weeks at this point – to address his concerns, but they just keep coming and changing, which indicates badgering. I've not taken the decision to bring this to ANI lightly, but it's gotten to a point where I feel like there's no other option. Homeostasis07 (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I just wanted to make a note here, to avoid confusion, that when Homeostasis07 says they "received a series of "poison-pen" e-mails from someone at the Wikipedia Library", I believe this is tangential to the primary issue being raised and - to the best of my knowledge and understanding of the situation - no one who works on the Wikipedia Library project, whether as WMF staff or as a volunteer coordinator, has been sending harassing emails, except to forward some harassment they received to Homeostasis such that they would be aware of it. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this here, Sam. I have to admit, my heart skipped a beat when I saw User:Levivich quote something related to the e-mails. That's an issue for either the Trust and Safety team, as you previously suggested, or maybe even RfO. It's certainly not appropriate for such a public forum as ANI, in any case. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: I did not say anything about an email in my comments here; you introduced that detail. I quoted from a talk page discussion from last month in which SlimVirgin wrote Homeostasis07, this is a serious allegation, and it implicates the three admins who opposed the Valentine FACs: Ealdgyth, Czar and myself. (courtesy pings), which I felt relevant because your report here against Czar mentioned the Valentine FAC but apparently made no mention of the recent (SV's words) "serious allegation" you made against Czar. My apologies if any of what I've written here is inappropriate. I'd ask any admin reading this to please remove or redact anything that I should not have written (or tell me and I will delete it myself). Thank you. ^Leviv_ich? ! 01:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

You're correct, you didn't refer to any e-mails. But you quoted from this talk page discussion (i.e., "serious allegation"), a conversation which related to me receiving a multitude of harassing and insulting e-mails from a Wikipedia administrator, forwarded by a volunteer at the Wikipedia Library project, which doesn't especially relate to this ANI. Like I said, this ANI – and the actions of a multitude of users – has been 18 months in the making. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Amitkr5339

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

---

• Amitkr5339 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Amitkr5339 has been told on numerous occasions that when he creates articles he must include references and demonstrate notability, but he has continued to generate articles with no references. His user talk page is littered with notifications of newly-created pages being moved to draft space because they were not deemed fit to be in mainspace and his contributions page has further newly-created articles without references. I don't know whether the editor fails to understand English, but he obviously has a problem in complying with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) David and myself have tried to assume good faith and have treated Amitkr5339 as a new user, trying to explain the issues with his edits and how to use refs etc. He does read the messages (diff) but it appears as though, this user is not bothered to respond. He does understand English and on one rare occasion (diff), he has replied on his own talk page. He has stated [23] that he has some kind of an emotional / professional connection with Sheikhpura district Cricket club in Bihar (a part of Bihar Cricket Association) and his edits are mostly related to the WP:Cricket and other sports. He has used WP:AFC in past but it seems after few rejections has started creating articles on main space again. I believe a restriction to mandatorily use WP:Article wizard to create new articles should be placed on this user. With failure to do so, leading to incremental blocks. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to assume good faith too, however in this case, this pattern has been going on several months with little or no comms from the editor to address the concerns. I'd support a soft-block which can be lifted if/when they reply to it AND acknowledge the problems these new articles cause. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked. User has shown no willingness to address concerns. I am happy to unblock if they want to participate in this discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

That seems harsh. But it is not unusual for ANI. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not harsh at all. User has had amply opportunity to discuss these concerns. Bringing it here was the option of last resort. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse block and editing restriction I think other avenues have been exhausted and that the problems are exhausting.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Removal of unsourced information

The following discussion is closed. 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, 42.110.153.26, has made multiple edits in which they are removing content from articles and placing a generic comment of "unreferenced section". It does not appear that they are adding any additional content nor references to the articles in which they are editing. I have reached out to the IP user via their talk page but I doubt that they will respond. Shall we treat this as a vandal? Please advise. — Mr Xaero ^☎️ 20:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

They were blocked before you posted this. Natureium (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) At a quick glance, many of their removals are good; Belgharia still oozes old world charm of Bengal. The cosmopolitan culture of new age Bengal hasn't yet penetrated the town. [24] is clearly non-encyclopedic. For [25], the bus-route to the high school may not be necessary, but the lack of references isn't the main reason to remove it; the information could fairly obviously be verified on an online mapping service. The IP editor probably should sign up for an account if they're going to make potentially-controverial edits like this, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mr Xaero: the IP is blocked for 31 hours. I suggest keeping an eye on them and look at their actions once the ban expires. ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted all of the edits that were made by the IP user even though they are unreferenced material in the articles as good measure. — Mr Xaero ^☎️ 20:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Just to check, Mr Xaero - are you saying that you have reinstated all of their removals? power~enwiki indicated that he thought that many of their removals were good - the one he quoted certainly seems unencyclopedic, and should not have been reinstated. Did you check through them first and only reinstate the dubious ones? GirthSummit _(blether) 08:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit _(sigh) - yes I reverted all edits. However, I am looking at the articles in which had the information removed and attempting to provide sources. If a source is unable to readily be found I am adding the {{Unreferenced section}} or {{Citation needed}} to the areas in question. _{(Please don't hit me hard with the ban hammer)} — Mr Xaero ^☎️ 12:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Citation needed tag is provably better than removal for most of them, but the problem with the one quotes above is the style, rather than the sourcing - it's unencylopedic puffery, a source wouldn't make it any better. There weren't that many edits, I'll take a look through this afternoon and review for style (unless you get there first). Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 13:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I plan on removing the information that is clearly unencylopedic as it should not have been included in the first place. Sadly though most article pertaining to locations within India are filled with this "information". — Mr Xaero ^☎️ 14:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with what's been stated above; I don't see issues with most of the edits by this IP user that I spot-checked. As stated by Girth Summit, adding the {{cn}} or {{Citation needed}} templates would have been preferred in many of these cases, but it was certainly okay to remove the unreferenced content altogether for the most part if such content was being challenged. Mr Xaero, next time you run into a situation like this, it's always best to review each edit before you simply roll them all back. This way, you don't risk restoring serious violations of policy back to an article, and it ultimately means less having to "undo an undo", which means less clicking required for you. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 for 2600:1700:4210:810::/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.

---

Edits: Special:Contributions/2600:1700:4210:810::/64

Block evasion by Special:Contributions/2600:1007:b000::/42. Same edits: old range, new range.

Requesting 3 month block for this range as well. This range isn't used too often, but all edits appear to be hoax info related to TV.

EvergreenFir (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I've applied a two-week block to the /64 IPv6 range pending a deeper look into the block evasion and how far the disruption goes. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Sabeekaimranpakistan

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

---

Sabeekaimranpakistan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This user has been making disruptive edits to the article Al Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent[[26]] by placing India in the allies section with absolutely no sourcing to back up these claims. Here are some diff's of the user's disruptive editing[[27]][[28]]. I suspect additionally that the user is a sockpuppet of Abhishek9779 as this block evader through other IP addresses has been making disruptive edits, until Rzvas who is part of the Counter-Vandalism Unit stopped the block evader's disruptive editing on various different pages such as for Frontier Corps and Inter-Services Intelligence.-Mountain157 (talk)

• Sabeekaimranpakistan edits infreequently. I left them a warning about unsourced edits. No call on the possible socking.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Dream Focus requesting two way interaction ban with Hijiri88

The following discussion is closed. 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 left Wikipedia to get away from him, but was told he had been self blocked for a few weeks, so returned. He apparently is following my contributions still, and felt the need to post a long rant about me at the Biographies of living persons talk page. [29]

Among his usual nonsense accusations include him blaming me for some anonymous IP posting nonsense on my talk page back in November, which I reverted minutes after it was posted and I got an email someone posted on my talk page, he somehow noticing that and ranting about it back then, accusing everyone imaginable of it, then deciding to blame me. I then listed reasons on my talk page why it clearly wasn't me, then just gave up trying to reason with him and just ignored him.

I would like him to stop accusing me of that and other nonsense. Can someone just look at what he posted and tell me if you consider that acceptable for him to post that there? I have tried my best to avoid him, but he refused to stop following my contributions and criticizing everything I did, I having to leave Wikipedia to get away from him. Dream Focus 05:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Hijiri88 here. There's a big difference between commenting on whether a no-context diff is "acceptable to post that there" (in short, while a comment that was all about how the OP was acting in bad faith would be inappropriate for BLPN in general, in context I was explaining why I was posting logged out, in order to shoot down any "block evasion" accusations, before giving a policy-based argument that the talk page discussion in question should be rev-delled) and supporting a sanction for someone who has done nothing wrong in this case. Dream Focus harassed me for months before eventually getting blocked, continued to monitor my edits extremely closely even after that point, and five months later immediately reemerged once I posted a retirement message ("I ... was told he had been self blocked for a few weeks" is a lie; he started editing more than a day before I was blocked[30][31]). I would be happy with a one-way interaction ban to keep DF off my back, or with him perhaps being blocked for his repeated textual plagiarism and IDHT regarding the same[32][33] or TBANned for his attacks on "illegal immigrants" (which apparently for him includes everyone other than US citizens).

Please note that while the problem I had with DF that I brought to ANI last July did get somewhat out of hand, and a few editors supported a "no fault" two-way IBAN just to shut it up, it instead ended with no consensus for such action, and later discussions were essentially "DF needs to leave Hijiri alone"; it was not my intention for this dispute to flare up here again, and I apologize to the community for this happening, but you must appreciate that the flare-up in this case is 100% DF's doing, since it was him who spent the last five months closely monitoring my edits for any indication that I would leave the project temporarily or permanently.

I also would not oppose an admin removing User:Bishonen's block of me. Sorry Bish, but I have cheered up somewhat since requesting the block, and would very much like to return to building the encyclopedia; it was my intention to just let your block expire, but this incident has essentially forced me to post logged out a few times, and I don't want to deal anyone accusing me of "block-evading" for doing so. I still probably won't edit much for the next week or so (busy IRL), so it's really just a formality. I am also aware of the "don't unblock" condition, which is why I can take or leave an unblock, but if I'm denied an unblock because of the pre-set condition that I agreed to before changing my mind, I still shouldn't have to be accused of "block evasion".

103.5.140.152 (talk) 06:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I reverted an edit someone did [34] and then posted immediately after on the talk page explaining why. Talk:Undocumented_youth_in_the_United_States#They_are_not_"Undocumented_students",_they_have_ample_documents_on_them. Anyway, I have not monitored him closely since why would I do that? Someone noticed he was going to be gone for a few weeks, emailed me, so I started editing again. He can cherry pick edits from a long period of time and take things out of context, and I don't want to get into a long discussion no one will read. There is no possible reason for him to be following my contributions or talking about me, other than for harassment. Dream Focus 06:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't do this but meh. Will you both just leave each other the fuck alone and not force the community to do it? Nil Einne (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I wish that were possible but he isn't going to stop this unless there is a two way interaction ban. Dream Focus 06:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Since I'm talking to you with this reply, I don't give a fuck what he does at the moment. I do give a fuck what you do, and am saying you need to leave him alone. You left wikipedia because you felt that he was unfairly pursuing. Maybe he was, but again since I'm talking to you, I don't give a fuck about that at the moment. I do care that when I visit your talk page I find you were once unblocked and told explicitly to completely leave him alone but then were reblocked because you kept talking about him. This tells me that clearly you aren't just able to leave him alone either. Frankly his post at BLP/N spoke for itself and didn't reflect well on him although he did have a point that this comment of yours [35] seems very bad unless that's what the person actually said. (I don't know because if it was revdeleted.) If you wanted to respond to anything, it was probably the only thing worth responding to. But you also could have simply left it be since he wasn't actually reverting you or something. Nil Einne (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Drag (clothing) is part of the transgender series of articles. Not sure how that would bother anyone. Don't remember exactly what wording he used in the article, it blocked now, but the talk page still shows his transgender accusations. Anyway, back on topic, I was blocked for complaining about him following me around and talking trash about me nonstop, then believing I could continue talking to editors about the case on my talk page, that bothering some people. He has no reason to keep following me around and posting like he just did at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#vandal_claiming_astronaut's_daughter_is_really_a_transgender_boy. Dream Focus 06:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Strong support. Regretful as Hijiri doesn't like these ibans and it would be a shame to see him discouraged from editing. For some reason I've always found H rather charming, and he seems to have made hugely valuable contributions to our coverage of S.E. Asian topics. On the Darkknight thread, BMK made what seemed a most wise point about there being so much history involving Hijiri and the other editors that's its hard to disentangle whos at fault. Perhaps that's the case with H & Dream too, but as I spent several hours looking at it, let me offer a summary. For about the first few months of their relationship, while H was the one initiating contact, it was Dream who was largely at fault. Since about mid June 2018 though, it's been almost entirely H whos been keeping the feud alive. Dream has repeatedly appealed for H to leave him alone, but H just won't let things go. It's not really that simple, but I think that's a fair summary. As H already has at least one iban on his record re the Darkknight, I don't see any great harm in him having another one. It ideally shouldn't need the community to spend huge amounts of time analysing the history to determine who is too blame.

@Dream – FWIW , I think H is largely right re Immigrants. The sceptical view on immigrants is something I find rather harmful, but it is a clear majority view in many countries and so it should be represented on Wikipedia for NPOV. But the thing is, there's a fine line between representing the view and slipping into xenophobia. You know I think you're awesome, but its not clear to me that you have the skills to tread that line. There's many other topics where your'e contributions are of great quality. Or if you do keep editing immigration articles, be extra careful with your wording and in listening to what others say. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Upgrading to strong support for these reasons. Hijiri88 seems at some risk of a long block, and the iban seems a much better option. Especially now H has apologised for not respecting Bishonens rules & for wasting the communities time, a block extension seems unwarranted. As per Swarm, from H's POV they might have thought they had good reason to launch the attack on the BLP board.

Many editors seem to acknowledge what a loss it would be do be without H's good contributions, but not so much as been said about why it would be good for us to protect Dream with the 2-way iban. Admittedly Dream's edits in the early part of the feud were highly reprehensible. But as someone who had known Dream for over a decade, it was totally out of character. Dream's kindness, productivity, and helpfulness to another's has seen him hailed as a model editor. A quick glance of Dream's talk should show his fine editing has won him much appreciation over the years from various members of the community. A 2 way iban gives us the best chance to keep two editors who, in very different ways, are excellent contributors. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support It's disheartening to be back here again while Hijiri88 is still under a self-imposed block from the last time, but it's clear they just can't let it go. This comment at BLPN was entirely unnecessary. The discussion was a quite-reasonable one brought by DF to the noticeboard. Hijiri is supposed to be taking a break, not following other editors around to attack them in random threads they start. The comment itself amounts to throwing mud to see what sticks — "posting plagiarized text, OR and virulently xenophobic gibberish", a largely-unevidenced personal attack; "DF is still hounding me"; "illegitimate sockpuppetry"; "suddenly showing back up immediately when I was briefly blocked in August, and then again when I posted a retirement message earlier this month"; even supposing all that were true, in what possible way is it relevant to a BLPN discussion about another editor claiming a child is transgender? The comment does, eventually, come down to the matter at hand, by taking a comment DF made out of context and saying, in about as many words, that if it were a comment made about a living person then it would be a BLP violation. That may be true, but what is the point of saying it when it wasn't a comment made about a living person? "Focus on the content, not the editor" is advice Hijiri badly needs to take to heart. GoldenRing (talk) 09:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Oppose two-way IBAN - What this absolutely looks like is DF seeing that Hijiri was on a self-imposed block from his account (and let's be clear that Anyway, I have not monitored him closely since why would I do that? Someone noticed he was going to be gone for a few weeks, emailed me, so I started editing again is ridiculous, disingenuous bullshit), and decided to use that opening to stir up some shit at ANI, knowing Hijiri might be limited in responding. It's hard for me to see this as anything other than opportunistic and a bad-faith maneuver. The previous discussion of an IBAN found a lot more concern about DF's behavior, and at this point I wouldn't mind seeing a boomerang in the form of a one-way IBAN for DF. And, for the record, Hijiri should abide by his self-requested block and just stick to a break instead of showing up to edit under an IP. Grandpallama (talk) 11:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

  Changing to an oppose, based upon yet another WP:IDHT interaction with DF. Whatever might've prompted the current report, DF is the ongoing problem. Grandpallama (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• comment Could'na said it better-- "Hijiri should abide by his self-requested block and just stick to a break instead of showing up to edit under an IP." You know that picture of a statue holding its head in its hand captioned "not this again?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Did you read the rant against me he posted at [36] just hours ago? I then brought this to ANI. He is clearly not limited in responding since he did post here already. He also posted what appears to be a response to GoldenRing on his talk page [37] instead of here. Is there anything that keeps any IP addresses from posting at ANI? Dream Focus 11:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

  YOU were told to stop obsessing about Hijiri, to stop following his comments, to stop worrying about what he says, to stop bringing drama here and elsewhere regarding your inability to let go of past conflicts. And here you are, again, doing exactly the thing that got you blocked before; I don't care what Hijiri said--I care that you are demonstrating an intractable attitude that previous warnings and blocks have apparently not remedied. I already advocated for a one-way IBAN, but maybe you just need to be indeffed until you figure out that you need to leave it alone. Grandpallama (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

  So I should let him say whatever insulting nonsense about me that he wants, anywhere he sees me posting, and not be able to file an ANI complaint about it? Would you find it acceptable if someone did that to you? Dream Focus 11:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

  You. Don't. Listen. Leave it alone, find something else to do with your time, and stop worrying about Hijiri. Grandpallama (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Back to Hijiri Hijiri88 damn! -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC). You could request unblock on your talk page or Email Bishonen. This blocked-but-using-an-IP business is unsettling. With all the possible places one could edit here, you happen to show up at a post of DreamFocus'? That's just silly. Support IBAN.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Hijiri88 has been notified on their talk page. I may be wrong about this, never having tried it, but if they have email notifications set up for their page then won't they be notified even if not on Wiki at the time? FWIW, I agree that using the IP method is unsettling but my thought would explain the "of all the bars in all the world" situation. - Sitush (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Sitush: I think this comment was in reference to Hijiri88's IP comment on the BLPN discussion linked above - or am I missing something? I don't think Hijiri88 was notified of that discussion on their TP. And @Dlohcierekim: Hijiri and Hijiri88 are, AFAICT, no the same editor. Poor guy now thinks he's being discussed at ANI... GoldenRing (talk) 12:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oh, cripes. Sorry for the misunderstanding. - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Dream Focus: Sorry, no. I did not read the aforementioned post. I'm not interested in participating in this passion play to a greater extent than this.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

  That post was meant for the guy before you. Thank you for participating. Dream Focus 12:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Curly Turkey: You have completely over looked the facts of this particular event. Hijiri88, though blocked at their own request, returned as an anon to interject themselves into a thread by Dream Focus with utterly spurious and off-topic "content". ANd I think the mutual IBAN is the least restrictive and most beneficial to the project of alternatives.-- -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim: "You have completely over looked ..."—have I really?

"returned as an anon"—no, he opened by declaring who he was.

"the mutual IBAN is the least restrictive"—less restrictive than letting it go with a warning? Obviously not.

"most beneficial"—no, the IBAN DF requests would keep someone out of his hair so he could continue making problematic edits. Your support would contribute to enabling that—which would "benefit" DF, not the community or the project. This has happened before, particularly at WP:JAPAN, where it took a year and a half for ANI to finally deal with the fallout, and there are still tainted articles that need to be sorted through. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what happened at WP:JAPAN, it having nothing to do with me. He was banned from editing certain topics at various times, so I assume it was one of those topic bans. I remember another editor claiming that you helped him get around that block, he mentioning things he wanted edited on your talk page such as [38] and you editing for him. Then after the block ended he posted he no longer needed your help in editing those sorts of articles. [39] When Arbcom limited him to one revert per page, he asked you directly to revert things for him. [40] [41] [42]. Those three examples are pretty obvious. If you are determined to follow me around and do his work for him, I suppose I need an interaction ban with you as well. Also you were told at ANI back in November to stop following the contributions of Flyer22 for the same thing you are suggesting you should do to me now. [43] Dream Focus 00:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

That's an interesting misrepresentation of the Flyer22 case. You're really bending over backwards to get people to stop looking at your problematic edits.

"I remember another editor claiming that you helped him get around that block"—I remember that an IBAN prevents me from naming that user. This is a disgusting tactic to trap me into breaking that IBAN—and I do recall saying the IBAN would be weaponized, don't you, Dlohcierekim? Will the answer be to grant DF a slew of IBAN requests, so he can continue to make these sorts of edits without interference? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Once again he mentions the "problem edit" where I reverted someone's edit because some of their changes seemed ridiculous, and then started a discussion on the talk page immediately after that to discuss it. Talk:Undocumented_youth_in_the_United_States#They_are_not_"Undocumented_students",_they_have_ample_documents_on_them He showed up after me and reverted me, but no one has participated in the discussion on the talk page. Why do both of these guys keep mentioning this as an excuse for their behavior? Do we need them following me around constantly just to prevent me from somehow destroying Wikipedia by daring to undo an edit and try to discuss things in a civilized manner on the talk page of that article? Also I wasn't aware he wasn't allowed to name the other editor, nor is there some sort of whatever trap he claims I masterminded just now. Seems to be changing the subject hoping no one clicks on the links to see the evidence for themselves. Dream Focus 00:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

"I wasn't aware he wasn't allowed to name the other editor"—obviously untrue, as only one person has ever made this claim, and it was in that ANI that resulted in my only IBAN. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Strong support. Basically, what GoldenRing said. DF makes a perfectly reasonable post to BLPN ([44]) asking about how to deal appropriately with a clear BLP issue. Absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with that post. Hijiri88 (well, presumably Hijiri88) for no apparent reason whatsoever then decides to reply to this post from a logged out IP ([45]) with phrases such as "(I am back) partly to keep Dream Focus from disrupting the encyclopedia by posting plagiarized text, OR and virulently xenophobic gibberish", "DF is still hounding me" (!), and suggests DF has posted what "borders on transphobia, and ... would probably constitute revdel-worthy BLP violation" (this is the post in question, I don't see it at all). There is clearly an axe to grind on Hijiri88's part, this is a user who has already been slapped with one interaction ban this month for BATTLEGROUND behaviour, and who is very much at risk of turning this temporary 'retirement' into a permanent forced one. We don't need this rubbish. Fish Karate 13:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

  Oh and pinging Bishonen - Bish, would you consider remove the talk page access block from Hijiri88, so he can confirm whether or not he does want to end his self-imposed block, and whether this IP is definitely him. Cheers. Fish Karate 13:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Strong support And WTF? he block evades (to my mind yes it is a block evasion, if you are blocked you are blocked, not "you are blocked unless you do not want to be", he could have asked for the block to just be lifted) a self requested block to post this [[46]]. Of course this all assumes this is Hijiri88 (can not this be checked by admins tools?).Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Checkuser needed - if this isn't a violation of the privacy policy. I don't think it is, since the IP claims to be Hijiri88, so if they're connected then he's already provided the information, but that's above my pay grade. GoldenRing (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Decline as it is a violation of the privacy policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Also just notices, his block experires anyway in just over a week, this was so urgent it could not wait?Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Oppose as I fear the timing of this is an attempt by DreamFocus to win by planting a flag on articles they want to edit while Hijri88 is on a voluntary block. Regardless, I dislike somebody who is away from Wikipedia for a break being dragged to the dramah board while they're not in a position to properly advocate for themselves. I am also prepared to overlook this single instance of technical block evasion in this circumstance as it was only to speak up at the AN/I when dragged here by another user who knew before posting that Hijri88 was under a block. Simonm223 (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Simonm223: You do realise this whole thing kicked off because Hijiri88 evaded his block to post at a BLPN thread that DF started? That's two instances of "technical" block evasion, the first attacking DF apropos of nothing. GoldenRing (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Also I cannot see any mention of Hijiri88 at that BLPN thread before he posted (again assuming it is him). He seems to have just turned up almost at random to attack anther edd.Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• The correct venue for this might be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. If the IP is Hijiri88, this is WP:EVASION as there is no exception for WP:SELFBLOCK for evasion. Icewhiz (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Two separate issues, but I have launched it here [[47]]. But as I said the IBAN is different form the socking (assuming it is).Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I actually completely missed that. And it does change things. Simonm223 (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Neutral I struck through my previous !vote based on the information provided by GoldenRing - I still don't really think a 2 way iban is going to solve anything and I think implementing a block extension on somebody who has buyer's remorse for a voluntary block is overkill - which means there's not much to do except... well... nothing really. Roll our eyes and back away perhaps? However if other people see differently based on the evidence provided I don't particularly care enough to mount any sort of defense beyond just saying really guys? REALLY? Simonm223 (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Re:wait No, we need the info now, and this could be a Joe job, in which case I owe Hijiri88 an apology.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• The IPs above are Hijiri; he has confirmed it to me via e-mail. I blocked him on 11 Jan at his own request, and after he assured me that he was on board with the conditions at User:Bishonen/Self-requested blocks. The block is to expire on Feb 2, and one of my conditions is "I will not unblock you on request, and I ask that no other admin unblock you without consulting me first.(Barring exceptional circumstances, I'll be dead against it.) .. So, really, don't ask if you're not serious!" Other conditions are that I remove wikimail and talkpage access. Obviously, my conditions aren't binding for other admins, and I won't resent them for ever or anything if they should unblock Hijiri or restore talkpage access, but I'll record here that I'm against it. I promised him I would be against it, and he should be able to trust me. Right now he no longer wants me to stick to my guns, I know, but there's also the little matter of ruining the trust for others who may self-request a block from me in the future. IMO, he should respect the conditions he originally accepted, and posting from an IP isn't exactly respecting them. But strictly speaking I suppose that is his business, not mine. I'll leave it to other admins to determine whether it's to be defined as block evasion (though I certainly have an opinion). I'm glad to hear Hijiri has cheered up somewhat, of course. Was there anything else? Bishonen | talk 15:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC).
• Support two-way interaction ban, per FeydHuxtable. At this point, a two-way interaction ban comes across as a functional solution. Per comments from admins on Dream Focus' talk page stating that Dream Focus cannot speak about Hijiri88 whatsoever without risking being further blocked, it is inherently unfair that Dream Focus cannot defend themself while Hijiri88 continues to smear Dream Focus, now into 2019. Having WP:ASPERSIONS cast against oneself while simultaneously being muzzled from defending oneself from such claims, while the other user has free reign to continue attacking, is just not right at all. So, make it a two-way interation ban. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support per NorthAmerica1000. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support Was involved in the BLPN but in review, I see zero evidence that H has had anything to do with the Scott Kelly page, so for H to show up (as an IP) and complain about DF is pretty much textbook hounding, and seems to flaunting the situation. There is nothing DF seemingly did wrong in handling the Kelly page, the vandal report, and the BLP/N posting, so there was no reason for H to show up an try to get him banned. --Masem (t) 16:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Support as the simpler solution of Hijiri simply abiding by his self-requested block somehow isn't sufficient. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose—Hijiri should be warned, but think of the consequences of treating "evasions" of self-imposed blocks the same as community-imposed ones. DF has a history of problematic editing; here's a recent, despicable one that I undid. Is the community going to IBAN anyone who checks and cleans up DF's mess?
  Seriously, a handful of the commenters here are way too triggerhappy when it comes to Hijiri. Should we call for an IBAN against those who habitually auto-!vote for sanctions against him every time his name shows up at ANI? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

This is not about the socking (that just makes it that bit worse) it is the deliberate attempt to provoke another edds into earning a block with an egregious and blatant PA that had nothing to do wit the thread. When he knew the user was forbidden form talking about him. The fact he socked to do this also makes it unbelievably crass and contemptuous of the community.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven: I din't mention socking or PAs. Was this meant as a reply to someone else? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

No you mentioned block evasion, but you are technically correct, he block evaded to make a PA, and the fact you ignored the PA is the point, it is the PA that was reported here, not the Block evasion.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven: sorry, but are you sure you're responding to me? What do your comments have to do with mine? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I am pointing out to you what you are ignoring.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – Hijiri88 has been warned before, specifically by Cullen328 back in 4 July 2018 (diff), where Cullen stated in part, "The next time one of your countless obsessive disputes with Dream Focus erupts on to the noticeboards, I will block you for a very lengthy period of time. The community is completely fed up with your disruptive behavior." Cullen's warning at the time was further endorsed by admin Alex Shih on the next edit to the user talk page (diff). Now it's January 2019, and Hijiri88 has continued with the same behavior (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support Editing through a self requested block is silly, but not the main problem. The main issue is that while under this block they noticed this edit by an editor they had been in dispute with and then followed them to a noticeboard and made a quite frankly bizarre post attacking them, which had no relevance to the boardmitself. If at a time when they want a break from editing they are obsessing over past disputes this much it is probably in their own best interests to enforce a two way iban. AIRcorn (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Questions - I think there are two serious questions that have been more or less overlooked here.
  #Dream Focus how exactly did you become aware of Hijiri88's retirement? Refer this (Jan. 12) though it's entirely clear that you were aware of it at least two days prior (Jan 10. 15:49, as your last edit prior was on Nov 20.) within hours of their posting their retirement message (Jan 10. 10:43) on their talk page.
  #Hijiri88 how exactly did you become aware of DreamFocus' return to editing? Refer this (Jan. 23), I'm not aware of any earlier posts that might tie into this (I can't tell a static from dynamic ip). Ideally I'd like an explanation as to how it is you were made aware of an edit to a page that you have never edited.
  You might note that I've underlined the word exactly, exactly should be read as "with specificity". At this stage I am only interested in a timeline of the facts. The responses, or lack thereof, will inform my judgement as to what should be done. I have one further thing to express, but it'll wait for responses. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  I was emailed by two different people who told me he was gone for awhile. When I had left Wikipedia I got emails from more than that from people who agreed it was wrong for me not to be able to complain when someone refused to stop trash talking me all over the place. You can see in his recent rant that started this he accuses me of all sorts of nonsense out of nowhere. This certainly isn't the first time he has done this to me or others. When he can't just change the subject and try to have long drawn out arguments about random unrelated things, he just pretends he is sorry and not going to do it again. I need a two way interaction ban to make him stop this, since there is no other way. Dream Focus 14:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  @Dream Focus: Those in houses with transparent roofs ought to be jolly careful what they do with rocks. Several have commented here that, while Hijiri88 has behaved badly, you've not been a saint yourself and his bad behaviour doesn't exonerate you. Drop it. For the love of God, please, drop it. GoldenRing (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  See, this is what happens. Mr rnddude asks a question to DF about Hijiri88 here at ANI regarding the matter, and if DF answers, they are then further chastised. I recommend to DF to not answer any more questions here about Hijiri88 if it is going to be held against them in this forum. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  Quite. With all due respect to Mr rnddude, his questions here are absurd. In the middle of a discussion which looks like imposing an IBAN between these two editors, he asks them to pass comment on each other? I agree with Northamerica that neither editor should make any more comments about the other. We have all the evidence we need. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, one of the issues here is how come they both seemed to know what the other was up to when both (supposedly) had retried. It is perfectly reasonable to want suspicions of stalking (for example) allayed (I for one would). Moreover you can say "I came here because I had been invited by bertterrible" without adding "and by the way HArrycrumb is at fault here".Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: Come off it. The first two sentences of DF's reply would have sufficed and been passed by without comment. The remainder is raking over all the same garbage - and then they felt it necessary to come back and insert more with the edit summary "hopefully everyone sees a pattern here". Yes, we see the pattern, but I'm not sure it's the one DF was referring to. GoldenRing (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

A no-win situation for DF. Don't reply, and risk being chastised. Reply, and then be chastised. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, or, you know, just answer the question that was put and leave it at that and win. GoldenRing (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, if DF hadn't answered the question, then you'd have nothing to complain about, other than perhaps that they didn't answer the question. It's a real catch-22. But, I digress. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support per GoldenRing, Fish&K, et al. With the IP editing going on, they should thank their lucky stars it's not an indef block instead. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support the IBAN. Also reiterate that this really is the last last chance to avoid a lengthy block. I don't want us to lose Hijiri's valuable content contributions, but it just seems like no matter how many times they promise to improve, it is always followed up (sometimes in the very same post) with more of the same behaviour. Hijiri, *please* take on board Fish & Karate's advice on your talk page. Really take it on board. That means no more attacks on people in edit summaries, no more accusations of hounding, and just staying away from the pages of people you don't get on with. If other people are uncivil to you then that will be noted by others, so let them dig their own graves without joining them. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support - if not, this will be rinse, repeat in a few weeks/months. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment How'd they no? It's in the subtext.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Eloquence of Cullen and a question

Before I comment on this specific matter, I want to give kudos to the many thousands of productive editors who volunteer to write useful encyclopedia articles, fight vandalism, calmly evaluate articles at AfD, and help out at the help desk and the Teahouse, without ever involving themselves in bizarre obsessive confrontational behavior like these two editors have done for so very long. Those of us who help out at ANI are far less familiar with their usernames because they are simply not disruptive in any way. Yes, Northamerica1000, I gave that warning and Alex Shih endorsed my warning. I consider Hijiri88's comment (editing as an IP) at BLPN to be bizarre, disruptive and unacceptable for four or five reasons. The behavior from DreamFocus discussed here is also quite troubling and I want to emphasize that nothing I say here should be construed as exonerating DreamFocus. I hope that another administrator will evaluate and decide what is appropriate for that editor. As for Hijiri88, my immediate inclination is to impose a lengthy block per my warning in July, 2018. However, there is no rush since they are on a self-imposed block. So, I invite thoughtful input from the blocking administrator Bishonen first of all, and also from any adminstrator or any other editor. Just think things through carefully and try to be positive. Please read that bizarrely inappropriate BLPN post from Hijiri88 and have that matter fresh in your mind. Is there any reason under the sun why I should not extend Hijiri88's block? I will wait 24 hours before acting. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Unless your question was rhetorical, I'd like to answer. You are so right about all of that. Having watched this with growing nausea and amazement, I can say, "No, there is no reason to not extend Hijiri88's block"...-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I did not write this section heading. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
    • No, that was me. It was a new subthread and it is eloquent.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Wow. That BLPN post is... wow. That's something. I cannot think of any reason why you should not.--Jorm (talk) 06:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hijiri88 has asked me to post this for him:

I ACCIDENTALLY requested that my talk and email access be removed (I have told Bish, you and several others of this fact), and with those removed I had no way of addressing the fact that I was being hounded in my absence without going to a café and posting as an IP, and still went out of my way to disclose said "block evasion".

Would you mind saying that I have told you (and Bishonen, and Alex Shih) that the terms of my block were a surprise to me and that it was not my intention to have talk or email disabled, and that if the only alternative to simply waiting out the block is to be sanction for the supposed block evasion then I'd be happy to do so?

Hijiri88's comment at BLPN about hounding refers to this comment. Whether it was wise of him to respond to it, I'll leave to the community to decide, but it was not unprovoked or "out of nowhere", as some in this discussion have suggested. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

No Curly, that is incorrect. Here is the only part of Hijiri88's BLP post that mentions Dream's so called "hounding" : '...Also DF is still hounding me; it was pretty bloody obvious he posted that vicious personal attack against me on his talk page...' Clearly the harmless diff you just linked to wasn't said "vicious personal attack". H was referring to this sock post. Your boy originally suggested the post could have been made by perhaps over a dozen editors he'd had past conflict with, or maybe at least one banned editor. Only later did H single out Dream. Not even going to explain the reasons why it's near impossible Dream was really the author of the sock post- it's clear the community knows H isn't exactly impartial when it comes to folk he's feuding with.

@Cullen - the reason not to give H a lengthy block would be that just the 2-way iban may be enough to stop the disruption. That way, we have the chance of benefiting from H's article excellent building work. H also seems to make good, thoughtful input to discussions, as long it they don't involve folk he's been feuding with. That said, FWIW I'd trust that you know best if you decide to extend. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

DF's comment was not "harmless" and was clearly made to invoke a reaction. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: Please would you explain your comment? I do not understand how the comment was not harmless nor do I understand how the comment was made to invoke a reaction, and the fact that it seemed to me to be harmless is the reason I supported the interaction ban proposal. If it was not harmless then my opinion on this would change. Thanks. Fish Karate 10:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Fish and karate: per User talk:Dream Focus#June 2018, User talk:Dream Focus#July 2018, several ANIs, etc Dream Focus has been warned time and again to steer clear and not mention Hijiri. Quotes from Cullen: "Ignore them as if they did not exist"; "The next time one of your countless obsessive disputes with Hijiri88 erupts on to the noticeboards, I will block you for a very lengthy period of time." Quotes from Ritchie333: "Do not talk to or about Hijiri 88 anywhere on Wikipedia"; "if you mention H88 anywhere in any shape or form, the next block will be indefinite". Quote from Boing! said Zebedee: "you need to SHUT UP about Hijiri88, totally and completely, and not utter another word about them while this sanction is in force. NOT ONE WORD! NOT ANYWHERE!"

DF disappears for a while, and as soon as Hijir retires, DF returns and immediately declares to the world that the person he is never supposed to talk about has retired so that now he's "safe" to edit—and opens an ANI the first chance he gets despite multiple warnings not to do so. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: Thank you, so when you were referring to DF's comment you weren't referring to his innocuous comment on BLPN (the one for which he got a logged-out response from Hijiri88). I absolutely agree that Dream Focus should not mention - even obliquely - Hijiri88, which he very obviously did upon his return; this is why the IBAN must be two-way. Fish Karate 10:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Fish and karate: if he's already banned from interacting, then how does an IBAN deal with the problem? Despite all the "last chances" he's been given, he's already broken it twice this month—explictly talking about Hijiri à propos de rien, and starting another ANI. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

He isn't formally "banned", he was told (forcibly) back in June to stop talking about Hijiri88. And yes, I have read all the crap from DF on DF's talk page showing he can't let this go either. Formalising this as an interaction ban removes all grey areas, obviates any wikilawyering or dancing around the edges with oblique references to "some people" or "other editors", and allows us to immediately block for any breaches. Fish Karate 14:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I would point out this mirrors own comments about being hounded in his retirement notice. So if this is hounding so was that. I also find it weird and disturbing that a retired edd is still watching users talk pages. Also is this comment was the problem, why post it at BPLN (where it had not place, that is not what that is for) rather then report it to an admin or post the comment on DF's talk page? It was deliberate disruption and provocation (And even if DF's post was, it was on his talk page, where it can be ignored by everyone else).Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• I oppose sanctions for evading a self-requested block, as some have suggested above, at least where that block didn't have the effect of avoiding other sanctions. People change their minds. I understand Bishonen's reasons for (as a rule) not modifying self-requested blocks and fully support that, but that's about her accountability to editors, not those editors' accountability to the community. However, the only reason I can think of that you shouldn't block Hijiri88 for exactly the reasons you describe is to see if an IBAN is sufficient to quell the disruption. I see this as a 50/50 call; this is the second time we've had to impose a community IBAN on the same editor in a month, and that while they're supposedly on a wikibreak. This is also hardly Hijiri88's first time at the rodeo as IBANs are concerned; supposing that the above sanction gains consensus (of which it currently shows every sign), Hijiri88 will have IBANs with Catflap08, John Carter, Darkknight2149 and Dream Focus, all arising from separate circumstances. I couldn't be bothered trying to figure out whether there are expired or lifted IBANs in the past. How many IBANs do we need to impose before we say enough is enough? On the other hand, he does good article work and it would be a shame to lose that, so maybe the IBAN should be given a chance. GoldenRing (talk) 10:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I half agree, if it were not for the fact that there is no evidence that his previous IBANS have moderated his attitude (and indeed this looks like an attempt to use a one way IBAN to harass another edd, though DF did not help his case on his talk page). So I am in two minds. On the one had I do not think this will work (ohh it may stop this drama, but not the next users he decides to try and drive of Wikipedia, and yes that is what I think this is), but You (and I suspect others) think it might, and you know him better then I do. So I am neutral on this, but if this does not work will have to change that view.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• I don’t think it’s unreasonable to believe that Hijiri’s diatribe was provoked by the aforementioned IP attack on him, which, logically, seemed like it was coming from DF. Now, I know there are socks who commit these sort of false-flag operations for fun, but you can’t really blame Hijiri for being that incensed in response. Particularly in the context of the controversial edit made by DF; I know many people who would consider that to be blatant racism. I get it, Hijiri is involved in too much drama sometimes, but I really don’t think the situation is as serious as you’re making it out to be, and a such a draconian, one-sided sanction on Hijiri seems heavy handed. Hijiri is involved in too much drama, sometimes goes too far, and is sometimes flat out wrong. If another IBAN is necessary, so be it. However, I do believe he is a net positive, and would not be in favor of a block over this incident. Such a proposal seems far too aggressive, and inconsiderate of Hijiri’s positive contributions to the project. And, I can’t believe this needs to be pointed out, but a self-block is different from a preventative block, and they’re not binding or not enforceable. I would think that was common sense, but apparently not. Even if an admin, ideologically, wants it to be otherwise.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  10:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm: I get that Hijiri88 felt they were being provoked, but when you're provoked, you have the option of ignoring it, responding in kind, or finding some unrelated noticeboard discussion and hijacking it to make a bunch of personal attacks. We don't know (and we're unlikely to ever know) whether the IP posting on DF's TP was some random editor or whether it was DF; looking at the timeline, it seems likely to me it was not DF but it might have been. What we do know is that Hijiri88 chose the nuclear option in response. I just really struggle to see that as anything other than deliberately inflaming the situation. Even if you accept that DF's comments on his TP were a violation of some kind and that the IP posting there was him, and even if you accept that Hijiri88 had to do something about it rather than letting it go, Hijiri88 has been here long enough to he ought to know what dispute resolution options are open to him; what he did wasn't dispute resolution but dispute escalation. GoldenRing (talk) 11:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I think Swarm's comment that such a draconian, one-sided sanction on Hijiri seems heavy handed is spot-on in terms of considering any further extension of a block for Hijiri. If there's one thing that this conversation is demonstrating, it's that there's a serious divide about how to treat a self-requested block, and the way in which to address that is through policy discussion, and not by introducing a penalty for an editor. I'm also worried that the supposed "block evasion" is a secondary issue that is distracting from the core concern here, which is the behavior of two editors toward each other. I still stand by my earlier statement that the overall history of interaction here suggests that DF is more of a problem than Hijiri, even though recentism seems to have him on people's minds more, but the question of their interactions shouldn't be muddied by the side issue of whether or not someone can be considered to be engaging in block evasion of a self-requested block. Grandpallama (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Since there is no consensus for extending Hijiri88's block, I will not do so. Instead, I Support a two-way interaction ban. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

No eloquence from Bishonen

Sorry Cullen328, I'm quite reluctant to be drawn into the Dream Focus / Hijiri thing — I don't really have time to read up on it enough to form an opinion, and also I'm pissed off at the way this "self-requested block" has panned out. Maybe I should delete my page offering those kinds of blocks. So no thoughtful input from me, sorry. However, you may now have the benefit of input from Hijiri on his page, as I've restored his tpa, after some e-mail discussion. Bishonen | talk 10:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC).

• Some rectifications of names could help. If it was a block, then block evasion sanctions should be applied. If it was not a block, but rather a Bishonen's inventive trick, then it should be named this way, and a some more precise quite a rule, but not really should be disclosed. Pldx1 (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Please see User:Bishonen/Self-requested blocks. I thought self-requested blocks had become deprecated with the advent of scripts that would prevent Wiki-holics from binging. Perhaps they are now deprecated.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Bishonen's trick? Inventive? What, what? It fucking was a block. What use would it be if it wasn't? I'm not the only admin who places self-requested blocks, nor did I invent the practice. Compare Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks. (Unfortunately it doesn't take much skill to override the scripts Dlohc mentions, at least not the one I'm aware of, so it isn't that useful.) Bishonen | talk 11:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC).

Maybe it is time to stop a practice that is so easy to ignore, and does not even seem to really serve no function if edds can just ignore it (and indeed does not even seem to be understood or taken seriously by most edds, even those who make use of it (edds, not admins)).Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

She's expressed regret over doing this particular favor. I think in most cases it works out fine. I think this is an example of how important a mutual IBAN is for these two. Obsession is not too strong a word.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I remember when these scripts were all the rage. We weren't to place self-requested blocks anymore-- oh. no! The. New. Thing!-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if the community intended to deprecate self blocks at some point, but the text at WP:SELFBLOCK has been the same for many years, and they're not prohibited, or even discouraged by policy. In these situations, users are using blocks as a tool for personal reasons. They serve no purpose beyond that. They do not satisfy WP:PREVENTATIVE, and they are not intended to. You cannot enforce a block that is not preventing anything, and there's no reason to give a user a hard time for changing their mind about such a block. If you make a self block deal with an admin who won't overturn it as part of their conditions, that's too bad for you. But, you can't be punished if you decide to edit as an IP. This is all a distraction from the issues at hand.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  22:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Except that is just how I have seen them used "but he is now on a self block, no need for action", on many occasions. I think what this demonstrates is then one thing they are not is an excuse to not take action.Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, Pldx has been both asked and warned to leave Hijiri alone, not sure why he's incapable of staying uninvolved here.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  22:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Dear User:Swarm. My remark was not about a specific user, but about what appears to me as an inventive trick, instead of a preventative measure. When such an inventive trick is broken, and it was broken here, a large majority of people are not of the opinion that any sanction has to be taken. Since you seems to have doubts about my own personal opinion on the matter, I gleefully states that I also have this opinion that breaking such an inventive trick should not result into any sanction. And therefore, calling it a block is only misleading. This is the second part of my opinion on the matter. Pldx1 (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Thnks for the link,I've been reading up on self blocks. I'm considering making myself available to make them.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Pldx's ax looks pretty sharp by now. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

creation of "self block" section talks about the script back in March of 2007. So it would have been before then. And unchanged since then. I guess we had no policy before that time.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by User:Shahanshah5

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

---

Shahanshah5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Removed a link to "History of Iran" from the History of Islam page and removed a WP:RS reference written by a renowned Iranologist (Alireza Shapour Shahbazi).[48]
• Accused other editors of "Azerbaijanophobia" at Talk:Bahmanyar.[49]
• Tried to label Brill publishers as a "non-reliable publisher" (because Brill sources were putting a halt to his agenda).[50]
• Tried to dispute/remove the Persian origin of the House of Sasan, even though it was literally sourced in the article.[51]-[52]
• Tried to label Bahmanyar, a historic Persian figure, as an "Azerbaijani". No edit summary/no explanation. Added non-RS source, no page number.[53]
• Tried to label Iskander Beg Munshi, a historic Persian writer, as an Azerbaijani. No edit summary/no explanation. Added non-RS source, no page number.[54]
• Tried to label the Baku Khanate as an Azerbaijani entity,[55] even though the sources at Khanates of the Caucasus make it clear that this is not WP:NPOV. I even told him this on numerous occassions.[56]-[57]
• Removed the Shirvanshahs from "Iran" and added it to "Eastern Europe".[58]
• Added anachronistic gibberish to the Antioch article.[59]
• More WP:IDHT.[60]

I issued him a WP:AA2 warning a few weeks ago, to no avail. Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that this editor is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment : The reported user seems to have a pro Azerbaijani agenda here, on the English Wikipedia, and also, with all due respect, some WP:CIR issues because of his inability to read and comprehend English properly : [61], [62], etc ... sounds like a typical case of WP:NOTHERE.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

A problem with this editor was also reported on my talk page in December: see User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 46#Another concern. If WP:CIR is the verdict then a conventional block might be considered. On the other hand, if it turns out that POV-pushing is the greater problem, a topic ban from WP:AA2 can be an option. The user was notified of this discussion on 6 January and gave a point-by-point response. Unfortunately all his statements were removed by another editor who didn't like the interlinear edits. I'll leave a further note for Shahanshah5. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

(The "another concern" thread has been archived to User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_46#Another_concern.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: IMO, and with all due respect for the reported user, i think he has WP:CIR issues and is a POV-pusher. Saying, like he did in his point-by-point answer, that he has tried to add "Azerbaijani" to some articles because he was not experienced enough does not sound like a good faith answer. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

This comment shows, one more time, his inability to speak English and his battleground mentality.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:, as admin would you tell me that which of my edits can be reason to make me blocked? Shahanshah5 (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Wikaviani:, I already introduced my online English certificate on my talk page, but for you I can add it also to here [1]. Shahanshah5 (talk) 08:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Honestly, I think Shahanshah5 views WP like a fighting video game. e.g. some users revert and reject his edits but he believes he must win. So he decides to continue his problematic edits or targets some specific topics. Even if we consider his edits as good faith ones, there are some serious issues that can't be ignored: Weak command of English, ignoring WP guidelines and other editors' comments, lack of interest in collaboration, and Obvious nationalistic/irredentist/anachronistic POV. So do you think giving him the second chance would solve those issues? Everything about him proves this case is WP:NOTHERE. But if he promises to change his behavior, then I support a final warning or 6-month block. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Also it seems he does not care about his account. Dropped an inappropriate reply on 2019-01-06[63] and didn't try to rewrite it again or write a proper reply. Seriously what is this?![64] --Wario-Man (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Query If he made a point-by-point rebuttal it might be helpful to see it. Is there a link that I missed? Can it be copied here?19:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is the link you asked for.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Wario-Man:, I'm interested in the collaboration with every Wiki user (who make edits on historical topics )since I often try to discuss some edits and future edits on talk pages, here is some examples: [1] 2, [2], [3]. I want also add that you should concretize which my edits you mean by saying nationalistic/irredentist.

Section 27

• The link which was inserted in the Iranian identity which was nonsense, but if it wasn't nonsense User talk:LouisAragon could restore the link. But he didn't it, probably, to use it against me one day :) What about that reference, as I already wrote in my edit summary[1], the source that I deleted doesn't mention about Iranian identity, so I deleted it. If my these edits weren't in Wiki policy, it must be proved me by my pro-Iranian colleagues who wish to see me blocked :(
• I never accused anyone on Bahmanyar talk page, but I noticed Azerbaijanophobia to colleague's message where modern Azerbaijani irrendist political ideology is using as an argument on historical person's talkin page. @LouisAragon:, Let's have a some flashbacks from it:

"Non-RS nonsense. These are the same "historians" who claim that Iran and Armenia are "ancient Turkic lands", and that anything from Derbent to Urmia, Zanjan, to Kars etc is part of "Bütöv Azərbaycan" that used to exist "since times immemorial". No self respecting Western historian takes these "books" serious. Azerbaijani (SSR and post 1991) and Tsarist/Soviet Russian sources are mostly packed with agenda-loaded propaganda, refuted/debunked by leading scholars in the West. Here's an example.[3] The same thing goes for many Armenian and Georgian sources of the Soviet era. They should all be avoided."

I gave him an answer on the same way, which now I think wasn't needed to me and to the encyclopedia. But I think it's ok, because at that time I wasn't experienced.

• I'm curious that why @LouisAragon: says that I labelled Brill as non-reliable while I said that it's not high reliable source[1]. In addition, I gave there two publisher rankings which proves my words about Brill's source.
• My edits on Bahmanyar and Iskander Beg Munshi pages were one of my first edits which weren't experienced.
• Baku Khanate ethnically is an Azerbaijani khanate which house was Bakhikanovs of, but unfortunately I forgot saying it to Louis Aragon when we had a discussion on my talk page.
• The states on this page are groupped by a geographical criteria. So Shirvanshahs as the state which was on modern Azerbaijani territories, should be in the Eastern Europe section, so I added it to list of Eastern European states.
• My edits on Antioch and Quba Khanate pages weren't carefully, I understand it. Shahanshah5 (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

First, this complaint is very hard to follow. Second, this looks like a content dispute. 2600:100F:B104:1606:FC9F:90E:6DC4:B70E (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended content
I think its a response to the ANI section WP:NOTHERE editing by User:Shahanshah5. Possibly should be moved there? Curdle (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC) Moved. Qualitist (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC) Thank. Shahanshah5 (talk) 08:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

1)What Shahanshah5 links to is a Ranking system by SENSE. Nowhere on this page does it state Brill is an unreliable, less reliable or even that "it's not high reliable source". Yet again, Shahanshah5 has shown their inability to read and comprehend what is written in English. Here is the SENSE documentation and organization page. "Where it states:Please note that the WASS-SENSE ranking list of publishers has been set up for the WASS and SENSE Dutch Graduate Schools only. The list is based on the publishing houses used by our researchers. It should not be used by other institutes."
This attempt to blacken a quality academic publishing house was in response to Brill publishing a review that highlighted the Azerbaijani government's involvement in rewriting Azerbaijani history. This is POV pushing at its finest.
2)Shahanshah5 has on numerous occasions added information that is poorly written[65] and/or makes no sense. Clear case of Wikipedia:CIR.
3)Shahanshah5 has made battleground comments. Accusation of racism, labeling editors that do not agree with his illegible, nonsensical edits as "pro-Iranian colleagues"
4)Refusal to get the point.[66] Shahanshah5 was in such a hurry to push their POV, they either didn't or couldn't comprehend that the book they were using for a source, also supported the information they were deleting!! And when told this, they still ignored what I said and then blamed me for their lack of compentence in English!
I see no reason to allow this to continue. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

(1), SENSE documentatation [1] where it writes that A: Refereed book publications published by the world top of publishers'B: Refereed book publications published by the world’s semi-top of publishers'? Doesn't the A rated means the being high rated source? And how B rated source the Brill can be as high rated? Oh, and checked Brill also on this Wiki page where were the lists of the top publishers but I didn't notice notice there the name of Brill. And what about it "This attempt to blacken a quality academic publishing house was in response to Brill publishing a review that highlighted the Azerbaijani government's involvement in rewriting Azerbaijani history", why don't you give at least two publisher rankings that Brill is the A rated?

(3)I think you're a little bit late with the Bahmanyar talk page, so I already answered to it on ANI. What about the second accusing, hm, I had thought users here can be honest since @Wikaviani: and @Wario-Man: labelled my edits as the pro-Azerbaijani and nationalistic/irredentist. So I had thought I also should be honest and said about the POV of some my colleagues.

(4)I already answered about Quba Khanate here. What about the second deal of "blamed me for their lack of compentence in English", it's not so succesfull manipulating over meaning of my sentence were I citated "I think you didn't fix these sentence on those articles to get another evidence against me :)" You didn't revert my edit and at least didn't fix my sentences(which was on high RS source) until your reporting of me to the admin. But after reporting the admin, when you done your work you reverted my edits [1], [2]. Shahanshah5 (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@LouisAragon:, aren't you going to answer my demand about your accusing me on this my edit? Shahanshah5 (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

Based on the evidence and the discussion above, I propose a 6-month topic ban on all topics related to the Middle East, the Caucasus region and the Iranian/Turkic world for Shahanshah5. - LouisAragon (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support per my above comment and evidences provided by involved users. 6-month topic ban will show us if he's WP:HTBAE or not. Also posting a final warning on his talk page is necessary in my opinion. --Wario-Man (talk) 09:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support per the above evidences and comments.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support The evidence above shows that Shahanshah5 is not capable of working collaboratively or obeying Wikipedia's policies on NPOV and reliable sources when writing about these topics. --Jayron32 17:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support Frankly, I think the above shows grounds for a CIR block, but let's start gently and see if things improve. Blocks are cheap and easy, gaining editors less so. GoldenRing (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support I kinda agree with Goldenring, but yes, start with a topic ban- possibly if the editor avoids an area they seem to have strong views on, they can slow down and learn a bit more about collaboration, NPOV, AGF and reliable sources. Curdle (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support Agree with Goldenring there are grounds for a CIR block. A 6-month topic ban will negate the disruption, not sure how this will fix CIR issues or as Jayron notes, reliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support per GoldenRing. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• I'll support a 6-month topic ban since that is what's on the table, but actually I don't much believe in them. It's too easy to wait out a time-limited ban without editing, learn nothing, and then come back with all the old problems intact. I'd much prefer an indefinite topic ban, to be appealed no sooner than in 6 months, where the appeal will only be received favorably if it's believable and the editing on other subjects (and on sister projects!) shows progress. (I'm good with a CIR block too.) Bishonen | talk 22:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC).

• I could also certainly support an indefinite ban, but would like to see them given at least some chance before we indef them. GoldenRing (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support for reasons given above --AndInFirstPlace 03:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Note to closer: The above editor has been here for 5 days, and already has been blocked twice. He doesn't know sh*t from Shinola about Wikipedia, and shows it in their every edit (eg. they thought admins were assigned to articles, and filed an RfA so they could become the admin for an article they were editing, and was in multiple disputes about; see #User:AndInFirstPlace below for more). Their !vote here should be disregarded. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Striking AndInFirstPlace from the above discussion on grounds that an SPI confirms he has used multiple accounts abusively. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• I also have my doubts about fixed-term topic bans, as it is an editor's problematic approach to controversial subjects that needs to change and not their age, but I'll support this as it's what's being proposed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• SUpport per Bishonen with the caveat that a block will be in the offing for recalcitrance.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Elaboration on Topic ban proposal

I was a bit ambivalent about the efficacy of 6 month topic ban, but reluctant to support a straight out CIR indef for a relatively new user. I would be more than happy to support something along the lines of what Bishonen suggested; ie topic ban appealable in 6 months, but only if accompanied by evidence that Shahanshah5 has genuinely learned, understood and put into practice Wikipedia policy in regards to collaboration, NPOV, and reliable sources. Curdle (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• COMMENT: Can an admin finally close this case? There is unanimous support for a TBAN. Many days have passed (the archive bot even accidentally archived it due to inactivity, had to salvage it manually[67]). - LouisAragon (talk) 11:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by User:Iamveselin

The following discussion is closed. 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.

---

First encountered this user about a month ago as I noticed they were using the wrong type of dash on professional wrestling championship articles. Wasn't a big issue at the time and I undid their edits and told the user in the edit summary that they were using the wrong type of dash. I thought that would be enough, however, it wasn't and they made more of the same type of edits that I reverted. Iamveselin continued doing this, so I left a post on their talk page explaining what they were doing wrong. I thought this would be enough, but it wasn't and Iamveselin again made the same type of edits, so I reverted them and left another post warning them that if they continue to ignore me, they will be reported. That seemingly stopped their edits in regard to this issue, but I just noticed that a few days ago, they were at it again on the List of WWE SmackDown Women's Champions page. It should also be noted that this user has three separate warnings from this month about their unconstructive editing (content removal) on a couple of female wrestler articles. I did not want to have to make this report, but this user is ignoring mine and other users' warnings. --JDC808 ♫ 00:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• Pro wrestling articles having the wrong kind of dash... ANI?? REALLY??? EEng 00:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  Man this is like Cat Nip to ya, just don't "Nip and drive" please. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  <sound of screeching breaks, people screaming> EEng 00:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  Don't need the sarcasm. Like I said, I didn't want to make the report (because the dashes are a petty issue). The real issue is the fact that the user is flat out ignoring anything posted on their talk page or edit summaries (and the dashes aren't the only disruptive editing the user has done). --JDC808 ♫ 01:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

JDC808, I have been editing for almost ten years and have been trusted by the community to be an administrator. I still don't understand the distinction between the "right" and the "wrong" type of dash, and consider the distinction to be trivial. If you care about dashes so much, then change dashes to your heart's content. But there is no point in bothering the editors who do not care about dash variations. That's pedantic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Cullen328, I am sorry that you never learned about the different types of dashes (-, –, and —), and they do have specific uses. The fact that you are brushing this off and telling me the proper dash doesn't matter (when it does in quality writing) and basically telling me to edit war with this user makes me question you as administrator. Did you read the whole report? Dashes aside, the biggest issue is the fact that this user is ignoring mine and other user's warnings. --JDC808 ♫ 01:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

JDC808, I did not tell you to edit war. I told you that if you want to do dash related gnome work, you are welcome to. You have presented no evidence of actual disruption, except that this thread that to you started is kind of disruptive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

You told me to "change dashes to [my] heart's content." I.e., if he changes it, then I would revert to the correct way, and it'll just be a continual cycle, otherwise known as an edit war, and we'd basically be right back here again. No evidence? Right, I guess you didn't look at any links. And once again, the dashes are not the issue. Stop getting hung up on that. I shouldn't have to repeat myself so many times to an administrator who's supposed to read the whole report. --JDC808 ♫ 02:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Has this editor ever reverted you for changing a dash to a hyphen, or vice versa? You need to present actual evidence of actual disruption, JDC808. Yes, I saw a few warnings on their talk page. Are you asking for this editor to be blocked for that? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

He hasn't directly done a revert of me or others, but he has readded the incorrect dashes despite being told multiple times he was adding the wrong ones. If you need every single instance, I can link them, but there's a lot and another user has also reverted him for this same issue. On the other issue, the user is also blanking or removing content and has been reverted, but has also ignored those warnings. The user is obviously ignoring our attempts of communication and continues to make the same kinds of edits. A block may be needed so he knows he just can't continue making edits despite others warnings. --JDC808 ♫ 03:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

JDC808, the distinction between hyphens and minus signs and en dashes and em dashes is not a matter of writing since that distinction is absent or completely muddled in handwritten manuscripts or in writing with a manual typewriter, and great works of literature have been written those ways. Instead, it is in the province of typography and orthography. Yes, the Manual of Style calls for different midline characters in different situations. That is why we have gnomes who love to copy edit the work of the editors who actually write encyclopedic prose. No content creator should ever be criticized for using an en dash instead of an em dash. That is the worst type of pedantry. If you are among the editors who care about these distinctions, then just fix it and move on. If you ever correct the dashes and hyphens in the articles I write, then more power to you! I will never complain about such a trivial matter, and will barely take notice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Once again, you're getting hung up on the dashes, and not the real issue of the user flat out ignoring attempts of communication. The thing is, I have "fixed it" several times but this user keeps changing it back despite edit summaries/talk page posts (and it was originally correct before the user began editing these articles). So am I just to basically keep "fixing it" because the user ignores edit summaries or their own talk page? --JDC808 ♫ 08:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, exactly who is getting "hung up" on hyphens and dashes is debatable, but, yes, the lack of communication is a problem, but you need to re-evaluate why' you think it's so darn important to talk to him when the subject matter is so incredibly trivial. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

You guys have a knack for dodging the real issue. Before you made your edit to this comment, I thought to myself, "great, he's finally seeing the real issue", but then you expanded this comment, and now I'm face-palming because you're basically bringing it right back to square one. It doesn't matter if the dashes are trivial, what matters is the fact that I've tried to communicate with the user to rectify the issue, but they will not/are not responding and continue to make the same edits. --JDC808 ♫ 22:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

(ec)JDC808, some editors never even look at a user or article talk page. They want to edit, not communicate. If this devolves into an edit war (that's IF), then you should post to the WP:ANEW. But ignoring you and other editors isn't a block-worthy infraction. And, I gather from the general response to your complaint, it's unlikely that any admin is going to see this situation as an immediate, urgent problem that calls for a block imposed upon an editor. I don't think posting your problem here is deserving of ridicule but clearly this behavior isn't seen right now as disruptive although it might seem that way to you. NinjaRobotPirate did post a warning about the General Sanctions about professional wrestling on Iamveselin's user talk page so now they've been warned. Hopefully, they might pay attention to this message. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully, but they probably won't given their track record so far. --JDC808 ♫ 08:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Watch that kind of talk or you'll get a folding chair smashed over your head. EEng 01:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

EEng, I did a major expansion of one pro wrestling biography, Dick the Bruiser, a fellow who was involved in an ugly brawl at Madison Square Garden on November 19, 1957 that left the arena littered with many thrown chairs. Some things never change. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I do care about dashes, but I don't care if people use them when they're writing, and don't think it really matters at all. Sort of like spelling things wrong, or other punctuation mistakes, wrong citation styles, or whatever, as long as it can be understood, I'd rather have the content to read than none, and don't think we should stress over whether new content is formatted correctly. It's easy to fix a few typos and stuff than to write from scratch, so — I see nothing wrong with people adding content that's formatted wrong really, but that's just my 2¢ :) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 01:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

According to MOS you should say "my $0.02". EEng 02:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @JDC808: I wouldn't expect the user to stop ignoring you anytime soon. They have never edited anything but article space. They don't talk. I would say more, but I have to dash.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I take a slash-and-burn approach myself. EEng 02:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, we get more threads here about "pro" wrestling than about American politics, abortion, tinfoil hats, the Mideast, birthplaces of Balkan soccer players, and Japanese animation genres combined. You people get your act together. EEng 02:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• It's almost as if the General Sanctions that was imposed didn't solve the problem, just saying. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

In this recent BLP EW re: subject's satisfaction/dissatisfaction with her contract/employer (obvi implications are obvi), it looks like Iamveselin was removing the potentially-problematic content, and communicating his reasons through HTML comments. I'm not seeing why they were given a warning for this. The previous warnings seem to be about this EW from last week where the editor's sourced additions were removed without explanation. Not sure why they were given a warning there, either. Though they are using – when they should use -, the rest of their contribs look like improvements to the encyclopedia to me. ^Leviv_ich? ! 05:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• The examples Levivich show here do not look "disruptive" to me, the reaction to those seem to be more disruptive - removing a source, readding a rumor cited to an unreliable source - neither actions help the article and to me doesn't actually make Iamveselin look disruptive in their edits. No diffs provided to show "disruptive behavior" only references to messages on their talk pages, which by itself is not proof of anything. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• After looking at the 3 warnings that triggered this, two are for the same article and after reviewing the history does not seem like they are "disruptive", one user takes exception to some content and they go back and forth - but instead of talking about it, two warnings are slapped on Iamveselin's talk page which to me seems antagonstic. The 3rd warning was because someone thought that removing rumors with an unreliable source is apparently not acceptable a BLP, and templated them. I'm not seen the case for "disruptive behavor" here. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• It's amazing how behind the times one can get if you don't pay close attention. For instance, I was totally unaware that when the universe was created, precisely what variety of short horizontal line must be used under each and every possible circumstance was part of the package. Here I was, thinking that whatever version was readable and conveyed the information was OK to use, and it turns out that there is always an ABSOLUTELY CORRECT VERSION -- and apparently JDC808 knows precisely what that is. Whodda thunk it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• Low cost computer, around $200
• reading Wikipedia, free
• BMK's post, priceless-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
• @EEng: I prefer "tuppence"-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
• Dash it all man-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• BMK's use of double hyphens in that post was masterfully subtle. ^Leviv_ich? ! 06:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, so if something were grammatically incorrect or had typos but readable and conveyed the information, its okay, even if it happened to be a run on sentence on an encyclopedia where were trying to present professional quality articles, and maybe we forgot to use correct punctuation here and there, thats ok? Gotcha, but there's a difference between well-known, well–known, and well—known. --JDC808 ♫ 08:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Please learn what you're talking about: the use of hyphens and dashes is not in any sense a matter of grammar. As Cullen has already told you, that's in the realm of typography and orthography. Stop taking yourself so goldarned seriously. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess that went over your head. Regardless, your post did nothing to resolve the issue, and there's already enough of that here. --JDC808 ♫ 20:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The fact that there's really no "issue" to be "resolved" seems to have gone right over yours. If you see something you think is wrong, fix it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, so the fact that this user is flat out ignoring attempts of communication to resolve issues is not an issue? I already said this to Cullen above, but I have "fixed it" several times, however, the user keeps changing it because they are ignoring edits summaries and talk page posts. "Fixing it" is only temporary because they will just change it again, and it will just be a continual cycle. You all are supposed to be admins, but you're giving absolutely poor advice here and overlooking the real issue. --JDC808 ♫ 21:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Just looking at that last article they edited which JDC808 copy edited, if I'd added that much text, I'd have needed more copy editing than they did. They've not edited since Jan 19. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I've left them another note asking them to join us. As they have not edited since (I think) before the ANI notice, it might be a while.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC) I've a confession to make. I can't tell an n-dash from an m-dash from a hyphen. I use the "-" key or sometimes type it twice "--" (rarely) for all three. It's the only horizontal line above the bottom I have.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC).

That was MPJ-DK that copy-edited Iamveselin's last article contribution. Looking at the very last sentence of my last post, you don't see the difference? On Iamveselin's talk page, I told them all they had to do was press the "-" key once, but they're instead clicking the first dash (which is an en-dash) from the list of characters below the editing window. --JDC808 ♫ 10:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes I did, and found the edits made by the editor in question were jus fine. In fact other than the fact than not getting the intricacies of - vs. – vs. — (worst WrestleMania main event ever) I am not seeing examples of being disruptive -- the fact that they don't seem keen to use talk pages is in itself not a problem. If it's not about the dashes please provide diffs where their editing is so disruptive that it needed to go to ANI. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't want to get involved here but I am honestly disappointed in the admins here. JDC808 is trying to report an issue for rectification and instead of working on it, you saying it's for ANEW, not ANI. It shouldn't be that difficult for one of you just to move the conversation there. Given the number of edits I have to go back and forth with Iamveselin, (visible clearly in Becky Lynch:Revision history) I had to warn them. I tried to reach for consensus without reverting here, Talk:Becky Lynch#The Man/Feud with Ronda Rousey (BTW that was my previous username) but didn't find any response. I don't like you guys dodging the issue by simply arguing about "dashes" where the real problem is the user's lack of communication. Why pro wrestling have so many complaints? That I don't know, probably it's easy to update on a weekly basis and new users don't understand in the first place. As MPJ-DK pointed out, sanctions are not really effective. I would suggest further page protections to force these kind of newbies use discussion pages. I follow WP:PW/MOS and WP:PW/Sources for my edits. How should we deal with them if they do not response to open-ended discussions? Admins, please look at the situation and stop blaming others' and misuse the phrase "disrupting editing". If you think others' had made a mistake, you are free to criticize them and clarify the situation with civility. Thanks, and I ended up here since I had a watch on Iamveselin due to their continuous disruptive editing (which is editing without consensus, ignoring warnings and no response). ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry Cullen328 and EEng, but I feel like you are belittling the reporter. I would care much less if you had done the same to Iamveseline, since they never even show up to conversations. You should not neglect the assumption of good faith and admins are generally considered to be experienced and well-respected editors whom others can look up to. I apologize again for the basic lecture, but even the bests sometimes forget the divine principles. ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. The real issue is lack of communication from the user (Iamveselin), but there's only been one admin (Liz) that hasn't been belittling of the issue or gotten hung up on the dashes. This discussion could probably be much smaller if those who have chimed in focused on the real issue instead of mocking the issue of the dashes. --JDC808 ♫ 20:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

So I have looked at the edits and see the following edits being labeled as "disruptive editing" because the user is 1) over linking two places, 2) adding a source that others find redundant and 3) being a little more detailed than some editors would like in an update. Is it annoying that they won't communicate? Yep totally, but to say "disruptive" is an over reaction and no diffs has been presented where their actual edits are disruptive - which is probably why it's hard for anyone to take this serious when all they've seen for "evidence" is the dash-darned dashes. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

MPJ-DK I consider disruption whenever they are doing the same edits WHILE ignoring my messages. ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this. If a user continues to make the same edits despite attempts of communication to correct the issue, that is disruptive and could cause the article(s) to be unstable (it hasn't gotten to an unstable issue, but just saying, it could). --JDC808 ♫ 20:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

ImmortalWizard - You kept doing the same edits too, reverting without explaining them except perhaps saying "unnecessary" which doesn't explain anything really. The way I see it you are both disruptive or neither are disruptive, since you've really not explained anyhing, just slapped templates on their talk page where is that person's motivation to talk to you? MPJ-DK (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Unless of course I am unaware of the messages you've left for the user on their talk page that may have been deleted?? MPJ-DK (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

MPJ-DK it isn't only me who slaps templates all the time. I tried to be polite and tried to reach a consensus with discussion. But they did not respond. If an edit is bad IMO, I can revert it if they don't respond. I can't just leave a message all the time like "yo, why you ignoring me." ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Please show me where you were polite to the user over the reverts you kept doing? Or even attempted to explain to the user why you revert their edits. I see 1 attempt at communicating and it was just "hey look at this link". MPJ-DK (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

MPJ-DK here and here. After that, it was other users as well who flushed out warning templates on their talk, which make everyone disruptive then based on your logic. ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

So I repeat one time where you basically said "I disagree with the naming of the section". Which I mentioned already, I was wondering where the polite conversation about the reverts was initiated but repeatedly ignored? MPJ-DK (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Ignore the undetified man, focus on his message

Oh and that was not a polic related issue, it was you wanting to label the section as "feud with Ronda" even though it goes way beyond that, I would have disagreed with that too. To be "disruptive" they have to do more than just disagree with you. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't get why you guys always blame people on stuff. The evidence is clearly visible that they are ignoring multiple messages and warnings from others. It is not unpolite to disagree on something, as long as you are open for discussion. I bet they are laughing behind the screen watching YOU guys taking no action against them and instead finding faults on those who are reporting for good. Yes I admit, "disruptive" I'd very much subjective, but not responding for concensus and continuing to edit the same is a much greater sin. And most of the time, people who revert use templates as shortcut. Blame the system then instead of attacking us. ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• Some will remember the discussion a few months ago re recognizing that most pro wrestling sources are not independent but rather part of the kayfabe promotion machine, thus radically reducing both the number of articles in this topic area and the amount of brainless detail within those articles that remain, and in turn reducing the amount of wrestling-like tussles over nothing that the rest of us are asked to referee. See WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive989#Thought_about_further_measures_to_reduce_wrestling-related_disruption. Not for action now, but to continue planting seeds for future action, I'd like editors to consider whether we should recognize the sources listed at WP:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Sources#Industry_specific as non-independent. EEng 16:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I do remember that one, still have unanswered questions on that one, but that's for another day/place/time/dimension. Honestly the problem here goes two ways - no communication on talk pages vs. reverting and templating insted of trying to engage in conversations and explan why they are doing the reverts. Faults on both sides, should never have been at ANI IMO, that's just my $0.02 MPJ-DK (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @ImmortalWizard: I have two questions for you if you don't mind answering: (1) What was the reason for this revert (there was no edit summary)? (2) What was the reason for this warning stating "Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted." What was the vandalism?) Thanks. ^Leviv_ich? ! 20:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich:

1. There was surely edit summary (ce-copy edit). Perhaps I should have added WP:PW/MOS to be more specific. I did wikilinked that and WP:PW/Sources on edit summaries on that article beforehand. I was working on that article for a while and probably there was slight frustration which made me only do ce. It is also a kind of common sense and I couldn't be bothered to specify each time.
2. I had a warn them since that WAS "disruptive", as I mentioned above, since they ignored my previous messages and edited the same despite.

And if you guys really want to talk about my actions and editing style, please start the discussion somewhere else. This is not the appropriate place as this is supposed to be only about the alleged users' actions. My contributions clearly wasn't the cause of their "disruption". ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I got to say, this section is full of WP:ABP despite controlled by admins. ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

ImmortalWizard, I would invite you to have a look at WP:BUNGEE where your argument of "not the appropriate place" is both explicitly and specifically countermanded. To sum up, I quote: "Anyone who participated in the dispute or discussions might find their actions under scrutiny." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks appreciate that. But people are getting off topic too much here. ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

IW, you're saying "they are ignoring multiple messages and warnings from others" and my question is, why did you (and others) warn them in the first place? What is it that they are doing wrong? I see vandalism warnings but no vandalism. Hyphens/dashes don't merit a vandalism or disruptive editing warning. So what is it that you're warning them about? For example, you cited PW/MOS above; what part of PW/MOS did they not follow? ^Leviv_ich? ! 21:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like I have to repeat again. I am warning about the user editing without continuosly ignoring messages. If you are interested, ask each an everyone of the editors who gave warning. There is no obligation to specify what's in WP/PW. Anyways, it is basically that you are not supposed to add unnecessary week to week contents. ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: Have you got any idea what this issue is about? Iamveselin is frequently making edits like this which includes "two–time" with an en dash instead of a hyphen. Anyone familiar with written English knows that is wrong without any need to consult a style guide. Iamveselin has never commented on a talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

So this is just about dashes? ^Leviv_ich? ! 22:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

No, it is not just about dashes. It's the user's lack of communication to resolve issues, which, on my part at least, stemmed from the issue of incorrect dashes. --JDC808 ♫ 22:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I think with all the talk about dashes, everyone seems to have seriously missed the point. The OP has raised concerns about the editing of another editor. The editor is not responding to talk page communication from the OP. The crux of the matter is not the debate between dash styles but the failure to discuss. I've seen many instances on ANI where such an editor has been hit with a "hey you! you need to talk" block. Irrespective of the matter being debated, shouldn't this post be judged on the same merit? --Blackmane (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Post-close comments

• So lets get this straight, an editor has been blocked for not responding to (from looking at their talkpage) false accusations of vandalism when they were adding unobjectionable (in the, its not uncited and its not a BLP violation sense) material to an article, and someone threatening to report them (as they have done) for not using the right type of dash? What the fuck is this "Bully people off wikipedia" month? The correct way to respond to people making unreasonable demands is to ignore them. An editor is not required to kowtow to the em-dash mafia. Jesus Christ. Next time someone has a go about dashes, I think the only response needed will be 'fuck off'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

In response to "threatening to report them for not using the right type of dash": the user was told multiple times that they were using the wrong one, but they kept ignoring me (as well as at least one other editor) and continued to change it from the correct dash to an incorrect one. The user would not discuss or address their edits, so what else was there to do? --JDC808 ♫ 07:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• No, this makes perfect sense:

1. "But ignoring you and other editors isn't a block-worthy infraction." - admin Liz in this thread
2. "I wouldn't expect the user to stop ignoring you anytime soon. They have never edited anything but article space. They don't talk. I would say more, but I have to dash." - Bbb23 in this thread
3. "I have blocked Iamveselin for three days for failure to collaborate, failure to respond to other users's concerns and, as a subset of failure to communicate, failure to use edit summaries (they never use summaries and they never talk)." - Bbb23 closing this thread
4. "If you do not respond, you will be blocked." - Something nobody said to this editor.

Encourage the silence and then punish the editor for it without warning. Three days for a first-offense, to boot. Makes perfect sense. ^Leviv_ich? ! 06:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• The above comments completely miss the point. Wikipedia is a collaborative community and if people raise issues, you need to discuss them. If you can't or won't, find another website. The user's edits included blatantly silly changes to hyphenated phrases, replacing the bog-standard hyphen with an en dash. Sure, it's trivia, but when someone does it over and over and over, and never responds to other editors, they need to be stopped. Johnuniq (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with admin Cullen328: "No content creator should ever be criticized for using an en dash instead of an em dash." ^Leviv_ich? ! 06:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Criticized is a strong word in this case. I tried to explain to the user the issue, but they ignored it and continued to make the same edits with no explanation for why they may have thought they were right. --JDC808 ♫ 07:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• Again, the issue concerns replacing hyphens with en dashes. Did you miss what I wrote (twice), or do you not believe it. If the latter you might check a few of the diffs, including the one I gave you. Johnuniq (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Johnuniq, I understand (and I think everyone else does too) that the complaint is that the editor is replacing hyphens with dashes, not just using dashes instead of hyphens when adding new content. Examples of this are in the history of the article linked to by OP. [68] But the user is also adding new content; much more than they are messing with dashes. Look at this revert [69] and this revert [70], it's not just about dashes. Content is being reverted there, too. But the editors (plural) who are reverting this content and posting vandalism or disruptive editing warning templates are making it seem like it's just #$T#$!@$# being posted on the page and reverted, when in fact it's dashes PLUS content, even sourced content. So what's going on there? That's why I asked above "why did you revert?" and such questions. Anyway, dashes isn't the reason the editor is blocked; not communicating is. Look I've written way too much about this as it is, so I don't see the reason for me to argue the point any further. But please don't insult me by repeatedly suggesting that because I disagree with your point of view, it means I don't understand, or I didn't read the diffs. ^Leviv_ich? ! 07:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

As those differences you linked were my own edits, look at what was actually done. The only content I removed was trivial content (e.g., "first-ever"). The rest was changing the text back to how it previously was (which was more concise) before Iamveselin's edits, which introduced some grammatical issues. Now I can't speak in regard to the content that was the subject of the warnings made by ImmortalWizard and Static with those articles. --JDC808 ♫ 07:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• Huh? Please read your last comment above. Why write that if you already knew that the issue had nothing to do with using an en dash instead of an em dash? Johnuniq (talk) 08:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Because I wasn't interpreting the statement quite so literally. Let me rephrase, then: No content creator should ever be criticized for using the wrong type of hyphen or dash. To which I would add: no editor should be required to engage with other editors who are removing sourced content and calling it "vandalism", or who edit war to include poorly-sourced potentially-damaging rumors in a BLP, and no editor should be blocked without explicit warning that X behavior, if continued, will lead to a block. ^Leviv_ich? ! 08:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• I disagree. Looking at the general case, an editor doesn't have to accept that the violations they're being accused of are valid ones, but there is a requirement to respond, to say in return: "my edits weren't vandalism and here's why." There's no necessity that they carry on an extensive discussion, or accept the other editor's behavior (they're perfectly free to report them as well), but a complete lack of response serves to undermine Wikipedia's system.
  The problem with this specific case is that the people reporting the lack of communication were themselves blowing up a trivial issue of typography ("bog-standad" or not) into a major issue -- which is why they received a goodly portion of sarcasm in the responses they go in the thread above -- calling things "vandalism" which were not, and so on. In the end, though, when push comes to shove, not communicating with anyone is a more serious problem than turning a molehill into a mountain, which is why the block went the way it did -- at least that's my interpretation of events. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Would just like to point out that I never once called the "dash" edits vandalism, only disruptive as they continued to make the same edits despite attempts to correct the issue. It was in the other warnings from other editors where "vandalism" was used. --JDC808 ♫ 07:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

User has not responded on their talk. Their is extended discussion their about all of this. The block expires in a couple of hours.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23's closing statement says "I have also warned the user that if they persist in this kind of behavior, the next block will be indefinite," so I suppose we wait to see if they continue not to respond to new requests for communication, and use edit summaries, and if not... Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

All of this over using the wrong kind of hyphen. What a sad lot of pedants we're becoming. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Of course more mockery. The issue was the fact that the user continued to make the same edits over and over despite attempts to correct the issue. They flat out ignored edit summaries and their own talk page (demonstrated further by the fact that they ignored administrator's warnings to come here and address the issue). --JDC808 ♫ 01:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

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

2604:4080:1300:8031:1483:60cf:3474:35d8

Yet another WP:NOTHERE on US road articles. 2604:4080:1300:8031:1483:60cf:3474:35d8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is repeatedly adding uncited info without consensus. When asked to stop reverting by an editor, they essentially mocked said editor, claiming that we should not revert their edits without a discussion, since "facts and citations don't matter". Cards84664 (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks familiar.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: You want to give it a go? They're still going. Cards84664 (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I'd recommend asking for WP:RPP. Semi-protection would prevent IP and dynamic IP editors from editing the page, and typically they get bored and move on. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it anyways since I was on the page. Hope you don't mind. :) ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe that this editor is the same as an IP that removed Interstate 605 (Washington) from the same page, based on their assertion that a former (but serious) proposal should not be listed. SounderBruce 02:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I invited them to this discussion and Semi'd the page.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

It is the same editor - see the contributions by 2604:4080:1300:8031::/64... IPv6 addresses are commonly distributed dynamically at the client level and at the /64 CIDR range. In many cases, this IP change can occur as often as every few hours. It's typically beyond their control and in most cases is not a deliberate attempt to hop IPs in order to evade blocks or to cause more disruption (such shenanigans do happen by users who know this, but it's usually very obvious when you see it). If you see edits by different IPv6 addresses in a situation like this and where the left-half of the IP blocks are the same but the right-half of the IP blocks are different, this is very likely why. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Central bank of iran vandalized by troll farm

Central Bank of Iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Please keep watch of changes..and revert sock puppets. Thanks.66.87.85.155 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a revert war with THIS, by 66.87.31.105 with edit summary "(revert soutced uncontroversial edits: "user:Trustbanker" objective was hiding the fact that wether "Russian" or "British", Banking in Iran was/is controlled by Jews..)" followed by THIS by Cu570d14n0f7h3n0735 with edit summary "(Wikipedia is not a platform for anti-semitism. Only content supported by sources shall remain."-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I SP'd the thing.-- Dlohcierekim (talk)

except there is nothing "antisemtic" at all. The SOURCED long standing portion carefully removed shows exactly that FACT (i.e. National bank of Persia and Bank Eskerazi were owned by Reuters and Polyakov - 2 Jewish businessmen of their respective countries - UK and Russia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.85.155 (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Assertion of Jewish conspiracy theories involving the money supply of a country ARE anti-semitic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

(WHERE do u see that? Answer:NOWHERE!)...U need to see a good doctor, Liz. Sorry, we can't help you.66.87.85.155 (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

That's enough. Your messages and comments toward other editors are expected to be compliant with Wikipedia's civility policy; personal attacks will not be tolerated. If you're making an assertion using original research or your thoughts and opinions to add content that's not explicitly stated in the references provided in the article, it's not in compliance with our policies and guidelines and will be reverted. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The edit itself does not seem clearly anti-semitic. The edit summary does though. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

You do look like con-artists, however!66.87.85.155 (talk)

Who's we? Is there a mouse in your pocket?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I think we need a NOTHERE block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like bad-faith all around: the IP's comments on one hand, and the deletion of removal of extensive well-sourced content on the other. You can't remove a lot of content on grounds of "content supported by sources shall remain", unless that content actually isn't properly sourced: this removal included a large table of data derived from the International Monetary Fund, which is definitely a reliable source for currency in circulation, foreign currency deposits, etc. Nyttend (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The IP user is blocked for 36 hours for their disruptive edits and continued uncivil comments made here - enough is enough. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

But let's not overlook it was Cu570d14n0f7h3n0735 who removed the table with the "(Wikipedia is not a platform for anti-semitism. Only content supported by sources shall remain" edit summary.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

A further discussion regarding this user's edits and conduct here is expected (of course) - I'm not going to allow editors to make uncivil troll-like comments like the ones left above by the IP user; my block and comment above was simply added to note the action I took against the IP user and why. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, who left Cu570d14n0f7h3n0735 an ANI notification on their user talk page? ... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

damn!  Done. Got so much from the one I forgot about the other.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Notified Trustbanker, who I guess made the original removal of sourced content.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

They're accused of being the same editor but I dont think a SPI was filed. 2601:1C0:6D00:845:6CDA:320:FB33:BAE3 (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

User:MCazenave/WPFOOTY

Hello all. I'm unfortunately here to report/start a discussion about User:MCazenave and their edits regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject Football articles. First time I've done one of these, so apologies if anything I've done is incorrect.

MCazenave has been an editor since 2017 and has continuously edited a variety of association football articles, mostly in regards to Chilean football. While their edits are welcomed as that part of WPFOOTY is under-edited, they are constantly adding content to articles without leaving a reliable source to back them up - from what I've seen, they rely on an external link (Soccerway and/or BDFA - both reliable) having the correct information at their time of edit. It seems MCazenave heavily edits based on transfer rumours, a few examples here:

→ Tobías Figueroa (diff1)

→ Iván Sandoval (Chilean footballer) (diff2)

→ Mariano Barbieri (diff3)

I've reached out via their talk page and via edit summaries when I've reverted but have had no response at all. With the Iván Sandoval article, I asked for a reliable source and they (kind of) provided one. I say kind of as it was a source that stated a deal was almost completed, which I had already mentioned in my initial revert edit summary that it wasn't sufficient. I let that slide as I didn't want to get into a silly edit war over something that was indeed close (the deal has since been completed but my points stand). It seems my issues with MCazenave have been an issue for a while, User:GiantSnowman contacted the user via their talk page back in 2017 about unsourced content (with no response?) and it seems nothing much has changed.

Lastly, I must state that I do not believe this user is a bad editor. As I mentioned and have mentioned to them, their edits to the Chilean side of WPFOOTY are certainly needed but I feel it's becoming disruptive - if unintentional. I'm not sure what the right course of action is. R96Skinner (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

R96Skinner, if you want anyone to take action here, you need to supply diffs, that is, specific edits that this editor has made, that you believe are disruptive or troublesome. It's not enough to point to an article, administrators want to just click links to see what is going on, not search them out themselves. More work for you but it will more likely result in action. Look at other reports on this page that have received some replies to see what I mean.209.152.44.201 (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

On it. Thanks! R96Skinner (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Much better! 209.152.44.201 (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

R96Skinner - I have a few important things to note in this discussion:

• First, the use of "edit summaries" do not count as attempts to reach out or communicate with other editors or users, contribute to discussions, or warn other users regarding their violations of Wikipedia policy or their noncompliance with certain Wikipedia guidelines. If somebody violates a policy or otherwise causes some issue or problem that needs to be corrected and addressed, you should always reach out to the user directly and each time this happens. Be civil and descriptive in each of your messages and include all relevant links to help the user (such as the diff to the edit in question, a link to the relevant policy or guideline, and other links necessary). When addressing content disputes, you need to start the relevant talk page discussions (if an active one doesn't already exist), ping the user involved, and follow-up with a message on their user talk page pointing them to the discussion. Aside from bringing the issues to their attention and doing what's outlined in Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol - if anything, it creates a trail of documentation so that later, you can start a noticeboard discussion like this one and you can easily report repeated issues involving another editor by supplying diff links demonstrating all of your attempts to reach out and notify the user, discuss the problem, and talk to them about it to no avail.
• Second, I see that this user makes a lot of edits in the football topic area (particularly to BLP articles that involve football). Spot-checking the user's contributions show me that this user doesn't add any references to support their edits (most I checked were changes to the information contained in the article's infobox). Depending on the content being added or changed, adding unreferenced content to a BLP is a big no-no. However, the diffs you provided point to an edit the user made yesterday, but the others point to edits made back on the 13th of January. That's fine, but for me to consider administrative action (if needed and/or applicable), I need to see diffs of recent or current edits that show repeated violations of policy, and repeated attempts to talk to the user (I do see that you've talked to them directly in two separate discussions, but I don't see warnings of increased emphasis or severity such as a 'final warning'). I'll also note that this user has made zero edits to the talk or user talk Wikipedia namespaces, so there's obviously a failure to communicate here. I'll do some more digging and add more note as I find them, but it would be very helpful if such information could be supplied next time.

Do know that I'm not trying to rip you a new one, tear you down, treat you like an idiot or a new user who doesn't know anything, embarrass you, or discourage you from reporting issues or violations of policy when they need to be reported. :-) I'm just trying to explain what things we look for in noticeboard reports and exactly why they're important so you understand and will be able to keep this in mind should you face issues or disputes like this in the future. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Understood, Oshwah. I wasn't sure what order to do things as this is the first time in five years on Wikipedia that I've seen the need to report a user. I should've been more thorough in looking at the way to do things, my apologies! I presumed edit summaries in reverts would be OK as it notifies the user when the revert occurs, but as that isn't the case then I fully understand and will remember that for the future. In recent months, I have started to contact users via their talk pages whenever I revert so we can understand each other - in case I'm wrong too. Anyway, thank you for taking the time to explain things to me clearly - I appreciate it. R96Skinner (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

R96Skinner - No worries; this is why I try and take time to explain and help. :-) If you're able and if you can, do you have diffs of very recent edits by that you can provide that clearly show where this user has added unsourced content and where it was blatantly problematic? There's a lot of edits to go through - it would be a great help if you could go through, locate diffs from the user's edits today or yesterday, and provide a list of them so I can take a look. Let me know :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure! No edits since yesterday, but:

→ 23/01 - Santiago Wanderers - diff1 - They added a section a little while back to the football club's article for "2019 Summer transfers" (diff2), which lists ins and outs from this month but they are unsourced. They have done that for all other clubs in the Chilean Primera Division and Primera B de Chile, as seen over at Club Deportivo Universidad Católica (diff3), Club Universidad de Chile (diff4), Deportes Iquique (diff5), O'Higgins F.C. (diff6) and many others - none of which are sourced.

→ 23/01 - Agustín Parra - diff7 - They've added to the Agustín Parra article stating the player has retired, no sourcing. BDFA was already listed as an external link but it doesn't say Parra has retired, or even left.

→ 23/01 - José Luis Jiménez - diff8 - According to their edits, he is now a player of Santiago Morning. However, no sources have been left and the article itself doesn't even have Soccerway or BDFA listed as external links. Similar story at Francisco Piña (diff9) and Francisco Lara Uribe (diff10) (both 23/01), though them articles had the ext. links listed which confirm the transfer but it seems that's a coincidence given what I mentioned with José Luis Jiménez.

→ 23/01 - Hugo Bascuñán - diff11 - Same as the above, no sort of sourcing added - they seem to be relying on BDFA which doesn't have the player at Santiago Morning.

→ 23/01 - Francisco Pizarro (footballer) - diff12 - Arguably a sign of this user's potential disruption. No source given for the player's departure from Santiago Morning, nor even for the player's arrival (and subsequent four appearances) back in August 2018 when they edited (diff13). External links BDFA and FootballDatabase have no evidence of said stint with the club, though the NFT link does but doesn't specify any appearances.

If any more examples need to be added Oshwah, I will do so.

As a side note, while looking through this user's edits, I noticed they joined within months of User:Durneydiaz's indefinite blocking. This is pure speculation on my part, but is it possible they are the same user? Both Durneydiaz and MCazenave have similar edit histories and tendencies, with little-to-no interaction. Only a thought. R96Skinner (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

KidAd, 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.

---

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

Previous thread.

I've just blocked them for violating their topic ban from post-1932 American politics by editing at Markos Kounalakis ([71]) and Jennifer Siebel Newsom ([72]).

I'm expecting that they're going to say that they got their block and ban confused. If they sincerely believed that, then why did they largely avoid politics after being unblocked, only slowly working into a few small edits no one would immediately notice, before building up to larger edits on the edges of the topic ban, before finally becoming rather involved in articles that are pretty clearly about politics?

Their previous failure to comprehend "do not edit any page relating to American politics" which lead to prior bans were flagrant enough to raise questions of either competency or good-faith. Slowly sneaking back in to the area of their topic ban after being blocked for violating it (during which time it was made beyond clear that they should not edit any pages relating to American politics) really makes it hard to assume good faith.

Ian.thomson (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Wait, no, I see they're just straight up going to argue that political authors who are married to politicians somehow aren't covered under "do not edit any page relating to post-1932 American politics." If they're here in good faith, then competency is an issue. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Messing with the Ashley Feinberg page[73] is also a fairly blatant violation. Her tweets and columns rile up the MAGA crowd. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

At this point, their utter refusal to understand that political journalists as well as family members of politicians and political consultants all fall under the broad heading of "politics" leaves me incapable of assuming both good faith and competence from them. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Good block. Miniapolis 23:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am pretty frustrated eight editors' time has been wasted on that AfD. The hope with TBANs is that they will prevent just exactly that kind of disruption while allowing an editor to keep contributing to other parts of the encyclopedia. But it only works if the editor can and will respect its boundaries. Failing that, a block is the way to prevent disruption. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Frankly after all the previous nonsense, I think they're lucky they only got 3 months. I can't be arsed looking into the details of the other case, but their inability to understand a role/title that arises exclusively from being the partner of (or very occasionally related to) a politician is clearly politics, indicates that they still lack the most basic comprehension of what their topic ban requires. (Or they do but just thought they'd escape unnoticed.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah and I see in this edit, the edit itself included a change from (emphasis added) [74] "wife (1980-) of influential political commentator and consultant Dick Morris" to "Married to political consultant and commentator Dick Morris". The actual edit seems decent if made by anyone else, but somehow despite a politics ban and being told amongst other things, "No edits on non-politics pages that in any way touch on post-1932 American politics", they somehow thought it was okay to make an edit where "political" was effectively part of the edit itself. Nil Einne (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

BTW, KidAd if you read this. Don't think I'm saying you could edit any of those articles if you stayed away from issues like how to list their political spouse, or their title/role which solely arises from their relationship to a politician. My point isn't that it would have been acceptable otherwise, but rather even if you didn't realise editing those articles was clearly verboten, when you were actually making the edit you should have realised they were. Nil Einne (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Threat of legal action

From User:12.32.207.164 here. They've already been warned for it last week also, by the look of it. (And have just come off a short block for block evasion.) ——SerialNumber54129 08:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, saw it on my talk page. It was block evasion, anyway, so I reblocked the editor. My initial 31 hour block from last week seems to be have been a bit short, and Floquenbeam's related block on 108.178.78.26 is several months, so I blocked for a month this time. If anyone thinks I'm overreacting, go ahead and reduce the block to whatever you see fit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Emirates Stadium

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

---

Just come across this apparent legal threat at Talk:Emirates Stadium. I suspect it may just be poor trolling from a rival football fan but I can see it getting misconstrued by non-English football fans. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@The C of E: it's a school IP so just trolling; I've blocked anyway. GiantSnowman 10:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Crisx284

• Crisx284 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm having trouble with this user. She doesn't understand English very well and keeps reverting edits (Edit Warring) I make on a page because she thinks shows like Dragon Booster and Pucca are produced by Disney, when they're not. I've tried reporting her to the Adminstrator against Vandalism, but it was rejected. don't bother going onto her talk page, as she'll just argue back. She also personally attacked me as well. Luigitehplumber (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@LTPHarry: It would speed/aid the process if you provided difs for the problem edits.---- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Notified user of this discussion.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

User_talk:LTPHarry#disney distributed the series okay provides insight into Crisx284's anger at OP. When told he was wrong, LTPHarry gave her a "yeah but". At this point I think the heavy-handed warnings did more harm than good.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Her reply at his talk page contradicts OP's assertion about what she thinks.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Seems like the user has been blocked by Black Kite for edit warring. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 19:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I've blocked them for 48h (Dlohcierekim's comments were posted after I went off to do it). They're edit-warring against multiple people and don't seem to want to stop, and it also looks like they're the same 190.x.x.x IP that caused the page to be semi-protected in the first place. Black Kite (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Oooh... IP? This user might make sockpuppets during his/her block. I'd recommend keeping an eye on the semi-protected page to see if there are any new IP edits that follow this user's pattern. Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

edit warring is always wrong even when you are right.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

She went back to harassing me on another Wiki just now, saying it was all my fault for it all. If you've seen, I tried to give her reasons but she refused to listen. Luigitehplumber (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

LTPHarry - Which project? Where? Can you provide a diff to that continued harassment you speak of? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I wish I could, but I deleted the comment she sent me on the Wiki (it’s one I operate through FANDOM) so I cannot, sorry. If I didn’t delete it, I would have sent you the link. Just believe me that she really did say that. Luigitehplumber (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Only on Wikipedia can you read all-caps bilingual personal attacks like this one [75], summarized as: Rolie Polie Olie is made by Disney, you son of a $#%^! The symbols are bad words in case you don't understand! ^Leviv_ich? ! 05:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I think this should go to a indef block per WP:NOTHERE. Just my opinion though. A Dolphin (squeek?) 16:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Paid or otherwise CoI editing by Bryanpower on Kellie Loder

Bryanpower (talk · contribs) started editing on Wikipedia with the edit, Updated photo and genres to reflect Kellie's age and image (2019-01-25T00:56:53), which I thought was an odd comment, but excused the "image" as reflecting the new photo. However, the removal of Christian music genres, which she's been nominated for awards in was concerning. I left the photo and restored the genres and welcomed Bryanpower then warned for potential CoI. Later, Removed unnecessary information about writing her first song which would be better placed in "Early Life". We wanted to make her wiki as coherent as possible. (2019-01-25T17:52:28) is full of problems. First, I'm concerned with the "we" part, and second the potential WP:OWN comment of it being "her" wiki (although I'm sure it could also be interpreted as "the wiki entry about her") but it's clear that this is either a manager or handler of some sort. Requesting at least a topic ban, making all edit requests though the article's talk page, if not an outright ban from the English project.

To address the argument that the subject has "long removed herself from the previous genres", is immaterial as articles on musicians are to reflect the subject's entire career. We do not remove content to make the artist more palatable to their current target audience: that's what press kits and the like are for. Adding new content is always acceptable, but removing old content because it no longer fits the artist's image is unacceptable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Have you started a discussion on the article talk page? That's usually the next step instead of seeking help at ANI. 2601:1C0:6D00:845:F040:DB16:1AD5:EDAB (talk) 06:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Kintetsubuffalo "so this is not a template" warnings

The following discussion is closed. 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 recently reverted some unannotated edits from User:Kintetsubuffalo. I tried to politely inform them on their talk page that they should follow WP:FIES which lead nowhere. But that's not what brings me here. I got curious and snooped into the recent edit history and discovered a previous incident on these noticeboards in which Kintetsubuffalo was given a ban on using level 4 vandalism warnings. The summary of the support for this ban, at least to me, seems to be that it could potentially drive away potential new editors. Since that ban, he has left warnings like this, this and this and probably others which I have stopped searching for as I see a pattern. All of these assume bad faith by stating:

"Some here believe that you are somehow valuable to Wikipedia..."

Which implies that they are not valuable. This seems to be at odds with the previous decision and is a continuation of the problem. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The main problem I see with the message is that the IP is absolutely not going to understand "Some here believe that you are somehow valuable to Wikipedia, so this is not a template" - venting his frustration at his ban on templating rather than leaving an actually useful message. (By the way, the IP's edits look more like edit warring than vandalism.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

After reviewing the original ban, I see it uses this language regarding the warnings that he is allowed to give that: "directly addresses the behavior in question". It appears at least from the warnings I've seen from him now that they are not adequate (to say the least) and give scant details, so the warnings aren't "directly [addressing]" anything. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Though not a template warning, the language of the whole message is concerning: I have reverted your vandalism, for which you can and should be blocked. Some here believe that you are somehow valuable to Wikipedia, so this is not a template. The editor was notified but deleted the notification (and previous attempts to discuss at their talk page). [76] Pinging Black Kite. ^Leviv_ich? ! 07:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo is subject to an editing restriction against using vandalism templates, but there is another restriction:

"He may warn other users, but only insofar as his warnings are directly typed by him, and directly address the behavior in question." Emphasis added.

When Kintetsubuffalo leaves identical warnings, it makes no difference if this editor is cutting and pasting, or typing rote language from memory. This is functionally equivalent to a templated warning. Because these warnings mention neither a specific article nor specific edits, these canned warnings violate the requirement that warnings must "directly address the behavior in question". Accordingly, I believe that the community must now craft and agree on a more specific editing restriction. Perhaps the most straightforward solution is an indefinite block, and that outcome was supported by several editors in the last discussion, but I am open to another option. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo is obviously deliberately evading the spirit of and reason for the restriction, is clearly being far too aggressive in those first warnings, and is doing it in a deliberately pointy way. Those warnings are sticking a finger up at the community and are blatantly not trying to help the new editors understand the problem - if anything, they're worse than the level 4 templated warnings. I agree that an indef block (which can be lifted if we see a genuine appeal that makes it clear that Kintetsubuffalo will accept Wikipedia's collaborative and non-aggressive approach) is the way to go. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo has made a great contribution to WP, particularly in the area of articles about Scouting, so I am not happy about an indef block. I have emailed him off-wiki. Please do not rush on this one. --Bduke (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bduke: I'm sure that KB will be treated exactly like any other editor here. But, rather than discussing with them off-wiki, you might advise them to join this discussion. It could be one of the few ways of preventing said block. ——SerialNumber54129 08:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand, don't bother; apparently, civility and collegiality are "tiresome". ——SerialNumber54129 13:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

There's no doubt that some of his edits are useful. But the manner in which he goes about it by generally ommitting notations for his edits and aggressive warnings needs to be corrected. Those aren't great contributions. Leitmotiv (talk) 08:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

1. BTW: A few years ago, a similar behavior also resulted in him being blocks on Commons. --Leyo 08:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems the overall problem here is KB's inability to communicate or communicating properly, via omitting edit summaries, aggressive and excessive warnings that lack tact, or just generally refraining from communicating altogether like at his talk page. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Looking at the evidence, I would agree that a block is in order. We have too many here using signatures and such as a soapbox and this is definitely in that same category. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not make petty points about a sanction that was well deserved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• I was the admin who originally set the sanction, and I admit to dropping the ball here by not keeping an eye on KB's editing. If I had seen these warnings to IPs, I would have blocked him a lot earlier - they are, as Boing! said above, basically sticking a middle finger up to the community. I now intend to do so, unless there is a good reason for not doing so raised in the next few hours (I am going to be AFK for a short while and don't want to block and run). Obviously, if any other admin wishes to take action in the meantime, that's fine. Black Kite (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef block. I told y'all during the ANI thread three months ago that Kinetsbuffalo had all the signs of someone who defies sanctions and was going to defy that one. And so here we are. As I stated in the previous thread, for the sake of editor retention, he has to be stopped. Here we are again, and so that needs to happen now. Softlavender (talk) 14:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Please note that as this thread has grown, User:Kintetsubuffalo has continued editing while failing to comment here. The term for this unusual behavior is "ANI flu," where a reported editor wholly ignores a large consensus forming against their behavior in the hopes it just blows over. They're awake. Whether or not they get indefinitely blocked is looking like a foregone conclusion; an indefinite block at least until they promise to contribute to this discussion is so uncontroversial it can be considered a housecleaning edit. 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:E5C3:DE64:E2F2:E776 (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

  For the record, I beg to make the correction that ANI flu refers to someone who stops editing completely in mysterious synchrony with the opening of an ANI thread, not someone who keeps editing elsewhere on the project. EEng 07:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Indef Block - Not sure why that is on the table for a handful of mean vandal warnings, which is about a 2 on the 10-point scale of Wikitransgressions. KB needs to cut out the snark and threats if he's going to warn vandals at all. This all smacks of score settling... Carrite (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Carrite: in light of the last ANI from a few months ago, in which it wasn't a handful but many mean and undeserved level-4 warning templates, the result of which was to TBAN this editor from using level 4 warning templates (plus the restriction described by Cullen above), and in light of the editor now still using "mean", cookie-cutter generic warnings (same thing as a level 4 template, really), and adding to that "so this is not a template", which is a long way of saying "F U"... if not an indef block, what remedy would you suggest here? Another Tban obviously won't work, since the editor has proven they will follow the letter but violate the spirit. The editor won't engage with the community. The biting of newbies can't be allowed to continue. So what are the community's options? ^Leviv_ich? ! 18:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

If he's willing to follow the letter of the topic ban, which he appears ready to do, the problem isn't with the editor so much as it is with the terms of the sanction. I'll show you. Carrite (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

He knows what the current restriction is supposed to mean and what it is supposed to prevent, and if he insists on sticking a finger up at the community by deliberately following only the letter of it like a spoilt child defying their parents, then the problem *is* with the editor - and I don't see why we should have to bend over backwards to pander to such deliberate childishness. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

Due to serial incivility with vandal warnings, Kintetsubuffalo is hereby prohibited from leaving talk page warnings of any kind -- templated or untemplated -- relating to vandalism or perceived bad editing. Vandalism should be removed silently, with a non-pointy, non-aggressive notation of the change in the edit summary. Any further incivility with respect to vandal warnings will be met with escalating blocks. Carrite (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support - as proposer. Carrite (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose because talk page messages and warnings are useful for both the recipient and the community; this proposal would essentially require a bad practice (reverting without warning). Also, if an editor refuses to leave another editor a message without being an asshole, why would we indulge or tolerate that in any way? Civility is a pillar; it's not optional. ^Leviv_ich? ! 19:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Comment This would actually decrease their communication, surely; and talking to editors when you've just reverted them is not just informative—it's often mandated by policy. And, speaking of policy, it's hardly civil (also policy) to not discuss one's reverts. I'm sorry Carrite; but we seem to have an editor whom who we can't trust to communicate (perhaps indicated by the—deafening—silence noted above), and I don't quite see how that is conducive to our standard operating procedure... ——SerialNumber54129 19:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. We should expect editors to behave in a mature manner and comply with what they know the community wants without having to be micro-managed like a petulant child. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This does not address the underlying problem which is the chronic failure to communicate effectively with people they disagree with. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. This proposal exhibits no comprehension of the background of this issue and the underlying problem. Softlavender (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose A solution is needed, but this would make things worse.

I suggest instead that they are simply prohibited from reverting vandalism altogether. They are not the only editor capable of doing this, and if anything is particularly egregious then they can still notify another editor to do it on their behalf. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Not unless we also prevent the user from undoing or reverting edits (which seems truly bizarre). As pointed out, this proposal does not solve the problem of inappropriate warnings. Now, can we get back to the short-circuited discussion of what to do with an editor who is clearly avoiding the spirit of his TBan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 21:26, January 27, 2019 (UTC)
  • no offense intended to Andy Dingley.. I'd already written the above when I ec'ed with him. Meters (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• We ban many editors from reverting vandalism. Usually as part of a more total ban. It's still an option. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked

• I've held back on taking action as I said I would earlier, to see what the consensus was on User:Carrite's proposal. There is a fairly clear consensus that Kintetsubuffalo has (a) ignored the result of the previous ANI, avoiding it by instead posting sarcastic "warnings" to IPs - as a number of people have said "sticking a finger up" to the previous sanction (b) failed to respond to discussion, either here or on their talkpage, and (c) shown a distinct lack of collaborative behaviour (the banner at the top of their user talk page makes that fairly clear). However, whilst there are some calls for an indefinite block, I do not see an overwhelming consensus for this; however there certainly is a consensus that "something should be done". Therefore, I have blocked for 1 month, with a caveat that future failure to comply with the original sanction, or general failure to act collaboratively, may be met with a longer (or indefinite) block. Black Kite (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd like to add that I find the outcome sad (150th top editor at Wikipedia), but unfortunately necessary at this time. I truly hope a break will give him some time to reflect. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Appendix

Thread about this incident at Wikipediocracy titled "Kintetsubuffalo at ANI." Carrite (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

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

2019 Supercars Championship

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

---

Constant edit warring by IPs at 2019 Supercars Championship with no attempt to discuss other than one saying 'it is' and the other 'it isn't' in edit summaries. [77][78][79][80][81][82] Crick12 (talk) 06:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Protected the wrong version for a week. Steve Smith (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 Reesesantana300

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

---

• Reesesantana300 (talk · contribs)

Continuing to add unreferenced, BLP content after a final warning. --Ronz (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for three days. Steve Smith (talk) 07:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Inability to use talk page at "Tropical year"

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

---

The article "Tropical year" is unprotected but it's talk page is protected (and rightfully so] due to a long history of edits by a banned user. Now a new IP, 213.48.233.51 (talk · contribs), has been making garbled edits, misrepresenting previous edit summaries, and complaining in an edit summary "I can't use the talkpage as it's protected." Arguments and constant changes by way of the edit summaries is intolerable. This must stop. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:Assume good faith. IMO, the first step should be to unprotect the talk page [which ought never have had an indefinite block in the first place, even twelve months is extreme]. The anon editor should at least be given the opportunity to present his/her case without the terseness imposed by edit summaries. If and only if it becomes clear that the proposed text is culpable nonsense, then there is a sound basis to request a block. [Which will not be easy because the editor seems to be using an ISP that does ad hoc IP address allocation]. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

(EC) Would it be possible to create an unprotected talk page? I think I know which editor you are talking about, and I imagine one problem is people in good faith engage them not aware of who they are. This is I would assume less likely on a page only frequented by those in the know. If this doesn't work, I wonder if simply protecting the article may be better. While I appreciate that minor copy edits etc and very occasionally even more major edits won't need discussion, there's always the possibility they will and it seems problematic if editors are able to make changes, but aren't able to discuss them. Nil Einne (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

We try to be accommodating to IP editors, and on the whole that seems to work. But it hasn't worked for this article and talk page. Perhaps we should explain to the IP editor that due to past abuse in this article and talk page by a banned user who constantly evades the ban, it will be necessary to establish an account to discuss the edit on the talk page. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

On reading the talk page archive, I realise that there is a long history to this so I regret my intervention but only just. It was a kneejerk reaction to seeing a talk page protected indefinitely but the main space left open! That to me is anathema. How else is wp:Communication is required supposed to work? I suggest strongly that tropical year be protected even indefinitely but the talk page block should expire and be renewed for a fixed time if needed. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Forcing people to create an account goes against the fundamental tenet of the project. The article could be protected (as being "front of house"), its talk page should be unprotected in order to allow anonymous editing; and as for V(X)fC, that's what we have WP:BMB and WP:DENY for, with short—very temporary—periods of semi-protection. Cf. the refdesks, where it happens every couple of days. But this is not a sufficiently high-profile page to warrant much more: the last 500 edits to the talk page go back to 2001. ——SerialNumber54129 17:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the history, although some protection was necessary (the edit rate at the time was excessive), I think User:Jayron32 misread it when protecting. The page was actually unprotected for a whole year. [83]. So yeah it will probably be better to try short term protection. Of course it's possible that the sock is aware of this discussion and is going to take the opportunity to disrupt but we'll just have to hope for the best. Nil Einne (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid you had misread it. The prior protection started in January 2017, and was set for 1 year. Within minutes of expiring in January, 2018, VXFC started editing again. --Jayron32 12:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I do believe they are aware, yes. Compare this section on my page, near the end of the discussion. Pinging @Favonian: Bishonen | talk 19:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC).

They certainly are, and when the talk page is unprotected, as it probably should be lest the Pillars crumble, the endless wash–rinse–repeat cycle starts over again. Huzzah! Favonian (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

It's an employment program for admins :p  :) ——SerialNumber54129 20:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

•  Fixed Page unprotected, have fun! --Jayron32 12:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Legal threats

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

---

This editor made legal threats. Don't let it be you. GoldenRing (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Please see these [84] edits by User:Jay Bestille. User has been indeffed by Berean Hunter for sock puppetry. Melcous (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, the legal threat is clear, but what exactly do you want us to do beyond indeffing him? GoldenRing (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I say disembowel him. EEng 14:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Keel-hauling? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I just want to say I see this entire thread as an attack on Wikipedia's man-eating tiger community. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Tigers are good, but how about tar-and-feathering, drawing and quartering, or forcing them to read the collected works of Madame Blavatsky while listening to the music of Rod McKuen in a room decorated with paintings by Margaret Keane? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not a big WP:ANI user, perhaps I should have been more specific or used a different forum, but the revoking of talk page access since done seems to have been a good idea. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Brent Alden promotion 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.

---

Regarding previous disruption described at Rangeblock for Meg Maheu? (January 2018) and Promotion of Brent Alden, False Alarm band, rangeblock needed (December 2017), I have seen recent editing efforts by this person. They are using the IPs listed below. Binksternet (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• 99.203.74.236 (talk  · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 99.203.74.103 (talk  · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1:B139:ED10:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2600:1:B124:75C4:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2600:1:B128:5475:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

• The IPV4 address is easy, and there's nothing coming from there except vandalism, so I've rangeblocked it for 3 months. The IPv6's are more difficult - it's a big range, all SPRINT Broadband (it would be a /43) - everything from the last few days is the vandal, but there are other edits previously, though not many. Could block the /64's individually, but they'd pretty clearly just come back on another one. I've blocked the /43 for a week only. Black Kite (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the action. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 by static IP 24.51.244.155

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

---

24.51.244.155 (talk · contribs) Is a static IP solely used for vandalising Wikipedia, most likely belonging to a school; I suppose a long-term block is required. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Polyresin - Is there a rule against being insulting in the change reason messages?

The following discussion is closed. 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 tried to improve an article that was written quite badly with no chemical or legal definition of what substance it's actually talking about - Polyresin and user:Smokefoot comes and leaves a message saying "child-like writing" which seems pretty rude even if mostly insulting the previous writers (I'd like to try believe that anyway), but myself as well.

Then just wipes the whole intro instead of adding anything of use[85]

What seems particularly bad is just the idea that it's ok to just delete whole paragraphs without bothering to even try save any of the important points at all, e.g. the fact that while it's listed separately from items made of 'plastic' usually, the same term also gets used by regulatory documents and people selling it (retailers/manufacturers) to mean Polyvinyl chloride at times (with the citation links for that deleted too), it's a confused article because it's basically a meaningless marketing word being used to apply to so many different substances, some of which are genuinely harmful.

I had considered asking for it to be merged but went against that because of the way this term is commonly used all over towards the public in a misleading way, and given how some of this stuff can actually cause cancer, dumping the term polyresin behind a wall of text that no one can find the article easily (as I did since it came up on search) seems to help the objective of the companies that are using it to go out of their way of naming the sometimes harmful chemicals being used in their materials.

...While writing this they literally just wiped the whole article and did a redirect. Deleted EVERYTHING and deleted all the sources I spent several hours looking over. Thanks Wikipedia I remember why I stopped bothering to even try against the people who just delete everything without making any effort to save stuff now. Probably won't edit again for a while. --Archive everything do it now (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

It was indeed so poorly written that it was sort of an embarrassment for Wikipedia. I could find no definition of a polyresin but guessed that it must be jargon for synthetic resin, which is an article in reasonably good shape. The references were either primary or to commercial sites. The redirect sends readers to something with WP:TERTIARY sources and explains the situation. It contains information on safety written by someone with technical expertise. Wiki-chemistry typically has high standards and some editors, me, can be bold. I apologize if this incident was insulting or disruptive. If you can find some good even WP:SECONDARY pass them on. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Archive everything do it now, As Smokefoot says, there's defintely scope for merging some of what you contributed into Synthetic resin, and that should take minutes rather than hours. Regarding the edit summary, it's definitely allowed to comment on content. WP:CIVIL is our civility policy, and it says to comment on content, not fellow editors. Since what was removed was by no means exclusively your contribution, don't take it personally. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• Speaking as an admin, I don't see anything in the edit summaries that concerns me. Speaking as an editor, I can easily see why it was converted to a redirect, and had I run across it, I likely would have done the same. Nothing for admins to do here, as this isn't a behavior issue, but instead, a content issue, which is not something admin decide. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Speaking as an otter, then yes Archive , there are two rules against the insulting "change reason message" ('edit summaries' as we like to call them.) . These rules are WP:Civil and especially WP:BITE. @ user:Smokefoot - please don't bite the newbies!

@ Archive speaking as an editor with a science degree, there was nothing child like about your writing, and neither was the article crappy. As the article had been in place for 12 years, there was no need for Smokefoot to redirect only a few minutes after you'd took the time to make your contributions. Considering you're a newbie, your improvements were of exceptional quality. You look like you have the aptitude to become an excellent editor here. So I hope you don't let this discourage you. All that said, editing Wikipedia does take a while to learn even for gifted academics. This is especially the case with science articles. If you had edited another topic class, you would have had a much better chance of having your contributions accepted. I hope perhaps you might try making smaller edits to start with, as that is an easier way to learn.

On the other hand, your edits did have a few less than perfect qualities - for example the opening sentence you added to the lede was a little long. There was a policy based case for the redirect. And despite Smokefoot's rule violations, a review of their contributions shows them to be a very good editor overall. As they don't seem to make a habit of making uncivil edit summaries or biting newbies, admin Dennis is correct that Smokefoot does not deserve even the mildest sanction. Again, I hope you forgive us and return to editing some time in the future.FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Unregistered editor clearly not 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.

---

In this edit, an unregistered editor is impersonating another editor to game a discussion. This editor is clearly not here to productively contribute to this encyclopedia. Can someone please block him or her so we can get on with editing articles instead of wasting time in bad-faith discussions? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I feel as if I deserve the right to defend myself. I "impersonated" the other author to prove the point of the discussion so I believe this would fall under a kind of "fair use". It wasn't a real impersonation, which seems obvious, and there was no intention to "game" anything but I do accept the reprimand given.

We were discussing "reverse plagiarism" and it was intended to hopefully provide ElKevbo with a little push to consider the issue from a different perspective so I "Reverse plagiarised" him. In all honesty, I find his actions to be in "bad-faith" in attacking and removing edits that are at the very least worthy of discussion if not justified. I provided ample justification and sources, but the conversation divulged into a debate on whether or not the term "reverse" is able to be applied to a word, and apparently whether we are allowed to even use the english language without a source for basic definitions. I will add that there were ad hominen attacks on me as if I am here to "waste people's time". 2605:6000:EF8C:BC00:A92B:D84A:C5BA:C62E (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Just saw the whole "NOTHERE" to be productive - I find that highly offensive. Just because there are new users who are learning the ropes and figuring out how the editing process works doesn't mean we are "NOTHERE" to be productive. I believe this is an example of an old user that is being inconsiderate and highly disruptive and counterproductive to new users. I've received significant maltreatment since I am simply a number and not a "named user" and I feel that this is wrong. Most of the edits I have made are reversed for trivial reasons as opposed to valid justifications, and the people who are "wasting" time seem to be the ones who are so quick to remove contributions. I also opened the discussion but instead of "discussing" the issue, it was merely implied that "sources" would fix everything without real clarification for why sources in a definition are needed or an attack on specific words in a source instead of the source itself as a reference to the event in question. Providing definitions and reference events should not qualify as original research here, at some point I would hope that we could look at events as they are instead of requiring someone to publish a paper for simple basic situations and contexts. 2605:6000:EF8C:BC00:A92B:D84A:C5BA:C62E (talk) 13:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter why you were doing it: do not fake messages from another user. That is a quick way to get blocked. And stating that ElKevbo was "inconsiderate and highly disruptive and counterproductive" is not going to fly after you faked a post to look like it was theirs. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I apologized to ElKevbo on the page in question and I would also like to apologize here for the previous comments. My emotions got the best of me. I'm "HERE". Definitely not "NOTHERE".

I hope this is all resolved, apologies again to all involved. 2605:6000:EF8C:BC00:A92B:D84A:C5BA:C62E (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 User Comment

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

---

SounderBruce Is a disruptive user. A disruptive user is a Wikipedia user who, while not vandalising articles or engaging in "bannable actions" (such as death or legal threats) engages in behavior which is unacceptable for Wikipedia and causes a disruption. A disruptive user is primarily someone who is not attacking an article per se, but rather a user associated with the article. There is a fine line on Wikipedia between users offering critical analysis and advice on other users and their work, and people simply attacking other users and articles without warrant or cause. SounderBruce is attacking Talkinfool for items discussed with a third party on their talk page regarding Greenhaven, ga

SounderBruce has deleted multiple edits and removed external links on Greenhaven, ga for the opposition, but allows the external link for the organization that promotes it. SounderBruce never responds to request as to why these external links can't be added, however, you'll notice he starts accusations in bad faith instead. If you look at the edits on Greenhaven, ga:talk, you see this is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravelinFool (talk • contribs) 05:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

To summarize: TravelinFool is the third account that has tried to add an undue amount of information on the group "Neighbors Against Greenhaven" to the Greenhaven, Georgia article. After several aborted attempts, I wrote a short paragraph on the group using secondary sources and only recently noticed the editing patterns of the three accounts on the page, so I've rightfully opened a SPI. This user is repeatedly trying to throw around policyjargon to try and justify a certain POV. SounderBruce 05:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit history reveals a SPA which has already been forum shopping about this. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The short paragraph written by SounderBruce looks reasonable to me. If the addition of inappropriate material and edit-warring are going to proceed, page protection or a user block are certainly options to consider. --Leyo 08:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• TravelinFool, it would appear the burden is on you to form a consensus on the talk page. SounderBruce's additions seem to cover the opposition group well with good sources. One of the primary goals of Wikipedia is to provide only verifiable information. It is understood it is better to have a small amount of high quality material than a great quantity of unverifiable material. Via WP:BRD, it is your burden to use the talk page, have a discussion and gain consensus for expanding that section, particularly since adding a lot of opposition material runs the risk of going against WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. If you continue to blind revert, you run the risk of sanction for edit warring. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The editing issue has been resolved. Only issue is the external links and that either and that why doesn’t both sides have an external link. TravelinFool 14:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravelinFool (talk • contribs)

Trying to get a more equal view in the article for Greenhaven, Ga. If you look at the more recent citations in the article you will see that opposition groups are now included. See citations in the article for 1, 12, 13 and 14. TravelinFool 15:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravelinFool (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.

User:Thebullfan48

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

---

• Thebullfan48 (talk · contribs) added unsourced material on pages for months, mainly Vizion Motorsports and Brennan Poole. Unsourced content most often came in the form of rumors and speculations. I repeatedly warned this user on the talk page, even going so far as to help beyond the usual Twinkle warnings. Multiple level-4 warnings were issued for different months. After Level 4 warning in January, user added this chunk of content, and while it was unsourced on a BLP, it also turns out to be a near-perfect copyvio of [86].

Didn't want to AIV this, isn't exactly vandalism, but persistent addition of original research and the recent addition of copyvio on a BLP should warrant a block. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 19:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Co-ordinated editing attack

The following discussion is closed. 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 relation to this, can you take an administrator here take look at these edits? ([87], [88], [89] and [90]) I think there is strong evidence that there is a co-ordinated editing attack going on here - each account (76.68.105.33, 173.189.96.107, 69.159.137.199 and 42.115.49.135) has barely made a single edit, to the same page, occurring on the same date, occurring at around the same time of the day, removing the same kind of material. My theory based on the totality of the evidence is that User:Samnyasa is using a VPN to game the system but as I noted on the talk page my evidence for it is circumstantial so that is why I am appealing to you administrators to see if there is anything that any one of you can do about it. Your action on this matter would be welcomed. Flickotown (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Semiprotected for a week - let's see if they can find the talk page. Guy (Help!) 21:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Guy Can you take CU action on this? There is no way you can describe those series of edits as just "coincidental." Something fishy is definitely going on here. Flickotown (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Guy Flickotown here is very clearly engaging in editing to inject bias as a form of political activism. Just look at the edits and the user's history of edits. The User's targeting of Rania Khalek is very likely in response to a video she published yesterday criticizing US intervention in Venezuela. In response, Flickotown added a bunch of incendiary language characterizing the subject as "having been characterized as" pro-Assad, anti-Israel, Middle Eastern, working for state media, "A member of the BDS movement." The user also appears to have spent the day attempting to bias other pages related to Venezuela and the Bolivarian Revolution. There was no coordinated attack, Rania mentioned that her page had been vandalized on Twitter, and multiple users deleted parts of Flickotown's edits. I simply removed them all, and returned the page to its state prior what was very obviously a bad faith gesture of editing. Samnyasa (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh. And I'm not using a VPN. My IP is 50.0.205.248, which is Sonic broadband in San Francisco. Samnyasa (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Per the discussion here IP accounts User:142.113.114.215 and User:76.68.105.33 are operated by the same user who has admitted to operating previous accounts which were blocked. In light of these new developments, the edit warring by the ip users which I mentioned in the OP now look like a case at best of session hijacking in order to create the impression that there is an overwhelming consensus to remove the material in dispute and block evasion at worse. The two IP addresses should at the very least be handed a block of some sort. Flickotown (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Reading over the talk page, it looks like there is an active editing dispute surrounding the article Rania Khalek. It probably wouldn't hurt to have a few more experienced eyes watching over it as this could involve some BLP issues. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: Flickotown just earned themselves a WP:BOOMERANG. And, in light of this comment, which I explained was WP:BATTLEGROUND-like, I recommend escalating the boomerang to a full indefinite block, with talk page/email revoked and UTRS access denied for at least the combined tenures of their previous and current accounts. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 02:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Technically, Flickotown didn't receive a boomerang because they were blocked for a separate report you made at WP:ANEW, not this report. Personally, I dislike boomerang blocks because it discourages editors from bringing intractable problems to ANI for solutions and also they can be the result of a mob mentality that sometimes occurs here. The short-term block for edit warring they received was warranted but I think your severe suggestion is over-the-top, even in light of this inexplicable edit. At Wikipedia, we talk out our differences, not try to eliminate those we disagree with. If you want to argue for an indefinite block, you'll have to have more evidence than you presented at ANEW. I appreciate your ping alerting me to the change in this dispute, though, thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:HUOL HURK ADANYSA creating inappropriate 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.

---

This user has been creating several G3 worthy pages including Draft:George W Bushfire (he has created this 4 times), Draft:Bitchism and Draft:Buffism. After recieving a level 4 warning, he has created You Can't Tell Me What To Do (tagged A3). I propose a NOTHERE indef block for this user. CoolSkittle (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I thought the same an INDEF block. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

They've received an indefinite block for vandalism. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:76.183.136.144

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

---

This IP user keeps reverting the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport page back to how he thinks it should be without any justification.

A while back, I cleaned up and streamlined sections of the page (particularly the terminal section) to remove excessive information, some of which violated policies such as WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:NOR, etc. I have been noticing as of late that airport pages are often cluttered with excessive information put in by aviation enthusiasts, and a lot of it either does not belong or could be condensed and summarized. However, a month after making the edits, this user came back and reverted it to its previous state because he claims I did not have “consensus” to make the changes. When I changed it back and tried explaining the reasoning, he simply reverted back and kept retorting I have no "consensus" and that the status quo should be left until a consensus can be reached. However, in this particular article, no one is objecting but him, and I have noticed users rarely comment on the talk page so "consensus" would be hard to reach. I have made similar edits to other airport articles and have had little issue. This user has yet to demonstrate the edits I made violate anything. It has escalated to the point where I reported him for edit warring and he retaliated, so the page has been locked for three days.

Also note this IP user rarely makes any contributions to Wikipedia and the last edit they made prior to this whole episode came in March 2018. If this user was so concerned about reaching consensus and improving articles, why don't they create a real account and edit often? Are they truly here to contribute or are they just WP:NOTHERE and just interested in picking fights because they can't have the page their way? I fail to understand what the issue is here. This isn't Wikivoyage, per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, we do not need every single little detail about DFW Airport in the article, a summary is more than adequate. I ask that this user be dealt with. Thank you. Arnoboro (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

This article has now been protected until 1 February 2019 so hopefully you can join 76.183.136.144 on the talk page for a discussion (which they have started). As for your other comments, there is no requirement for editors to create accounts, IP editors can edit just like everyone else except for semi-protected pages. I understand your frustration but I think you should assume good faith and not question another editor's motivations unless there is evidence of vandalism or continual disruption. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I would like to dispute some of this user's account and take an opportunity to defend myself.

This IP user keeps reverting the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport page back to how he thinks it should be without any justification.

This is not true, I have mentioned in the edit summaries that I do not believe your changes fall under WP:NOTTRAVEL and is not consistent with other airport articles. I have mentioned atleast 3 times that our disagreement should move to the talk page to resolve our objections, but you have refused instead choosing to revert. Per WP:CON "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion." I have chosen to do this and have opened up a corresponding section on the article's talk page.

Next:

" When I changed it back and tried explaining the reasoning, he simply reverted back and kept retorting I have no "consensus" and that the status quo should be left until a consensus can be reached. However, in this particular article, no one is objecting but him"

I do not say this without reason, per WP:CON, " Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." Since I objected to it, it therefore does not have consensus. The next step would be to discuss changes on the talk page.

Next:

I have made similar edits to other airport articles and have had little issue.

This is not relevant to the edit warring of the article at hand. You need to be accountable to your edits when someone objects.

Next:

Also note this IP user rarely makes any contributions to Wikipedia and the last edit they made prior to this whole episode came in March 2018.

I do not believe this to be relevant to this discussion. My edits are not malicious or committing any kind of vandalism, I have reverted with reason left in the edit summary. I choose when and what I want to edit. If I see something so reprehensible I will edit it and makes changes according, like I have done here.

Next:

Are they truly here to contribute or are they just WP:NOTHERE and just interested in picking fights because they can't have the page their way? I fail to understand what the issue is here.

This is not very nice and shallow. I have edited in good faith and provided edit summaries with my reasoning as well as opened up a line of dialogue on the talk page with my contention. 76.183.136.144 (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Trenchfox

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

---

Trenchfox (talk · contribs) has been editing since November 2018, and most of his edits in that time have been unexplained or poorly explained content removals, which he has persisted in despite repeated talk page warnings from multiple editors. Some of his removals are acceptable as deleting unsourced content with POV or OR concerns, but he also deletes encyclopedic material that could be easily cited and, occasionally, encyclopedic material that already is cited; most recently here, with a misleading edit summary. (Note the side effects of the removal - the same source is now cited twice for the same sentence, and the "same year" in the following sentence now appears to refer to 1976 because he removed the content about 1984. This is not the only case of such side effects; for example, this edit left a citation - which fully supported the removed content - hanging after unrelated content it doesn't cover.)
More diffs of sourced content removal.

Trenchfox's content additions are also problematic, in that the "new content" tends to be copied from other Wiki articles with no attribution. While that's a very easy mistake for new editors to make, Trenchfox has already been warned about this twice (a month ago by Diannaa, and last week by me), so by now he ought to know better. Yet this very recent edit is a straight unattributed copy from Rick DeMont - to the extent that it still cites <ref name="sr"/>, a reference that does not exist in the new article. Another similar recent copying edit is this one, though that one's more complicated - it's not a straight copy of the original, it's a copy of a version already edited by Trenchfox to present a completely different POV not supported by the ref.

I have so far avoided reverting individual edits because the number of problematic edits is high and I haven't been sure if a mass revert would be a better option than reverting the edits one by one; but I do have real misgivings about that option, because in some cases it would re-add removed POV/OR/unencyclopedic content. Sideways713 (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

From a look at this user's talk page, it seems that this user is refusing to listen and cooperate. Trenchfox has been warned more than twice actually (checking the talk page's history), and seems to have ignored these warnings (as this user is persistingly removing content, despite being warned about it) with a response of simply removing them. A block seems necessary in this case to prevent further damage to WP, per Wikipedia:Blocking policy.

For references, this user removed his/her previous warnings issued by Sidways713 and Diannaa. Here is Diannaa's warning and here is Sideway's warning. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 02:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I can see that the user made some nonconstructive edits while masking it with constructive edits. The continuous removal of warnings and placing "leacycured" on the talk page make is seems like the user is WP:NOTHERE. Because of this, I think a topic ban on anything relating to the Olympics is necessary. -INeedSupport- ^:3 03:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Merlingoes

The following discussion is closed. 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, created today, has created a draft at Draft:\/1YC3. He submitted it for review three times, and it was rejected three times. The draft has now been tagged for speedy deletion by User:Praxidicae, after which User:Merlingoes chose to remove the speedy deletion template [91]. On User:Merlingoes he admits he was previously blocked [92]. I looked into this and found that Draft:VIYCE had been deleted twice and has now been salted. The user who had created that was User:Fraction7, who was ultimately blocked for trying to use Wikipedia to advertise his movie. Later, his talk page access was revoked. See blocked log. Subsequent to this, the user tried twice to have his block lifted via UTRS, and was rejected. Based on editing patterns and general WP:IDHT behavior, it is rather clear that User:Merlingoes is a block evading sock of User:Fraction7. I am requesting a permanent block of this second account. User has been informed of this thread. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Block the user for disrupting the speedy deletion process, without waiting for the SPI. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

An "interesting" and troublesome effort to game the system by playing games with title names. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Rakesh06455

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

---

Rakesh06455 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Special:Diff/878043144
• Special:Diff/878047863
• Special:Diff/880762232
• Special:Diff/880762975
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/rakesh1.com (creation by COIbot pending)

WP:NOTHERE / Promotion-only account / link blacklist candidate. Courtesy ping JarrahTree who made me aware of the problem on my talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Brianis19 (Copyright violations)

Brianis19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Copying within Wikipedia issues. In 1 March 2014, he has blocked by MER-C for Copyright violations. On January 2015, he was Unblocked by PhilKnight per Brianis19's unblock request. He said, I've read the copyright policy many times since the block and I think I'm no longer a threat and I have never hacked any website either. On 17 March 2016, he was splitting The Odd Couple (2015 TV series) without giving proper attribution, which was figure out by AussieLegend. On 25 September 2018, copying content from other Wikipedia articles, NCIS: New Orleans (season 5). Bennv3771 noted, You have been informed at least three times before to read and follow WP:CWW. Please be aware that copying within Wikipedia without giving proper attribution is a copyright violation. You said in your previous unblock request that you've "read the copyright policy many times" yet this is the fourth time since your unblocked that an editor is telling you to read and follow WP:CWW. And now, he created List of Man with a Plan episodes, copying within Wikipedia without giving proper attribution. Regard, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 11:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Brianis19 is a generally productive editor but I have had to revert him on several occasions through the years for making fairly basic errors that he tends to repeat. I'd have to go back through my edits to check the specifics, but as I remember, it was not one consistent problem. This is one editor whose edits I tend to review more thoroughly. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Not seeing the ANI notice on his talk, I have notified him.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Rejs12345

Rejs12345 (talk · contribs) has been making questionable edits over the past year. For example, he insists that the Fiat Freemont should have its own article, despite the fact that it is merely a rebadge of the Dodge Journey (see: Revision history). Since October 24, 2018, he has been instigating an edit war by turning the redirect into a carbon copy of the Dodge Journey article. Though he was not warned about this particular article, his talk page shows numerous warnings about edit warring on other articles and creating non-notable articles. I suggest Rejs should be given a time out while the Freemont redirect is to be protected from any further edits. - Areaseven (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

 Note: User talk:Rejs12345 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs) was redirected to User talk:REJS H (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs), so Rejs12345 may not have been seeing may of the messages there. I've moved the ones intended for the former but placed on the latter. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

IP-hopping block evader

에멜무지로~enwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for vandalism, and it appears that he has been socking and evading his block ever since. The IPs he seems to be using are from all over the world (Ukraine, Japan, Germany, South Korea...) but can be identified by three behaviors: a keen interest in digital typography, the various IPs edit warring to retain each others edits, and insults directed at me. I am hoping that a short semi-protection of his favorite targets will discourage him.

I asked for temporary semiprotection of my talk page, Windows Glyph List 4, and VSCII at WP:RFPP. The first two were protected, but VSCII was declined as not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.[93] The socking continues on that page.

I would like a second opinion on temporary semiprotection of VSCII, and I would like some advice; given the IP hopping I am seeing and my theory that the sockmaster is using proxies, would it be appropriate to report the IPs as suspected proxies? Is there a good test I can do myself before reporting a suspected proxy? More generally, are our efforts to block proxy servers effective, or are there just too many of them, making it so that vandals can always find a new unblocked proxy on the first or second try? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I think you mean VISCII as VSCII has no socking I see, actually very few edits point blank. (And none are from you.) Note that you requested protection of VSCII so the decline was IMO correct. Nil Einne (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I made a new RFPP for the right page since it may be handled faster there [94] Nil Einne (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't realise that there was a similar named article and the original was a typo. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Entirely my fault. Sorry about that. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Getting back to my other question, is there anything that a non-admin can do to help with whatever the sockmaster is doing (I believe that he is using proxies) so that he appears as different IPs from different countries? I am wondering about this as a general problem, not just this set of socks. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Report at WP:OPP? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Is the fact that the IPs are from all over the world and edit war to retain each others edits enough to justify an OPP report? Or would it be rejected for lack of hard evidence? And again I ask, is there some way I can do some of the preliminary checking for proxies myself so as to leave less work for OPP to do?

Reports typically don't get rejected from WP:OP if you explain yourself, though they can take some time, and not all blocks are worth extending to an OP block. My advice: Google the IP, and check the backlinks to the IP's talk page (some of them anyway). Someone might want to mention a blacklist tool, and there's also this guide. However these particular proxies are not so easy, so even seasoned OP blockers will typically use the DUCK test on them. And, there are always more proxies. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

JohnThorne, fresh off TBAN, right back at the same sourcing problems

User:JohnThorne was TBANned indefinitely, with chance of appeal after a year from Bible-related topics due to years of unceasing and repeated failure to take advice from a large number of editors, as he created and edited hundreds of articles by copy-pasting a combination of poorly sourced, unsourced, plagiarized material, and copyright violations into them. The whole sordid affair is recorded in immense detail here. The messes have still not been cleaned up, though I and some others have done a great deal of work cleaning them up. He recently successfully appealed after convincing myself and some others that he now understood his mistakes [95].

On January 16, another user reminded him that when he cited offline sources, he needs to add page numbers where available [96]. This was smack-dab in the middle of his appeal (January 10 through 21), which probably should have been a red flag.

On January 21, he was cleared to re-enter the biblical realm and immediately began familiar bad patterns, introducing new poorly sourced content despite his stated intention during his appeal that initially he would stick to fixing his old errors.

On Jan 22 he added some quotes to Jeremiah 36, but cited the entire journal article in which they appeared, making it impossible to find the quotes reasonably quickly. I made him aware of the problem on January 23, and he added page numbers. See the talk page for more.

On January 25, he added highly specific material to Jeremiah 25, but cited it to an entire book.On January 26, I made him aware of the missing page numbers, at which point he added page numbers [97]. The page numbers he added in that edit, however, did not support the material that he had added.

Also Jan 25, he added practically the same material, copy-pasted, to Jeremiah 26, with the same Wurthwein source cited without page numbers. Upon being alerted to the problem, he added page numbers [98], but these were inaccurate in that they didn't support the information he had added to the article.

On Jan 25, he also did a similar page edit to Jeremiah 36. Upon being alerted to the problem, he added page numbers [99]. Some of the claims made were supported by the page numbers he added; some were not; and some were partially supported. Although all the actually correct information cited to the source could be found on pages 36-37, he cited pages 36-43, requiring extra reading to clean up the mess, which, as demonstrated in the last TBAN discussion, is typical of his M.O.

It is worth noticing that with all three of the January 25 pages he did this on, the material he cited to Worthwein was about Hebrew Bibles in general, not about the chapters specifically that he was talking about. So on top of the sourcing issues, it was all somewhat off-topic trivia being added.

So, at 3:07 Jan 26, I left a warning on his talk page [100]. He replied at 3:28, indicating that he had gotten the message, in his usual cheerful tone, with the usual promises to improve [101].

After his acknowledgment of the sourcing problems at 3:28, it took him less than twenty minutes to start adding new material again that is partially unsourced and partially misrepresents its sources. On the Jeremiah 26 page, at 3:45, he added that a manuscript named "4QJer^c has verse 10 "extant". But this isn't accurate. This manuscript, as can be verified by just looking at the source he cited, contains just two words in Hebrew (yehuda et), and according to the source it is uncertain whether these represent Jeremiah 26:10 or not. He took something that is acknowledged as guessword in the cited source and made it a Wikipedia fact. In the same edit, he told us that Hebrew manuscript "4QJer^c is also known as "4Q72". For all I know, this may be true, but JohnThorne didn't let us in on where he got this bit of information -- it's not found on the page cited.

Two minutes after fouling up his latest edit on Jeremiah 26, he edited the talk page of Jeremiah 26 at 3:47 to thank me for helping him and say that he had now "double-checked" to make sure "the latest edits have the correct attribution". But they didn't.

The user is consistently polite, consistently promising to do better, and after years of repeated warnings and an indefinite TBAN, is continuing the old pattern of rapidly propagating sourcing errors across multiple Bible-related pages, cheerfully acknowledging his mistakes when they are discovered, and then making more minutes later.

He consistently does not provide Google links to books — not that you're required too, of course, but hunting down all the relevant references takes time, and if he's going to keep editing Bible-related topics without doing large amounts of damage, we'd probably need a full-time editor to clean up after him. I don't think anyone is going to volunteer for that position. Alephb (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate here to ping all users involved in the discussion that reinstated JohnThorne less than a week ago: User:Beyond My Ken, User:JzG, User:DGG, User:Doug Weller, User:Cullen328, User:Wallingfordtoday, User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång, User:Alex Shih. This is because past knowledge of the situation is useful here. To avoid any appearance of "stacking the deck", please note that each of these users either supported bringing JohnThorne back or did not object. If anyone thinks it would be appropriate and useful, I'd be happy to systematically ping all the people involved in the original TBAN discussion, without making any discrimination based on viewpoint.Alephb (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

To avoid problems with a potential violation of WP:Canvassing, you should ping all participants. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I think I did ping all participants in the most recent TBAN discussion. I just wanted to note that it was not at all a collection of hostile people. If there's anyone else I should ping, I am completely willing to do so. Alephb (talk) 05:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

And had anyone been opposed to his reinstatement in the most recent discussion, I would have pinged them too. I hope I didn't give the impression that I had only selected part of the people from that discussion.Alephb (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I consider the above errors as very minor. There remain some much more important problems. (I need to first say I am not an expert here, but an amateur, and though I have been following some of the current literature on the OT, I am mainly interest in the books of Ezra & Nehemiah.) There are several subjects to discuss in any article on a verse of chapter of the Bible: the history of textual criticism, and its current state; the history of interpretations over the last 2000 years, and the main current issues. . The goal should be to give the general reader an overall basis from which they can evaluate any discussion of the Bible they should see, and the perspective to know that there is not a single consensus interpretation. (The actual textual details are too complicated for a general treatment here, and the complete history of interpretation an order of magnitude more. The problem is how to present these without oversimplification. The first step is to realize that, except for the history of interpretation, nothing before the discovery of the Qumran manuscripts is of contemporary value. The next step is to recognize that most of the original transcripts and studies of Qmran texts have been by Roman Catholic scholars, that the Masoretic text does not go back before the 7th to 10th century CE (see the WP article for a good discussion) , and that schools of interpretation vary drastically.. I may not have ben explicit enough in my earlier comment: the reason these verses are important in a practical sense, not just an academic or scholarly sense, is because the prophecies in them have for two millennia served Christians as the key proof that the Hebrew prophets foretold the coming of Jesus, and thus prove the truth of Christianity. Since most Christians believe in the truth of Christianity without needing to reexamine the details, and most Jews or Moslems see no reason for examine the interpretations of other religions, the largest group that see these texts as a living issue is the Messianic Christians/Messianic Jews.

As for the immediate issue before us here at WP,, let the ed. under discussion continue his work, and let those who (in my opinion rightly) think it is inadequate, add to it. If he reverts other peoples contributions, I'd say only then would he be considered disruptive DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

My biggest problem with biblical articles on WP is the tendency to state that X is a philosophical position of the Bible, sourced directly to a Bible passage. That is canonical WP:OR. And it is absolutely rampant. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

JohnThorne is the editor who has created so many, many articles on single bible-verses, is he not? My problem with that is that the project is so pointless. The division of the bible into chapters and verses occurred some time in the Middle ages - he's taking arbitrary bits of text and constructing articles around them. It's harmless, but not a very good use of the project.PiCo (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

PiCo is right. As I pointed out (along with Alephb if I remember correctly), Wikipedia simply shouldn't have these hundreds of pages on biblical chapters and verses that exist. They're impossible to regulate for bad editing, and history shows that bad sources have consistently gotten into them for years without anybody noticing. I've probably fixed literally hundreds if not thousands of mistakes/problems with them and the problems are still rampant. If JohnThorne continues this problem, then re-banning him needs to be considered. However, I would like to see one situation play out -- all his problematic edits have consistently been on the same biblical chapter pages he created and a number of us other editors want to see deleted. Why don't we just delete all of them and then see what JohnThorne does elsewhere on other pages? I looked at his editing on non-biblical related topics a few days before his ban was taken off and they're actually pretty good. It might be this specific area where he really just doesn't know what to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallingfordtoday (talk • contribs) 14:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)‎

Just speaking as a reader on the question of whether there should be articles on chapters/verses, I'd argue that articles for chapters/verses are quite a reasonable way to organize the vast amounts of encyclopedic Biblical commentary that's out there. While it's perhaps arbitrary, it avoids the need to have everything in the main book pages. WP doesn't have the space constraints of paper, so there's the potential there to have very comprehensive coverage of the Bible (or other texts with massive amounts of commentary e.g. Quran, Daode Jing, etc). But yeah, since there is so much written out there covered in secondary sources (think historical context, interpretations, history of the way the text was understood, history of the transmission of the text, etc) I think there's a decent potential to consider at least some articles on smaller sections of the text. Admittedly as an inclusionist and a Christian, I may be rather biased though :) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 19:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment When I was in high school, we were taught to cite down to column, paragraph, line. Citing page numbers is quite basic and essential, and not nearly as difficult.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment User:DGG says above "let the ed. under discussion continue his work, and let those who (in my opinion rightly) think it is inadequate, add to it". It seems to me the problem is that User:JohnThorne is creating massive amounts of work for other editors to do in tracking his edits and cleaning up after him, not really just "adding" to his "inadequate" work. I don't think we can count on Alephb to continue to possess the patience and the time to repair John Thorne's "inadequate" work indefinitely, or Wallingfordtoday who has also been pitching in. I also question the value of having all these articles on individual Bible chapters, perhaps only chapters that are extremely important in some way should be kept and the rest deleted.Smeat75 (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I've been waiting for him to respond here. He hasn't so far. I'm with Smeat75's post just above. So far it looks as though we made a mistake. Doug Weller talk 19:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Response Just back from a short break, I was taken by surprise that User:alephb had posted this ANI, while it seemed to me that we started to collaborate well. I can understand the frustration due to the articles on the Bible chapters that I started. It grieves me immensely, because originally I had hoped the articles would allow the brightest minds among the Wikipedia editors to work together, discussing the values and gems within each part of the books, following the spirit of editing in Wikipedia. Instead, it causes a lot of pain for some editors. I also don't want that the articles become wasted without proper editing for so long. Hence, I dared myself to apply for the appeal for TBAN, in order to amend the mistakes I made. As the first post has shown, I have tried to quickly revise my edit as soon as errors were found. That it results more issues, I am sorry. Here is what I can propose from my part to solve:
  • From now on, I will place the edits I plan to do on the Bible chapters in my sandbox, open for all to review, and ask the consensus from the community, before placing them in the articles.
  • For the Bible chapters that I started, I will place a {stub} tag, so the articles can be identified to be considered for deletion or improvement by other users. I am open for any suggestions how to deal with this.

Again, it is not my intention to take away valuable time from other users for this issue. I am contributing for the Wikipedia voluntarily with happy heart and open mind, by spending my own time. My goal is really to make Wikipedia a better source for information, not myself, but by working together with other Wikipedia editors. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

What is Blackness and why Wikipedia administrators are pushing it on the Horn Africa 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.

---

We have Wikipedia editors with an agenda vandalizing a high traffic page using their social agenda. I would like to remind the administrators what Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once said:

"If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately."

"What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.[102][103]"

31.168.172.141 (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

This post is rather unclear, if you think there has been recent disruptive editing, you need to be more specific about who did what wrong, if you have a disagreement with someone's edit(s), you should discuss that with them on the article's talk page. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions Tornado chaser (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Same Russian moderators ban and postpone Kiev > Kyiv renaming (politically motivated)

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kiev 37.54.64.92 (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kiev/naming 37.54.64.92 (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Just in case somebody has forgotten (or did not know) what it means to edit and/or make administrative actions in Eastern Europe topics.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Just in case somebody has forgotten the scale of Russian disinformation campaign 37.54.64.92 (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia. In English, is spelled "Kiev". No matter how hard Ukrainian nationalists try to dictate spellings outside Ukraine. You cannot legislate language usage, really. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

1. US Board on Geo. Names (BGN) - https://geonames.usgs.gov/

2. UK https://www.gov.uk/world/organisations/british-embassy-kyiv

3. AU Australia https://ukraine.embassy.gov.au/kyiv/home.html

4. CA canadainternational.gc.ca/ukraine/index.aspx?lang=eng - Kyiv

5. NZ New Zealand government portal https://safetravel.govt.nz/kyiv

6. IE dfa.ie/embassies/irish-embassies-abroad/europe/ukraine/ - Kyiv

7. IN Embassy of India, Ukraine eoiukraine.gov.in/index.php - also Kyiv

so all these English-speaking countries use Kyiv already (are they also Ukrainian nationalists? - a word combo you try to use to put my request in negative light),

They use already, but Russian moderators including those above oppose. All the same non-natives work in that Wiki section. Lol 37.54.64.92 (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Both forms are valid transliteration, and can be supported with sources. The decision to rename any article should be based on a balance of the most reliable sources, not politics. It seems reasonable to suspect there is political lobbying, so following more formal procedures to reach a consensus for changes is sensible, and this may require administrators to intervene, or at least summarize. For some articles, "Kyiv" is already used, for example Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, simply because that is how the University presents itself in English publications. --Fæ (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Yawn. This is the semi-annual push by Ukrainian nationalists to circumvent WP:COMMONNAME. They list a tiny number of organizations in the English-speaking world and the diplomatic corps of all of them (because that's what diplomatic corps are required to do in order to keep the embassy open), and ignore 90% of all English-language sources that use "Kiev" consistently and without variation (except when naming sports teams). We've posted the evidence that "Kiev" is the common name in English of Ukraine's capital city at least twice a year for a decade. But the true believers keep coming back in the guise of anon IPs tilting at the windmills of common English usage. The current IP is from Lviv. It's a beautiful town and one of my favorite hangouts when I'm in Ukraine (I love tracing the footprint of the old city wall around the old square and their monument to Taras Schevchenko is second to none), but it's also a hotbed of Ukrainian nationalism (and has been since long before it first fell into Soviet hands in 1939). The IPs come and go and rarely return. But the weight of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSENSUS is a barrier that they don't have the patience (or evidence) to overcome. "Kiev" is not a transliteration anymore, it is an English placename in common use like "Warsaw", "Moscow", and "Prague". --Taivo (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

You misspelled Lvov. Qwirkle (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

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

WP:REVDEL 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.

---

Can an admin revdel edits made from this now blocked IP address: Special:Contributions/2601:246:CB80:20D0:CC9B:B80A:BEA9:730D? They're clearly severe BLP violations. Thanks. 24.92.148.120 (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the ping on IRC, Power~enwiki. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

A note here that as the allegations made in the edits are potential libel, the edits need to be oversighted and you should contact the oversighters using one of the methods listed at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight, rather than posting here on AN, a public and very visible forum (and should contact an oversighter rather than an admin on IRC). Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Just to note that the material has been oversighted, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 Holstebro

The following discussion is closed. 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 Holstebro (talk · contribs) seems adamant on edit warring to add incorrect information on the ŽRK Budućnost Podgorica article and refuses to discuss the matter in a civilised manner even though I've made attempts at resolving the situation. [104] [105] Have tried to explain multiple times that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum and that the information added to the articles should be fact-based and not based on user's own "insider information". User doesn't seem interested in resolving the issue, instead opting to engage in disruptive editing.

You could have added a template for citation needed. I did that for you. Christina (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Citation needed? It's simply unfactual. It has no place on Wikipedia till it's officially confirmed. As I've said multiple times now, "insider knowledge" and what teammates say in interviews confirms nothing that is nowhere near reliable enough to put in an Encyclopaedia. Cotillards (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I posted the news about Radicevic and Mehmedovic that User Cotillards (talk · contribs) kept deleting even if it was true. I provided links, he kept deleting them and in the end it was confirmed so he stoped deleting. Now he deletes everything i edit about the players leaving, i provided proof from several sources, it was confirmed in the media and the players themselves.

I removed the transfers you'd stated as being confirmed because they were not confirmed then. The moment they were presented officially by Budućnost, I obviously let your edit stand because first then they were confirmed by the club. If you had bothered to consult your own talk page where I've attempted to contact you to explain why I've reverted your edits, you would know that lots of things can go wrong in between a player/teammate/coach/"insider source" confirming to the media that someone is leaving/arriving and it actually happening. As such, only transfers officially confirmed by the clubs themselves should be added because only then it's an official transfer. I don't understand why this is so difficult for you to understand. You seem intent on adding these pieces of information – postulations and rumours – that, let's face it, have no place in an encyclopaedia that states facts. Post them to a discussion forum instead. Stop using Wikipedia as a discussion forum. Cotillards (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

For reference, might I also just add that Holstebro (talk · contribs) keeps adding these changes over and over without making or engaging in attempts at resolving the dispute at hand and as such initiates an edit war. Cotillards (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I've been editing ZRK Buducnost page for years now and i never posted false information and always posted offical things and provided links. Cotillards (talk · contribs) doesn't contribute. I'm from Montenegro, i understand the language and know everything about this club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holstebro (talk • contribs) -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The information you have provided may not turn out to be false in the long run – my point is that as of right now, it isn't verifiable by official sources. However much you're from Montenegro and I'm not, it doesn't change the fact that these players haven't officially been confirmed to be arriving/leaving and as such adding them to the transfer section is simply incorrect. Cotillards (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Cotillards (talk · contribs) The information is official as Vijesti and especially Pobjeda are media partners of Buducnost and publish the information the club gives them.

Again, unless it's confirmed by Budućnost themselves, it's not an official confirmation. Cotillards (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• Don't understand why we are tolerating edit warring and adding unsourced content. This edit--"Undid revision 880843904 by Cotillards (talk) You're vandal and keep destroying this page. Everything is confirmed. I have proof you don't."-- convinced me to block for 31 hours for adding unsourced content. User seems to not grasp the whole reliable sources/cited contentconcept. Any admin may feel free to unblock or modify block. I was made aware of this when I checked AIV.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I would unblock if they agree to discuss here instead of edit warring. If they do, could someone unblock them if I don't notice?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
• There is further discussion at user talk:Holstebro and on my talk.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Just to sum up all the hullaballoo in question: The dispute is about the legitimacy of the transfers Holstebro has added to the ŽRK Budućnost Podgorica article. Reiterating what I wrote at user talk:Dlohcierekim: The alleged "sources" Holstebro has provided for these transfers are the media reporting on the rumours of these transfers as well as teammates of the players in question and as such, they are not official. Meaning they haven't been announced by the club(s). Holstebro claims that Budućnost don't announce transfers. That is untrue. This is what an official confirmation of a transfer to Budućnost looks like. The club Katarina Bulatović is rumoured to is Siofók KC. As evident by their website, there is no confirmation of a such transfer here either.

My argument is that a lot of things can go wrong in between rumours and/or talks of a transfer and the actual transfer. Using articles speculating about transfers is about as reliable as if I was to go edit Christian Eriksen into Real Madrid's Wikipedia-article using only Danish articles gushing about a potential transfer as my reference. Using rumour-based articles as "proof" is a slippery slope. I work for a news media myself. We report on countless of rumoured transfers that don't end up going through. That's not to say the media I work for isn't reliable – just that it's a rumour and we report on it. It is my understanding that an encyclopaedia should be rooted in facts. The moment you start using rumours as a source, it stops being rooted in factuality and instead becomes pure speculation.

Additionally, it looks like MNEfan111 (talk · contribs) is an account created solely to back Holstebro's claims up over at user talk:Dlohcierekim. It was created yesterday and it's only contribution is reiteration of what Holstebro claims. Fairly obvious example of socking and doesn't exactly make Holstebro seem extremely credible either.

I'm all for solving this issue but at no point has Holstebro (talk · contribs) been willing to sit down to discuss this in a civilised manner. They instead prefer to resort to edit warring and telling me how unenlightened I am because I have the audacity to edit an article about a Montenegrin team without being Montenegrin myself. Additionally (and as evident by my user page), I am a woman – so both Holstebro (talk · contribs) and Cristina neagu (talk · contribs) can stop consistently misgendering me when going on about how mean I am ;) Cotillards (talk) 11:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• I in fact blocked Holstebro briefly for unsourced edits. (The ones I saw were unsourced.) I unblocked when they agreed to discuss here. But their response was not encouragingly collegial. The discussion may be moot as the are no check user blocked for the socking. If they at some point would discuss instead of breast-beating, perhaps they could edit more collaboratively.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Do you think we can educate him on this and present him the Wikipedia policy which he didn't read? This user has good intentions but doesn't know anything even about sockpuppetry. We are all humans after all. Indefinite blocking may be a little bit harsh since he was blocked for 31 hours for the first time, then received indefinite for a comment on his talk page with a new user. Which was obviously his. I already talked to him. Christina (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Shameless (British TV series)

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

---

Earlier this month, Shameless (UK TV series) was moved to Shameless (British TV series) in violation of WP:NCTVUK. This was undone such that the latter now redirects to the former, but the former (as you can see) was deleted today by Anthony Appleyard with a delete summary I don't quite understand.

It appears to me that the article should be restored at Shameless (UK TV series), but I'm uninvolved and unsure so I thought it best to raise this here, because I do know that what isn't meant to be the case is the article not existing anywhere at all...--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 13:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the page is back at the title you prefer, so nothing more needs doing. Iffy★Chat -- 14:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems that Anthony Appleyard was working on a history merge, and Newbiepedian came across it while the work was in progress. It is all looking good now. –FlyingAce^✈hello 18:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Newbiepedian and FlyingAce: To be exact, it was a history-split. Someone (not me) had history-merged it with a WP:Parallel histories disambiguation page, and I had to fish out the disambig edits and put them elsewhere. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 editor deleting categories

Hi, there's a single-purpose IP editor deleting a single category from articles DIFs, notification on their Talk Page. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• I reverted the current edits. Should be good for now. A Dolphin (squeek?) 17:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• They moved to another IP, User:111.94.132.166, and continued their efforts. All reverted now, but they're likely to simply shift again. Is there a way to protect categories from being removed from articles? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• It's Category:Political and cultural purges. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Now using User:118.137.15.222. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• Any ideas that can be done here? Request semi-protection for the 2 dozen or so articles being hit by this IP? Blocking the IPs (but they'll just get another)? Range block (even to my amateur's eye I would think we're talk about 2 different ranges)? Blackout all of Indonesia? Edit filter to prevent deletion of the category by IPs? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• Today they used User:111.94.203.124 and didn't delete the category, just commented it out. I take that to mean that they read my suggestion above of an edit filter to stop IPs from removing the category. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I've just protected this particular category. What else would you like protected from IP edits? Deb (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I feel that it's quite legitimate to block IP users for a lengthy period when it's obvious they are moving from one to another to make the same disruptive edits. I've had to do that several times recently. Deb (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Deb: Thank you - I didn't realize that Categories could be protected so that IPs couldn't remove them from articles. If you're willing, there are other two IPs involved -- 118.137.40.189 and 111.94.132.166. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

And now 118.137.14.236 as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think they can. I misunderstood the problem. But I could protect any articles that have been repeatedly attacked, if you let me know what they are. Deb (talk) 11:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I think we need someone to do a range block, which is somewhat beyond my level of expertise. I've put out a call for technical assistance. Deb (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

A rangeblock here would have to cover two /15 networks. Both networks belong to the same Indonesian ISP, but IMO this would be too large to be reasonable (so large the contributions tool won't even tell me what collateral there would be). GoldenRing (talk) 11:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah. I was hoping we could identify a subset of the most-offending. Deb (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Too bad, I was afraid of that. I guess I'll just continue to play whack-a-mole and delete on sight, since the number of articles they've hit makes it unreasonable to protect them all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, looking at 111.94.0.0/16, I don't see any recent offending edits other than from the one IP above. However, a number of IPs from 118.137.0.0/16 have been fiddling around with this category, including adding it to several articles with 118.137.38.2. I wouldn't be comfortable blocking the entire /16, but narrower blocks might be feasible if this continues. —DoRD (talk)​ 14:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, even with the first IP, after mistaking adds for deletions and deleting them, I realized my mistake and (after determining if they were appropriate) rolled back my edits, restoring the IP's adds. Obviously if an add is appropriate, I have no objection to it -- and the same goes for the deletion if it's not appropriate for the article, although I've yet to find a deletion where that was the case. There seems to be no rhyme or reason behind the deletions, except that they may be linked to an anti-Communist POV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by User:1DHNK1

• 1DHNK1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New account created on 21 December 2018;

• On 21 December 2019, "1DHNK1" added unsourced WP:OR to the Tajik mafia article, as well as clear non-WP:RS sources such as YouTube link[106]-[107]
• When I reverted "1DHNK1's" edits on 2-3 January (with a clear edit-summary as well as a warning on his talk page), he started to revert me on 15 January 2019 without any explanation or whatsoever.[108]-[109]-[110]
• I then left him another warning on 15 January 2019, to which he also never replied.[111] Per WP:VER and WP:RS and the fact that "1DHNK1" isn't interested in responding, I removed the unsourced material he had added to the article on the same day.[112]
• Today (27 January 2019), once again ignoring WP:BRD, WP:VER and WP:RS (as well as WP:WAR), "1DHNK1" reverted and reinstated the desired bogus information. Once again no edit summary/explanation.

Bear in mind that Oswah and Materialscientist warned him in the recent past as well. Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that this user is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

More:

• Added unsourced content to the Lebanese mafia article without edit summary/explanation.[113]
• Changed content on the Mohammad Gul Khan Momand article without sources.[114]
• Added unsourced content to the Tahir Badakhsi article.[115]
• Changed info on the Farzana Naz article, and calling it "fixed".[116]

- LouisAragon (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I've left a link to WP:Communication is required and a short note on their talk page. I'm not ready to block just yet, but let's see how they respond to the note I've left. Now that they are officially on notice and have the information they need, if they are unwilling to respond and keep reverting without comment, it would pretty much force our hand. I would say leave this open a couple of days and see what happens. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: He just left me this note:

• "Biased editor: He has been stalking me for ages and has been undoing all my edits because it does not go with his agenda. Becarefull of Him".

- LouisAragon (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, that doesn't look good. I gave that user a level three NPA warning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Illuminati recruiter

The following discussion is closed. 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:Benjimacfy diff diff Spam block please. Thanks. Cesdeva ^(talk) 02:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Obvious spammer is obvious. I could post a talk page warning but don't see the point as the account will just become a sleeper if it isn't indeffed. If i don't get a reply soon i'll just assume y'all are part of the illuminati too. Cesdeva ^(talk) 03:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support I support indef site ban for the user in question. Spam is against the rules of Wikipedia obviously, and spam for any form of organisation recruitment obviously can also be considered as Advertising. We all probably know that advertising on Wikipedia is also against the Wikipedia rules. Unfortunately I can not take any action at the moment as I am not an Administrator. On a side note there has been no admin response yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold (talk • contribs) 04:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

As a member of those who have been illuminated truly. I have cast this one into the outer darkness, indefinitely. Seriously, though, you'd have gotten a quicker response at WP:AIV.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I had the fascinating opportunity to meet and spend some time with Robert Anton Wilson roughly 40 years ago, who was perhaps the greatest of the tongue-in-cheek Illumuminati bullshit artists. He was far more charming and entertaining than this tedious spammer. Good block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Re: google search result .. Who created white people

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

---

everything on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakub_(Nation_of_Islam) is WRONG. and proof will be needed in order for this to stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.187.82.120 (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

You should discuss your concerns at the article talk page. I have protected the page to encourage discussion.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

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

AFD close 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, Can someone close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jones and Beach station as Speedy Keep please?, I've tried but 30 minutes later it was still at "closing" with nothing seemingly done, I tried another way[117] but that only closed the AFD and didn't touch the other articles,
Other than AWB (to remove afd notice from articlw / notice to tp) I don't really know how else this can be closed?, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

AFD closed, I'll now remove from the articles. GiantSnowman 13:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much GS it's much appreciated (I shan't ping given you're extremely busy right now), Thanks so much, –Davey2010^Talk 13:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Phew, finally done! GiantSnowman 14:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks GS it's very appreciated :), –Davey2010^Talk 14:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 Fram and User LouisAlain

The following discussion is closed. 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 morning (07:42 UTC, 28th Jan) User:Fram blocked User:LouisAlain for 24 hours on the grounds of copyright violations. I am concerned that Fram's previous interactions with Louis – evident on Louis' user talk page and in the archives – were approaching the levels of bullying and harassment. For this reason I don't think it was appropriate for Fram to issue a block and if there were issues an uninvolved administrator should have been consulted. As such, please could someone check to see if the block is appropriate and proportional? Richard Nevell (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell: Please provide evidence (diffs) that show that Fram is involved.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell: as far as "proportional" goes, if there were actually copyvios—is that under dispute?—then a 24-hour block is about as low as it goes. I mean it's literally the starting money. And, just an FYI, but if you provide diffs rather than referring people to the archives, you might get more traction: some editors here will wonder why they should lug through the archives when you didn't  :) ——SerialNumber54129 18:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Fair point, I am in the process of pulling the diffs together! Richard Nevell (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell: - So allow my recap based on talkpage reading only. Fram gave LouisAlain a warning to not use the "other uses" template when not needed, a warning that was ignored. Then Fram got more direct since the kid glove treatment was ignored. Promoting passive-aggressive responses from LouisAlain that continued when Fram (rightly so) brought up copyright violation concerns, led to further being ignored or passive-aggressive replies back until it was clear that talking went nowhere. What you see as "bullying", I see as enforcing guidelines to a user who does not listen. Are you suggesting that the only admins to issue a block is someone who has never had any interaction? Warnings were given, warnings were ignored or channeled into an unproductive response, a block was given to cool the user off. MPJ-DK (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Here we go, it's about the big picture not the individual snippets:

• 9 November 2018 – LouisAlain crops up on Fram’s radar when the latter proposed the deletion of an article. Seems reasonable enough.
• 3 December 2018 – Fram asks Louis not to use machine translations, a request in-line with policy and practice.
• 3 December 2018 – Fram characterised Louis’ edits restoring some of the content to the article mentioned above as vandalism, which in Wikipedia parlance is tantamount to challenging someone’s honour. Was the restoration good practice? No, but neither was describing it as vanalism.
• 3 December 2018 – Goes on to imply Louis has been operating multiple accounts, which is highly charged and bad faith.
• 4 December 2018 – Fram leaves Louis a message about hatnotes.
• 17 December 2018 – Fram insists that translated articles must be fact checked. The core point is reasonable, but it shows that Fram’s scrutiny of Louis’ editing is higher than expected when dealing collegiality with a good faith editor. No one is above scrutiny, but this is beginning to look a bit like hounding.
• 17 January 2019 – Fram mentions hatnotes again, is annoyed by the response and becomes aggressive
• 17 January 2019 – Fram berates Louis for linking to a YouTube video. Following the letter of policy but not the spirit to ‘win’.
• 18 January 2019 – Fram identifies one of Louis’ articles needs attribution as to where it has been translated from. Three hours later Fram deletes the article when attribution could have been straightforwardly given. This was punitive rather than constructive. The article is later restored and attribution given.
• 28 January 2019 – Fram blocks Louis for translating a copyrighted text, which brings us up-to-date.

The issue is not the Fram has been blatant in their antics. The little actions build over time. Granted, it depends which lens you view it through but having seen this slowly unfold on my watchlist I felt that Fram was the wrong person to issue the block. The dynamic looks to me like one person with power following another without and picking up and magnifying any transgression. I am not questioning the interpretation of the policies Fram has used, but I am questioning how Fram decided to use then. No, MPJ-DK I am not saying admins can only block people they have never interacted with, but I do say that if you could be perceived to be involved an administrator should be smart enough to ask for someone else to get involved. The situation was not time sensitive so that Fram needed to block straight away instead of raising it at a noticeboard. What would have been the response to Fram if the issue had been raised here then? Richard Nevell (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• I don't want to interject comments between each so instead I'll refer to each bullet by number where I disagree with your analysis

• Diff 3 - stating that the continued use of machine translation without more manual is will be considered "Vandalism" does not refer to past actions, but to the fact that willfully ignoring the guidelines after they have been explained is vandalism.
• Diff4 - asking "with what account" in response to comments about being banned would indeed be bad faith, if LouisAlain's block log reflected this. It was not an accusation made out of the blue, but a reply to statements made.
• Diff6 - considering there is a history of passive-aggressive comments and willful ignorance of previous statements I don't think there is anything wrong with Fram keeping an eye on the user.
• Diff7 - Is blunt, direct - LouisAlain is the one displaying annoyance
• Diff8 - You do know that issues with copyrights should be deleted upon sight and only restored if properly addressed?
• Diff9 - Blocked for behavior they have been warned about and explained why it was a problem.

• I still don't see the problem in Fram's behavior as such - would more patience be better? Hard to say, it could have been an eternal cycle of "Please don't" followed by that being ignored. Certainly not something that is an ANI issue IMO. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Breaking things down into individual actions makes them easier to dismiss while ignoring the sum of the behaviour. An individual straw is light on its own, but I understand you can break a camel's back if you put enough on. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The "sum of the behaviour" is that Fram noticed a user who was playing fast and loose with copyright, made some efforts to guide them, and then blocked them when they again violated copyright. Guy (Help!) 21:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes but if each action individually is just fine then collectively they are also "just fine" - You implied a "sum of behavior", it's on you to actual prove it. Your complaints about him impying that he had another account is you misinterpreting his question (clean block log, yet referred to being blocked) and stating that repeating editing in a way that is against the guidelines is vandalism is not "biased", but very much appropriate. If each edit is appropriate, then the "sum total" is okay too - unless you believe that 1 1 1 is not 3? MPJ-DK (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• The block is fine. I fully understand that Fram may annoy some people (and we have certainly been on opposite sides of arguments many times), but he seems to be right about the content of this dispute here. —Kusma (t·c) 21:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't have much to add to what others have said above. I just would like to clarify that when LouisAlain said "And spare me your threats, I know the line. First a warning and a 24 h suspension, then a second warning with a 1 week suspension and finally a definitive ban. I've been here before. LouisAlain (talk) 14:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)", while at the same time having a clean block log, I wondered what they were referring to. It turns out that they hadn't been blocked on enwiki before, but that they are banned from frwiki (if I understand it correctky, blocked for severe personal attacks coupled with misgivings about the quality of his translations, and then banned for block evasion through an IP). Here, they have recently (December) had their autopatrolled right revoked (not by me or requested by me) as well. Fram (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• This seems mostly resolved and I don't have much to add either, but whether or not Fram could be considered WP:INVOLVED here, the "any admin would do the same" provision definitely applies to copyright violations. And for the record no I don't think Fram's prior interactions with the user cross into involved here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Block of Martinevans123

• This has now turned into a 1 month (!) block of Martinevans123 (talk · contribs), see User talk:Martinevans123#1 month block for re-creating Philippe Chaperon, which Fram has twice speedied as a copyvio, but an earlier(?) version is in the sandbox history. If this is such an egregious copyvio that it spurs 1 month blocks, then isn't a block notice and certainly a history revdel needed too?

This is clearly an obvious copyvio of https://lanouvelleathenes.fr/philippe-chaperon-1823-1906/ LouisAlain has also worked on it. It's such a copyvio that such things, even as working drafts, have been seen as problems within userspace. In no way was that article ready for mainspace and I support the CSD.

However, a month long block? I can't see reason to justify that, especially not if the backstory about another editor is already up and running at ANI. I find Martinevans' humour to frequently be quite grating, but he's not the sort of editor who warrants long blocks. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• • Since I couldn't defend my case while being blocked, I now seize the opportunity. I kinda understood one of the tenets of Wikipedia is to suppose good faith from others. As pertains the copyvio issue, I naively thought that a translation wasn't considered a copywright otherwise I wouldn't have made the error of course. That's probably why I didn't understand Fram's stand on this point. As you may notice, I'm not a native English speaker, which may help have another point of view about my participation. I'm reproached to act like I was a stubborn teenager who refuses to follow the rules. How wrong some are. Didn't J. Wales said that one shouldn't hesitate to break the rules? As a matter of fact, I'm not trying to break the rules, I apply them as best as I can. Just, I do not always understand the messages left on my talkpage.
  • The very first days I became involved here I was sternly scolded by User:Ssilvers for the use of i.boxes. From this day I've completely let down said i.b. Fram told me not to use the {{not to confuse}} template so I stopped the very same day. Then I was told not to use translating machines (why?). I've created 3,200 pages here and so far nobody raised the issue of the quality of my translations. They're not 100% perfect of course and sometimes some user corrects what needs to be corrected (rarely).
  • Boleyn warned me about the lack of references in some of the articles I translate from German. As easy as it is to find millions of inline refs regarding Bob Dylan or Abe Lincoln, finding refs about an obscure German tenor of the 19th-century isn't. Yet, I do now make research on the German internet and find bits of references.
  • Not to mention my near total unability to deal with htlm.
  • What more can I do?

LouisAlain (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I was not aware of the sandbox version, I only saw the article pop up on my watchlist (where it was courtesy of my earlier deletion). I dropped a block notice at his talk page, explaining at length why they were blocked, so I don't get the "isn't a block notice needed" part of your statement. And here it is a 1-month block, because Martinevans has a history of copyvio problems, and was aware of the reason why the previous version of the article was deleted and LouisAlain blocked. Why this ANI section would make a 1 month block less justifiable is not really clear. Fram (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

His reply to the block notice is concerning. It implies he should be allowed to add copyright violations and that others should fix them. If that's his attitude towards copyvios a 1 month block might not be long enough.--Atlan (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC),

Relevant sandbox edits now revdeleted as well. Fram (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• So you blocked Martinevans for moving the article into mainspace (as you hadn't even noticed the sandbox and didn't check the history). Would you have blocked him for the earlier edit of pasting the content into userspace first?

So far you've blocked LouisAlain for one day for this content, after some discussion and no progress (which I'd see as reasonable). Yet another editor, gets blocked a whole month for the same content. What's the difference? Well a year ago, you blocked them indef, citing copyvio. Which immediately raised questions from Bishonen as to its appropriateness, and was lifted two days later. What's the common factor here? You. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The creation by MartinEvans had no indication of "moved from mainspace", the edit summary was "create again" and it was a creation, not a pagemove. So no, I didn't block them for "moving the article into mainspace", I blocked them for (re-)creating a copyright violation. I have no idea what "history" I should have checked, this was the first non-deleted entry in the history.

And, as I already explained, the different treatment is because LouisAlain had no block log (here), while MartinEvans has one, including for copyright problems; and MartinEvans was aware of the reason the article was deleted and LouisAlain blocked (copyvio), and proceeded to post his copyvio version anyway.

Finally, the previous block was lifted because "User has promised not to repeat these mistakes again". Fram (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I cannot pretend to be a neutral commentator here - Martin and myself have had good relations since, um, 2011 I think - but even so it appears that Fram's actions are somewhat harsh. I am not arguing that copyright violations are not a serious manner, nor that one hasn't occurred, but Martin's motivations seem to me to have been to try and help an editor (LouisAlain) who had unwittingly got into trouble. Martin stated on LouisAlain's talk page: "I've rescued the article and have reworked it, trying to avoid copyright issues."[118] To be blocked for one month for failing to remove a copyvio as a result of helping another editor seems, well, not really in the spirit of a cooperative website. Could Fram not have had words with Martin, and, if protocol demands that a block of some sort be imposed, maybe blocked Martin for a much shorter time, together with a kinder note on his talkpage? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

if it was the first time they had copyvio trouble, sure. But now? Whether they post copyvios on their own, or because they try to help another editor, seems rather beside the point. Fram (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Fram, really, should this be how things are run on Wikipedia? The last two-day block was a year ago. After a whole year of no problems(?), a user makes one mistake, and it leads to a month-long block? To use the tired but accurate expression, does that sword of Damacles just hang over an editor's head forever? Is there no period of "calm" long enough (a year?) to "reset" the clock, such that you don't see this as a repeat violation? If someone does something, then does it again the next week, or the next month, I'd call it repeated. But if somebody stops for a whole year, I wouldn't. I hope you'd reconsider whether a month is too long and a week would be long enough. ^Leviv_ich 16:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

if a user has a history of troublesome behavior then that will color whatever happens again if they display the exact same behavior though. It's not "hanging over their head" - if they don't display the behavior that got them blocked it's not a problem. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

(outdent)They seem to hae a habit of way too close paraphrasing, it's only now that it became so obvious again though. Compare his creation with his source, and you find things like

• "Rich worked as a newsreader for a short time and was then a reporter for local radio stations in Bristol and Manchester. He became a weather presenter for BBC's Midlands Today in Birmingham in 2009, providing daily weather forecasts and presented regional TV news bulletins. He also produced feature reports on subjects such as the politics of climate change and the impact of weather on local food production. In 2012 Rich joined the Met Office team at the BBC Weather Centre and spent a year presenting national and global forecasts. In 2013 he was part of the team of presenters at BBC Sport's Wimbledon coverage. In late 2013 he moved to the Met Office College in Exeter for a year-long intensive training course - and is now a qualified meteorologist."

vs

• "A short stint as a newsreader and reporter for local radio stations in Bristol and Manchester followed before he landed a job as a weather presenter at BBC Midlands Today in Birmingham in 2009. As well as fronting daily weather forecasts, Ben presented regional TV news bulletins and produced feature reports on subjects such as the politics of climate change and the impact of weather on local food production. In 2012 Ben joined the Met Office team at the BBC Weather Centre and spent a year presenting UK and global forecasts. He was part of the team of presenters who worked on BBC Sport's Wimbledon coverage in 2013. Ben moved to the Met Office College in Exeter In late 2013 to embark on an intensive year-long training course - and is now a qualified meteorologist."

I've bolded the most egregious parts, but the remainder is close enough to make it clear that this is not an unhappy coincidence, but a minimal rewrite of a copyrighted text. Fram (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• Fram has an ugly habit of railroading good-faith but somewhat troubled editors like this by taking a legitimate but relativley minor issue, then subjecting an editor to levels of scrutiny nobody could withstand, then blowing the issues out of all proportion, all the while badgering the editor incessantly so that they feel they can't breathe without Fram coming down on them like a ton of bricks. Of course, I do not wish to make light of copyright issues, but the solution in this case was clearly discussion and education, not enforcement and blocks. If Fram can't or won't discuss and educate, they should bring the matter to a noticeboard where other editors can assist. Yes, he may be within the letter of WP:INVOLVED, but the spirit is surely that if it isn't an emergency, there are ~1200 admins who can share the load. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

  Part of that is so good, I'm gonna repeat it in bold:

  Fram has an ugly habit of railroading good-faith but somewhat troubled editors like this by taking a legitimate but relativley minor issue, then subjecting an editor to levels of scrutiny nobody could withstand, then blowing the issues out of all proportion, all the while badgering the editor incessantly so that they feel they can't breathe without Fram coming down on them like a ton of bricks. Of course, I do not wish to make light of copyright issues, but the solution in this case was clearly discussion and education, not enforcement and blocks. If Fram can't or won't discuss and educate, they should bring the matter to a noticeboard where other editors can assist. Yes, he may be within the letter of WP:INVOLVED, but the spirit is surely that if it isn't an emergency, there are ~1200 admins who can share the load.

  Actually, that's HJM's whole post. It's bang-on. This block is grossly excessive and reflects the draconian high-handedness we've seen before. If Fram doesn't have the patience to deal with ME123's... confusion, let's call it, about paraphrasing and copyvio, then he should hand the matter off to another admin or bring it here. This is a bullshit block. EEng 21:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

  • I had not looked at MartinEvans edits or interacted with them in many months, I have not been "subjecting them to levels of scrutiny nobody could withstand", I noticed their copyvio when they recreated an article I had just deleted. I had not been badgering them incessantly. My previous post to them was in February 2018... Fram (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Fram 99% of the time but the block length for MartinEvans123 is excessive. We've had plenty of editors in the past who have repeatedly and deliberately stuck two fingers up and said "I don't care about your copyright rules", and for those, severe sanctions are warranted. This is not one of those editors. I mean, how else would you paraphrase "In 2012 Ben joined the Met Office team at the BBC Weather Centre and spent a year presenting UK and global forecasts."? You could turn the sentence around but you'd still have the same words in a different order. Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

  Ben was the BBC weather presenter in 2012. cygnis insignis 20:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

  That loses a lot. EEng 21:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

  Moonriddengirl used to say quite often that some things are simply unavoidable close paraphrasing and in her understanding such situations, of which the example above seems to be one, are not a problem in law. - Sitush (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

  People who do weather forecasting at the BBC are employed by the Met Office, not the BBC. So he wasn't actually employed by the BBC. I would go with "He presented national and international weather forecasts at the BBC from late 2012 to late 2013, when he commenced studies at the Met Office College in Exeter to complete his training as a meteorologist." I don't know that the Wimbledon coverage had anything to do with weather, so I would likely omit that fact. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

  Diannaa, Black Kite, Fram, if it was just that phrase that was a problem we'd be home and dry. But it isn't. I hope no-one's going to start telling us that there's no other way to say "produced feature reports on subjects such as the politics of climate change and the impact of weather on local food production"? The tool picks up exact copying, but misses things like "hand-drawn maps and stick-on symbols" if the source reads "hand-drawn map and stick-on symbols". The page should be completely rewritten, and the best way to go about that is WP:CP. Any objection if I blank and list it? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, it was not just that one sentence, no idea why people focus on that alone. Fram (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

  I did some further clean-up while you were writing this. I'm okay with you listing it if you think it needs more work. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Unblocked

• Unblocked. A 1 month block in a situation like this is unproductive, and based on the comments above (particularly Harry's and Black Kite's, but reading all comments in this subthread related to ME123) I've unblocked. Not because there weren't some close paraphrasing/direct translation problems - there were - but because the block button is a clumsy way to educate a good faith editor, and because this had little or nothing to do with the previous Youtube "copyright violations" block from a year ago. I cannot find anyone raising this particular issue with Martin in the last 3 years (working backwards; I stopped looking in 2016). ME123 has expressed respect for User:Diannaa's ability to explain copyright issues, so I've pinged her on his talk page and asked her to take a look. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the unblock Floquenbeam. Fram's action was clearly punitive rather than preventative. Fram should try talking with good faith editors in situations like this in the future. MarnetteD|Talk 22:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I talked and talked and talked with them a lot during the previous issue (copyvio links), to no avail. Only a block helped in the end. Fram (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• Good unblock, thank you Floquenbeam. I don't think it's fair to suggest one's previous excessive block as a justification for a new excessive block on a relatively minor issue and largely unrelated to the previous "issue". This latest block appears to be contrary to the "introspection" made by Fram here ([119]). Alex Shih (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The previous block was not excessive, it was explicitly an "indef until we get confirmation that you won't understand and won't repeat the behaviour", which was what happened two days later, when they were unblocked. Fram (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
• Just need to say that I don't have time to mentor anyone right now but will post a bit of advice — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
• I think Fram may need a ban from admin actions concerning (and comments to) Martin. He's been very aggressively and (seemingly) unfairly on Martin's case for nearly three years. This is in addition to the sitewide issues pointed up by Alex Shih above. Fram is a valued Wikipedian, but his unilateral extremism has got to be stopped. Softlavender (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

  Like I said above, previously, what you call "being very aggressively on his case", was me trying to explain for a long time that his countless links to youtube copyvio's were not allowed; in the end only a block brought home the message, talking was useless. I then left them alone for nearly a year, until they recreated the article I just deleted as a copyright violation. Fram (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• I'd have no problem with Fram giving me advice or friendly reminders. In fact, I would welcome that. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

  If Martinevans123 is unblocked and welcomes Fram's advice and friendly reminders, and if Fram is good with that, I'd invite someone to close this thread as resolved. ^Leviv_ich 06:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't look like Fram's going down inre this block. Optimally, we all learn, and can move onward. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Fram, do you still feel that blocking me for one month was entirely justified? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes and no (i'll explain this non-answer). Yes, as I genuinely believed that you should, after your own problems with copyvio from a year before, and because you were aware this page was deleted and LouisAlain blocked, have been a lot more careful not to republish the page with copyright violations on it; and because the block a year before, had learned me that long, repeated discussions and explanations with you about what is acceptable to post and what isn't, did not have much of an effect, and only the block actually made any difference.

But no, as the block (and/or the block length) clearly doesn't have consensus, and I should have opted for either a warning or a short block instead. While some of the criticism above is unjustified (e.g. I have not been incessantly following you, I left you alone for nearly a year and only noticed this because you came to the page after I did), that doesn't mean that I can simply ignore all of it. While there is a lot of freedom for admins in how to treat violations, it doesn't mean that we can do whatever we please, and if it turns out that some block was at odds with what most admins or editors would expect, then I should learn from it. Fram (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your clear and honest explanation. I hope that you'll never "write someone off completely" from being able to engage in productive discussion ever again, even if past interactions have not been entirely fruitful. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Requesting topic ban for User:Merphee regarding edits on The Australian

The following discussion is closed. 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 shouldn't take too long. Merphee has been editing The Australian, an Australian newspaper, to portray its political orientation as "centrist", where the overwhelming consensus from Australian editors is that the political orientation of the publication is centre-right to right wing. Merphee has been brought here before regarding disruptive conduct in July and in August of last year. Examples include using a study that says its journalists are left leaning, cherrypicking sources, and listing only Labor and Greens party recipients of the newspaper's annual "award". For these examples and plenty more, and the constant getting nowhere of talk page discussions, Merphee is clearly not here to contribute positively. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Support topic ban.. Yes this guy is actually Casting aspersions, has a great mind of a perfect Battleground behavior.. On top of that he fails to achieve Consensus for his edits.. Moreover he blames others of not getting it correctly while using sources to imply original research.. Often lying with fellow editors even when diffs are provided.. Some diffs here as it goes "I didn't say it was centrist in the edits I made. In fact, the sources say it is centre-right. Never have said it was centrist. So on what grounds did you delete my two edits specifically. Aas I said why did you keep the 2007 quote but not include the bit about Paul Keating but only include the John Howard quote? You avoided that question as you and onetwothreeip both constantly do. Further evidence of tag teaming and tag team characteristics and block any changes and take ownership of the article. Can you please answer the content question? It's only you and onetwothreeip who are tag teaming to block any changes to this highly biased coatrack of an article." (emphasis added to bold it).. While admittedly not confessing to Being incorrect here.. See these diffs which exactly point out he fiddling with political views as "centrist": here he did just that, repeating that same stack similar to former.. Clear signs for clear disruption to this topic.. So yes support topic ban (even for 1932- politics, if possible).. This was just a behavioral evaluation from the start, NeilN blocking him for sockpuppetry and unblocking after insufficient (correct if it is wrong) evidence.. Enough.. 182.58.164.142 (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. And this last comment is from an anonymous IP address is very suspicious. Is this onetwothreeip or Pinkbeast? Anyway, I have said all along it is centre-right and can show that. You and Pinkbeast have constantly blocked any new edits to this highly biased skewed coatrack article. In my opinion this is tag teaming. We cannot have Australia's largest newspaper painted as some extremist, radical publication, when it is certainly not. And most importantly the sources do not support your attempts to make this article into an anti-Murdoch, anti- coalition article. Disgusting. You and Pinkbeast have also constantly refused to engage in any discussion over content or proposed edits and deleted any attempts I've made to bring some NPOV to this article instead choosing to cherry pick quotes. You have both displayed every possible Wikipedia:Tag team Tag team characteristic and I can prove it. You onetwothreeip, have also been engaging in exactly the same bullying and forceful manner edit warring in other articles to get your way, under the most recent heading on your User talk:Onetwothreeip which I noticed when I was considering leaving you a message recently. You have been edit warring at 2017 in American television and as Fradio71 pointed out it clearly shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. I propose an edit ban on your editing as you are not here to get along and build consensus but only skew political articles for the benefit of political parties in Australian politics before a federal election. Your blatant tag teaming with Pinkbeast shows that you are clearly not able to work with other editors if they disagree with you which Pinkbeast does with an exact duplicated attitude toward this article and a deep hatred for any conservative political party and Murdoch. Also you have openly lied about me in your comments above. For instance, The Greens, Labor politicians of the Australian of the Year award had been in the article for 8 years! I didn't put it in there. What a lie! Absolute arrogance and ignoring of Wikipedia policy showing 'ownership behaviour' of the article and bullying tactics including this notification on this Admin page now. Merphee (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh yes, thanks for that reference of this article 2017 in American television.. As you can see clearly in this diff: "Undid revision 879709234 by Fradio71 (talk) One editor supported splitting something, two others supported splitting this section in specific. There is a general consensus to split".. So that is a completely different half-cookie story provided by you.. Given a clear consensus @TheDoctorWho: just implemented it per WP:CONSENSUS it was actually @Fradio71: who performed an act of incorrect use of consensus harming it and the vital yet fundamental process of achieving consensus for it.. Now back to that topic, where does that editor(s) show a trait of "tag teaming"? Please explain and detail your diffs, correctly.. thanks 182.58.230.91 (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

IP address, who are you? Why not just say your username? You are an experienced editor. Could you just say your username, no reason why you couldn't just say I am user xyz? Why are you hiding behind different IP addresses here? Merphee (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

FYI, I evaluated your disruptive editing and behavioral conduct, and yes last edits are not suspicious at all.. I was referring to the block log of yours.. And connecting me to both of the editors because I showed your disruptive editing is not at all civil grab some editing habits from my range and see how it widely differs from this topics.. Thanks 2401:4900:1724:65B9:1:1:1B60:8AD (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Why not use your username? Why now use a second different IP address, given you admitted you are the person above? You obviously know a lot about wikipedia and are using different devices to login and add comments. Merphee (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Slow Internet connection for now, so continue your discussion 2401:4900:1724:65B9:1:1:1B60:8AD (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Why not just state your username IP address? You obviously are an experience WIki editor? What is wrong with just putting your username to your edits? Merphee (talk) 04:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I must suggest you to be more civil and stop being disruptive as stated above my connection was slow and the router restarted: Slow Internet connection for now, so continue your discussion.. Before making such accusations I strongly suggest you to evaluate my edits and connect the dots, do not forget to open an SPI if you are that suspicious, case closed.. Back to your disruptive editing and be on topic.. 182.58.230.91 (talk) 05:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Merphee: any diffs to support your said wordings about "tag teaming"? 182.58.230.91 (talk) 05:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment I have also found User:Merphee to be problematic. His tone is consistently combative and accusatory to anyone who disagrees with his point of view. But my comment refers to his assertion above of Anyway, I have said all along it is centre-right and can show that, this is not true [120] , [121] and [122], demonstrate Merphee has consistently claimed The Australian to be centrist (and maybe right of centre). Any editor makes changes to claim the it is centre-right is accused of painting the paper as right wing extremist or as hating Rupert Murdoch. Hughesdarren (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh gosh. Hughesdarren, you and Pinkbeast and onetwothreeip have all had identical points of view and have worked in unison to actively block my attempts to introduce any properly sourced edits into this biased mess of an article. I firmly stand by my accusation of team tagging.Your consistent combative behaviour could easily have ended here as i was going to report but realised I also was being uncivil at times, as each of these editors were toward me, so I was just as bad. I am not being allowed to edit this highly biased, entirely skewed, coatrack article. There is an ownership user conduct going on here. I have been trying to bring some NPOV to the article. and as soon as I edit one of the tag team reverts with no proper cause. Classic Wikipedia:Tag team Tag team characteristics. And yes, there are sources that talk of a more centrist approach! Crikey stated that "it has been in sympathy with the agenda of federal governments of both colours". "Under editor Paul Kelly it helped define Paul Keating’s “big picture”. During the Howard years it has provided both turf and fuel for the culture warriors of the Right". This is what a centrist approach is, is it not! And then others have said more right leaning. But we cannot leave out what sources like Crikey say. That is giving undue weight to sources that say the opposite. We need a NPOV throughout the article and give due weight to all major sources. Crikey.com are a reputable, quality source as the three of you know. I was going to bring this to ANI for tag teaming and bullying. I cannot introduce any new sources or NPOV. This article has been hijacked. It is disgustingly biased and highly skewed trying to paint Australia's largest newspaper as some radicalised, agenda driven, extremist publication when it is read mums and dads of Australia. There is some very worrying use of Wikipedia here. But I fail to see what I have actually done here. My opinion all along is that The Australian is centre-right. But yes, yes, yes some sources like the Crikey source above, say it is more moderate. And you 3 and one other member of the tag team will not allow me to add anything to this biased skewed POV driven article. Disgusting. What exactly am I here for? Merphee (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

References

I think Merphee's conduct here proves further what I said in my opening. When more than one person disagrees with them, they see some sort of conspiracy in it. They've been warned multiple times, including here at WP:ANI. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

But it has just been you, Pinkbeast and Hughesdarren, the members of the Tag Team. And I stand by my accusation of 'article ownership' and tag teaming. It is well grounded. This policy explains it to a tee. Wikipedia:Tag team. The Tag team characteristics are all met. And the  Goals of tag teams are all consistent. Classic tag teaming in my opinion after reading the policy and highly disruptive and damaging to Wikipedia. Particularly on topics like Australia's largest newspaper. Trying to harass me further by bringing a case here for me simply trying to bring some NPOV to this highly biased and horribly skewed article and when you have been so uncivil toward me is also consistent with tag teaming. However I have also been uncivil toward you. Merphee (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, given his recent comment, it further proves the inability to reach a consensus when more than one editors disagree.. Moving on to point (User:Merphee's) inclination over this, he is also using original research he interpreted those words provided by the source [123] and used those sentences, to refactor and analyse a newer piece of statement not provided by the source itself; because of which a secondary source should also be given to establish it (those statements, in particular), if possible a explicit stating of a Tertiary source, as well.. Not only that is a real problem, he has a combative attitude, and approaching others with inappropriate WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour is a common thing.. One recent example would be this diff were he wrongly and woefully accuses without any evidence or proofs.. This is disgustingly incorrect by your side, hence I stand my support on this topic ban of Merphee.. 182.58.230.91 (talk) 06:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I should have also pointed out there have been similar issues with Merphee at Talk:Emma Husar, Talk:David Leyonhjelm and Talk:George Christensen (politician) and on their articles, all about Australian politicians. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC):

Why won't you just give your Username, IP address? You have obviously got a bias against me based on me having a different opinion than you. You are obviously an experienced Wiki editor. Why are you using your IP and not your username? Can't you just say I am username xyz. It would really help here. The only other editor I've had problems with was HiLo48, your friend onetwothreeip. But HiLo48 hasn't been around for a while.Merphee (talk) 08:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

See the way you approach others and accuse certain users of which no evidence is substantially given.. That is a completely false accusatory statement neither supported by diffs nor by strong contribution leaks, overlaps and/or/also assuming this: "IP address, who are you? Why not just say your username? You are an experienced editor. Could you just say your username, no reason why you couldn't just say I am user xyz? Why are you hiding behind different IP addresses here?" presuming a falsehood drenched under particular biases, and repeating the same claims: "Why won't you just give your Username, IP address? You have obviously got a bias against me based on me having a different opinion than you. You are obviously an experienced Wiki editor. Why are you using your IP and not your username? Can't you just say I am username xyz. It would really help here. The only other editor I've had problems with was HiLo48, your friend onetwothreeip. But HiLo48 hasn't been around for a while." A big sigh.. You have shown some serious breach of conduct, behaviourally plausible unsupported forth-set accusations which are accustomed to "?" That is "question marks", I see why the topic ban will help prevent further disruption to this project.. just drop the stick or stop this misconduct, if you suspect anything just file a SPI and do not assume unless evidence is presented, if no, then I am afraid this will only lengthen that topic ban of yours for extended periods which is well attributed to your egregious behavior; this unsettling inclination towards IP editors is not acceptable at all.. It may lead to a block due to personal attacks you have being making against me (that too, repeatedly).. 182.58.243.185 (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Interesting how you talk about a sockpuppet investigation as I never mentioned that. I'm just wondering why you don't use your username and are hiding behind an IP address that has changed from 2 different parts of the world in the last couple of hours? The only editors I've had issues with are this tag team at The Australian and another editor Hilo48 who worked alongside onetwothreeip. Not sure if you know him IP address? Haven't seen him around for a while. Obviously you and I have had some differing viewpoints in the past though judging by your comments and hiding behind your IP address. Why won't you give your username IP address? That's all I'm asking for. Just your username? Merphee (talk) 10:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND at its purest, WP:POINT at its best, no one can change you, keep questioning like this and you may be charged for incivility.. As credited earlier my connection was slow, router restarted, hence connected to my neighboring router for connection.. Any diffs to support, present it, if no diffs are there, stop it.. I evaluated your behavior and conduct issues not personal views/opinions, address them below.. Topic ban is now a necessity to prevent further disruption.. Do not make further accusations, User:Merphee or else I have enough diffs to prove your issues with civility.. Also, stay to the topic, you are incredibly obsessed with this, eligible for another ANI, IMO.. 182.58.243.185 (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

As far as being uncivil. Wow, it has been awful. All 3 members of the tag team have been just as uncivil as I have. Disgraceful really. I was no better though. I also was uncivil. However I stand by my accusation of tag teaming here. Tag team characteristics to a tee. Goals of tag teams very evident. Classic teaming. This has resulted in a extremely biased, skewed coatrack of an article and no other editor able to bring some NPOV into it. Merphee (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

So part of why you are her is because of your behavior while editing. As a totally univolved editor who has no read a single diff, I gotta say you are really helping make the case against you by how you act. (and if you accuse me of being part of a tag team can it be the Beverly Brothers?) MPJ-DK (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Not just any tag team match, a 1AM Survivor Series. ^Leviv_ich? ! 02:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment This edit here, [124]then here for the full edit [125]to see how its been sandwiched in with added editorialising to puff it up and "rebut" something else- is symptomatic of most of their edits. Merphee then editwarred with two other editors to keep it in, (while telling them not to edit war). Of course "results from that study did not support the assumption in any way that The Australian was conservative in its political views"...because the study was not about the political views of The Australian. (it was a study on the personal political views of Australian journalists in general; all News limited journo stats were given as a single whole, nothing said about if this translated into the actual newspapers either) This was explained repeatedly on the talkpage, but they showed no signs of understanding, rather resorting to accusations of NPOV and tag teaming.

Merphee is exhausting to deal with. The construction of strawmen, with added hyperbole (noone has removed the crikey source, although there has been discussion ad nauseam as to its interpretation, noone is attempting to paint The Australian as an extremist newspaper, now this conspiracy theory)a Gish gallop of complaints regarding NPOV, with few or no sources to back up them up or constructive suggestions on how to resolve them, and repetitive bludgeoning are all visible on this page. Not to mention the seeming inability to stay on point. I'm not sure if they understand that NPOV means giving weight to the preponderance of sources, or regard it as meaning that for every statement, you need a rebuttal. They do not seem to understand or analyse critical analysis, seeming to equate it with criticism. Curdle (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Curdle, you are the final tag team member I was talking about. Had wondered why you hadn't commented earlier. My sources were good. My edits were sound. It's just that the four of you are a tag team in its classic form. There are no more tag team members. It was these four editors. The article is extremely biased and skewed in its current form. It is a coatrack article painting Australia's largest newspaper as some right winged, radical extremist publication. The four of you blocked any reasonable changes I tried to make in an attempt to bring some NPOV to the article. If there wasn't genuine tag teams on Wikipedia why would Wikipedia have a Wikipedia:Tag team policy. My last attempted edit is a perfect example. [126] This ganging up here to cover each member of the tag team is classic tag team behaviour as far as I can see in the policy. Tag teams are highly destructive. They leave extremely skewed biased articles full of POV, just as the policy outlines. Merphee (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

What I also found telling was how each of you spoke about The Australian and newscorp with such personal hatred almost vengeance as if you were on some mission or crusade to make this an anti-Murdoch article. What's with that? I didn't say the Croikey.com source was deleted Curdle. That's a straight up lie and you know it. I said the sentence about Paul Keating and the fact that Crikey gave a more centrist opinion of the Australian was omitted. I added the full quote. But onetwothreeip and Pinkbeast deleted the full quote and left only the bit about John Howard. That's not due weight Curdle. What and the other two editors didn't also edit war as you have also done, Curdle? The full NPOV quote was Crikey stating that "it has been in sympathy with the agenda of federal governments of both colours". "Under editor Paul Kelly it helped define Paul Keating’s “big picture”. During the Howard years it has provided both turf and fuel for the culture warriors of the Right". By including the full quote you are giving readers a neutral point of view. What the 4 of you did though was delete the sentence about Paul Keating who is an Australian Labor Party Prime Minister and only included the sentence about John Howard (the coalition PM). So the section read, "it has been in sympathy with the agenda of federal governments of both colours". During the Howard years it has provided both turf and fuel for the culture warriors of the Right". When I tried to include the full quote, I was blocked by the four of you. This has been one of many examples of the constant tag teaming behaviour at this article. I can give many examples whereby I have worked well with other editors on other articles and on Australian forums. It is just that this article there is no doubt about it a dedicated tag team who worked against anyone opposing the attempt to paint the Australian as a right wing agenda pushing newspaper. that is just not what the reliable sources say and we need to give due weight to what all of the major sources tell us. Merphee (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

What I also found telling was how each of you spoke about The Australian and newscorp with such personal hatred almost vengeance as if you were on some mission or crusade to make this an anti-Murdoch article.

I have done no such thing; please produce diffs, or retract this statement. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

References

I agree strongly that Merphee's editing is, and has always been, problematic. I had not interacted with them when I first mentioned them on AN/I, so I didn't have any reason to be biased against them when I did so; but since then, they have consistently confirmed my initial impression (except inasmuch as they've switched from writing "fuck off" several dozen times to a constant stream of hypocritical platitudes about Wikipedia policies).

They are completely incapable of dropping any stick and every talk page discussion with them is a matter of being IDHTed to death. The spiel above is one we've had several times now at the article's talk page; and, like the last several times, it completely fails to take into account - even to acknowledge - any response made. Confusing an assertion that a Murdoch paper's a bit right-wing (no, really?) with one that it's far-right extremism; not addressing the idea that what a 2007 source says about the situation in 1995 isn't a great guide to what a newspaper's like today; simply ignoring the point that a survey of the paper's journalists doesn't tell you about its editorial policy.

They're not above making statements that are simply untrue; you won't see any diffs in response to my question above, because they don't exist. Another "classic Merphee" is this diff, where they say "I didn't say it was centrist in the edits I made. In fact, the sources say it is centre-right. Never have said it was centrist"... which, this diff aside, was in a talk page section whose title, written by Merphee, makes that assertion!

It's instructive to take a look at User_talk:Merphee#July_2018 and subsequent items there; even when Merphee's right (accepting for the sake of argument, as NeilN does, that their ignorance is not feigned) they have to produce an incredible diatribe, detailing how something a reasonable person might describe as a simple mistake is the worst abuse of power by any Wikipedia administrator ever, justifying an appeal to Jimbo, ArbCom, the Wikimedia Board of Trustees - frankly, I'm surprised we didn't get up to the Governor-General and the Pope. Such an editor is not well equipped to carry out a sensible discussion when they're wrong - and whatever one thinks about the current content dispute, every editor is going to be wrong sometimes.

There's no tag team here, no conspiracy; all that's going on is that the other editors involved happen to agree about something. We keep on agreeing with each other because every iteration of this involves Merphee digging up a source that doesn't really justify what they want to write (leaving aside any idea of trying to respect the preponderance of sources, and the general way that deciding what you'd like and going fishing for sources is problematic), and slamming it into the article anyway. The problem here is tendentious editing by Merphee, who is utterly determined to get what they want into the article no matter how many editors disagree with it. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The most recent example of a Wikipedia:Tag team operating at The Australian article is this Pinkbeast. And I don't make that accusation lightly. Remember this is australia's largest newspaper we are talking about. I tried to include the full NPOV quote from Crikey stating that "it has been in sympathy with the agenda of federal governments of both colours". "Under editor Paul Kelly it helped define Paul Keating’s “big picture”. During the Howard years it has provided both turf and fuel for the culture warriors of the Right". By including the full quote you are giving readers a neutral point of view. As usual, what you then did was immediately delete the sentence about Paul Keating who is an Australian Labor Party Prime Minister and only included the sentence about John Howard (the coalition PM) which supported your point of view.

So the biased and totally skewed section then read, "it has been in sympathy with the agenda of federal governments of both colours". During the Howard years it has provided both turf and fuel for the culture warriors of the Right". You actually omitted the critical balancing sentence which gave meaning to Crikey's sentence "it has been in sympathy with the agenda of federal governments of both colours" By you choosing to delete the sentence in the middle "Under editor Paul Kelly it helped define Paul Keating’s “big picture” you completely skewed the point the source was ,making. This was the critical sentence in the middle, illustrating a fair and balanced approach to The Australian's reporting.

When I tried to include the full quote, I was as per usual blocked by you and prevented from being a NPOV to that section. Saying "there is zero support for your addition" I then asked you to explain why you deleting that middle sentence and skewed the meaning of the quote and you refused to talk about content. This is a tag teaming characteristic. You saying you are not tag teaming does not negate the facts. I believe your goal at the article and by deleting that sentence has been "Pushing a certain point of view in disregard of the neutral point of view policy either by giving too little or too much exposure to a specific viewpoint". There are so many other examples and the article in its current form gives far too much weight to The Australian newspaper being a right wing publication when the reliable sources do not support this. Merphee (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)  

How long does this section have to be open until we know whether a topic ban will be put in place or not? Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, would you please explain why you also deleted that sentence giving a skewed and biased perspective to the Crikey source? You have constantly refused to engage in any constructive dialogue with me over content at the article talk page and instead only demeaned and intimidated me. Merphee (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Merphee has now reinserted the disputed edits without consensus,[127] shortly after leaving this not exactly collaborative message on the talkpage. Curdle (talk) 12:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually Curdle, no I didn't reinsert any disputed edit. I simply made 'an edit'. One single well based, well sourced 'edit'. Independent editor Kerry Raymond over at The Australian has not reverted it. If any other editor at Wikipedia has a good reason to revert it after reading the reasons I've detailed on the Talk:The Australian Something the 4 of you have not allowed me to do at the article. I do not make the accusation of a Wikipedia talk:Tag team lightly. Anyway I've moved on. If you have any problem with the simple well based edit I pinged you and the 3 other editors for your permission, please make your reasons known on the talk page and I will listen in a civil manner. But once again the 4 of you refuse to discuss in a civil and reasonable manner any content issues or edits. And sadly if it wasn't listed here or independent editor Kerry Raymond was now watching the page, one of you would have 'swooshed' in and reverted it within a millisecond without any reason and in typical tag team fashion. Wish it wasn't so. However Wikipedia has a Tag Team policy for a reason. Merphee (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• WP:Tag team is an essay not a policy. It appears that multiple editors are reverting Merphee at The Australian and disputing Merphee's claims on talk. That means Merphee is showing WP:DISRUPTSIGNS by repeatedly disregarding other editors' explanations. Banging on about tag teams is not an excuse to edit war indefinitely. Johnuniq (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Apologies I thought Wikipedia talk:Tag team was a policy. Regardless, I certainly do not make the accusation lightly. I also am not involved in endless edit warring. I have tried to seek Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to this situation and resolve this in a civil manner by seeking an independent preferably overseas editor or editors to resolve these differences based on policy. I thought this is what we are supposed to do do. As soon as I suggested this to the other editors involved, I'm quickly listed here at ANI. I was also going to list being bullied and intimidated by other editors here at ANI a week ago, but decided against it as I admittedly also was being uncivil. So I thought Wikipedia:Dispute resolution would be a better resolution. This can be seen here with my last edit [128]. The fact is, I cannot make a single well sourced edit to this biased article, as 'ownership' of the article is happening and POV material is being inserted and the article on Australia's largest newspaper is currently highly biased and skewed and has turned into one of Wikipedia:Coatrack articles with opinions rather than NPOV editing and is full of cherry picked sources. As I say, I've offered to participate in dispute resolution in a civil manner to resolve this and will happily take part and accept any outcome of dispute resolution. Merphee (talk) 07:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC) 

• I've given the article four days of full protection. Despite there being an on-going ANI discussion, everyone involved is still finding ways to revert each other. You're all edit warring, even if you're not the main user being discussed here. Anarchyte (talk | work) 07:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

No we're not. Consensus is against these edits by Merphee that are being reverted. If you are accusing me of edit warring I ask you to either withdraw it, or report me for it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Good protection I see a content dispute here. If the diffs presented so far are the best evidence of disruption, this should be closed without further delay, and the idea that this rises to the level of a topic ban is laughable. Editors inserting facts into articles with references to reliable sources? Whatever next? As for the accusations of lying above, are we really splitting hairs between "centrist," "right-of-centre" and "centre-right"? Honestly? My only note to Merphee would be: IPs are people, too, and you should extend them good faith. GoldenRing (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

GoldenRing thank you that is a good point, I do genuinely apologise to the IP for my comments, whoever they are. Onetwothreeip would you be open to using Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if you do genuinely oppose this well sourced edit I am proposing, as you haven't commented on it to date? [129] I genuinely feel like I haven't been able to make any well sourced edits without yu and Pinkbeast in particular instantly reverting me.Merphee (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

If an editor claims, and continues to claim without providing evidence, that editing against consensus is ok because other editors are part of a conspiracy, I think it has gone beyond a content dispute.

Inserting "facts into articles" that are not supported by the "reliable sources" [130] that purportedly back them up is either manipulation of sources, or inability to read them and a behavioural problem. Changing text so that it misrepresents the sources that back it up is the same thing.[131] and again [132]. In fact, this current drama started when Merphee removed that particular statement altogether [133], after having agreed to it to resolve a previous ani discussion here. While of course editors can change their minds, removing it without any discussion whatsoever was pretty WP:DISRUPT, considering the amount of time and the ani case spent to get to that point of consensus. Curdle (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Your first diff shows text which is perfectly consistent with the source given; the study does indeed give no support to the idea that The Australian is conservative-leaning. It doesn't disprove it either, and I'd remove this sentence for adding nothing useful to the article, but the charge of misrepresenting sources is false. If you don't understand that source from The Conversation as accusing The Australian of "promoting" a conservative agenda, then I have to assume you haven't read it (it describes the paper as "campaigning vigorously", "stridently conservative", a "vehicle for exerting influence on policymakers"). Your third diff shows him attributing a view to Margaret Simons, cited to an article by... Margaret Simons. I'm puzzled what you think is false here. Your link to a "previous ani discussion" is in fact a link to Talk:The Australian. Did you just assume no-one would look at your diffs? As it stands, pretty much your entire paragraph is a series of trivially-disprovable aspersions and I think you should strike them. I don't think Merphee's edits are wonderful or that there are no problems here; I'm saying that the evidence presented so far doesn't support what is claimed for it. GoldenRing (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Apologies if my post was confusing, but with all due respect, you seem to have got a lot of what I wrote backwards. I did not describe this as "misrepresentation of sources", but "manipulation of sources, or inability to read them" I have no idea wether Merphee realised that study didn't have much to do with the statement they put in, but as you agree, it pretty obviously did not. The problem is that they didn't, and that they edit warred to keep it, ignoring pretty explicit edit summaries, then launched into accusations of tagteaming rather than discussion on the talkpage. And in fact they still do not seem to understand that it adds nothing, and is blaming tagteaming for its removal, even here.[134]

I'm glad you agree that "the conversation" clearly does support "promoting" because that was what I changed it back to,[135] if you read the edit summaries. It was Merphee's edit that was attempting to change the wording to something just..odd sounding. It also shows that I stated amongst the reasons that it was a summarisation supported by 2 other, different sources. Which I had to repeat the next day [136] reverting Merphee's next change; there are 3 sources from 3 different papers, by 3 different authors, so attributing the statement solely to Margaret Simmons is misrepresenting them. Also symptomatic of problems regarding sourcing.

And it was nearly the exact wording, and exact sources that they had agreed to in the talkpage diff, and at ANI. "As far as The Australian article page it seems Curdle and I have reached a consensus [22] and unless anyone objects Curdle will put in their suggested edit which seems quite reasonable to me and satisfies my concerns with the previous version.Merphee (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)" is the exact quote, searchable in [137] for the case.(Sorry, but I cant seem to give a proper diff for an archived Ani, otherwise I would have before, in preference to the talkpage one).

Because of this difficulty, I did not describe the diff as being from ANI, but "to resolve a previous ANI discussion"- Admittedly my wording could have been clearer, but as it was so obviously from the talkpage, and other edits on that page, and the diff, mention the ongoing ANI case, I didnt expect to be accused of trying to fake diffs. Apologies if I did not make the sequence of events clear enough. The Australian talkpage diff provided from 8th August was during an Ani case brought (not by me) over dispute about wording, and resolved by the introduction of that statement and sources. (Well, the wording dispute was, fallout at ANI continued).

That is why it was disruptive to remove it without discussion.

Yes, its all mindboggling trivial, but its part of a longstanding pattern of what is either just not understanding sources, or attempting to puff up ones that appear to agree with their POV, and diminishing ones that do not. It is exhausting to deal with. If it is not enough for a topic ban, ok, but I don't think it is necessary for me to strike anything. I do think I could fairly ask you to strike at least parts of your post, however. Curdle (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I totally reject your accusation Curdle and consider it very uncivil. It is completely unfounded and you, onetwothreeip and Pinkbeast have not produced any diffs here to justify onetwothreeips request to have me topic banned. For what exactly? In fact I consider this listing at ANI as a further intimidation technique simply for me wanting to bring some NPOV to this extremely biased section in the article and am hoping an administrator can see this attempt by onetwothreeip for what it is, an attempt to intimidate and silence me. It should also be noted that I was listed here at ANI directly after I suggested we correctly use some form of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. However as you know Curdle you and the other 2 editors have blocked every reasonable attempt I've made to edit the article based on what very reliable sources say. I have also been the only editor who as at least attempted and made effort to search for some reliable objective research on this topic of editorial bias. This has certainly been "exhausting" for me to be honest Curdle dealing with 3 identically minded editors but I didn't want to be rude and say that as i considered it would be uncivil. As far as me not understanding the reliable sources have you bothered to even read my comment directly below this one and my attempt for us to use some form of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and asking if you are willing to use this process as a resolution to this matter? Just because I have a different perspective to yours certainly does not prove or even imply what you've just stated. I therefore ask you to retract that please or strike your comment. The most recent example of you, onetwothreeip and Pinkbeast refusing to engage in any civil discussion over a proposed edit is this one here [138] which has again been completely ignored once again by each of these 3 editors on Talk:The Australian. How exactly have I not understood this source and my objection to the biased way it is currently written in the article Curdle? I make no apology for trying to ensure this article on Australia's largest newspaper is not painted incorrectly as some right wing extremist newspaper. Merphee (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)  

The point I was making was this whole debate about centre-right, right, centre-left, left is purely subjective and changes from one year to another with changes in editors I would assume and is fraught with difficulty. Sources currently used in this section are cherry-picked quotes from single media commentators. My own opinion is all our newspaper articles should omit this subjective section entirely. It is only asking for trouble and is far too misleading for our readers, unless objective sources from recent empirical studies can be used. The only bit of recent (2013) empirical research I could find related to this topic of political bias was this source [139]. Its inclusion was then blown way out of proportion and quickly destroyed by these 3 editors. However I think by cherry picking random subjective opinions from individual commentators painting Australia's newspaper as some extremist right wing publication as is currently the case in this biased highly skewed article is not what the sources say and is not helpful to our readers. However the tag teaming and article 'ownership' is something entirely different and of great concern. For instance onetwothreeip, Pinkbeast and Curdle are the 3 editors who have banded together and refused to discuss with me any well sourced edits I would like to make. And they have done this it in a very uncivil derogatory manner. Admittedly I have also been uncivil. That's why I've suggested we try some form of independent Wikipedia:Dispute resolution a suggestion which not only has been ignored but as soon as I've suggested it, I was dragged here by onetwothreeip. I believe this edit I wish to make to bring some NPOV into this section of the article is well founded. If any independent editor would care to read my reasoning behind this proposed edit [140] which to date, has been completely ignored by each of these 3 editors please do so and provide that opinion on Talk:The Australian. What I certainly see as being problematic is that even here at ANI these 3 editors persist in ridiculing and intimidating me, without having the decency to discuss the proposed edit. Such blocking of any edits I try to make and refusal to engage in civil discussion over content is why I've seen article ownership (not necessarily a conspiracy), going on at The Australian. Curdle would you be open to some type of independent Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? Merphee (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Merphee, you do not need anybody's permission to do any of the dispute resolution. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: He doesn't need anyone's permission, but he does need the cooperation of the other parties to the dispute. GoldenRing (talk) 09:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

So you put words in my mouth (I agreed to no such thing) and give diffs of your own edit warring as examples of Merphee's disruption. I can see how you expect to achieve consensus here, yes. GoldenRing (talk) 09:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

This should be resolved as soon as possible. There has been no indication as to whether the requested topic ban will take place or not. Does this mean a topic ban will not be established? Is there anybody I should notify specifically so that this can be carried out? Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it should be resolved too as I don't think it should have been listed here in the first place. I also think you have vexatiously listed me here for a full topic ban for no good reason but to further intimidate me and scare me away from Wikipedia and making good quality edits like the one I have recently proposed that you and Pinkbeast refuse to discuss with me. I'm also concerned you listed me here immediately after I suggested we use the proper Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. By not engaging in civil discussion is not right. You have been quite uncivil toward me as you know. I have been uncivil at times too. I apologise. My question was do you want to participate in dispute resolution and what basis do you have for not 'allowing' me to make this NPOV edit [141] I am proposing to make at Talk:The Australian I think it is based on policy and a reasonable edit, don't you? Merphee (talk) 02:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Article has been protected for four days. After full discussion by involved editors, no further admin action is required. WP:DR may help resolve future content disputes.

Levivich Did you read the complaints at all? This is not about a content dispute, this is about a pattern of behaviour that Merphee has displayed on the articles and talk pages of several Australian political articles. They have been complained about at previous times here. They seem to be under the impression that there is "a dispute resolution process", meaning likely they haven't read what they keep linking. They have already been warned about their conduct. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: My advice to you is to go seek dispute resolution. While Merphee is not doing himself any favours here with long screeds in response to just about anything, nor are you by banging on about a topic ban for which there is clearly no (uninvolved) support. Reopening this doesn't help your case, nor does your apparent denial that there are any other options for dispute resolution. GoldenRing (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with dispute resolution at all. I've already indicated my support for Merphee to seek dispute resolution, that doesn't bother me at all. I didn't bring this issue to ANI to seek a resolution to whatever happens to be the latest content dispute between Merphee and others, this is about resolving the continuous disruptive behaviour of Merphee which has been happening for months across multiple articles and talk pages and user talk pages, which dispute resolution can't solve. I'm not an inexperienced editor, I wouldn't have brought the problem to this page if it was just about disagreeing with their edits. I think what's happened is that Merphee has characterised this about a dispute and about resolving that dispute, and I haven't been engaging in that because it's very tiring. Nobody has really been discussing the merits of applying a topic ban here, whether they agree with it or not. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, "Nobody has really been discussing the merits of applying a topic ban here, whether they agree with it or not" is why I closed the thread. It seems to me the community has spoken by not speaking. Above this comment are nearly 8,000 words and 50,000 characters of discussion, which I did read before closing. Ask yourself an honest question: how many uninvolved editors do you expect are going to read that and then comment now, given that they didn't do so over the past week, when it was shorter? Of course I have no problem with you (or anyone) unclosing a thread I've closed, but if you conclude that no further action will be taken here, perhaps consider re-closing this thread yourself. ^Leviv_ich 16:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip is obviously not going to close this. Can I ask how I can report onetwothreeip for vexatiously reopening this case and further intimidating me? Do I open a fresh case here against onetwothreeip for harassment and using ANI to intimidate me. Onetwothreeip says "I don't have a problem with dispute resolution at all" yet they then quickly listed me here at ANI straight after I had suggested it and has flatly refused to resolve our difference through the proper resolution process. I realise this is personal with onetwothreeip who simply doesn't like me and I sure don't like them either however an editor shouldn't be able to use ANI to report another editor they simply don't like. I have even apologised for being uncivil myself at times, and I am willing to be civil and discuss content only and try and resolve our issues through dispute resolution processes. I thought we could move on after this case had been closed. However seeing that onetwothreeip has reopened this to further harass and intimidate me should I be gathering all of the uncivil comments onetwothreeip has sent my way or can an administrator simply close this please and we use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to resolve this as we are supposed to do? Merphee (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

First of all my apologies to TelosCricket who went to close this section again and didn't know I was already in the process of typing another response. I've re-opened this so that I can publish this. This was their message in closing: Revenge reporting to ANI will help no one. Y'all were warned about edit warring. Y'all were advised to seek dispute resolution. The community consensus appears to be that no admin action is needed at this time. Re-opening this thread will not likely change that.

Myself and other editors have already agreed to "dispute resolution" but Merphee doesn't actually do anything to bring other people into the discussion, either in a proper or improper way. They can put it through RfC if they want, it's something like six editors against one currently, but they haven't. The 8,000 words and 50,000 characters are mostly Merphee's writings were they completely misrepresent what this is about. This is not about resolving a dispute of any article, this is about a pattern of disruptive behaviour where they continuously make edits established to be against consensus. Merphee has managed to change that discussion into one about what should be the proper way of handling some editing dispute. The dispute is already resolved, several editors not including myself have been reverting their edits that are against consensus. If there is anybody here who doesn't think a topic ban is justified, then what would justify a topic ban, why is a topic ban not justified here? Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I may be content with closing this and starting a new one to be more focused on their repeated disruptive behaviour rather than characterising it as a dispute about The Australian. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I completely reject these false accusations assertions and consider your repeated reporting and reopening of this case and threats of new cases as intimidation and harassment. If you do start yet another case I will certainly fight back. It is an absolute and complete lie that "it's something like six editors against one currently" and I don't trry to involve other editors. This attempt here [142] to invite other editors to participate in an independent dispute resolution process disproves this false accusation. In fact, onetwothreeip has not even bothered commenting on this proposed edit. It is fresh and onetwothreeip is continuing to create trouble here presenting false information. If you do start another vexatious case against me onetwothreeip as you just threatened to do to intimidate and harass me, I will certainly fight back and show the community how abusive and uncivil you have been toward me and how this is about a personal dislike for me given previous interactions and revenge on your part. Or you could just Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. I am willing to start afresh with you and us work together to resolve this in a civil manner. Your behaviour here is disruptive to the extreme and I wish an administrator would just close this case once and for all that onetwothreeip keeps arrogantly reopening and also consider applying sanctions on them if they continue to harass and intimidate me. Merphee (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

You've only brought up dispute resolution on this page and at The Australian. Have you actually sought dispute resolution yet? Otherwise it's just you keep talking about it but not actually going ahead with it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

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

While it's certainly time that this was closed, the message written in the closing by User:EdChem is very disagreeable. If you believe that myself, Curdle, Pinkbeast or Hughesdarren have been edit warring, you should report us for that or you should withdraw it. You should also withdraw the allegation that we have been writing "walls of text" which is clearly what Merphee has been doing. Merphee wrote 21 separate posts which were mostly very lengthy, while I wrote thirteen, Curdle wrote four, Pinkbeast wrote two, and Hughesdarren wrote one. As for the usefulness of this incident report, I provided five diffs in my opening statement and other users provided their own as well, and I was never asked to provide any more. I think if this comes to ANI again, there should be some sort of restriction on Merphee making the ridiculously long and numerous comments, as I agree they are discouraging of other editors reading this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip:If you disagree about what was stated in the closing message, and wanted to talk about it, you should have made a different section here at ANI or at AN or even over at User Dispute noticeboard. However by placing what you placed you only are continuing this matter even further. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 05:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with closing this section. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Persistant vandalism and spamming by user YugoBasket

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

---

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

Persistant vandalism of Panathinaikos B.C. and my talk page, by this hooligan. He has been warned many times, by adminstrators and by me, but he doesn't pay any attention. He also copies my warnings from his talk page, and posting them back onto mine. This user is a hooligan of Olympiacos, and keeps reverting the edits on Panathinaikos B.C., removing sources from the OFFICIAL website of the team, claiming that they are not reliable (lol). I am asking that the user is blocked from editing, because no matter how many times he is warned, he doesn't stop his disruptive editing. Thank you. --Panosgatto (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Panosgatto: No, subject web sites are not "reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking".-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh my. Do I still need to invite YugoBasket?-- Dlohcierekim (talk)

Guess not.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I just blocked both editors for 48 hours for edit-warring (they were both at about 10RR) before I saw this report. Neither editor seems to be attempting any discussion over what may be a valid content dispute. There is the start of a discussion on the talk page involving some now indeff'd editors and I get that Greek sports seems to be a contentious area but that's not an excuse for blind reversions of each others work. Nthep (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

"nobody's right when everybody's wrong". Give 'em time to refine their arguments.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nthep: You blocked YugoBasket for 48h and Panosgatto for 24h.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Damn, I meant 48 hrs - reblocked. Nthep (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Revdel 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, Could someone revdel from here to here please - How this has remained for 4 years is anyones guess but it should probably be hidden, Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Done. It's better to ask privately (via email) of one of the people in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests or even go straight to the oversighters. Instructions for that are at WP:Oversight — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, My apologies hindsight's a lovely thing, Just didn't think about OS sorry, Anyway thanks for kindly dealing with this, –Davey2010^Talk 23:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

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

redacted

The following discussion is closed. 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 thought it advisable to report this comment. --Ebyabe (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Emailed emergency@. --Rschen7754 03:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Scheiße, Wikipedia. I take my eyes off you for a couple of hours. Seriously, revdel'd; probably needs oversight. In future, just go straight to Special:EmailUser/Emergency for this sort of thing.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Zeinass racial insult

The following discussion is closed. 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 also on WP:AIV and WP:SPI for block reasons, but can the racial insult please be removed from this edit summary ? (after a block if necessary). ​--Muhandes (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done dealt with by Zzuuzz. Nthep (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Any CU interested in a new rabbit hole?

A couple of days ago, I discovered a suspicious bunch of spambots and reported them to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JedUba5608719345. See also this enlightening discourse. JedUba5608719345 is not the oldest account of this porn-spamming batch; that honor probably belongs to TuyetMcclanahan (talk · contribs · count).

Naturally, it gets more complicated... some digging reveals similar spambots going back years, albeit spamming different links. I have blocked these additional accounts as spambots of the same feather, many of which are clearly JedUba5608719345:

List

Cathleen2201 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) SCGGlen48967 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) SusannaCiv (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) AdanRuth637666 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) DouglasGaskin2 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) AIVLashawn (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) MellissaGpy (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) TandyIih252 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) TiffaniScott (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) DyanFitch175913 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) RodneyColton (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) JuniorHarrap041 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Margery53L (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Eva559354078 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) GustavoBales (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Domains: maxwill.com.sg: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com eachnewplayerishere.blogspot.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com seks-spotkanie.blogspot.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com sex-telefon-daria.blogspot.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com sekswwarszawie.blogspot.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com kitty-rachel.blogspot.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Pinging Edgar181, who has dealt with this farm. Was curious if any CU wants to take a closer look. Thanks very much for your help, GAB^gab 21:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked a bunch of accounts like these based on behavior (creating an account, immediately creating a userpage with a distinct pattern including an external link, then never editing again). The domains appear to be different each time - there are as many as there are accounts. It may be worth starting a Wikipedia:Long-term abuse page to document the problem and have something to point to when editors report them or admins block them. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

That style you describe, Ed, has been going on all over the web for years. Whether it's user pages, article comments, or whatever reader input the site supports. It's not just one spambot operator, but thousands of them, all most likely using similar spambot software. I don't see any benefit in making a list at LTA for all that stuff, just RBI. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

What Boing! said. Also just noting that #wikimedia-stewards ^connect and m:SRG are probably the quickest way to deal with spambots in general and get the underlying IPs blocked globally. That's where I'd report any new ones (and is how I deal with them personally most of the time.) TonyBallioni (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd somewhat echo what others have said, this has been going on for years, and there's probably at least a couple per day. They have a generic name, m:NTSAMR (compare this). I would say that, though Stewards are useful as it can be a global problem, local CUs do sometimes take an interest - not to identify any sockmaster, but just to do some cleanup where the stewards don't reach. It's an endless task though. WT:WPSPAM can be useful to collate and blacklist the stuff. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

PS, you can add WoodrowAlves493 to this list (@MER-C:). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, to clarify, I wasn’t saying we don’t do checks here (I do, usually when MER-C or someone else pings me.) More of, steward involvement is usually quicker than an SPI and can get the underlying ranges globally blocked. We can of course do some things they can’t as well, but in part because of reporting problems here (which SPI to file, AIV admins thinking bots are good faith new users, etc.) SRG/#wikimedia-stewards tends to be the easiest way for most people to get attention to the problem. All spambots can be locked on sight, and the reporting of them at meta is much less complicated than here. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Concern about lack of timely SPIs

I'm concerned that two SPIs have gone without attention and would like to know if we need more admins reviewing them. I attempted to ask that at the second SPI that was closed because they were "too old" but Bbb23 reverted my questions without explanation [143] [144] [145], although the third came after he archived the lack of investigation and he then threatened to block me for doing so. I don't want to be a dick, but I do want to prevent from socks from thinking that they can "get away" with it. Not reporting Bbb23, but asking whether SPIs need help and how I can do so. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Interesting way of not reporting me. I reverted the first time because of the "attacking" way Walter's comments were couched: "Are admins over worked or do you just not want to investigate some cases?" Cases involving IPs are closed frequently because the IP edits become too old. There's no point in blocking IPs who stop being disruptive. Are they getting away with it? Maybe so, but IPs often get away with things, but if they stop, then that should be the end of it. In this instance, I gave Walter a roadmap in case the disruption resumed ("If the disruption resumes, request semi-protection"), which is more than is usually done. After that, Walter started reverting me, which is not the way to handle his dissatisfaction. Eventually, I threatened him with a block. None of this is a good expenditure of my time - or Walter's.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining and assuming good faith. I really do want to know if the admins are overworked and why two SPIs were closed without investigation while other SPIs are frequently acted on withing an hour of being reported. So the reason is why are they not investigated as quickly? The roadmap would not work for the previous case as it affected a range of articles, not one. And quite frankly, if admins are too busy to investigate a simple WP:DUCK SPI case, I doubt that they will have the time to protect one or more articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The comment about protection was sound for this report. I don't know about the other one you refer to. Again, as to this case, my closure was based on an investigation. Finally, don't presuppose what will happen when you request protection - or any other kind of administrative action. You're making far too many baseless assumptions, both about SPI and about administrators.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/104.162.103.159 is the other case and you closed it. This shows that other admins are not stepping in. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• I recently complained to Bbb about his overly-aggressive conduct at SPI, so I'm sensitive to a SPI conduct complaint coming so close to one I raised. In my case, Bbb offered a reasonable motivation after the fact, and I think he has here as well. However, having a reasonable perspective isn't a cop-out for out of line conduct, and I was literally just trying to explain this to him. Bbb was fine to close the SPI report and refer the user to RFPP. That's not really a big deal, and perhaps Walter was even being obnoxious complaining about that result. But, when he responded with annoyance at his report being closed as stale, after having taken over two days to have been actioned, Bbb's response to not only delete his comments, but to rollback him, and threatening to block him, was not appropriate. In fact, according to WP:ROLLBACKUSE, it's a straightforward abuse of an administrative privilege, that can result in revocation of the mop. I recently speculated about whether the lack of participation at SPI was related to excessively impatient and aggressive conduct from the "SPI team", and whether or not Bbb is intended to be the subject of this report, the question again comes to the forefront.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  09:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

User Smittypots

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

---

Smittypots (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user has been around since late 2017 and has less than 1,000 edits. I had not noticed this user until today, while working on an AWB run to locate, remove, or remedy all instances of Wikipedia being used as a source in the articles. I am about 15% complete with the run, which has about 3,500 instances. So far, I located two instances where Smittypots inserted the ref to WP.

That's all fine and good. I can fix up the inevitable remaining instances, but after leaving a message on Smittypot's blank talk page regarding using WP as a source, I noticed that Lapadite77 messaged them in June 2018 for the same issue. Lapdte77's message came about two months after Smittypot's one and only short term block for adding unsourced material.

I rarely use this forum, but thought that this was worth mentioning for the greater good. I have notified the editor. Here is an example [146] Dawnseeker2000 18:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• Looking at their very first edits, it is easy to see they had substantial experience with Wikipedia before registering this account. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Probably, like me and others, they first started editing editing anonymously as an IP account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• FYI: judging by Wikipedia:Teahouse#I'm_Confused..., either they are very good at trolling us (unlikely), or they are redeemable with some hand-holding. Not watchlisting, ping if needed. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Smittypots: Can you please acknowledge 1) that you will not use Wikipedia articles to source other Wikipedia articles and 2) where you learned to do this? This was brought here to solve a problem and once we have this information we can close this thread. Thank you, Dawnseeker2000 15:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why this is here. We have an example of an inexperienced user who is unfamiliar with a particular policy being rushed into litigation. Instead of threatening blocks and dragging them into court, why not help them learn how to do it right? A confusingly-worded boilerplate warning is almost always a complete waste of time in communicating effectively, I dislike most of the templated warnings for this reason, unless it is plainly obvious the person is actively trying to destroy Wikipedia. It seems pretty clear here this is an infrequent editor who has not often interacted with the rest of the community and may be unaware of some arcane aspect of Wikipedia policy because no one discussed it with them before. Please, Dawnseeker2000, take the time it would have taken to work up this ANI report, to instead craft a well worded, friendly conversation with the person to explain the problems to them, and perhaps even fix some of their mistakes and show them how to do it right so they can become better at editing. That's the whole point of WP:AGF. --Jayron32 19:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I would not have brought this here if another editor hadn't already taken the time to clearly communicate what the problem was or if Smittypots hadn't blanked every communication that was posted on their talk page. And by the way, this isn't court; it is a place where editors can communicate about issues in a public (visible) place. Also, what are you talking about boilerplate warnings for? And finally, I am making the corrections. No response necessary (It looks like Jayron32 did not read my original post, or maybe they just didn't follow the links or fully understand what I'd said). Dawnseeker2000 23:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Please close. I will monitor the situation by continuing to scan the database for instances of WP being used as a source. Thank you Dawnseeker2000 00:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dawnseeker2000: I acknowledge the following: 1) to stop using Wikipedia articles to to source other Wikipedia articles, and 2) was unclear to me. Learn to do what?.

Thank you. For the second part, I was curious if you had the idea to use Wikipedia as a source on your own or if you saw it done that way in one of the articles and assumed that that was OK. Thanks a ton for responding, and if there's ever anything that comes up that you're unsure of or want a second opinion on, feel free to post on my talk page and ask. This is a very complex web site with a lot of very different people contributing. Thanks again, Dawnseeker2000 04:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Empty edit 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.

---

I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this (but I don't know where else to put it). An IP editor, 103.213.128.152, has spent the past two days flooding Talk:2019 Formula One World Championship with edit requests (I count four) that do not have any actual content; there is just a section header, edit request template and signature. 1.129.105.99 (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I have left the editor a message asking if they are having trouble. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Mrspaceowl

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

---

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

Persistent WP:NOTHERE behavior from this (relatively new) editor. They've already been blocked once for edit-warring. Now they're re-inserting their preferred text on Farmers and Fishermen: Two Centuries of Work in Essex County, Massachusetts, 1630-1850 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) after not getting the results they wanted on the talk page (earlier diffs here and here), repeatedly removing others' talk page comments (here and here), and making apparent legal threats here. I've tried explaining normal dispute resolution procedures on their talk page, which they replied to by saying the process looked "overly beauracratic ... and (likely) to uphold a few established Wikipedians above all others". In short, this user appears to have little interest in working collaboratively with others to build an encyclopedia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I am afraid I agree that continued ability of this user to edit Wikipedia is not beneficial for the project.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• It's traditional for the community to require more pain before a user like this is indeffed but a firm reaction would save a lot of trouble. The argument at Farmers and Fishermen is particularly silly because it concerns a book and Mrspaceowl wants to add text about a mention of the book in an unrelated film (text which, if belonging anywhere, would be in the article about the film). On talk, Mrspaceowl responded to calm explanations with off-topic remarks about emotional strength (diff). They then twice removed a reasonable reply and made a very strange complaint when reverted (diffs above). Johnuniq (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
• @Black Kite: you previously blocked this user, with the suggestion that the next one might be permanent/indefinite. Do you have anything to add here? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Obviously, Mrspaceowl has some room for growth in terms of understanding Wikipedia's policies and standards regarding user conduct. Removing other editor's comments is not appropriate, nor are some of the other things pointed out above. However, what the filer is calling for seems excessively harsh, and there doesn't seem to be a strong enough body of evidence to support WP:NOTHERE. Sangdeboeuf's warnings on MrSpaceOwl's talkpage are mostly correct; however, the presentation could've been more tactful, and it's understandable that a user might become defensive or intimidated in response to what they perceived to be repeated confrontations by another, more experienced editor. The reported user deserves a warning over edit-warring and should be directed to WP:TPG, and should definitely take some time to cool off before returning to the page where the dispute occurred. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

And what is the filer calling for, exactly? I haven't made any specific request for action that I can see. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

By citing WP:NOTHERE, you seem to be suggesting an indefinite or permanent block. Perhaps you could clarify? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually I think your suggestion of "time to cool off" is in the ballpark. Maybe a month-long block would do it? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Cool down blocks are discouraged. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I suggest a nice WP:COOLDOWNBOCK instead. EEng 04:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Deference to the wisdom on display here. Mrspaceowl (talk) 05:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate your comment above that you'll defer to the wisdom others have contributed here. However, just 25 minutes later, there's this. Please don't do stuff like that. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Gosh, you think that was Mrs. Pace Owl? Whatever tipped you off? EEng 22:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

So I'm not allowed to add incontoverably factual material of significant notability back to Wikipedia? Isn't that the opposite of WP:NOTHERE? Mrspaceowl (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

No. You haven't persuaded others of your claim of "notability", and instead of listening to their objections, you keep edit-warring to force your text into the article. That's disruptive behavior. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Mrs. Pace Owl just won't stop [147]. EEng 15:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Good call!

-EEng

Did you read his/her user page? This editor has an agenda: violating WP:RULES, which he/she regards as tyranny. Smacks of WP:SOCK, see the many user boxes on his/her user page: those are highly unusual for a newbie and posit the same agenda. Old-fashioned wikipedian values? What does he/she know about that? Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

See his recent edits at Wikipedia:Rouge admin[148] reverted first by User:Bishonen and now by me, and his post to Bish[149] and comments on his talk page. I see no evidence he's here to improve Wikipedia. Given the context of this discussion and his recent blocks, his edits to Rouge admin was clearly WP:POINTY Doug Weller talk 16:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Right. Since I and Doug Weller have both reverted and warned them, I suppose neither of us have any appetite for blocking. But isn't it enough? Ymblanter? Black Kite? Anybody? Bishonen | talk 17:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC).

 Done, blocked for two weeks, given some advice at the talk page, and this likely will be the last piece of rope this user gets.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Good call. Bishonen | talk 17:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC).

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

Incident from January 31 to February 2, 2019 (UTC) on Template talk:Infobox school#Proposal: Delete fields for ACT and SAT scores

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

---

From January 31 to February 2, 2019 (UTC), User:ElKevbo repeatedly violated Wikipedia etiquette guidelines and civility conduct policy in his discussion with me on the Template talk:Infobox school#Proposal: Delete fields for ACT and SAT scores. This is not the first instance of this same user being rude to me, as he was in a previous discussion (Talk:University of Massachusetts Boston#Street address). I followed site etiquette guidelines (i.e. stating politely that I felt his comments were rude and remained polite during the discussion) and also followed site guidelines for civility warnings (i.e. explicitly stating which policies that I felt he was in violation of and followed the established four-step warning process as far as I felt that I could as a non-administrator). I believe that this incident qualifies as an example of hounding, and I respectfully request that an administrator review the incident and issue User:ElKevbo a final warning, as I do not feel that I have the authority to do so. -- Jajhill (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

This is way out of line. but on Jajhill's part. user:ElKevbo's first post to the thread was to ask the simple and polite question "What makes this information so essential that it must be included in this infobox?" [150]. Jajhill's response to this included "(Additionally, your comments strongly suggest that you should review Wikipedia's etiquette guidelines and civility conduct policies because the tone of your comments are rude, and even more so because this is not the first time you have been rude to me on a talk page discussion.)" [151]. ElKevbo's question wasn't uncivil or rude, and Jajhill] bringing up a past incident between the two was not appropriate for that thread.

ElKevbo's second post to the thread was another polite and to the point question asking for sources [152]. Jahill responded with the sources, but again claimed that ElKevbo's posts were rude.[153]

I don't know about any previous history or hounding between these two, but this ANI report does not appear to be valid in the least. I suggest a boomerang. Meters (talk) 05:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I see a lot of sound and fury, but no supporting difs from @Jajhill:. Please provide dif's of instance of actually following around where ElKevbo should not have. Dlohcierekim talk 05:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Meters: His first question was not polite. It was intentionally sarcastic. Even if it wasn't, he did not clarify his comments, as per Wikipedia etiquette guidelines stipulate. -- Jajhill (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

It does not sound sarcastic to me in the least. Asking why information is needed in the infobox seems to be a straightforward question. Your assumption oi his intentions is not appropriate, and I see no need for him to clarify a very simply and straight forward question..I strongly recommend that you withdraw this ANI. Meters (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't hear any sarcasm in his first two questions; his irritation in his third comment (which is not a personal attack) is understandable. As Meters, I suggest you withdraw this and head back to the talk page. Mackensen (talk) 05:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

As this thread continues to be an item, I'd like to bring up this oddity from 2017. I did not know we were still doing civility warnings. It was the last post I could find on ElKevbo 's talk from Jajhill. Something's amiss Dlohcierekim talk 05:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

That is before this ANI notice. I'lll go look for the earlier ANI. Dlohcierekim talk 05:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive964#User:ElKevbo_UMass_Boston_page_edit_summaries_&_talk_page_edits:_civility_warning_request. Dlohcierekim talk 06:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• The OP has been crowbarring 18-wheeler truckloads of grotesque trivia into articles (example here [154]) for years, and needs to stop whining and start listening to the good advice of experienced editors. EEng 06:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Good God, man! You should have warned readers about the green. I've been blinded by the emerald dazzlingnes! Dlohcierekim talk 06:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: I don't know what a diff is.

@Meters, Mackensen, and EEng: I'd be more willing to listen to your advice if you all weren't rude when you give it. The guidelines clearly state that editors should "not hesitate to politely let the others know if you are not comfortable with their tone" so I did. I did not ignore his questions. I stuck to the facts. He made no effort to clarify or apologize for any unintentional offense. I reiterated that I felt that his tone was inappropriate. He still made no effort to clarify or apologize for any unintentional offense. That is why you are wrong that his third comment was not a personal attack with profanity. But I suspect that none of you are going to see things from my point of view, and intentionally so, since these types of forums seem to be dominated by a small group of people who back each other up in internal disputes regardless of whether they are wrong or not. I'd just rather my account be deleted instead of continuing with this because I am sick of dealing with people like all of you on this site because you have destroyed any motivation for people like me who aren't part of the small club of administrators to contribute. If none of you can see that I was just trying to contribute to a conversation and I that I did nothing wrong, and I was the one who was victimized, then there is no reason for me to even bother continuing to have an account. It's been a nice 13 years, but I guess editors who aren't who aren't members of the club just aren't welcome here anymore. -- Jajhill (talk) 06:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

13 years, you say? Then it's high time you learned--Wikipedia:Simplest diff guide. It isn't hard. Dlohcierekim talk 06:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Wow. You come here with a spurious complaint about another editor, and then complain about feeling unwelcome 'cause people point out the spuriousness of your complaint. Welcome to edit at your leisure or not, but if you bring spuriousness here, you will be called on it, as would anyone. Dlohcierekim talk 06:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Not a spurious complaint. But none of you would recognize that. Just delete my account. -- Jajhill (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• I was just trying to contribute to a conversation and ... did nothing wrong – I'm sure that's true
• I was the one who was victimized – No, you weren't "victimized" in any way, and you've gotta stop interpreting normal interactions that way.

No one wants to see you leave, but you need to try harder to interpret other editors' interactions with you through the lens of WP:Assume good faith. EEng 06:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The consensus here is clearly unanimous that ElKevbo did nothing wrong, and this should be closed before Jajhill shoots himself in the foot. I'd do it myself, but will be somewhat INVOLVED as I intend to speak to the issue at the talk page. If someone feels tossing the Australian weapon is appropriate, I suppose that is another thing, but really I dont see a block as an appropriate remedy for being way too thin-skinned, at least without a demonstrated pattern. I dont see looking for that pattern as an effective use of anyone's Wiki-time. YMMV. John from Idegon (talk) 06:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

No, no need for anything drastic. Jajhill has been given a lot to take in. Hopefully they will. If there's anyone around who could close this. . . . Dlohcierekim talk 06:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@EEng, Dlohcierekim, and John from Idegon: I've tried to assume good faith on the part of editors like you for years but when you make comments like "crowbarring 18-wheeler truckloads of grotesque trivia into articles for years, and needs to stop whining and start listening to the good advice of experienced editors", when in point of fact my account is older then yours (I just checked your edit history and compared it to my own), it leads me to seriously doubt that people like you don't want to see me leave. Maybe "victimized" is too strong of word, but I do not believe that I am wrong. I am not asking that User:ElKevbo be blocked or banned, just that he be more polite. That's all. But, since none of you will recognize that that is all I am asking for, it's probably best that I just leave for good because none of you seem to actually recognize rudeness for what it is when it actually happens. Just delete my account please. -- Jajhill (talk) 07:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

At any rate, we don't delete accounts. You are free to go-- or stay-- as you please. But whatever you choose, let it be because it is what you want to do. Dlohcierekim talk 07:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Jajhill, can you please tell me what it is want me to respond to? If there's nothing here I needed to respond to, please explain why you pinged me. Also you may want to look to any basic high school grammar textbook for the concept "antecedent". Multiple times both here and in the discussion in question here, you've used the pronoun "you" immediately after pinging multiple editors. In my (and I doubt I'm alone in this) view, one of the most uncivil things any editor can ever do to another editor is waste their time. You've done that here x3. First, this complaint initially lacked any evidence, despite the big box both in the edit window and atop the page telling you it is required. Second, you are pinging people for no reason. Third, your unwillingness or inability to write in a grammatical way is leaving us all scratching our heads. Additionally, the mere fact that you brought this case is a waste of community time. I don't know what you do or did for a living, but it couldn't possibly include any group decision making processes like committees or boards if you think that either the discussion at hand here, or the discussion that brought you here is lacking civility. My congregational church's board of directors meetings are far far more uncivil than that. I see 0 zip nada that could, even in the most liberal interpretation, be called uncivil. Lastly, please explain how it is you are privy to what ElKevbo's intentions are. I mean if you are clairvoyant perhaps you'd be so kind as to help out with our efforts to battle sockpuppetry and PAID editing. If you are not clairvoyant, you should strike your statement above speaking to Kevin's intentions. That sir, is the extent of the incivility in either this or the subject discussion. And it is coming from you. John from Idegon (talk) 08:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim and John from Idegon: No, Dlohcierekim. I'll do what the community wants, which is for me to leave (by a courtesy vanish if possible). John from Idegon, when I said "I've tried to assume good faith on the part of editors like you for years," I meant you too. That's why I pinged you when you entered the discussion. You are easily the rudest and most biased administrator I have ever encountered on this entire site. The only reason why you say that "this complaint initially lacked any evidence" is because you refuse to acknowledge what rude behavior is online within the parameters of this site's own etiquette policies. But I guess the only reason why I would say that is because I'm obviously too stupid or uneducated to understand the site's etiquette policies. (Like you said, I don't even seem to have the ability to write grammatically.) The only reason why I complained about someone using profanity in a personal attack or using indirect criticism is because that is what they did and it violates the site's civility policies. But no, like you said, I'm too unsophisticated and inexperienced in group decision making processes to recognize what rude behavior actually is. After all, you clearly do have the clairvoyance to ascertain what people do or did for a living without ever having met them. I don't need to be privy to what ElKevbo's intentions were. I felt his comments were rude, which according to my apparently simplistic reading of the site's etiquette policies is something you should be able to file a complaint about since it used to say after all "Do not hesitate to politely let the others know if you are not comfortable with their tone." (Although, I notice that it has now been conveniently changed.) No, John from Idagon, there is no reason why anyone should apologize to someone who has been rude to them, whether they have clairvoyance or not. I'm going to begin the courtesy vanishing process now if I can. -- Jajhill (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

For those wondering what the "convenient change" is, it's that I changed [155]

Do not hesitate to politely let the others know if you are not comfortable with their tone

to read

It may help to politely let the others know you are not comfortable with their tone

My edit summary was Given a thread currently at ANI, maybe a bit of hesitation now and then is in order. EEng 19:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Prophecy from a passer-by: in less than three weeks, this promise of a diva retirement will be followed by a diva come-back. No need to be a mudang for that. Pldx1 (talk) 10:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Personal Attacks from User:86.180.2.238

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

---

Tornado chaser (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I have warned this user before about it on Air Senegal and they wrote this on my talk page FU*K YOU AND STOP MESSAGING MY FU*K*NG TALK PAGE. JETSTREAMER IS *AY, JUST LIKE YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They took it too far. Hutyiou (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Not sure this is worthy of ANI yet, but the attack message is in the style of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Nate Speed. Home Lander (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd say it is the style of someone trying to get around filter Special:AbuseFilter/225. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked, could really go to WP:AIV for this - obviously a vandal who has been blocked in the past. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Galobtter: Who's the vandal? Can you please do something with Hutyiou (talk · contribs) [156]?.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Jetstreamer, what are you asking for? Isn't the user merely (ineptly) copying the other person's messages? Drmies (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. Striked out my previous message.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Galobtter, Drmies, and Bbb23: On a second thought, seems the user and the IP are the same person [157].--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Jetstreamer, they've been blocked by Bbb23 as a sock of Fly High in the Sky. Home Lander (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 Signpost vandalized

The following discussion is closed. 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 version of the Signpost that's sent out to users now looks like this on every user talkpage where it appears. I can't find the original to fix it. Anybody? Bishonen | talk 06:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC).

And now looks like it's supposed to. Thank you, anonymous benefactor. Bishonen | talk 06:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC).

Well, I must say, mine looked fine to begin with. Dlohcierekim talk 06:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You probably clicked on it too late, Dlohc, and missed the fine big pic of Oshwah's hair and Oshwah that had been inserted. (Unfortunately there was also some less appealing text.) Bishonen | talk 20:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC).

It is impressive hair, mind (says the oldie with thinning locks). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Using the related changes feature, I figured out that we can thank Ohnoitsjamie for saving the day here. Graham87 08:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I batch protected the past issues of the Signpost (well, at least the ones with more than 500 transclusions) with the help of MusikAnimal's query provided here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

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

71.208.9.225

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

---

Resolved

 – Amorymeltzer blocked him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

71.208.9.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) WP:NOTHERE, likely sock. Cards84664 (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

71.215.207.160 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as well. Cards84664 (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Could we give them a rangeblock? Cards84664 (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• • • They aren't on the same network. One is centurylink, the other is qwest. One could be phone, other a computer for the same person. I blocked the 2nd IP. If needed, we can use short term semiprotection. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: That might help more. Tack on 71.215.21.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) & 71.208.40.40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as well. Cards84664 (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

and 71.215.240.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Cards84664 (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Septagrite redirecting their talk page to a NSFW image

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

---

Warning, don't click on that user's page and talk page at work or around people!

This user, reported at WP:AIV is redirecting their talk page to File:Raphe perinealis in 21-year-old female.jpg (again, NSFW). I'd block since they don't seem to be here to contribute anyway, but since talk page access would probably need to be revoked as well I think a second opinion would be wise. -- Luk ^talk 10:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Their second edit was to redirect their user page to another image in the Category:Restricted images, so they are clearly not a new user. They then tried arguing that links to such images were acceptable, and tried obfuscation by claiming prejudice - Arjayay (talk) 10:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I think a CU block would be appropriate here. I can't say for sure who the sockmaster is, but interested parties might want to check my blocking log in the near future. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: if you haven't figured it out already, that's Architect 134. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• I removed the redirect. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot zzuuzz! (Damn I miss these CU tools sometimes :)) -- Luk ^talk 11:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 this racist troll

The following discussion is closed. 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 someone please block this unregistered editor? He or she is clearly trolling. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Holy cow. I am neither a racist nor a troll. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wanted people to be judged on the content of their character, not the color of their skin; i.e., he wanted race to become irrelevant. I stated an identical position in my recent contribution to Talk:Hillsdale College. Those who are deleting my contribution, therefore, are arguably racist.

oh, nooooohs. Dlohcierekim talk

P.S. Wikipedia policy has been violated here, because I was not notified on my user talk page that this discussion had been started. 174.24.30.208 (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

This has got to be the most audacious "No, you" responce I've ever seen. If you can't see how that responce is trolling, then you either cannot or will not make a distinction. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 03:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

It's very offensive. What's wrong with you?--Cristina Neagu (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Reviewed it. You don't seem to be suggesting an edit to the article, but merely seeking a conversation. GoodDay (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@174.24.30.208: Welp. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Clearly trolling on a talk page, and article talk pages are for discussing articles, not asking stupid, offensive, irrelevant questions.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Revdel'd Let me no if I missed.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Consider yourself free to no anytime you want. EEng 04:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE editing by "Mahdi.305"

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

---

• Mahdi.305 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is just the tip of the iceberg:

• Changed sourced figures on the "Azerbaijan" page. No edit summary/explanation. 1st attempt.[158]
• Changed sourced figures on the "Azerbaijan" page. No edit summary/explanation. 2nd attempt.[159]
• Changed sourced figures on the "List of countries by GDP (PPP)". No edit summary explanation. 1st attempt.[160]
• Changed sourced figures on the "List of countries by GDP (PPP)". No edit summary/explanation. 2nd attempt.[161]
• Changed sourced content on the "Azerbaijan" page. No edit summary/explanation. 3rd attempt.[162]
• Changed sourced figures on the "Jewish population by country" page. No edit summary/explanation. 1st attempt.[163]
• Changed sourced figures on the "Azerbaijan" page. No edit summary/explanation. 4th attempt.[164]
• Changed sourced content on the "Georgia (country)" page. No edit summary/explanation.[165]

Though "Mahdi.305" has received numerous warnings from various users,[166] he doesn't bother to respond. Looking at the compelling evidence (continued disruption, not interested in cooperating/responding), its safe to say that he is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Indeffed. A random look at their contrib log makes me think this is deliberate vandalism. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Migsmigss

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

---

Migsmigss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been causing disruption on pageantry articles since they first began editing the Miss Universe 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Catriona Gray (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) articles. They have been widely disruptive and refuses to compromise with other editors, forcing their way in (as can be seen here, here, and here). Many of their edits consist of them monopolizing these articles, and whenever another editor expresses a different viewpoint, Migsmigss accuses them of vandalism and threatens to have them blocked (even though the edits are far from vandalism). It appears a lot of their edits constitute Filipino nationalism. During Miss World 2016, many Filipinos were angered that Stephanie Del Valle defeated Catriona Gray, and Migsmigss took it upon themselves to continue to re-add highly disgusting, libelous, and wholly negative content to Del Valle's article that honestly should be hidden from view. What Migsmigss added has the potential to have a detrimental impact on Del Valle's life and career.

As I was an editor who caught several of Migsmigss's edits, I assume that they began to dislike me, and then began personally harassing me. I logged on to Wikipedia today to discover that they had gone through my recent edit history and simply undid all of my edits. This can be seen here, here, and here. As annoying as this, it is not the first time that a bitter editor had done this to me, so I reverted their reversions and left them a warning on Migsmigss's talk page regarding harassment of other editors. My warning was greeted with a threat from Migsmigss, with them stating "I might be forced to also tag you as a Wiki vandal and have you banned", also threatening me with them stating they will "submit [their] evidence archives".

I first reported the entire incident to the admin intervention against vandalism noticeboard, but was redirected by the admins to take this to content dispute instead. I believe that something needs to be done about this situation, and editors who continuously are breaking the rules and harassing other editors should not be left with no consequences. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 00:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, this is in response to the above allegations.

I reverted User:Jjj1238's description of judges for neutrality; the nationalities of the judges are irrelevant, rather, included more information on their advocacies, professional life, and charities. The nationalities - and race - of these judges have been blatantly used to sway the opinion of readers that the judging panel was non-objective in its decisions during the contest, an unfounded rumor without proof, evidence, or valid source reference, therefore rendering it unneutral.

Her edits at the Miss Universe 2018 page are leaning towards bias, racial discrimination, ethnic discrimination, and vandalism.

Thanks.Migsmigss (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Update: Following me reporting Migsmigss, they came to my talk page to accuse me of racism and bias (both absurd claims). After explaining to them my positions, they threatened me once again and said they will get me blocked. After the discussion ended, I decided to archive my talk page (unrelated to the dispute, it was just overdue), and Migsmigss responded by reverting my own edits on my own talk page several times. This clearly goes against Wikipedia policy. This can all be seen here and here. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 01:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support some sort of action. Migsmigss is a prolific edit warrior, both in article space and non-article space. This user edit wars on the most stupid of things; check out Talk:Catriona Gray#Is music theory a proper noun?, and the amazingly awesome diatribe he spews out. This user edit warred on a user talk page that doesn't belong to him, and reverted for at least six times (Migsmigss' count!). Anything other than a block on that last occurrence would be disappointing at most from the sysops here. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

In response:

I will continue to monitor contributor User:Jjj1238's activities, as he has described me as an edit warrior, but not explaining why our arguments have been so. Again, his edits and contributions as evidenced on the Miss Universe 2018 page and history have been shown to lean on racism, bigotry, and the stirring of negative discussion on the event itself, the women involved, and their causes.

I will not be bothered by his obvious mudslining on my person, but will continue to be vigilant of his biased contributions and obvious racism. If we are to make Wikipedia a non-biased, neutral platform, editors and contributors - and yes, administrators - should watch out for contributors who are racists, bigots, and stirrers of conflict and negative-leaning issues, such as and very intensely exemplified by User:Jjj1238. Tagging User:Materialscientist for neutrality, and for admins's information.

Further, many other contributors have posted messages on User:Jjj1238's talk page, complaining of inconsistencies in his edits, especially on race and ethnicity, for example, his edits on Miss Universe 2017 Demi-Leigh Nel-Peters's page, and the obvious inconsistencies he has blatantly made to confuse the race of Demi, as evidenced by the complaints he had on his talk page - before his obvious archiving to maybe save face.

I am a relatively new contributor and editor, but I will never back down from intolerance bias, bigotry, or any other forms of discrimination, injustice, especially racism.

Thanks. Migsmigss (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Migsmigss, I will continue to monitor contributor User:Jjj1238's activities indicates that you have been monitoring their activities, which could well be a form of WP:HOUNDING. In what way have you been following their contributions? ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 02:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Bellezzasolo. Clarifying; this means to say if this contributor will still insist on race and nationality of judges, subtly implying a stirring of a negative issue on the judging at Miss Universe 2018. Said contributor has consistently used and brought up race and nationality - my own, included - in the arguments and discussions, so as to insist that my motivations in editing are my nationality, despite the fact I only added more details on the judges to show their professional history, philanthropy, and advocacies, and not downsizing them to just their ethnicities and nationalities, as what this contributor has so subtly - but still observably - done in his edits, showing his biased commentary, bigotry, and racism.

I am a new contributor, yes, and I am still finding my way here, but I will not stand for a contributor who will insist on his seniority just to further untruths and misrepresentations, especially those that espouse injustice, discrimination, bigotry, and false information. Thanks. Migsmigss (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Migsmigss, I'm sorry, I don't see "obvious racism". Regarding the comment I think you're talking about - ...Perhaps you are nervous people think Gray only won because the judging panel was half Filipino? Do not project, no one is thinking this... - [167]. It's a real push to see this even slightly reflecting on your nationality. Regarding descriptors of people, WP:ETHNICITY is a relevant guideline - at the core of it though, that's a content dispute. Ethnicity disputes get heated, but please assume good faith. The last conclusion I would be jumping to is racism. If there's something I'm missing here, please let me know. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 03:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Bellezzasolo. Please visit the editing history at Miss Universe 2018, and review the edit done by Jjj1238 and the edit I did on the judges descriptions. Jjj1238's edits were focused on nationality alone, without the judges' professional history, career backgrounders, and advocacies, etc., and upon editing, he described his edit as "simplifying and alphabetizing" which showed and resulted to neither. My edit was focused on these, the judges professional history, career backgrounders, and advocacies, etc. I refrained from including only their nationalities, like in other Miss Universe pages, as these are irrelevant to their task of judging. This will also avoid the rumours and issues, all unfounded, and leaning towards bias, that the two Filipino judges made Catriona Gray, which was the obvious aim of Jjj1238, by including only judges' nationalities and deleting all other information about them. I believe Wikipedia has always stood for neutrality and factual information, not on hearsay or bias? Jjj1238 has also repeatedly pointed out nationality as a core argument, when in fact it is irrelevant in all our contentions. Thanks. Migsmigss (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding complaints of fellow contributors here on User:Jjj1238, for your reference, as User:Jjj1238 has decided to archive his talk page after I have responded to his arguments and pointed out his obvious vandalism, bias, and racism. For your reference. Tagging User:Materialscientist for neutrality, and for admins's information.

Migsmigss (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

 Removed

If you want to add diffs, that's up to you, although most of these are way too old, but do not copy and paste the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks, Bbb23. Was just trying to prove a point. Anyway, if I will need to, I can still bring those diffs up. Thanks for the assistance. :) Migsmigss (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'm going off-wiki. Otherwise, I would block Migsmigss, for the repeated personal attacks if nothing else. I'll leave it to other admins to sort out.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23, why would you say "personal attacks?" Which of my arguments qualify as personal attacks, and which of Jjj1238's arguments have you not seen and reviewed?

I am new here, but I won't stand for this kind of harassment. Migsmigss (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Migsmigss, a personal attack on Wikipedia is when you stray from discussing an editors contributions into discussing an editors perceived motivations (e.g. which was the obvious aim of Jjj1238 is a personal attack, see also Wikipedia:Casting aspersions). It's easy for users inexperienced with ANI to accidentally become disruptive in the way they respond to a complaint against them, even if that complaint was untimely unfounded (I can't comment in this case). As with anything, if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Remember that each party to a dispute thinks they are right, so you best serve yourself by quietly providing any extra information we might need (if any at all really), and letting cooler heads sort it out. Don't try to prove points, that ends especially badly. TheDragonFire (talk) 09:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• I AM SO FUCKING SICK OF BEAUTY PAGEANT BULLSHIT AT ANI! "Many Filipinos were angered that Stephanie Del Valle defeated Catriona Gray" – nobody cares, and I would wager that includes most Filipinos. The beauty pageant articles and wrestling articles and Balkan football player articles should all be locked in a box and sunk to the bottom of the ocean, and their editors can jump in after them. EEng 03:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
• Y'know you don't have to visit ANI? Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
• Do I need to remind you that pro wrestling is under "General Sanctions" and as such outbursts like that will get you.... hmmm I don't know. How about General Sanctions for all topic in that box of yours? MPJ-DK (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

  Not a bad idea. BTW, I'd meant to exempt you from the wrestling editors who should be sunk to the bottom of the ocean. EEng 06:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Well then I have some scuba gear for sale then ;-) MPJ-DK (talk) 11:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Can you add longevity to that short list of banned subjects? And anime? 2601:1C0:6D00:845:1D9A:7850:A048:F792 (talk) 07:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
• ... and you forgot cryptocurrencies. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Nevertheless, I took a look at the original report. This kind of edit is completely unacceptable. So is edit warring to restore it, and so is persistently editing logged out.[168] Edit summaries like this are offensive and ridiculous. The recent obvious stalking and undoing of Jjj1238's edits, giving no reasons in the edit summaries, is worse, and the recent blatant harassment and edit warring on User talk:Jjj1238 is perhaps worst of all. I have blocked for two weeks. If Migsmigss resumes any of these kinds of disruption after the block, I believe the next block should be indefinite. Bishonen | talk 12:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC).

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

67.60.142.172 and ebolaoutbreakmap(dot)com

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

---

It's not that I don't appreciate the amazing contributions of 67.60.142.172, but here we are. THe memories: [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175] [176] [177] [178]

Then they were blocked.

Then they came back: african migrants somehow killed at US Border soldiers die at airport? 600 effected Those Congo Migrants heading to Tampa, FL tho who even knows where this one happened [179] [180] and finally... NFL ADMITS THE SUPERBOWL IS RIGGED.

It's sort of time they get blocked, though. It's a bit disruptive. Many thanks, ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 03:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

 Note: reported at WP:BLACKLIST for good measure. -- Luk ^talk 12:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Obvious sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benniejets needs a block

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

---

The carabiners anxiously await your report.

-EEng

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

• They're an obvious sock of globally blocked user Benniejets per geolocation, edits and general behaviour, and are also making legal threats (see User talk:Thomas.W#Denounce and their edits). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what are you talking about offending me.Administrator and /or company that will name me SOCKPUPPET will be denounced in penal and civil way to.I'm waiting to have the full list to present in Carabinieri HQ.It's valid all over EU.Now i've the full list.82.53.120.78 (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for a week for making legal threats. This seems to be a dynamic IP, but in any case if any passing admin wishes to lengthen the block, they should feel free to do so without consulting me. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Bennie is easy to spot, too easy to be any sport, but he sure is entertaining... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Dispute on Buncrana and my qualifications as an 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.

---

While doing recent changes patrol, I reverted this edit by Slavary ghost to Buncrana as it was unexplained removal of content and gave the appropriate {{uw-delete1}} warning. Earlier today, I received a talk page message from Slavary ghost in which they stated that they were correct and asked why I am qualified to revert their edit . I explained why I reverted and cited that I was patrolling, where qualification is not relevant and I was not making edits that would require expert knowledge of the subject. While doing so, I discovered that they made several similar edits on the same page that were reverted by other users with a similar rationale (see edit summaries in the revision history). My explanation was then met with a request to leave their edits alone, and declarations that I am challenging them as "an interfering busybody" who was harassing them and that I would be blocked if I continue.

The entire discussion from User talk:ComplexRational (permalink) is copied here for reference:

Changes to Buncrana Page

I made factual changes to the Buncrana history page. Everything I edited is correct. I am a member of West Inishowen History and Heritage Society based in Buncrana. What is your qualification? The mayor of Buncrana is listed as “Barry Doherty”. This is a complete fabrication. Is it your doing? Also the amazing grace story has absolutely no basis in fact. It is a tourist initiative set up by a born again Christian group who have their own self interest, not a historical one. Could you tell me what qualifies you to edit my facts? Slavary ghost (talk) 11:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC) @Slavary ghost: Thank you for your concern. The reason I reverted your change (special:diff/881505375) is because it removed sourced content without a clear explanation. Such changes are normally frowned upon, and unless the reason is obvious (e.g. a blatant hoax), they will most likely be reverted. If you believe the information was correct, please provide an explanation in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. Now that you also mention that you are a member of the West Inishowen History and Heritage Society, you must take extra care when editing these articles because of a possible conflict of interest. I also noticed that you have a history of edits that were reverted on that page by many editors - which strongly suggests that whatever changes you are making are either in contravention with consensus or are otherwise unconstructive; this constitutes an edit war and may result in a block if it persists. I recommend that you declare your conflict of interest and start a discussion on the talk page regarding what facts you believe are correct, and of course, keep in mind that reliable sources are required - unsourced material is routinely challenged and removed. And to answer your last question, my qualification is not really relevant because I was patrolling recent changes at the time, which means that I was reviewing the log of recent edits to check for potentially problematic ones (which requires more knowledge of Wikipedia policy than content of the articles, except in more complicated cases such as checking suspected hoaxes). Though when I do substantial addition or removal of content, I always make sure I understand what I write and cite the appropriate sources - that too is a fundamental policy. ComplexRational (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC) You did not answer my question. What qualifies you to change my facts? I do not see how being in a local historical society is in any way a conflict of interest when it comes to UPDATING LOCAL HISTORY. I see from your bio that you a still in school. Please leave my edits alone. I know what I’m doing is correct. You have no connection to Buncrana. You are an interfering busybody. If you continue to harass me i will see that it is you who are blocked. Slavary ghost (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Also see this message from User talk:Slavary ghost (permalink):

Changes
The changes made to the Buncrana history page were correct. Please do not interfere. What qualifies you to challenge me? Because you’re a teacher? You are an interfereing busy body who has never set foot in Buncrana. Leave my edits alone in future. Slavary ghost (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The one diff I linked to in the first sentence is the sole edit I made to Buncrana and the sole reversion of this user's actions, and harassment by definition is "a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons". I do not believe my actions constitute harassment (though please inform me if I accidentally overstepped any boundaries or misunderstood a policy/guideline). However, the comments from Slavary ghost appear to be ad hominem at best - the last comment is directed at me as an editor and it challenges my actions (citing my "bio") without addressing the content of the Buncrana article. I understand that I might be wrong about WP:COI (membership does not necessarily imply a close connection), though these comments are defensive (as are some edit summaries such as this) and seem to suggest that their membership and my undisclosed status are justification enough for them being right about the content and me being "an interfering busybody". On the other hand, do these last comments, especially the block threat, make me a victim of a personal attack?

I would like a review of the relevant diffs to Buncrana, as well as the edit histories of myself and Slavary ghost, to address these concerns. Thank you. ComplexRational (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I think this conflict could be defused by all parties discussing at Talk:Buncrana. The edit that sparked this off was the removal of content cited to a clearly unreliable source, so should not have resulted in a warning, and I sympathise with Slavary ghost's reaction to the reinstatement of that badly sourced content by several editors, especially since that editor appears to be brand new to Wikipedia. I do not believe that membership of a local historical society is a conflict of interest concerning the town in question, but is also not a reason for claiming ownership of an article. Why not talk about it at the talk page, which is there for talking? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: I apologize for not recognizing the source as unreliable while reinstating that content. I'm willing to have a discussion there; need I start by creating a new thread at the talk page with a link to this one? ComplexRational (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

What I would do is simply to start a new thread on the talk page, if I could find a reliable source for this content, and forget about this one, but that's only the advice of one Wikipedia editor. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: Make that two Wikipedia editors; I agree with Phil's take on this and his suggestion. If you decide to take Phil's advice and pursue this on the article talk page and forget about this thread, you can post here that you want to withdraw this report, and a closer can close this as withdrawn. Happy editing whatever you decide. ^Leviv_ich 21:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: That's probably the most prudent course of action, and other editors more familiar with the subject of the article may also then be able to comment on the validity of the article's concent. I withdraw this report. ComplexRational (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Eyeballs on Jonathan Mitchell (writer)

This appears to be one of those hermetic articles that ping-pongs between hatchet-job and hagiography, and it looks like it could use some outside inspection. Nothing has risen to a reportable level yet, but it might be better to keep it that way. Qwirkle (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Genuine props for raising this. From a cursory inspection I am unsure how to improve, but I certainly see a possible issue. I will take the time over the coming weeks and perhaps months to consider what the underlying problems with this article are so that hopefully I can improve from a detached and impartial platform that addresses the underlying reasons for disruptive edits rather than simply their symptoms. Best wishes, Mrspaceowl (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I have noticed this issue too and attempted to make some minor edits to provide more neutral coverage in problematic areas. However one of the subject's friends keeps reverting my edits claiming vandalism. I'm new to the editing side of Wikipedia but surely this isn't appropriate? I look forward to an impartial opinion. Arlandria606 (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Paavada

Please see Special:Diff/881047451. Courtesy ping Velella, who may like to add a detailled explanation here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Problem is agenda based editing, uncivil language, ignoring discussion, no explanation, and removing warnings. It started by these edits in Mikhael (film), in which Paavada removed 3 negative reviews, low review ratings, and changed the "negative" response to "mixed", also added many unrelated categories and other changes. I reverted it, but Paavada reverted back with the edit summary: "reverted agenda driven vandalism, promotional content". Now I went on to his talk page and explained the problems with his edits in detail and asked for an explanation, also restoring the page by explicitly stating not to revert back without proving an explanation in talk. However, Paavada ignored it and blanked the entire discussion from talk page and reverted back again without explanation. Velella restored the page, which was again reverted by Paavada. These are the uncivil comments Paavada left on my talk page [181], [182] and in Velella's [183], [184] during the course. Since Velella is currently absent here, I am placing this reply of Velella to Paavada for presenting his take on this.--Let There Be Sunshine 11:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

They've not edited since the odd denial. The response of "kindly dont post warnings here, respect ur co-editors." inclines me to block till they are more amenable to constructive criticism.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I have delayed coming here because I was unsure whether the disruptive editing would continue, and because I wanted to form a clear view of what sanctions might be appropriate should they continue. I was becoming convinced that this was a paid editor and, if so, I would have wanted more evidence before coming here with a report. It is possible that the pressure from other editors has dented the editing zeal and we shall hear no more. My residual concern is that the style of the edit summaries looks very much like another (now blocked) editor but I can't bring to mind the username. I may be back with a SPI report if I can get my memory to work  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

this is interesting, but not convincing.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

It is interesting, although commons words their edit summaries: "copy edit", "references", "clean up" are same and two intersections, including an odd page like Genome Valley. If I am not wrong, Contrib2 (talk · contribs) was Padmalakshmisx's last sock, blocked on January 22 and Paavada was created on the same day. Speaking of which, I had asked Paavada if 174.4.26.61 was his IP. It was unanswered and the talk page was blanked. Last year, this IP was adding full plot of the then-unreleased film Replicas. I doubted where did he got the plot from. IP was showing the same behavioral traits, no explanation, persistant reverts, uncivil language, blanking discussion, and saying not to contact again, like Paavada. IP's talk page is a "warning-farm" with most of the over-level 1 warnings removed.--Let There Be Sunshine 09:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Notes: Has some of the usual markers. The sassy "kindly dont post warnings here, respect ur co-editors." Is not the usual attitude, though. @Ponyo: Got any insight on this? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Paavada is  Confirmed to suspected Padma socks Uricnobel and Contrib2; now checkuser blocked-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

User AlbertPenfold

• AlbertPenfold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vladimir Plahotniuc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

All the contribuition of the AlbertPenfold user to this article is to add the controversies and questionable poorly sourced material. Having analyzed the page history, he instists over and over again on the topics from the Controversies Section, which are irrelevant, of bad quality and un-necessary. He intends to draw the attention to the libelous headings and to transform the article into an attack page against the personality. From the user's contribuiton history it is clearly seen that he sistematicaly intervines with the changes (and all his interventions related the Vladimir Plahotniuc page), and most often , with the same sort of unchecked and outdated information.--Jeremydas (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It will help admins out if you supply example diffs WP:SDG of the behavior rather than asking them to look at their full contributions. TelosCricket (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Penfold's recent edits are to Vladimir Plahotniuc, which must be the page in dispute, so I've added it at the top of this report. In the past, AlbertPenfold (talk · contribs) was in dispute on the same article with Wikilaj (talk · contribs), who was blocked by User:Bbb23 as a sock back in 2017. See a previous ANI (2017) about Vladimir Plahotniuc. There was an apparent promotional effort to burnish the reputation of this Moldovan politician. The SPI about Wikilaj was here. The filer of the present ANI, User:Jeremydas, also made a BPLN report on Plahotniuc on 10 January 2019 but that report didn't get any traction. (Jeremydas seems to have been trying to reword the article with a careful eye on BLP). One of the opponents of Jeremydas on the Plahotniuc article has been User:Gikü who is an editor here but an administrator on the Romanian Wikipedia. I will leave Gikü a notice. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Questions about a low profile edit war

In the last few weeks there seems to be a low profile edit war on some items with IPA (International phonetic alphabet) transcriptions of Italian names. It seems that at least two groups of sockpuppets are competing on this topic. In particular, a user called Miaowmiaowmew (blocked for abusing multiple accounts) added the IPA transcription on some articles, providing the related sources (which I verified were valid). A couple of weeks later, other users (also subsequently blocked for sockpuppeting, see this for reference) have modified the transcription and removed the sources without providing alternative references. Me and other users and admins have repeatedly restored the versions with sources but, again, other sockpuppets have restored the version without sources. See the revision history of Stefano Pescosolido or Davide Sanguinetti for example.

The sockpuppets of the group of Ragaricus seems targeting specifically the edits of Miaowmiaowmew on italian personalities. It is a systematical action, sockpuppets appear in waves of four or five and make four or five edits each then disappear.

Check the edits of this group and this other group for example. Sometimes they also seem to operate as unlogged IPs (ranges 5.170.0.0/18 and 151.48.0.0/16).

I asked an opinion to some admins and experienced users (@Girth Summit, Favonian, and Matthew hk:) and they suggested to open a discussion to get a "paper trail" in case of further reverts. In case of future further sockpuppets waves, what is the best way to deal with this issue?

Horst Hof (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Since essentially no one understands those inscrutable IPA squiggles anyway, someone please remind me why we clutter article openings with them in the first place, much less editwar over them. EEng 14:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
• I too find the IPA scribbles inscrutable. Too me they provide zero meaning. I doubt the average reader can make heads or tails of them.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

  I concur with both of you, it is perfectly useless to include 2 or more sources for every single Italian name and surname pronunciation. The problem is the continuous edit-warring between 2 factions: let's keep the refs removed as it was at the beginning and the edit-warring will stop; if it does not then semi-protection might be a valid solution. Brocadeweaving (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC) — Brocadeweaving (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Matthew hk (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

  bloʊ ɪt aʊt jʊər æs. Fish Karate 16:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

  HAY!-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

  Please provide difs and the names of those users. Please notify them of this discussion. Though it think it's moot if they are sockblocked.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I already notified the sockmasters (Ragaricus and Miaowmiaowmew). The usernames of the involved accounts are here and here. If you check the revision history of Stefano Pescosolido you will find that Miaowmiaowmew added the IPA transcrition in Novemeber, then Ragaricus, Eleganms, 5.170.47.172, and more recently Suecaillam restored the unsourced version after that various admins and users restored the sourced one. You can see the same pattern of actions on various other articles, for example: Davide Sanguinetti, Matteo Trevisan, Stefano Ianni and more with a variety of socks. Horst Hof (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Just to add my tuppenceworth here - I haven't been involved with any of the editing/reverting, but I discussed this with Horst Hof and advised him to bring it here. His concern isn't about which IPA squiggle is correct, it's the disruption caused by two blocked sockmasters edit warring over the pages. I wondered whether the pages in question should be semi-protected (there are 15-20 target pages), or if an IP range block might be appropriate. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

As far as why bother with the squiggles: for the same reason they appear in other reference sources – they are useful if you care enough about pronouncing something correctly to go to the relevant IPA article and look up the sounds. Also, I recently saw an implementation that had tool-tips pop up when mousing over each symbol with the relevant sound description and example, which eliminated the need of going to the IPA article. This doesn't seem to be implemented much yet. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I suspected the IPA edit war or even vandalism lasted at least a few year back, which the sock-master of the sock Miaowmiaowmew , was ZenZung, sounds like a Chinese name, and i had encountered a weird ip talk page comment on lobbying people to support the change of IPA of Sicilian dialect on some Italian footballer. That Hong Kong ip later blocked as the ip belongs to a Chinese company of hosting service and seem like also provide VPN for the great firewall of China (and my edit log was way too long so i need time to locate the ip). The dispute on standard Italian may be smaller, but Horst Hof also stated in the Ragaricus' SPI, some edit war of IPA involve changing m to ɱ (may refer to this sockmaster, Viviocon, however). While in some case, yet another mainland Chinese ip was asking for comment in Talk:Gianluigi Buffon for the Venetian IPA, which other user can't verify either. It should WP:AGF on adding citation or modifying IPA according to the citation provided, except block evasion part. But if this edit war involve sock and may be tag team, while some edit, both side did not provide citation, or may be some case, different citation may provide different IPA. Thus, in this edit war with factions and socks, reverting to either side is not a best solution, but solving the disputed content the "correct" IPA first. Matthew hk (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Nowiki for links to non-sources

For at least a decade I have been wrapping links to questionable sources in non-mainspace pages with <nowiki> tags, to assist with monitoring use in mainspace. Leyo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just reverted about 70 of these edits with an edit summary of "this is nonsense: article name space may be easily monitored individually (if needed at all)", and calling it "censorship" on my talk page (a red flag in my experience, but whatever).

Leyo's comment that "article name space may be easily monitored individually (if needed at all)" is simply incorrect. There is no namespace filter in Linksearch (there was briefly, but it has been removed). Adding insource in a Wiki search is also problematic. In fact both linksearch and insource wiki search are frequently inaccurate and out of date, the search indexers do not seem to be working well at the moment.

A 2008 discussion of this exact process in the context of a site that was problematic for other reasons unambiguously endorsed it:

Removing links whilst not removing context or content from discussions does not violate any policies and is an efficient way of removing links to potentially problematic sites. BLP and Copyright policies come way above any policies on editing closed deletion discussions in any case, so Guy's edits are entirely acceptable. In short, Guy's edits are of no detriment to the encyclopedia - they directly and indirectly benefit the project. Any discussions on removing links and the right to link to material which violates copyright and policy here needs to be discussed elsewhere as it's not something limited to just this one storm in a teacup. Such a discussion would also be of intense interest to a large number of other editors, and should such a discussion take place, notices would best be left at various Village Pump and Copyright help desk boards. Nick (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

— Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive390 § User:JzG and the Post Chronicle

There have been other discussions since, with the same outcome, and I am not aware of any that have concluded otherwise. Using nowiki tags strikes a balance between monitoring the links using the limited technical tools available, while retaining the project and talk page content in as close as possible to its original sense and meaning.

But consensus can change. This is a thing I have done for a long time to keep the number of links down and simplify monitoring of link abuse, do I now need to either remove the links altogether or just suck up the time it takes to watch for links to dodgy sources? That would be quite boring. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Hm. Leyo's editing does look problematic here. Ordering other editors what to do because I know best is not a good start, especially when you then threaten to block them for something that isn't in the slightest blockworthy. Then despite that discussion, unilaterally removing the nowikis in around 75 talk pages with a comment of removing "censorship" (Guy is right, this is always a red flag) while the discussion is still happening at WP:RS/N? I'm somewhat unimpressed, I have to say. Black Kite (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  The revert comment was NOT censorship but this is nonsense: article name space may be easily monitored individually (if needed at all). Only on the user discussion page I used that word. I may have used another one, but since I am not a native English speaker, I do not always find the best possible expressions.

  Monitoring the use of a certain website in the article namespace may easily been done using e.g. insource:/pesticideinfo\.org/. --Leyo 11:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC) PS. @Black Kite: "Then despite that discussion, unilaterally removing the nowikis in around 75 talk pages" is actually not the full story. JzG has added the nowiki tags while the discussion was still running (which I consider highly problematic). I just restored the versions to the status before that discussion. This is a standard admin procedure. --Leyo 12:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Er, yes, that is exactly what I said. Your comment on censorship was, as Black Kite said, on my talk page, where you said, and I quote, I reverted your censorship to talk pages, archives etc. Talk page contributions of other users should only be altered for grounds like linking to websites with dangerous content or such things. In addition, the article name space may be easily monitored individually, e.g. using CirrusSearch. As I pointed out above, this does not work. You may well not be aware of that as I am sure you don't spend much of your time monitoring bogus links (which obviously I do), but even if you were, you are dictating a dogmatic view of how others should go about their volunteer work without thinking to ask why they do it that way in the first place. Which comes back to OiD's comment: this looks like grudge-bearing, which is not an attractive quality. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

"As I pointed out above, this does not work." This is actually not true (anymore): If the search query isn't too complex, insource: finds all occurrences, as it does in this case. I can assert you that I've been spending a lot of time with various maintenance work, even if only partly in the en.wikipedia. --Leyo 12:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

See below. I actually do this all the time, I can assure you, it doesn't. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually these reverts were not related to the RSN discussion at all - they were links to the website of to Environmental Working Group, an official-sounding pressure group (501(c)(4)) with a less than stellar reputation for accuracy. I cleaned out the mainspace links ages ago but only nowikid the non-mainspace recently, largely because wading through 100 links to see if new mainspace ones had been added was getting boring. The RSN discussion is about alanwood.net, a personal website, and the Pesticide Action Network, another pressure group whose pages were being used as if they were a neutral reference source (last I looked there was no pushback on that at all, only fans of Alan Wood). And this is all good faith stuff, EWG and PAN especially deliberately set out to appear like legitimate authorities, it's not a surprise that good-faith editors, especially those with an environmentalist preference, mistakenly pick these up. I'd have been suckered too before I started specialising in sourcing and spamming on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

"Actually these reverts were not related to the RSN discussion at all" is actually not true: Two of the three are being discussed in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Compendium_of_Pesticide_Common_Names, with diverging views (concerning the namespace) so far. The third, ewg.org, is certainly not that problematic that users and readers should be hindered to access the links that have been posted on talk pages by multiple users over the past couple of years.

"I cleaned out the mainspace links ages ago" is actually not entirely true, either. You've removed quite some (e.g. here) four days ago. --Leyo 12:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that was the last time I reviewed the link list. I do that periodically. That is, in fact, the entire point. Your claim that people are "hindered to access" these links, mainly in archived debates, is, I would submit, without merit. The trivial additional effort required to highlight the text and right-click to open is not significant, and, as per the original discussion noted above, there is a benefit to offset that trivial inconvenience, which, it must be noted, we have no evidence anybody has ever suffered. We're supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not DMOZ. Guy (Help!) 12:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Just add {{search link|insource:/pesticideinfo\.org/|ns=ns0=1}} (→ insource:/pesticideinfo\.org/) or similar to your website and you will get the same result. In fact, you even get a preview of the articles' source text. --Leyo 12:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I use that too, it is flaky. The index has been up to a month out of date before now, showing links that have been removed and omitting links that have been added. That's why I use both. It's the only reliable method I have found to date. Guy (Help!) 13:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

This is simply not true. This like that used to happen quite some time ago. --Leyo 20:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The last time I found it to be an issue was three weeks ago. This sounds a lot like trying to tell me that my experience is an illusion therefore I must do things in a way that you personally find acceptable, just in case someone has to take slightly longer to visit a site that is not usable as a source anyway. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Personally I find almost all of the time, anyone who cries censorship has no clue what it actually is. That aside, while Guy says this is unrelated to the pesticide issue, this just looks like retaliation for them not getting their own way. I cant think of any legitimate reason for them to do that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  See my reply above. --Leyo 11:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Personally I do not believe links should be removed simply because the sites aren't RSes. I think we should only remove them when there are actual problems with the links. E.g. malware sites, sites or links with copyvios, sites or links with BLPvios. The summary of the discussion quoted above doesn't seem to be saying anything different. Also sites on the blacklist may be justified considering the problems it creates editing the pages although if they're in archives there may be questions over whether it matters. That said, this doesn't seem to be the place to discuss this. 12:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC) BTW I don't quite understand why it's necessary to nowiki links to allow monitoring their use in articles/main space. Is there some reason why the built in WMF search engine can't simply be used for this? Or if it is, is there some reason limiting to main space doesn't work? It seems we should work with the WMF to fix any flaws which prevent the built in search from being used to monitor unwanted additions inside mainspace. But if it's really necessary to use third party search engines, it also seems to me it may be better to work with the WMF to find ways to exclude other names spaces/include only main space, e.g. by including unique terms. That would surely help everyone including Guy. Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  I certainly agree concerning the examples "malware sites, sites or links with copyvios, sites or links with BLPvios". As the insource: search already works fine (see above), no further improvement of the WMF search engine seems to be required for now. --Leyo 12:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: There are two things going on. One is the existence of well known unreliable sources (e.g. American Renaissance, Blood & Honor and so on) where we have consensus they don't meet WP:RS. I (and others) remove citations to those sites. The other is links to those sites in talk pages and other debates. These show up in Linksearch (see amren.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com ). Linksearch is the most reliable way of finding links to a website, but the linksearch results are bulked out by talk pages and Wikipedia discussions, making it much harder to identify new links in mainspace. Thus I habitually - and for a long time - nowiki them in those pages. Not delete, they are still there, still visible in their original context, I just format them so they don't show up in Linsearch. That's the change Leyo chose to revert. He is the first person to do this in some years, to the best of my recollection, if anyone has ever done it at all. Guy (Help!) 13:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• How does "[wrapping with] <nowiki> tags, to assist with monitoring use in mainspace. " assist this monitoring? A regex is going to look for a domain name, not a <nowiki>. Whatever else one might say about Leyo's edits here (and I can see the wagons circling already), they seem to have a point here. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Andy Dingley: It helps because Special:Linksearch only searches for actual links, not just URLs as text. See eg Special:Linksearch/forbes.com. If the links are only actual links in mainspace, then Special:Linksearch will only return hits in mainspace. I don't think this is the greatest way of tracking use of links. MediaWiki in fact has a facility to limit Linksearch by namespace, but it's turned off on WMF wikis because it makes the search quite expensive to run. If the `insource` method described above is broken, that should be put in a phab ticket and fixed. GoldenRing (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• The `insource` method is not broken. {{search link|insource:/ewg\.org/|ns=ns0=1}} found 21 articles a few hours ago. JzG obviously made use of that method to find these articles and remove the reference in all but three cases. This includes occurrences where his previous method (linksearch) had failed (Special:Diff/880119117, Special:Diff/880117415 or for some reason Special:Diff/880117378 (note that the section was added by Moreau1 back in 2017)). --Leyo 20:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

It is unreliable and gives inconsistent results. As I think I might have pointed out, I do this all the time. Sometimes it's correct, other times, not. Hence I use both. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, none of us may prove his testimony. ;-) Have you tried mw:User:PerfektesChaos/js/resultListSort? Is allows to sort the results of linksearch e.g. according to the namespace. Depending on how it is set, the script does it automatically of after a click. --Leyo 21:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Leyo still hasn't answered the main questions; why do they think it's OK to threaten another editor with blocking for doing something that had consensus at previous discussions; and why did they revert 75 edits (claiming "censorship" - which they denied whilst the relevant diff, qouted by Guy above, is obvious) whilst the discussion on whether that was the correct thing to do was still ongoing? My inclination would be to mass-revert Leyo's edits until we can see an actual consensus on whether they're right to do so, or not. Black Kite (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  JzG removed all refs to two websites, Compendium of Pesticide Common Names and PAN Pesticides Database (without replacing them with other refs) that have been added by many different users as references for adding content to mainly chemistry-related articles over a period of at least seven years. He did this without seeking consensus beforehand, neither on WP:RSN not on any other page such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. In the cases he was reverted by other users, he reverted them back. A discussion on WP:RSN#Compendium of Pesticide Common Names was started, with diverging views on the matter. For me it is a clear-cut case that during such a running discussion the removal of the refs under consideration may under any circumstances not be continued. It is a general principle that during a dispute no party may just proceed trying to create facts (see also WP:POINT).

  Unfortunately, Black kite hasn't read the text on JzG's talk page correctly (as explained above). As noted before, I should have used a different word than censorship. A mass revert as an admin action might only be an option to revert to the original state. This is especially true for the two links that are still under discussion. --Leyo 21:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I did indeed remove links to those two sites. One is a personal site with zero editorial oversight, the other is a political campaign and there's pretty clear consensus it should not be used.

What you did was to undo the wrapping of links to a completely different site, on talk pages, because in your personal view, having clearly not patrolled for this kind of problem, the wrapping is unnecessary.

When challenged, you have doubled down, asserting your own preferences as the sole valid view and dismissing the issues I have experienced with searches as invalid. Which is rude.

But the measure of a man is how he handles his mistakes. You made a mistake here. It will be interesting to see if you can admit it. Guy (Help!) 18:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Leyo should know by now that they are WP:INVOLVED in the pesticide topic for violating the discretionary sanctions on 1RR and casting aspersions, especially being warned for doing that multiple times[185][186], so that they're threatening a block is even more problematic. This is really looking like attempts to continue disruptive behavior in the topic without getting it, but I'm not sure if here or AE is the better venue at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Well … I think it's better if we try to avoid each other. --Leyo 21:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Yup, you're hinting at the case at beekeeping where I was trying to work with a editor that wasn't working through talk page (outside the DS area at that) and kept reinserting edits without gaining consensus for them. Not going to work as WP:POT example, but it does outline the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior you're injecting into this topic. Please keep in mind this combative attempt to pursue editors is not very appropriate as others have outlined here with respect to your sniping problems at a minimum. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Reverted

• Comment Since Leyo has not answered the question as to why they threatened another editor with blocking for no reason, and have not explained why they performed a mass-revert during the discussion (against possible consensus), not to mention the fact that they are clearly WP:INVOLVED in the subject, I am about to revert all of their reverts of Guy's edits. And now a discussion can take place, at the point where we were in the first place. If the discussion decides that Leyo was right, then the edits can be reverted. But we shouldn't be starting from a point of a mass-revert with very thin reasons for doing so, especially from an admin. Black Kite (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  This is simply not true. And, reverting would only be applicable to the last stable versions, i.e. the versions before JzG edited them. --Leyo 23:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Nope. You don't get to do mass-reverts during a discussion, you don't get to threaten people with blocking for performing non-disruptive edits you disagree with, and especially you don't get to do those things when you are clearly involved with the subject concerned. The talk pages are your next (and only) venue for this issue. Black Kite (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Compendium_of_Pesticide_Common_Names started on 02:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC). E.g. Special:Diff/879848572, Special:Diff/879848531 or Special:Diff/879848518 were done after that. The same applies in the article namespace for Special:Diff/880027846 or Special:Diff/880027766. --Leyo 23:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Correct. Some of JzG's edits were made after the discussion began, but all of yours were. You're missing the point, though. No-one here is saying that JzG is correct, or you are correct. The point is that you have involvement in the subject, and you threatened to block another administrator for making edits you disagreed with - and then you reverted all of their edits. Some advice - I would stick with discussing this at the talk pages now, because you are on shaky ground. Black Kite (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I could have lived with your reverts if you had left out the ones JzG edited after the discussion has started. In retrospective, I probably should have reverted only those for the time being.

It was simply about the fact that he continued his removals in the article name space after the discussions started. Concerning WP:INVOLVED, I don't think I've ever added a ref to one of those website to an article myself. --Leyo 23:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Leyo, you seem to be unfamiliar with WP:INVOLVED and how that works for admins (or that an admin such as yourself is still expected to avoid some of the battleground behaviors you've been showing). You've already violated the discretionary sanctions in the pesticides topic, so you cannot behave as an admin in that area whatsoever. In that specific regard, even I would be less involved by degree if I were an admin even though I'm indisputably involved in the subject too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I think this whole thing really belongs on a Village Pump. The behavioral issues don't seem like they warrant any action. I have no strong opinion one way or the other as to the matter of delinking.. I guess I'm sympathetic to the idea, having wrestled with our various search mechanisms in the past, but that sort of thing doesn't need to be hashed out here. The behavioral issue just sounds like standard BRD fare, inflamed by a block threat. Guy made a bunch of edits. Leyo disagreed with them and reverted them. The burden in the discussion is typically on whomever made the change to find consensus. If the challenged edits kept going after being challenged, I would be unsurprised to see the reverts continue until consensus secured. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem is more that Leyo threatened administrator action against me when he was involved, used edit summaries which were disparaging, and has generally refused to acknowledge that there might be any valid view other than his own. Guy (Help!) 15:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: Have you already been able to successfully test mw:User:PerfektesChaos/js/resultListSort, that enables sorting linksearch result, among others, according to the namespace? Just tell me if you need help. @Nil Einne, GoldenRing, and Andy Dingley: You might be interested in that script, too, according your statements above. --Leyo 12:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

How about: no. I have my own methods for sorting and working with links, this does not help at all with the simple and frequent task of quickly reviewing the list of links to a known unreliable source with a long history of inappropriate use. How about if instead of telling me how to do my volunteer work in a way you personally find acceptable, you choose instead to go about your business and not worry about it, because wrapping links in a nowiki tag when they are not in any way usable as sources is not a problem at all. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

You may have your own methods as long as you are not hampering other users (incl. readers). This is not the case here. Nowadays many people are accessing internet with a mobile device. Copying/pasting the URL on a talk page may be quite a fiddly task and much less convenient than just clicking. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not a one man show.

You seem not to even have tested the script. I am convinced that even you would prefer a filtering option for the linksearch results filtering according to the namespace would perfectly meet your demands. The additional ability of sorting the results according the URL may also be useful in some cases. --Leyo 21:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

That's a neat script (thanks!), but it only sorts the current page, so it doesn't really work for multi-page result sets. Also, the insource:/regex/ searches do timeout a lot (see WP:INSOURCE), e.g. insource:/\[\[USA Baseball#/. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but clicking on e.g. "500" before would solve this issue for all websites concerned here.

Sure, some complex insource searches do timeout (I have experience with lots of maintenance tasks in various WMF projects), but not the simple cases discussed here. In your example, there seems to be an issue with the # character if not escaped (\#). Anyhow, the hash tag is never a part of a domain. --Leyo 23:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

In your obviously extensive experience of checking for links to a hundred or more websites that have been abused, how long does it take to open linksearch, click 500, and review, say, 250 links to identify new mainspace ones? I know the answer to this because I do this all the time. You keep telling me ways to patrol for these sites that you find personally preferable, but you're not the one doing the work and it's really not up to you do dictate, especially given that your responses flatly deny problems that I have personally experienced recently, suggesting that you are speaking in theoretical terms versus my practical ones. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, there would be the possibility of increasing the Number of edits to show in recent changes, page histories, and in logs, by default: to e.g. 500. IMHO having the searchlink results sorted by (i) namespace and within them in (ii) alphabetical order is outweighing one additional click. --Leyo 22:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

In your opinion, as one who does not have to sit through the load times and script runtimes and JavaScript crashes. Alternatively, I could just wrap the links with nowiki, which has zero effect on the readability of the text and fixes the problem at source. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Without having tried the script you can't judge its effect on load times, script runtimes and JavaScript crashes. I have never experienced such issues. Sorting 500 SearchLink results lasts clearly less than a second.

Code for common.js
mw.loader.load("https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=User:PerfektesChaos/js/resultListSort/r.js&action=raw&bcache=1&maxage=86400&ctype=text/javascript"); if ( typeof mw.libs.resultListSort !== "object" ) { mw.libs.resultListSort = { }; } mw.libs.resultListSort.auto = ["LinkSearch", "Whatlinkshere"];

Concerning "zero effect": As written above, nowadays many people are accessing internet with a mobile device. Copying/pasting the URL on a talk page may be quite a fiddly task and much less convenient than just clicking. --Leyo 23:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

But irrelevant as it's worthless as a source, and Wikipedia's prime function is not to drive traffic to pressure group websites from archives. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Depending on the context of a discussion, I may well be of interest to access the information available on websites that are not suitable as a reference in the article. --Leyo 10:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@JzG, Nil Einne, GoldenRing, and Andy Dingley: There is now toolforge:linksearch that allows, among other features, searching in specific namespaces. --Leyo 21:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• https://tools.wmflabs.org/linksearch?lang=en&wiki=en.wikipedia&target=*.amazon.com&namespace=&submit=1 returns no results. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

  https://tools.wmflabs.org/linksearch?lang=en&wiki=en.wikipedia&target=https://www.amazon.com/%&namespace=0&submit=1 does. --Leyo 00:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

  If the tool doesn't allow wild cards this would seem to be a significant limitation. BTW, I haven't paid much attention to this discussion but has anyone tried filing a bug report or otherwise contact the WMF? As I said in my first reply, it seems to me if the existing tools aren't working properly, or are not allowing us to do important things like find questionable links in articles only/main space, this is something they should work on. Yes I know the WMF has disappointed people at times with various things they have done and not done, but we should at least try. Nil Einne (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

  It has been requested, for example in October 2018: Linksearch overhaul. Result: voted #24 and only top ten proposals actioned, so not WMF's problem. Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC) Correction: The 24 is the number of votes; it ranked #122 and has no hope of ever being actioned by the WMF unless they wake up. Johnuniq (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there any documentation on toolforge:linksearch? The source code shows that the tool queries the external links table in a database on a particular wmflabs server. Presumably that is periodically updated from the actual external links table on enwiki. It would be interesting to know how often updating occurs and what a typical range of lag times is. That is, if I search for a URL and it shows no results, does that mean there are no links matching the URL now (answer: no), or is it one hour ago, or one day, or one week? Johnuniq (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

AFAIK there is currently no English documentation. I will create one ASAP.

The database is usually up-to-date (see s5 in toolforge:replag).

Two types of wildcards are possible after the domain: _ (exactly one character) and % (zero, one, or multiple characters). --Leyo 08:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The documentation is now available on Help:Linksearch/Toolforge. --Leyo 23:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Many null edits

Is there a standard procedure for what to do when we see a new account primarily making many null edits (e.g. adding and then removing extra spaces between sentences in random articles)? I assume it is trying to reach some number of edits beyond which additional capabilities kick in, but is it blockworthy behavior? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Reasonably common way people try to game the system to get autoconfirmed. Report the user here and they'll get politely smited. -- a. ^{get in the spam hole | get nosey} 18:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Fine, I was trying to keep this generic so I could keep the smiting to myself, but it's Temptemp5780 (talk · contribs). I'll go notify them of this discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Big question is, what was their previous account? Often this is people trying to get autocomfirmed for malicious purposes. Canterbury Tail talk 18:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed status is given to accounts that are more than four days old and have made at least 10 edits. In my view this is way too low and encourages minor edits to jump over the hurdle.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

However high the bar is set it will be open to gaming. I have seen editors do enough innocuous edits to become WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED and then immediately jump into contentious edits in areas where that right is required. I really think that this whole idea of restricting what people can do based on days and edits is not fit for purpose. It prevents good-faith editors from contributing but encourages those who edit in bad faith to game the system. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Generally, semiprotected pages don't have the advantage of the cleaning up of awkwardnesses that are unseen by a page's "regular" editors, but are glaring to drive-by IPs. Semi-protected pages' quality is lessened in that way. It's a pretty noticible effect.
Anyway, no malicious purpose here. I was just wanting to make a non-malicious edit (removing a little bit of real "off-topic, digression"), but a semi-protection prevented it. Ugh. Yet another awkwardness just sitting there for quite some time on a semi-protected page because yet-another very-able IP editor couldn't make quick work of it.
To be autoconfirmed, I could make "normal" edits, but it takes some time to stumble upon places that could use one. I could have also made some almost-zero-effect edits that weren't so obvious to you-all, but that actually takes a bit of creativity and work too! I figured I'd see what would happen this time if I just got a bunch of uncreative zero-effect edits out of the way all at once. Either someone would notice and be perplexed and/or annoyed, or nothing would happen and I would just move forward with the single normal/good edit I wanted to make. No actual ill-intent. Sorry to make a distraction. Buh bye. Temptemp5780 (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Temptemp5780: That is Wikipedia:Gaming the system, a proscribed behavior, and you should stop. Your good-faith contributions would be welcome, I'm sure, and the correct way to gain the permission you seek is to request it at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed. Or you can make an edit request. --Bsherr (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit requests are degrading and ineffective. Regarding gaming the system, it's a matter of what's important and what's not. Null edits have null effect. Fretting about a null effect, and lecturing about it should be held off until and unless an editor actually becomes disruptive. Otherwise, it's wasting everyone's time with yet more null-effect ANI melodrama. I'm pretty sure that is "proscribed".  :-) Temptemp5780 (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Temptemp5780: That might be so if you were making null edits. But those aren't null edits, they're test edits, which are in and of themselves disruptive (though I'll spare you the lecture on why unless you want it) and, according to Wikipedia:Vandalism, continuing to make test edits after being warned is vandalism. But why don't you request the "confirmed" permission? This is why we have that process. --Bsherr (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Bsherr, A lot of people are shooting their mouths off here without knowing the actual course of events. The "null edits" were all made and done before anybody said anything, alright? There's no need to imply "Vandalism". Each null "set" of edits was a pair of an added non-rendered space followed by it's removal, a common technique for adding extra edit summary commentary. I think it's aggressive and useless for you to try to re-characterize the matter. Temptemp5780 (talk) 07:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Or, more to the point, an account that has reached autoconfirmed/extended-confirmed through gaming the system will be blocked as soon as they make a contentious edit to a semi-protected article. As long as they're making positive edits, there isn't a problem. Black Kite (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess you still need to wait the 4 days. Might be quicker to edit request.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Four days is true, but I was willing to wait. And like I said above, edit requests are degrading and ineffective. Who wants to beg? Really. You can't BE BOLD when you're begging!  :-) Temptemp5780 (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Nobody will look down on you for making an edit request. I see them fairly frequently, and while some are not useful, many are simply IP editors who see an error but can't fix it. The one time I have issues with them is when an article is fully-protected due to conflicting news reports and the talk page is flooded; but I doubt you were planning to do that. There's absolutely nothing wrong with making an edit request, and you won't be thought any less of for doing so. I'm sure many very experienced editors in high standing here had many edit-requests at the beginning of their "career". -A lad insane (Channel 2) 01:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you look at at a beggar with understanding eyes. The beggar knows he's begging. But even so, "edit requests" are a whole lot more work and follow through than just fixing it right then and there -- that's another defacto deterrent to their use. The "pending approval" method is much better. It allows control over the actual edit (no ambiguity over exactly what changes would be made), you can be bold when you need to be, and you you don't have to beg. The job is done in one stroke. Temptemp5780 (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Temptemp5780: just remember state clearly what you want to change in edit request, e.g. del X, add Y, or change X to Y format, or stating which line have a typo, etc. Remember to provide reliable external source as evidence if needed. Once you have edit privilege , get the habit of writing WP:edit summary in brief. Matthew hk (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Regarding the system of WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED, autoconfirmed, etc. I have seen so many editors with EXTENDEDCONFIRMED, still have editing problem and even at binding to consensus level. e.g. changing English variety with personal preference and wall of text in edit summary to defend it, or personal preference on ref styling (changing established style to another without seeking new consensus) and again wall of text of asking people to respect them, even some of them got RfC/U, and with all effect, seem the same old user. Still hot potato to other users that try to cooperate with them. To sum up, using the edit count cannot correctly reflect the real situation and merely a quantitative way. Yet, gaming the system to gain autoconfirmed, yes it seem assume neutral faith on the motive, and as long as they did not made their first vandalism or edit warring edit, no need to warrant a block. In reverse, if such stuff need a block on new user, then many 10 years user, based on their current behaviour, need a block, which it is the spirit of equal. Matthew hk (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

  If you're saying that people who've gamed the system to gain ECP should be treated as people who haven't when they cause problems, I'm not sure I'd agree. People who've gamed have already made problems and been disruptive with their gaming as I pointed out below, so they're already hanging by a thread. Further, since they've likely (obviously not always) demonstrated far less actual productive editing, we have less reason to think they're worth spending our time to try and keep around. Actually the opposite, we have reason to think they're just here to cause problems (whether they realise it or not). Nil Einne (talk) 01:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I would say the system is quantitative. Some admin either rightly or wrongly bring up to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, or just got their admin rights 10 years ago and 10 years later still filling full wall of unsourced content in football article and seldom participated in WP:Footy on policy and MoS discussion. They are just artificial rank. I did not endorse gaming the system, but extended confirmed with 10 years belt, can still be problematic user, and may be getting a wild card of good content creator so good outweigh the bad bababah. I would just say extended confirmed user can still fail to binding to tiny consensus of ref styling, which Wikipedia:CITEVAR cited a long standing arbitration committee rule that can't possibly miss.

For auto-confirmed and semi-protected, i do endorse it works. At least it preventing people changing the height of the footballer to random value, or a value from another site that ±1cm to the value and then edit warring back and forth. Matthew hk (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I feel it's worth pointing out neither semi protection nor ECP are expected to stop all problems. They are only intended to help. IMO, the evidence strongly suggests semi protection does work, whatever the other consequences. It's possible the 4 days/10 edits isn't necessary, but I wouldn't be surprised if it does help. Ultimately the hurdles mentioned above are not just a problem for new users, they are a problem for those who want to case mischief too. A lot of bored school kids just can't be bored, or don't even know what they need to do. I have less experience with ECP but expect it also helps for related reasons. I'm not saying there isn't a possible debate to be had about whether these requirements are worth it, or should be modified, simply that any suggestion they don't work simply because they can be gamed, or even if not gamed they don't guarantee problem free editing is IMO missing the point.

Also it's not true null edits are no problem. Null edits fill up edit logs. Even if these edits are only to someone's user page, it's likely certain people will see them and have their time waste on them. Edits to someone user talk page are of course also a problem since people do have good cause to look at a user's talk page history at times. If these null edits are solely for gaming, then this could easily be seen as disruptive. Personally, I wouldn't call for sanctioning anyone who did it solely for autoconfirmed. I would however support a warning, and a block if it doesn't stop for anyone trying it for ECP. I'm sure some may prefer to watch them, wait until they're finished and block when they start to cause problems which is fine. I'm simply pointing out they're not consequence free.

BTW, on the claim that edit requests are ineffective

Nil Einne (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:Am I one of those? On a side note, it is not the edit count number or the length of time that is the main issue here. In reality these measures could be affective if and only if another measure was to take place as well. After giving a thought I thought of a new measure that could ensure that a user gets the privileged levl that they should deserve. I am proposing that in a new sub-section that I am creating bellow. (Unsigned)

While 10 edits/4 days is way to low it has been very effective stopping creation of junk pages in WP:ACREQ Legacypac (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal (Using the size of the edits to determine confirmed status)

In this proposal the following changes would occur:

Privlege level	Requirements
auto-confirmed	10 edits (>499 bytes) for each in article space and account is 4 days old.
auto-extended confirmed	100 edits (>999 bytes) for each in arcticle name space and account is 90 days old.

With something like this, it would be difficult for a vandal to game the system, as it would be very likely that they would get caught. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

This isn't the right venue for discussing proposals about userrights. Try WP:VP or this talk page. Cesdeva ^(talk) 03:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's the sizeof the edit that's important; it's what you do with it. I do think that 10 edits/four days is inadequate. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure, keep telling yourself that. ^Leviv_ich 04:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

You do realize that a vandal edit that is greater than 499 Bytes from an unconfirmed account will most likely not slip by ClueBot. This is especially for vandal edits greater than 999 Bytes from a non-extended-confirmed user. Just to put it into perspective … how big or long would a vandal edit that is greater than 999 bytes be on a single page? Even if it was broken up here an there on a page it would be pretty obvious of getting caught. If a user keeps getting caught by Cluebot … they are obviously a vandal. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Requesting unlocking of User:Victor_Mochere

The following discussion is closed. 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 wish to request unlocking of User:Victor_Mochere — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.79.195.56 (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Note - This user has been indef blocked since March 2018 for abusing multiple accounts, such as User:VictorMochere. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 23:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The User:VictorMochere was requested to be deleted, and maintain only User:Victor_Mochere — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.79.195.56 (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Might help your case if you state why you think you should be unblocked. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• All other edits under that IP is basically pushing himself as a source on Wikipedia, does not really speak to any potential positive contributions. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 ban this 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.

---

Hello,

The IP 92.86.36.1 is vandalising soccer pages. He thinks he's smart doing that. Christina (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Cristina neagu: please note the usual venue to report vandals is WP:AIV. I have given the IP a final warning (only one edit today, so seems too premature to block). If they continue to vandalise please let me know. GiantSnowman 11:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Cristina neagu: No vandalism since final warning. Re-report if this user resumes vandalising. - and please report them at WP:AIV. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, guys, I forgot! He vandalised two pages, just to know, but he has some certain style of rewriting things. If he keeps going, then his place is not on Wikipedia. Christina (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 can make a proposal to Wikipedia, to the Village Pump

The following discussion is closed. 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.

---

I demand access to the village pump for the purpose of making a proposal in whatever form I choose within the scope and behavioural guides of the site, without being summarily and rapidly deleted, for no reason other than the number of editors. The village pump is mine as much as it is yours. I have been threatened with admin action and accused of edit warring. There may be one question or another, but I get to decide the intention of my words when they are directed towards other editors. I didn't break anything, nor am I going to. What I did was try to suggest a better way of responding to vandalism. ~ R.T.G 13:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The page in question is Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). From what I can see, the discussion was closed by @Mandruss:, and you have then edit warred with various admins (including @Guy Macon and Anomie:) to re-open it. It has now been re-closed by @Amaury:. Notwithstanding @Galobtter:'s warning to you about your conduct, I see no reason why you shouldn't be blocked immediately for your continued disruption. GiantSnowman 13:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I demand standard unfettered access to the main discussion forum, without qualification based on anything but civility. Has someone got a problem they can describe other than, "That person entered text into the site!?" Or, DIDNTLIKEIT, because that's all you've got, thanks. ~ R.T.G 13:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

You made a proposal, it went nowhere, and was reviewed and closed by four admins. What more do you want? PS please stop demanding things, it's not a good look. GiantSnowman 13:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

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

It was closed 90 minutes after it was entered. Then it was smothered continuously without any real attempt to address or even accept the request. These editors are acting as arbitrators. ~ R.T.G 13:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

If I can't communicate I'd like if someone who knows what they are doing could point me to where you disappear off the site. ~ R.T.G 13:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

You just stop using your account. Accounts are not deleted. --Khajidha (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Not technically correct, we have WP:VANISH. GiantSnowman 14:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@RTG: I would urge you to reconsider; if you're pissed off that your proposal was closed with multiple administrators in consensus that it was not going anywhere helpful, then take a break. Nobody would think less of you for doing so, there's no need to quit entirely. The last 50 of your article contributions stretch over a total of 5 years which suggests to me you could consider (just a suggestion) to step away from meta issues and look at contributing differently, which you may find less stressful. Fish Karate 14:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

User:RTG, Wikpedia: 896, Talk:844, Wikipedia talk:576, User talk:465, Template:199, Template talk:32, = 2982. Main = 2,894. I am not banned from choosing topics, or debating them at length. You do not WP:OWN this site without demanding that I own it too on the same line. None of you are prepared to admit that, or able to accept that it can be said without grand allusion. I am not "pissed off" I am rubbed out. ~ R.T.G 14:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) support a block for re-opening a closed thread way many times. Matthew hk (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocking is preventative, not punitive. The disruption has stopped (for now). GiantSnowman 14:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

No different when not long ago (14:22) he still keep want to re-open the thread or still talking about that matter. Matthew hk (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• This request for help also closed within five minutes, to suggestions of prevention of discussion. If you don't want to discuss what I want to discuss, do you have to? ~ R.T.G 14:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• The VPP close(s) were appropriate - there was actually no "proposal" per se, just one editor's increasingly adamant opinions. There have been legitimate RfC's concerning what to do with the RefDesks, I !voted in them, but don't have a clue if they're still open, or if they've been closed, and if so with what action taken or not taken. I suggest that the OP here look at those proposals to see if they cover his concerns, and, if not, that they create a new RfC using them as a model. As it stands, however, the VPP "proposal" really did have no chance of going anywhere, because it was not properly formulated, and appeared to be, essentially, a forum for the OP to complain.
  Really, the first close of this thread was designed to help the OP from digging themself into a hole that was going to end up in a block -- and may still if they don't WP:DROPTHESTICK.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• There was a proposal to reduce the effectiveness of vandalism, and nothing else except the closure. Where I am from, you are holding the stick. ~ R.T.G 15:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support indef I tried and failed - Given the user really isn't getting it I support indeffing as per CIR. –Davey2010^Talk 16:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

You accused me of incivility/anger. Found that accusation. ~ R.T.G 16:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Might I suggest that
  1. repeatedly closing this thread, suggesting indef blocks, and poking RTG with sticks on their talk page, or
  2. just not replying anymore

would both achieve the same result, except Option 2 would cause a whole lot less drama? No harm in letting RTG have the last word here; if no one else agrees with him, then this thread will die a quiet death. Just don't reply. Easy peasy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I was gonna say something like that myself. EEng 17:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Good to know my attempts at helping are seen as poking, Shame. –Davey2010^Talk 17:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Vandalism only account

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

---

Starting January 24, Momfzo vandalized seven Wikimedia projects. Paradoctor (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Meatsock or sock or canvassing for a RM?

• 43.250.243.224 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) -as voter of agree
• 101.2.182.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) -as voter of agree
• 124.43.89.182 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) -as voter of agree
• 113.59.209.228 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - as nominator of RM
• 113.59.214.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - commented the RM
• 113.59.214.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - commented the RM
• 113.59.217.25 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - commented the RM
• 2402:4000:1380:66DE:BDF7:B585:71C2:3323 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) -as voter of agree
• 2402:4000:1380:66DE:254D:BFFE:ECA6:A6B1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) -as voter of agree

Would someone have a look at Talk:Independence Day (Sri Lanka), did it sounds meat sock or WP:tag team or more seriously only one user ip hooping? Matthew hk (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Matthew hk, I have never quite figured out if ANI or WP:SPI is the right place to get help since I posted this. Sorry I can't be more helpful. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 00:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, if it is tag team and meat sock it is not a rightplace in SPI, also , some SPI case for ip end up with : ip (activities) too old, closing. Matthew hk (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• Obviously this isn't kosher, but it was closed properly. Not much can be done really as there is no account to tie to, other than to shut down RMs and the like (or semiprotect and strike) when these happen. Technically an SPI issue, but they are overloaded and it really doesn't require a CU, so ANI works as the issue is purely a behavioral one. Most any admin can connect the dots in these cases. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Approached about COI edits to Ken Banks

I was approached on a freelance writer web site by a man using the name "Nikolai Fedyanin" about performing an edit to this article in violation of COI in return for a sum of $35. Before I engaged with the person who approached me, I informed an administrator via Discord and appended this to my userpage.

I asked the user for the article and the wikicode and at no time did I accept payment or agree to edit the article. I was provided these instructions. I informed the user about WP:COI and WP:PAID and admonished him for attempting this. He told me that it "needed to be done" and "understood how Wikipedia works". I subsequently blocked the user on social media. The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 19:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Addemndum: I have been advised to refer this matter additionally to the Arbitration Committee email list. The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 20:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford

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

---

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

Vauxford has engaged himself in an edit war on the Kia Picanto, insisting that his washed-out pictures should be representative of the article and other users require a committee approval. Here's an example:

The first photo (File:2018 Kia Picanto 3 Automatic 1.2 Front.jpg) was the main image prior to Vauxford's recent edit.

The second photo (File:2018 Kia Picanto 1 1.0.jpg) the main image Vauxford chose to use. Notice that the red color is washed-out due to the hazy weather and the car is dirty. Yet he insists this should be the main picture.

This isn't even the first time he's had issues with edit-warring over photos. Just last month, he was involved in an edit war with EurovisionNim (talk · contribs), who has since retired from active editing.

I feel that Vauxford needs to stop pretending he is the authority when it comes to automotive pictures. - Areaseven (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Areaseven Seriously? I just made a discussion for this. What the point of discussing dispute on their talkpage like EVERYONE else does and make a unnecessary big deal on ANI. --Vauxford (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Born2cycle

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

---

Born2cycle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I really don't want to be here, but I think we've reached a point where we need to evaluate whether or not he needs to be sanctioned. For those unaware, Born2cycle was indefinitely blocked by Dennis Brown for what I can only classify as long-term disruption in the RM area (see this AE thread started by me.) He was then unblocked without any discussion. After his unblock, a new AE thread was filed by Black Kite due to continued disruption in the RM area after being as unblocked (see thread.) It was closed as being outside of AE action, and nothing was brought to ARCA or ANI afterwards.

B2C is now fixating on Kidnapping of Jayme Closs, arguing that BLPCRIME should not apply if someone has confessed to a crime but hasn't been convicted and that if sources believe someone is a murderer without a conviction based on a confession, we should call them a killer and say that they killed someone. That is of course a content dispute, but given my history with B2C (see this user talk thread), I felt that alerting them to the BLP discretionary sanctions was appropriate in case it became needed on the kidnapping article. I gave him the alert without comment, and it clearly stated that it was simply informational. His response was to revert me calling me a jerk. I then explained to him why I alerted him: he'd never had a BLP alert, and they need to be given if DS is in effect and may be needed because of conflict. He then responded by calling me unplesant. He then further clarified by accusing me of incivility, apparently for letting him know that BLP sanctions existed.

While I normally have pretty thick skin, I think what we have here is a long-term tendentious editor, who really never should have been unblocked to begin with given the clear consensus for a block at AE the first time, who knows how the AE system works, and responds to people following it with incivility and aspersions. On the whole, I think he's pretty clearly a net negative to the project and think he should be blocked again, but I'm obviously involved, so I'm bringing it to the community to discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Tony Ballioni that the unblocking of Born2Cycle, a long-term tendentious editor, should never have taken place. AGF and hope springs eternal and all that, but there is nothing in B2C's long history to indicate that there was any possibility that they were going to change their ways. Their modus operandi is fundamentally contrary to Wikipedia's working model, and problems such as Tony Ballioni brings up here will continue as long as he is allowed to keep editing. I strongly suggest that the community consider a site ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• The issue can be seen here and at WT:BLP. TonyBallioni should not need to work this hard when pointing out the obvious—there is no reason to identify a relatively unknown person as a killer and child kidnapper before a court conviction. Previous disputes with B2C show they are impervious to other's views and will continue pushing forever. Unless someone can point to major redeeming features an indef would be best. Johnuniq (talk) 06:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I just asked the question on a talk page and at least one person generally agreed with my point. So I’m in a civil short talk page discussion about a BLP issue/question that started a few hours ago and is essentially over already, and yet we’re here? Confused... —В²C ☎ 06:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Just noting for everyone else that the above as this post on my talk is virtually identical to your response the last time I alerted the community to your long-term disruption. This is either a case of just not getting it, intentional obliviousness to how others perceive you, or lack of competence. In any of these cases, the only option is a site ban or indef. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Yeah, so I’m consistent. Is that a crime now too? I’m equally bewildered this time as last time as to why anyone would start an AN/I without first at least trying to work it out with the other. —В²C ☎ 07:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
        • I did try to work it out with you, I explained that DS alerts are mandatory, and you responded with personal attacks and aspersions. Given my past interactions with you, I decided that nothing more was going to come of discussion unless the community was alerted. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
          • I’m beginning to sense your long-standing prejudices about me, largely based on misunderstanding, inhibit our ability to communicate and work together effectively. I’m sad that you’re so quick to write me, or anyone else, off. I’m going to continue working on improving the encyclopedia where I can. Good luck to you. —В²C ☎ 07:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Summoned the unblocking admin. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• This member of the community has lost all patience with B2C and his complete inability to accept that any view other than his own could even be a legitimate interpretation of policy. The hours of everyone else's time that B2C has wasted with his crusades would be hard to count. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Regarding Talk:Kidnapping of Jayme Closs, B2C appears to have said (paraphrasing) "I disagree, but am willing to drop it", a day before Tony started this thread. We do not block editors for having different opinions. I am tired of saying it, but we are not the Thought Police. If you can give me one disruptive edit (as opposed to describing Tony as a "jerk" and "unpleasant", which is not on but is not cause for a site ban), I'll change my mind. I don't see edit warring to restore his (ludicrous and incorrect) perspective on the topic, I see one edit, reverted by another editor, and then discussion on the talk page. Fish Karate 11:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Fish and karate, as a note, he did not post that note until I had already opened this ANI thread.

On the issue here is as Guy points out, there is a long-term trend of B2C going on endless crusades to enforce his view on what is Right (tm) (see Sarah Jane Brown and Yogurt.) This had not reached that stage yet, but was going there by all indications, and then he decided to resort to petty name calling after being given a DS alert it was clear nothing was going to be accomplished either at the talk page or on his talk page.

I’m not trying to censor someone: I’m raising the case of someone who is simply unable to work in a collaborative environment. This is early in the process this time but as has been pointed out at both AE threads and above, this is a disruptive editor who doesn’t quit until he gets his way (or on the flip side, is looking at a serious chance of sanctions.) The community shouldn’t be forced into these choices every time he has a new fixation: letting him win, arguing endlessly, or seeking sanctions. That is disruptive, and when taken as a trend over years is enough for an indef imo. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

You're right, my bad, I looked at the wrong date. I've struck that bit out accordingly. B2C has, though, in this instance, agreed to drop it (or said he will). As all the issues seem to be with BLP, or a significant misreading thereof, would a topic ban from BLPs work? I'm always keen to try and retain editors in some way unless they become a complete and total negative. Fish Karate 11:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The thing I was thinking of as an alternative to an indef last night was a “1 comment per page in the Talk or Wikipedia talk namespaces per 24 hours” restriction. There are questions as to if we’d want that. I suppose my reason for saying they should go back to being blocked is that they clearly learned nothing from their last block, when the community had already indicated that it had lost its patience with B2C, and now he’s managed to move from RMs to BLPCRIME, which shows it isn’t just a problem with moves. Yes, he’s agreed to drop this thing after being brought to ANI, but the question is whether or not he’ll agree to drop the next one, or the one after that, or that... TonyBallioni (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. We should try to assume good faith, though (WP:PACT notwithstanding), and hope he's learning (albeit slowly). Fish Karate 11:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Slowly? He's been here for just shy of 14 years and he has over 27,000 edits. How much time do you think he should be given to bring himself into alignment? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The fact this time he agreed to let the matter drop suggests to me one is never too old to learn. Fish Karate 15:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Fish and karate: "a complete and total negative" is not the correct standard. Rather, it is whether they are a net asset or detriment to the project. By your standard, all 27K of the user's edits would have to be problematic, which I can't imagine ever happening.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

If you take it completely literally, then yes, well done. That wasn't really what I meant, though; let's go with "a significant net negative" then. Fish Karate 15:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• keep, b2c has transcended annoying user status, or cautionary tale of misspent focus, he is an unimplacable, irrepressible, and irreplaceable archetype. cygnis insignis 15:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Folks, I do sometimes tend towards thinking that might be a little bit unconventional or out-of-the-box. I feel some of you do not recognize and appreciate that, and I’m being punished for it. This BLPCRIME discussion is a perfect example. I made one edit that was reverted and then I took it to the article’s talk page where the broader issue was uncovered (wording/reasoning at BLPCRIME), so I raised the question at the policy talk page where I think there is a reasonable and self-explanatory discussion, that also spilled back to the article’s talk page. Where exactly is the problem? When consensus changes on WP, isn’t it exactly through discussions like these? If anyone else did what I did, would they have been taken to AN/I? Seriously consider that, please. I hate to pull the persecution card, but I do feel persecuted here. In fact, everything was going reasonably until I decided to weigh in on another dispute that TonyBallioni was involved in regarding adding a link to the See Also section of the same Kidnapping of Jayme Closs article. I happened to agree with the other user and I think TonyBallioni took it personally. That’s when he shocked me with the BLP notice on my talk page (but not on the other user’s talk page - speaking of feeling persecuted) and then, instead of trying to work it out on my talk page, it quickly escalated to here. This filing did prompt some discussion on my and TonyBallioni’s user talk pages that I do feel has been productive, but filing this ANI was not necessary to cause that to occur. —-В²C ☎ 14:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I make no suggestion about what action (if any) to take this time around because I wasn't directly involved in the current cycle and haven't pored through all the relevant posts. I just note that there's an apparent pattern that has repeated through several cycles over a number of years: stick-like behavior that toes up to the line of tolerability, sometimes crosses it, sometimes leads to some kind of sanction, followed by a period of comparative quiet, and then a gradual return to the original behavior. Insofar as Born2cycle has many years of experience and a good understanding of many guidelines and policies, his input is beneficial — but that benefit is often offset by his insistence on certain interpretations/applications of policy that are at odds with community consensus, his persistent advocacy for those views to an extent and volume that can be considered tendentious, and a determination to prevail through persistence rather than to accept compromise and move on to other areas. That's just my view based on what I've observed, and I don't know the best solution, but I do agree that it is a concern. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• A few years ago В²C and I were in a bitter dispute over an article title issue, and while I've noted any time since that I've seen this come up that В²C does tend to badger and stonewall and relitigate and all the other tendentious behaviours until they get their way or are sanctioned (and so I endorse those observations in this thread) I have never felt along the way that this rises to the level of a site ban. Frankly В²C is a valuable resource in terms of interpretation and criticism of policy, sometimes on very contentious issues. On the present dispute over whether BLPCRIME should apply to someone who has admitted to but not been formally convicted of a crime, there's probably a point to be made there. If the community feels that a sanction is required I recommend it be something which allows them to still participate here. I don't have time today to suggest something so I'm just leaving this here as a comment.

We should very likely also rethink our DS notification guidelines. Being warned by an administrator that you're in a dispute with that administrators have authorization to unilaterally dole out sanctions on a topic is an inherently belligerent gesture even if not so intended (and I'm not suggesting that was Tony's intent), almost rising to the level of using administrative tools to win a dispute. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. That's certainly how it felt and what escalated this particular discussion into a dispute, unnecessarily in my view. I would hope all administrators involved in discussions know it's not prudent to dole out such warnings to other discussion participants themselves, but, if appropriate, ask an uninvolved admin to do so, for precisely these reasons. Being involved they may be biased and so asking an uninvolved admin to take a look is an appropriate level of precaution. I would think that would be standard practice for admins. --В²C ☎ 18:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Ivanvector, I strongly disagree that an admin giving out a DS alert as a normal editor comes anywhere near tool misuse: the template clearly says it implies no wrongdoing at the time, it is not an administrative action as anyone can hand it out, and I have never once taken any action in regards to B2C precisely because I am involved with him. Simply being an admin does not mean that people you are in a content dispute with don’t get to be notified of DS by you. It means that the admin doesn’t get to use them. I think B2C should be sure banned, or at the very least restricted so his unique form of disruption isn’t allowed to continue, but I have never once abused the tools with regards to him and have always asked the community or other administrators to take action. Comparing following the policy to the letter on how to deal with an entrenched disruptive editor who you are involved with really shouldn’t be competed to tool abuse. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how delivering the DS alert is tool misuse since as noted anyone can issue them (including non-admins). The only requirement is that involved admins cannot impose sanctions themselves (which Tony hasn't). Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I don't mean to suggest you did anything wrong and I probably misspoke with my comparison to tool misuse; what I'm saying is that the DS alert process itself is sub-par. Of course anyone can pass an alert to anyone else, for any reason or no reason whatsoever, excepting that you may not alert an editor who has already been alerted within the past year. But by their nature, the alerts are only ever issued in the midst of conflict. I mean, sure, the text of the alert reads "this is just a message for your information" but the action implies "I'm getting my ducks in a row so that a Bad Thing will happen if you don't immediately concede". I apologize for implying that you intended any of this, that's just my general feel for how the alerts are commonly interpreted. Anyway that issue is kind of tangential to this thread, but if you want to chat about it you know how to find my talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I am an editor like B2C who has a large interest in page titling and page moving. While I would definitely oppose to B2C being banned altogether in RM discussion and similar activity, due to the fact that they clearly have a vast interest in this area and can bring a net benefit. I don't however oppose to some lesser ban of B2C, like no closing RM discussions (this was supported by several editors) and no editing policy talk pages (since that appears to be somewhat what this is about). I don't know enough about the BLPCRIME issue to make any comments about it specifically so I'll duck out otherwise there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I stand by my RM closes. I have had hardly any complaints, no more than average for RM closers, I'm sure. Not saying there aren't one or two questionable exceptions, like with most any other closer. I mostly help out with non-controversial ones anyway. Do you perceive a problem with my closes? What? --В²C ☎ 19:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I personally don't have a problem with you're closes but I am aware that several other editors do (I think you have had more complaints than most closers, though I do see that many have been from people who frequently disagree with you) and that a RM closure and policy discussion ban would at least be a better outcome than a full RM ban. I'm not saying that I support that you are given a RM closure and policy discussion ban but I don't oppose to it based on the concerns of multiple editors. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
      • I appreciate your support. We've had our differences too, but have worked them out amicably, I think. Yes? Please don't pile on because a few others who were not able to do so are blowing the wind in a certain direction. If you look at what they're complaining about you'll see that I'm not doing anything different from others, as you already know. A good example is in that AE discussion started by Black Kite linked at the top of this discussion. See my statement there in which I point though I was persecuted for saying too much in a particular discussion, several others said much more. But I'm the one who is "tendentious"? Why me? These are the kinds of things I'm persecuted for. It's really unfair. --В²C ☎ 21:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
        • Yes we have indeed managed to work things out, despite sometimes having different views (mainly on long-term significance and ASTONISH). Remember that I'm not supporting anything, I would much prefer to oppose to any restrictions but I can't ignore the concerns of others, which I don't think are entirely invalid. Please continue to participate in page titling discussions etc. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Crouch, Swale: I think the idea of a ban on closing RM discussions would probably be worthwhile, for a variety of reasons. There's a general principle that closures should be undertaken only by someone who's neutral to the debate; someone without a horse in the race, so to speak. B2C devotes nearly all his time either to specific RMs or to matters of titling policy. The fact that he has a very long history of firmly advocating for his own unique interpretations of such policies as the only acceptable ones, often in ways that have led to disruption and sanctions, does unfortunately raise the question of impartiality in most any closing. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• * First of all let's consider that this is an editor that doesn't really contribute much to an encyclopedia - They have 27,000 edits, of which only 9% are in mainspace, of which most are related to page they've been involved in moving or otherwise discussing. 75% are to talk pages, mostly involved in arguing and/or discussing page moves. Frankly, B2C should never have been unblocked without a community discussion in the first place - it was a utterly terrible unblock given the persistent disruption in the RM area since (see the AE filing linked in the opening paragraph) - however that is now past history. At the very least, however, he should be barred from closing Requested Moves (there was consensus for that in the first place), and if he has moved onto causing issues (especially BLP related ones) at policy pages, then that needs to be looked at as well. Black Kite (talk) 19:57::18 January 2019 (UTC)

  • We don't all contribute in the same way. Because of my interest in title stability on WP (see my user page and FAQ), I tend to get involved in controversial matters about titles which necessitates many (some long) discussions on talk pages to develop consensus (that's how consensus is developed on WP). That's why so much of my activity is on talk pages working this stuff out. I was recently thanked for a good typical example of this; see Talk:University_of_Klagenfurt#Requested_move_26_December_2018. That some of you choose to persecute me for this approach while others are sending me wikilove notes for it, is disappointing. --В²C ☎ 20:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I make no comment about when/how B2C was unblocked being correct but I would dispute Black Kite's statement that User:wbm1058 "unilaterally unblocked B2C", the unblock was discussed at User talk:Born2cycle/Archive 14 where it appears several editors favoured unblocking B2C (though apparently with restrictions). I would agree that wbm105 may have been better off posting at AN or asking the blocking admin/AE filer though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I suppose I'm involved here since I unblocked B2C and have been pinged; frankly I'm annoyed at having to look into his edits again so soon. A distraction from an otherwise productive day for me. I can't really say much more before I read all through this, but two points. (1) SMcCandlish's comments on B2C's talk prompted me to unblock, so I'm pinging them now, in case they wish to review the current drama and add input. (2) I count 15 B2C signatures on Talk:Kidnapping of Jayme Closs – I think you're over your quota there. You should realize that article is running on the center rail; please take some time out to tend to outside-rail maintenance where you have much less risk for receiving electric shocks. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

You're annoyed? Sorry about that, but imagine how I feel! The discussion at Kidnapping of Jayme Closs has nothing to do with titles. I'm not sure what quota you're referring to. As to my 26 talk page edits, there are several of us who are working on that article, and discussing various issues as we go. Yes, I have 26 Talk page edits. Joseph A. Spadaro has 40. TonyBallioni has 12. I have 17 edits on the main article also. I don't think that's such an unusual ratio for main/talk article edits considering the care put into a current event article with BLP considerations. Ballioni is 4 main/12 talk, for example. My question: How is anything I'm doing wrong or problematic by any reasonable standard, much less warranting an AN/I? --В²C ☎ 22:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Still reading through this (not that much fun, so bear with me please) but one initial comment. Template:Ivory messagebox (changed to |bg=#E5F8FF) is documented as for use in system messages. Personally I don't care to see it being used on user pages for this purpose. The notification about ArbCom sanctions can be delivered without using a loud colorful message box with exclamation point icon and Important Notice section header that will draw the attention of any passerby that visits the user's talk page. Giving the notice in a more "friendly manner" may not have prompted the kind of response it got. I'd prefer sending the message without bothering to use a template. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Um... wbm1058 ... the DS template isn't the problem here. The behavior of Born2Cycle is, and your unilateral unblock of them wasn't in the least helpful. Please take ownership of enabling this problematic editor to keep disrupting the community -- a situation you could alleviate by re-instating Dennis Brown's block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• Not to pile on, but this is exactly why it isn't good for an admin to unilaterally unblock someone after there was a community discussion and sanction. I did the original block and I was already very familiar with B2C (for a few years), and not every reason for the block was spelled out in that AE discussion. I did the block as outside AE to make it easier for him to get unblocked, but not to be unilaterally unblocked without discussion. The unblock was a mistake; perhaps an honest mistake, but a mistake nonetheless and B2C had not even requested to be unblocked, so technically, my admin action of blocking was a revert, which is a different animal altogether. B2C is not an unlikable person, or some ogre that sets out to wreck the place, but there exists some peculiar habits that are disruptive to the project on the whole. I don't think it is intentional but it doesn't matter. Having a lack of self control that bleeds into disruption, is still disruption. I haven't been very active since the unblock, so I can't speak to the recent behavior, but I'm not shocked that we are back here, wasting words discussion it. As for what to do now, I'm not up to pouring through diffs. I will leave that to the community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• For a current example of how my friends hold my behavior to unfair madeup standards, see User_talk:Born2cycle#Please_reopen_RM. Why do I have to endure such harassment? —В²C ☎ 15:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
• By the way, and not to excuse the inappropriateness of the behavior, but just to point out I'm not the only one to do it, though probably the only one to be taken to AN/I for it, here is another example of someone referring to a poster of a discretionary sanctions notice on the talk page of an experienced editor as a "jerk" [187]. In other words, another example of me being held to standards others are not held to, by those who are biased against with me due to a history of disagreeing with me. --В²C ☎ 21:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment For the record, I will note that I have no long term history with В²C, I only had one long interaction with В²C a month back over an RM/MRV discussion. I appreciate his contributions but dislike his conduct with others on the talk pages. I have been watching this discussion and В²C's conduct during this thread. TonyBallioni has proposed a solution, but it seems people are divided if it will solve the problem or not. Nevertheless, people are unanimous in their thoughts that В²C's conduct has been problematic. While I was hoping that В²C will accept the concern raised, acknowledge it and propose self improvements. That should have been the ideal closure for both В²C's and community's benefit. Instead lately all I have seen is В²C playing victim card here, for example, his lines right above this comment and on his talk page where in his edit summary [188] he has noted that, "Removing factually incorrect (referenced AN/I isn't even about RMs or titles) persecution statement from person biased against me due to a long history of disagreeing with me". The real problem here is that the person concerned is not even acknowledging the problem, and instead pointing fingers over others and calling them biased.

During my interaction with В²C over the RM discussion of Talk:Jaggi Vasudev and subsequent Move review I was really appalled by his behavior towards everyone who opposed his view point, and especially his conduct towards the closing admin ErikHaugen which can only be described as "'harassment' of Erik" for Erik's perfectly valid closure, simply because B2c wanted to close the RM discussion in way that differed with, how Erik had closed it. During the MRV discussion, SmokeyJoe suggested В²C on his talk page to "dial it down", saying [189] "Erik does not deserve this grief". The harassment was so much, that even ErikHaugen (who I guess is a cool tempered admin) had to put up a question [190] on В²C's talk page, stating in his edit summary "b2c what i do to you??" and in the comment Erik noted some example comments from В²C, and asking "really? Why am I getting this from you?", В²C never responded back [191].

TonyBallioni has indicated that this thread will also likely get archived with yet another warning and then we will be back again. IMHO if TonyBallioni's proposal is not acceptable, something else should be proposed. This should not be left without addressing. Problem has not disappeared so far while ANI kept ignoring it and sweeping it under the carpet. And for sure, the problem will not disappear, even if we ignore this once again. --DBigXrayᗙ 00:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray:, believe me, I hear you! I agree my conduct especially towards ErikHaugen was inappropriate in that discussion. I did acknowledge and apologize but then I blew it again. I did not mean to be insulting or disrespectful. In my head I'm just ribbing and having a friendly debate, but in writing without body language and voice intonation I forget it comes off as being harsh. Not that it's an excuse, but, I don't think I was the only one who went off the rails a few times in that heated discussion, and I don't think I deserve sanctions any more than anyone else for it. That discussion finally died down, and you and I were among all of us involved who all stepped back and dropped our proverbial sticks (though I never equate in my mind debates with battles), eventually. So there's that. I'm sure our future encounters will be more congenial. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 01:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

NOT RELEVANT TO *THIS* DISCUSSION

@Born2cycle: I am not sure that why DBigXray is trying to be an opportunist when he has been most disruptive throughout that page move and the move review with his repetitive nonsense. On MR, you were always on the point and managed the discussion better than what I was expecting given the bludgeoning that was going on there. I don't see if you were wrong anywhere. Qualitist (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC) I appreciate that, and I think that illustrates how much being in agreement or not colors one's perception of how words are interpreted. I think you saw my comments as I intended - well meaning ribbing in a friendly dispute. That said, ideally I should be thinking of how anyone who disagrees with me might reasonably interpret my words, and I could certainly do better in that department. Though I understand going too far can also be not productive. For the record, I do disagree with DBigXray's characterization of why I disputed Erik's close, but this is not the place rehash all that again! --В²C ☎ 02:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC) I see that Qualitist is here as well with his usual lies and deception against me. Looking at the number of comments at Move review of Jaggi Vasudev from all participants, where Erikhaugen had to respond to all 3 of these editors В²C, Paine Ellsworth and Qualitist who were objecting to Erik's RM close. The number of comments clearly speaks for themselves on who was disrupting and bludgeoning. --DBigXrayᗙ 03:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Username !Vote at Jaggi MRV Number of comments ErikHaugen Endorse (closing admin) 44 В²C Overturn 34 Paine Ellsworth Overturn 32 Qualitist Overturn (Nom) 23 SmokeyJoe Endorse 23 DBigXray Endorse 23 This what I meant from the fact you have been "most disruptive throughout that page move and the move review" with your repetitive nonsense. You haven't addressed your issues, including your "repetitive nonsense" that flooded RM and MR, not just MR. But you don't have to worry because you will get the opportunity for it one day since it is very usual to see some editor dragging you to ANI because of your recurring CIR. Qualitist (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Phew, glad to know that I don't have to worry. Qualitist may I suggest another third correction after 2 that you already, made to your line above to include "...since it is very usual to see some editor (from the same group that includes Capitals00, MBlaze Lightning, D4iNa4, Orientls, Rzvas, 123sarangi, and their friends) dragging you to ANI..."--DBigXrayᗙ 04:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC) You are paranoid with your fantasies. You have to learn many things but for now you should better know that you must not be commenting on others conduct by pointing to an incident where you have been most disruptive. Qualitist (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Since Tony Ballioni's proposal has been closed with no action, I have posted two additional proposals (#Proposal 2 (Born2Cycle) and #Proposal 3 (Born2Cycle)) below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I'm familiar with this editor through their participation in WP:RM discussions; I also reverted a diff of theirs here that I feel would have been strongly non-constructive. B2C is clearly an opinionated editor, which is no sin; without opinionated editors we would not have an encyclopedia. They do seem to have a tendency to get into trouble when they make dozens of comments on a topic; I'd recommend that they refrain from making more than 3 comments in any 24 hour period on a specific thread on a talk page. (That's a good rule of thumb for everyone, by the way). power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Has anyone noticed that this user has pending-changes reviewer rights? https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec-rightschanges/en.wikipedia.org/Born2cycle Another proposal could be the removal of this right as a sanction. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment That was a dumb idea that I thought of. Sorry Born2Cycle for thinking about that. First of, it is something very little of a privilege. Second, you have extended confirmed privilege, which didn't go thru my head in time that the fact that you have extended confirmed has the same rights almost like pending changes reviewer. Third, the only reason why I thought of it originally was that you could abuse RM discussion pages that have pending changes protection, and having this privilege means that you could control the edits. However anyone can do that who has extended-confirmed... so another reason why it was a dumb idea. Again I am sorry for making that suggestion originally. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal (Born2cycle restricted to 1 edit per 24 hours)

This proposal is unlikely to reach any consensus. Leaving the main discussion open for potentially another proposal as raised issues are ongoing. Alex Shih (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Okay, given that opinion is split on a indef/site ban, but there does seem to be consensus that B2C's way of interacting with others on this site is disruptive, I'm proposing the following: Born2cycle is indefinitely restricted to one edit in 24 hours per page in the Talk and Wikipedia talk namespace. This sanction may be appealed no earlier than 6 months, and then every 6 months thereafter. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Support As proposer. I think he's a longterm net-negative to the project, and should not be allowed to continue to contribute, but that is unlikely to happen without an ArbCom case, and I don't think anyone wants that. This sanction addresses the problem that people have identified above that he is completely unable to drop the stick or consider the views of those beside himself as legitimate, while still allowing him to participate on Wikipedia and not overwhelm discussions. I think it is a good middle ground, and for those of us who think he falls into net-negative territory is an exercise in WP:ROPE: either this works and he becomes a productive editor, or it fails and it becomes evident to the community that he is not able to reform. Either way, the problem will be solved by this. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose To namespaces other than WT namespace (and also exclude from RMs in the project namespace, since they occur at the WT namespace), I don't think there has been sufficient problems there. This seems to have been the views of the September AE case, there didn't appear to be much support for banning B2C from individual RMs. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose as the persecuted and accused. I deny the charges which are extremely vague anyway, and not even attempted to be proven. I find it ironic that the editor who started this AN/I is accusing me of "interacting with others" in a disruptive way. Who has been disrupted by anything I've said or done? What have I said or done that disrupted anyone? Now look at how many were disrupted for this AN/I. And this latest squirmish all started, by the way, when TonyBallioni jumped in at Kidnapping of Jayme Closs with this surprising edit and edit summary about which he still can't explain the basis at Talk:Kidnapping_of_Jayme_Closs#Joseph_E._Duncan_III. That sure looks disruptive to me... --В²C ☎ 22:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC) You are not a victim. The links to previous discussions about your history have been provided above. You only backed down on that page after the possibility of an indefinite block and you continue to cast aspersions even while this is going on. Coming to a page after you posted about it at WT:BLP and then finding other BLP issues and insisting that they have consensus for inclusion before being restored in not disruptive. That is policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC) I was and remain bewildered by your objection to inclusion of that link in the See Also section (Joseph A. Spadaro and I await your responses to our questions at that discussion section, especially considering what WP:SEEALSO says and the similar examples of See Also inclusions in BLP/criminal related articles I listed), but I admit that it was a mistake and premature to revert your revert, and I apologize. That was out of character for me if you look at my history, but I truly thought you made an error and consensus for inclusion was implied. I won't do that again. --В²C ☎ 22:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC) oppose, mildly, "It is a highly active species. Always on the move and is very squirmish, if handled. " this is the only hit I got, so I want to see that word used more often : ) never change mate. cygnis insignis 22:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Too many potential squirmishs in some new approaches, will support a consensus on some form of community pressure to inhibit unhelpful dissent. cygnis insignis 12:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose unless we're going to penalize all overly active participants in requested moves and related discussions the the same way. Although I don't think any action is necessary at this point, I urge B2C to consider this a warning and consider dialing back his participation in said discussions. Calidum 22:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC) I appreciate that but please know this issue with TonyBallioni was at Kidnapping of Jayme Closs and had nothing to do with RMs or titles. I honestly think he (and a few others) just unfairly judge my behavior through a prejudicial lens and see problems where if others did the exact same thing it wouldn't be an issue at all. --В²C ☎ 23:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC) While I have argued for many years that B2C needs formal restrictions, this suggestion of edits per page per day is not it. Words per page per week might be a better measure of tendentious verbosity. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Frankly, I'm not understanding the hesitation to indef him. He's been a net-negative for a long time. Hasn't he "exhausted the patience of the community" yet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Wow. Net-negative? Thank you for sharing your hateful and hurtful opinion. Why is this acceptable? —В²C ☎ 01:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Don't be disingenuous, it's hardly the first time you've been evaluated as a net-negative to the project. And it's acceptable because AN/I is where the behavior of editors is evaluated for the possibility of sanctioning -- which you totally know, because you've been discussed here before -- these are all AN/I reports: Feb 2009, May 2009, June 2009, May 2010, Aug 2010, Oct 2010, Oct 2010, Dec 2010, Dec 2010, Jan 2011, May 2011, Aug 2011, Oct 2011, Dec 2011, Dec 2011, Jan 2012, Feb 2013, May 2014, Jan 2016, Oct 2016, April 2017 The majority of these AN/I reports are specifically about Born2Cycle, while others show his tendency toward being tendentious and disruptive. Note: I stopped when I got to the third page of this. There were at least 2 more pages of listings after it. So, yes, a net-negative, very much so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC) That’s still a tiny fraction of all the discussions I’ve been involved in over those years and in every AN/I case it’s brought here by someone who disagrees with me about some issue, but complains about my behavior which is usually actually pretty typical/normal on WP, and not against any rules, as is made evident when objective uninvolved editors look at it and see nothing problematic to sanction. The bottom line is some people unfortunately take disagreement personally and develop animus towards the person who disagrees with them. I mean, look at how are political leaders are behaving. Some can disagree amicably (I can), but others get pissed off. It’s what has happened with Tony, you, and many others. I should not be faulted or penalized for disagreeing with others. But that’s all that this is about. —В²C ☎ 05:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Total outsider who have just kept an eye on this - You don't seem to understand this is not about the fact that you disagree, but how you express yourself and behave when you disagree. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC) @MPJ-DK: Okay, I agree with that much: I don’t understand that this is about how I express myself and behave when I disagree. The reason I don’t understand is because, as far as I know, how I express myself and behave when I disagree is respectful and appropriate per normal standards and applicable WP behavioral policies and guidelines. I’m not perfect, but my perception is my behavior is generally above average in terms of avoiding personal attacks, not being belittling, being civil, not showing disrespect, AGF, etc., when discussing with someone with whom I disagree. Not perfect. Not the best. But above average. So, total outsider, please help me understand. If I’m wrong and it’s not just about people griping about my behavior simply because I disagree with them, but it’s something substantive about how I express myself and behave, please, tell me what it is that I’m doing wrong. Help me understand, and I’ll stop. (By the way, I think this reply exemplifies how I typically express myself and behave when I disagree - can you identify a problem here?). —В²C ☎ 07:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC) MPJ-DK posts 35 words. B2C replies with 180 words, denying the observation and demanding MPJ-DK follow up with an extensive reply to his 180 words. I would call “escalation of verbosity” the central problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC) @Born2cycle: Comment from another uninvolved outside observer: one issue I see reading this thread is that you're responding to nearly every editor's comment. Though the content of the responses may be civil, the sheer volume of responses can have the unintended effect of "choking" conversation, making it difficult for the editors to talk to each other about you, rather than just talking to you. The community may want to see that you know when and how to step back, including maybe now. (Up to you.) Levivich? ! 07:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC) I have no doubt whatsoever that you do not understand what it's all about, because if you did, there wouldn't be so many complaints about your editing, because you would have changed the way you edit in response to the piles and piles and piles of complaints. The fact that the complaints continue after at least 9 years, is testament to your lack of understanding, I think. The only alternative is that you do understand what everyone objects to, but you don't give a damn about their objections and complaints, you just want to edit the way you want to edit, no matter what the rest of the Wikipedia community says. Those are really the only possibilities: either you don't understand, or you do and are giving the rest of us the finger. Either way, you're a net negative to the project, because you suck up way too much time and energy for the contributions you make (only 12.6% of which go to improving articles, while 51.2% go to talking about them on article and user talk pages). [192] Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC) I support “net negative”, although I note some improvement, if we exclude the recent affection to close discussions (actions that must be throughly scrutinised and are frequently found faulty) and attempts to reword policy (including BLPCRIME). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose this particular restriction as well as a site ban (which is not being proposed). I don't see a perfect solution here. Somehow, В²C has to move beyond the notion he is being persecuted and adjust his behavior but I'm not sure how to do that as blocks are meant to prevent misconduct, not punish editors. I don't think this proposal will solve the problem here which is one of attitude, not number of edits. But just because I oppose this restriction and a site ban (again, spoken of but not being proposed) doesn't mean I champion your behavior, В²C. Can you acknowledge that there are issues with your editing behavior and accept that sometimes your editing can be tendentious? Can you tamp that down? Because while there are some who oppose Tony's proposal, you're unlikely to get off without any restrictions at all as Tony is not alone in his criticism. Can you state how you might change how you respond to those you disagree with and give assurances that we won't all be back here a month from now? Because that is why, usually, editors call for indefinite blocks because they don't want to repeat all of this again and again. Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Just now reading over the the AE discussion from March, it strongly resembles this discussion, with pleas to change behavior and promises to, which is unfortunate to see again, 9 months later. Apparently, we already have been through this same discussion before. I'm not going to change my Oppose right now but I now think some editing restrictions are called for. If В²C didn't pick up the message being given at AE, what assurances are that this will change now? Liz Read! Talk! 04:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Take a look at some of the AN/I reports I just posted links for, and see if it doesn't change your mind. Basically, B2C has been like this from the beginning, he's been in trouble for his behavior from the beginning, and he just never changes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Support, for what it's worth. I find it astonishing that we can be here, on the - what - 15th or more noticeboard report, and hardly anyone seems to think that such a perennial time-sink needs a sanction that will stop there being a 16th or more report, and a 17th, and an 18th ... Black Kite (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Attempts to muzzle someone simply for disagreeing with them (whether they realize that’s what they’re doing or not) rightfully should not succeed. —В²C ☎ 07:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC) More content-free argument. A net negative. Johnuniq (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Oh, goodness, the Free Speech gambit. Well, you say you have a right to hold your rally, and I say, sure, but you're not going to hold it in my living room, fella. Another clear indication that you have little or no understanding of what's going on here. As my mother used to say to me, "It's not what you said, it how you said it" -- and you say it disruptively and tendentiously, over and over again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Ugh, not cute anymore. I'm starting to agree with the idea of an enforced break from RM, certainly from closing them. Nevertheless, I consider my exasperation with the user to be my problem, and interaction with this type of editing is a rite we have no means or right to insulate ourselves from. A sort of continuity in our community's history, I suffer from nostalgia on occasion. And he is a good guy, I'm sure, just another stamina junkie is all. cygnis insignis 12:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC) B2C: The problem — which you seem determined not to hear — is not with the fact that you disagree with others. Disagreement happens all the time, and can be quite healthy. The problem is the tendentious way in which you do it, and the fact that (as others have rightly noted) it's turned into a disruption a great many times over the past many years. That you continue to characterize concerns with your behavior as "muzzling" suggests you're not understanding that point. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose sanction. With all due respect to Tony who, as I have said on many occasions, is one of our finest and most even-handed admins, I do think this ANI thread is undue escalation. It is clear that B2C has a style of editing that rubs some people up the wrong way, and I can fully understand why that is. He has strong opinions on particular topic areas, and finds it difficult on occasion to WP:Drop the stick. On the flip side, though, he understands our article title policies better than almost anyone and most of the time he is absolutely right about the points he makes. User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle is one example - it accurately describes a phenomenon on Wikipedia which has happened in numerous places over the years, where a bad title is eventually replaced by a better one despite many years of failed move requests. New York (state) and Hillary Clinton to name just two. In itself the "Yogurt Principle" is harmless and often useful, yet B2C gets massive criticism for it. Sarah Jane Brown is another case, which Tony mentioned as a "bad thing" in the thread on his talk page. But there are many people, myself included, who think "Sarah Jane Brown" is a dreadful title for the article. It doesn't match our naming conventions, and B2C makes very cogent arguments to that effect on the occasions the matter has been debated over the years. Is that annoying to people who disagree? Yes. Is it against the rules? I don't think so. He doesn't edit war in article space, and he accepted last year's close on the SJB RM. On the actual issue that led to this thread, obviously it is a content dispute, and I can see both sides of the story. Tony felt he was sticking to the BLP rules, and of course B2C should not have called him a "jerk". But then again, as wbm1058 says above, it is possible to convey a message to an experienced editor without using templates designed for newbies, and I would have thought the discretionary sanctions notice could have been posted as a friendly message instead of a template? In summary then, the only crime I can see is that B2C has strong opinions, and sometimes goes too far in expressing them. When that happens, I would urge both sides in to please approach it in a collegiate rather than a combative fashion. B2C should try to understand why people feel annoyed by him, and similarly those who criticise should do more to understand his point of view rather than simply coming to ANI every time there's a dispute. I think calling him a "net negative" is very far from the mark. His presence here over the years has definitely helped our article titles be in a better shape. Thanks, and I hope this makes some sense.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC) He is oblivious to his own biases, and will put endless energy and devotion into arguing a peculiar blinkered view. You agree with him at Wikipedia:Move_review#Jaggi_Vasudev, but do you agree with the number and tone of his posts there? His “Yogurt Principle” is a justification for relentless disruption until the noisy group gets its way. My “net negative”, for the last year, assessment is based on the amount of review time needed for every move and RM close he makes, a fair impartial action can’t be trusted without review. You, Amakuru, appear to be the most respect admin who had time for him, why don’t you volunteer to play his “probation officer”, he needs someone on his side who can tell him when to back off or ease off. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC) The rules for discretionary sanctions are very strict: notifications must use the specified template before administrators can apply a sanction at their discretion for the topic area in question. isaacl (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose sanction. With no due respect to Tony Ballioni or Dennis Brown or any of the other process jockeys that spend all too much authority posturing and no actual project improvement. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC) No respect, although it is due? cygnis insignis 13:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC) No respect is due. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Govindahariahri, your deliberate ill-mannered disrespecting of Tony Ballioni and Dennis Brown -- both of whom have already contributed more to Wikipedia than it's likely you ever will -- reflects more upon your extremely poor judgment than it does on upon anything else. You might want to consider just editing articles and forebear from commenting on the noticeboards, where you constantly embarrass yourself with your ill-considered opinions. Born2Cycle should be worried, because when you show up in support of someone, it's almost inevitable that they're on the cusp of a block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC) I wouldn't worry BMK, even without his ridiculous comments about Tony and Dennis, the community got to the point long ago where no-one takes any notice of Govindaharihari's comments. Black Kite (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC) I could have written the first paragraph writen by Ivanvector (18:33, 18 January 2019), although B2C and I also agree on other issues. I also agree with User:Crouch, Swale (19:48, 18 January 2019). So I Oppose this proposal--and also the site ban--but B2C please self-moderate and consider this ANI a shot across the bows and not a licence to kill (pun intended). -- PBS (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose as not actually responsive to the issues that keep bringing B2C back here. I've gone from seeking an indef myself against B2C, back in the day, to more recently being highly critical of the reasoning for the indef imposed on him a year or so back. (I wrote a detailed analysis of why at his talk page some time ago [193]; the short version is that he was accused of doing the same thing over and over and not listening when consensus was against him or ever changing his stance, but that was easily disproved by the actual changes in what he was proposing and why, which were clearly directly responsive to the criticism he was receiving – he simply got railroaded anyway. And the block was invalid for unquestionable procedural reasons, including ArbCom limiting the scope of the case under which he was blocked to specific pages which were not the pages to which he was posting.) It would make more sense to use an RM-specific topic ban, than either a general block, or some weird 1RR thing across the entire site, since he never ends up at ANI or other dramaboards for anything not related to RM, from what I can tell, and he's productive outside that one problem area. Sanctions are to be preventative (of actual issues, not imaginary or hypothetical ones), never punitive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Yes, a topic ban on article naming was what the AE thread had consensus on, but then he was blocked indefinitely so the AE was closed - until, of course, he was unblocked and carried on with the type of editing that got him to AE in the first place. One of the many failings of Wikipedia's arcane processes, unfortunately. Black Kite (talk) 07:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Quick point: can anyone articulate exactly what I supposedly did that brought me here to AN/I this time, and how what I did supposedly violates anything? BTW, the discussion cited related to Kidnapping of Jayme Closs had nothing to do with titles or RMs. I was actually working in article space trying to improve an article I was interested in and got involved in a content dispute, followed WP:BRD, etc., which led me to informally (no rfc) proposing on a talk page a possible change to a guideline. I honestly don't see what the problem was, so my question stands. To anyone. Why are people talking about RM limitations? I've been (mostly) avoiding being tendentious in RMs. See my history! I feel like I'm being railroaded, again, though I won't rule out the possibility that I'm missing something. --В²C ☎ 01:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC) You were never "railroaded". Many editors have expressed concern about your editing over many years. You finally pushed far enough that you got yourself blocked. Your constant refrain of "I don't get it" doesn't help. Omnedon (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose, talk page sanctions are almost never a good idea. We want people to use talk pages to carry out any detailed discussions they wish to have. Having lots of edits on a talk page is not a Bad Thing in and of itself. I don't care if B2C uses a talk page to argue against policy when most think he's wrong, or to disagree with other editors about an interpretation of a guideline. That's what talk pages are for - talking things over. Annoying or not, I have not once been shown that this prolixity and tendentiousness is spilling over into article space and causing any kind of disruption in article space. Fish Karate 11:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Just to be clear, I don't think anyone's saying that many talk edits by themselves are a problem, or that debating with others on talk pages is wrong, or that article space is being impacted. The concern centers mainly around the long-term tendentiousness of B2C's interactions in talk space, and how that negatively affects the relevant forums and community. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Support some form of action re B2C, but (like others above) I must weakly oppose this proposal. A sanction in the form of x edits per y time period strikes me as a little too arbitrary and unwieldy, and would presumably require constant policing to enforce — and having to constantly sink time into addressing issues caused by this user is one of the things I think the community's trying to get away from. I realize that B2C was blocked[194] for a period in 2018 for similar behavior, and that to judge from the continuing debate it hasn't affected the desired change. That being the case, it seems like another block, perhaps of a longer duration, may be necessary. However, something less severe like banning B2C from RMs for a period might be worth trying. Either way: without action, it seems likely we'll all be meeting here again in another six to nine months to re-debate it. My take on the broader situation: The very lengthy and regular history of problems that the community has had with B2C over many years (a portion of which was linked above by Beyond My Ken) should, I think, be of at least some concern to anyone interested in the overall health of the project. As I've said before, I don't think B2C is motivated by anything other than a sincere desire to improve Wikipedia... but problems arise from the fact that his views on how to improve Wikipedia are often at odds with the community's — or to be more accurate, the problem is that he takes his advocacy for his views too far, often turning to filibusters, stick-wielding, repetitious persistence to get a particular favored outcome, or other such tendentious behaviors. I feel like these things have a corrosive, negative effect on the nature of debate in the forums, and makes it less likely that users (particularly newer ones) will be willing to engage. Concerning though those problems are, the more disheartening part is that B2C rarely acknowledges the problems, and instead voices bewilderment at why he's yet again the center of dispute. I say disheartening because if he hasn't internalized the need for change after so many iterations — and with such similar concerns expressed by such a variety of editors across so many years — I fear that change may never happen. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Huwmanbeing, all of the people who complain about my behavior, including you, have a history of disagreeing with me. Can you blame for thinking that's not just as a strange coincidence? You mention "filibusters, stick-wielding, repetitious persistence" all of which I admit to being guilty of engaging in to some degree in the past, including arguably in this AN/I discussion itself, but it's not like I'm the only one who has made such errors (including you). More to the point, I was brought here to AN/I this time due to alleged misbehavior that had nothing to do with that. Certainly no examples of me engaging in "filibusters, stick-wielding, repetitious persistence" behavior were cited related to the article in question, Kidnapping of Jayme Closs. So why do you bring up all this unrelated baggage, other than as part of a persecution of me because of our disagreements in the past? How can I get you guys with whom I've disagreed in the past to realize you view my behavior through a different lens than you view others? That you often see issues in my behavior where you would not if anyone else was doing the exact same thing? --В²C ☎ 18:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC) It’s all related, it’s all the same thing. The detail of particular disagreements is irrelevant. It’s your inability to understand what others are saying, followed by challenging with escalation of verbosity while missing the point. This is why you should never be closing discussions (RMs or others), or striving to alter policy, because you don’t understand things that don’t fit your views. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC) Yeah, well, if I have a misunderstanding with someone I do try to resolve it with, you know, discussion. That's my big crime? And closing discussions and striving to alter policy? You mean like countless others do innocently in your eyes? But if I do it it's a crime? Because I tend to try to resolve misunderstandings with discussion? Your blatantly biased treatment of me is beyond belief, as you've made abundantly evident, again, today, here: User_talk:Born2cycle#Please_reopen_RM. --В²C ☎ 21:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC) (ec) Oppose. I do not believe that the proposed sanction would prove to be beneficial for В²C, for editors who are unhappy with his patterns of discussion, or for the encyclopedia. Dekimasuよ! 20:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC) Okay, I had left this for a few days as it had been frustrating me, but I can always see if there isn't room for a solution I've proposed, so I won't argue this one. I'm personally not sure where we're going here, and you can count me in the same camp as BMK and Black Kite as being confused as to why there's hesitation here: I've never doubted the B2C's heart is in the right place, I just think his long-term behavior is disruptive. All that being said, I do think what's being expressed here is that the community is tired of the refusal to get to the point or understand views other than his own. I'd personally be content at this point to have this report closed as a final warning to B2C that on a collaborative project, this type of behavior isn't acceptable. Maybe that will make it so there isn't a 16th or more report or that when the 16th or more report happens, we can have a discussion about another sanction that would prevent the 17th. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC) ....aaaaand... there's currently a discussion on B2C's talkpage about yet another poorly closed RM ... Black Kite (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Support Every time someone says something bad about B2C it is met with accusations of bias or that the other individual has a history of disagreeing with them. This is clearly the behavior of someone who sees nothing wrong in what they do, and the numerous times this comes up have shown that nothing is likely to change until the changed is forced. Nihlus 00:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose Seriously? We're talking about talk space edits? B2C's style may be abrupt, in the classic calling a spade a bloody shovel style, but he is engaged in discussing issues on the talk page where it belongs. He is not engaged in main space edit warring or making argument through repeated edit/revert edit summary cycles. Those who are annoyed by B2C might be best advised to grow a thicker skin and worry a bit more actual problematic editors disrupting main space. You may disagree with him but at least he is discussing policy issues on talk space which is surely one of the purposes of talk pages. This smells of a spiteful attempt to silence an opponent, I'm not impressed. - Nick Thorne talk 01:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Nick Thorne, disruption is disruption not matter where it occurs. And your aspersions thrown Tony's way are unwarranted. Nihlus 02:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Close w/final warning per TonyBallioni b/c it will make everyone happy: the editors that believe no sanction is warranted can be happy that no sanction issued. The editors that believe we will soon be here for a 16th round can be happy that soon sanctions will issue, and likely a more serious one than what was proposed here. After the final warning issues, either the editor's behavior will conform to community expectations, or soon the editor will be banned or blocked. Levivich? ! 02:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (Born2Cycle topic-banned from RM process)

going no where. at last glance we were up to 5-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On the basis of the evidence in the previous two sections, Born2Cycle is topic banned from anything and everything to do with moving pages. He may not make page moves, he may not initiate RM or page move discussions, and he may not participate in RM or page move discussions anywhere on en.wiki. He may not solicit RMs or page moves from other editors. The only thing he may do in relation to page moving is to request a move at WP:RM, which request must consist of a single statement with no follow up comments. He may appeal this ban in 6 months. Support as proposer. Second choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose The above discussion which was a lesser proposal than the above was met with clear consensus against it. The strength and policy seem clear to that that lesser proposal was clearly opposed. A few editors suggested a lesser ban like no closing RM discussions or editing policy pages but this proposal is clearly not going to happen per WP:SNOW. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Support, particularly since it's time-limited and allows Born2Cycle to remain an active editor in other areas, which I think is reasonable. Per the evidence, it's true that nearly all these disputes about B2C's behavior originate from behavior in RMs, and have led to more discussions like this than I care to count. That we continue to have to debate this year after year suggests past sanctions haven't been effective, so IMHO an enforced break in this particular area is worth trying. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose and speedy close. Shame on you for proposing this Beyond My Ken. I hope whoever closes this reads the previous sections and does not read this section in isolation and it is unreasonable of the BMK to want people to reitterate the opinions they have already given and IMHO there is no consensus among those who have expressed an opinion for this proposal -- PBS (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose as per PBS. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose on the whole, honestly because following this issue for the past couple days has left a bad taste in my mouth. I began this comment observing that less than a year ago I suggested basically the same thing regarding the dispute Tony mentioned in his original post. In my view the situation has improved somewhat, but I regret to observe that this improvement seems to be driven by a small number of users who appear to me to be showing up uninvolved whenever Born2Cycle is in any kind of dispute, which is behaviour many ANI regulars know I find distasteful. Born2Cycle, I do hope you take on board some of the constructive criticism offered in this thread and especially consider backing off of some of your more assertive policy wonkery. Take Johnuniq's comment here to heart: "The alleged benefits of the perfect title are not worth the years of dispute". It's especially not worth finding yourself banned by the community, and in my experience on this board this discussion looks like a last chance to me. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC) @Ivanvector: Do you have an alternate solution? 'Cause I'm all ears. Or do you think that there is no problem? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC) @Beyond My Ken: I definitely don't think there's no problem, just that it's not a problem of just one user. I don't have a solution, any that I have suggested for problems like this have been drowned out by partisan sniping. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC) I think it essentially is a problem of just one user. When multiple disruptions occur, and B2C is at the middle of them all, BLUDGEONing left and right, then B2C is the problem, and B2C is the locus of where the solution will be found. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC) @Beyond My Ken:, on which talk pages do you see examples of B2C disrupting or bludgeoning, in January? I don't see it at Kidnapping of Jayme Closs. Levivich? ! 06:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC) I'll ask you a rather more pertinent question: in your long history on Wikipedia, haven't you seen this behavior from Born2Cycle over and over again? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC) Beyond My Ken :-) No, that's kind of the point. I've been here two months and while I see problems in the sense of "you talk to much", that's a very common problem (both you and I suffer from that same problem, for example). So where is the diff of him doing or saying something that necessitates this ANI report in the first place? It's not at Jayme Closs. It's not at anything I can see in January. And F2K asked the same question some days ago... where's the diffs? If there aren't any diffs of disruption in the past 30 days, doesn't that suggest just closing this and moving on? Honest question BMK: are you judging this editor based on stuff that happened 6 months or a year or more ago, or are you judging this editor based on their recent behavior, as in the last 30 days? Levivich? ! 19:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC) I am judging this editor based on the totality of their behavior over more than a decade on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC) I think that's a big problem. I don't think it's fair to judge people based on the past decade of their behavior. People change. People grow. Imagine judging a 25-year-old based on their past decade of behavior. Grossly unfair, wouldn't you agree? People should be judged based on how they've behaved lately. If you can't point to recent examples of disruption, perhaps you should reconsider your stance here. The sine qua non of "not getting it" behavior is an absence of change after complaints have been raised. If there is no recent disruption, that proves an editor is getting it. Levivich? ! 22:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC) Well, based on your two months on Wikipedia, I don't believe your judgment is sound, and your conclusion really ought to be ignored as uninformed, as the opinions of newbiew usually are. We are not here to be "fair" (whatever that means in the circumstances), we are here to write and improve an encyclopedia, and it's the needs of the encyclopedia and the community that improves it which are paramount, not "fairness" to any individual editor. When an editor has been disruptive for over a decade, and has been sanctioned for it and yet continues their behavior, then the only thing that matters is "Is this editor helping the encyclopedia, or hurting it?" As I've said, and a number of long-time editors and admins have agreed, B2C is, overall, a net-negative to the project, and the question of what sanction should be levied against him is not a matter of what happened in the last 27 days, but of what he has been responsible for in the past over a decade of disruption. I'm fed up with him, and he's exhausted the patience of a number of other editors as well. Why he's not exhausted the patience of the community as a whole -- including some very fine editors and admins I respect very much -- is quite beyond me, but that's what makes horse racing. My proposals are based, as I said, on the totality of B2C's disruption of Wikipedia, not on a minuscule portion of it. As for B2C "getting it", I suggest you consult the editors complaining about the RMs he closed within the last week or so, and pay close attention to Tony Ballioni's comments throughout this very long discussion. There is absolutely no indication -- despite the hopes of some editors -- that he's got any more clue now than he ever had. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC) "...and yet continues their behavior..." seems to me to be the key part of what you wrote. If the behavior doesn't continue, then it's not a problem, right? Hence why what happened in the last 27 days matters, and perhaps that's why some editors you respect more than me are not agreeing with you. I haven't seen any recent disruption. Is the Proteza koniecpolska close the only disruption all month or are there others? Levivich? ! 00:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC) Then you're not looking very well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC) Coulda saved a lot of typing by just saying, "No, I don't have any January diffs." :-P At least we agree on one thing: all this could've been avoided if it was just renamed to Zarajanovic Braunislav. Levivich? ! 06:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose this doesn't solve anything. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC) @Power-enwiki: Then what will? I'll withdraw my proposals in favor of one which (1) will control B2C's behavior, and (2) has a chance of being supported by the community. However, I'm not of the mind that there is no problem to be solved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Corrent ping @Power~enwiki: Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC) If something along these lines were necessary, the exact opposite proposal (that B2C is banned from everything except move discussions) would be better for the encyclopedia. RM is sometimes contentious, but trying to remove all the contentious editors from that process will not improve it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Sorry, I don;t follow your thinking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose per my comment above. That proposal didn't gain consensus, so quite why anyone thinks a harsher punishment will is beyond me. I suggest people stop beating a dead horse and move on to something else.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Indeed this is like trialing changing someone for murder after being found not guilty of manslaughter. When a more appropriate trial would be a lesser offence like OAPA 1861 would be more suitable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose per Ivanvector, specifically the comments regarding the small number of users who show up when B2C is subject to ANI. IMO this is evidence of a personal war between editors, and that's disturbing and unconstructive to building an encyclopedia. RandomGnome (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Support something like this, though the exact wording of this one is self-contradictory (someone can't be simultaneously banned from RM them told that their only RM recourse is to open an RM – Beyond My Ken, please consider revising). Almost all of B2C's troubles have been RM-connected, and are more particularly to do with bludgeoning the process, so a better-written restriction that curtails that activity is the way to go. Prevent the problem behavior without treating the otherwise productive editor like a vandal. Some simpler wording might be something like "prohibited from moving pages directly, or making repetitive comments in an RM discussion", though some middle-ground revision might work, if that's too concise. PBS and Crouch,_Swale seem to be missing something important in their above assumptions that proposal 2 (in some wording or other) is more restrictive, more heavy-handed, than the rejected proposal 1. It is far less so, being circumscribed to a particular topic/process, while the original would have curtailed B2C's ability to edit and even to communicate in all topics and all processes without reasonable cause for doing so (as would proposal 3 and then some, being a flat-out siteban). Meanwhile, if you work your way through the contradictory wording, even proposal 2 as initially written doesn't prohibit B2C from participating in a process (RM), it just requires any participation in it to be within some constraints. It is narrowly tailored (though needs better wording) to fit the actual B2C-related problem we keep coming back to at ANI and other noticeboards.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC) I can be convinced otherwise, but I don't think it's contradictory, per se, it states the broad condition first (i.e. topic banned from everything connected to RM or page moving) and then gives the sole exception (to go to the RM page and request a non-controversial technical move). Big cloth, with one hole in it; brick wall with one window. If there's a better way of expressing that, please let me know and I'll consider revising. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC) @SMcCandlish: Unless I've missed something the proposal in this section is "Born2Cycle is topic banned from anything and everything to do with moving pages" while the one directly above was "Born2cycle is indefinitely restricted to one edit in 24 hours per page in the Talk and Wikipedia talk namespace", since B2C doesn't make many (let alone multiple within 24hs) comments outside RMs, the last proposal was less than this one (nothing at all to do with moves apart from nominating at RM). Nothing indicated that either proposals were merely suggestive wording, but rather the proposed letter of the sanction. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC) Support (with corrections for self contradiction pointed by SMcCandlish) As I have elaborated in the opening thread about the recent RM thread I came across, I feel we have already passed the warning stage. Based on the history of ANI and AE threads and a previous block for same reasons, the warning stage was long gone. Criticism via previous threads and self enforced restrictions have all failed thus far. The discussion in the section before proposals and closed proposal have actionable evidence diffs that merits some sort of restrictions. staying away from RM might give him a chance to contribute elsewhere. So I feel this is a reasonable choice.--DBigXrayᗙ 17:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC) Update: If the RM threads is all/most of what he contributes and it is turning out to be disruptive, then a topic ban on RM seems like a proper remedy to handle this and can avoid a complete siteban. This topic ban will also give B2C a chance to engage constructively in other areas and demonstrate that he can change, and then appeal to get the RM topic ban lifted. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC) Oppose per PBS. This far too punitive. Calidum 19:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose because I don't think silencing an editor is a good thing, and for the reasons stated by Ivan. Levivich? ! 21:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC) Support with corrections per DBigXray. There are demonstrable problems with B2C's behaviour with RMs and it's time for it to stop. The only way to do that is to separate him from the process. Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose per my oppose in the original proposal, and this also seems to be unrelated to the issue he was brought here for. Dekimasuよ! 21:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC) When an AN/I report is opened, the totality of the subject editor's behavior can be examined, and usually is, since it provides the context in which the proper sanction can be devised and imposed -- or not, if none is deemed warranted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC) Support It seems that the majority of issues that this user creates for the community is caused by the results of their edits relating to RMs. For this reason I think that placing a RM topic-ban would be good enough, as that is the main source of the problem with this user. As stated above and thuout this discussion, it seems that the user is making a lot less anywhere outside of the RM process. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC) Support My first ever encounter with B2C was just a couple of weeks ago and, though I found them to be an essentially civil editor, they were (as will come as a surprise to no one reviewing the record here) bludgeoning an article rename discussion into the ground (over a two day period, they made more posts than the other seven contributors to the discussion combined). The issues were eye-catching enough that I looked into their history and discovered that they had been brought here to ANI and and to AE on repeated occasions, and ultimately blocked by a concerned admin for being unable to control themselves with respect to RMs, (and as has been recounted here, they were later unblocked in good faith but without the word of caution the blocking admin had requested--that it be done only on the condition of it coming with strings attached vis-a-vis RMs). I don't know what it could possibly be about the RM process that is so attractive to this editor, but insofar as it functions as a moth-to-the-flame scenario (or perhaps to tailor the language to the exact behaviour here, the mouth to the flame who then madly dashes around charring the immediate environs) I can certainly support the community stepping in to exercise the control this user does not apply for themselves; going straight back to editing almost exclusively in the same area that got one blocked suggests a significant level of WP:IDHT and lack of both perspective and responsiveness to community concerns, despite the number of discussions in which said concerns have been voiced. A topic ban may prove insufficient; we may find the bludgeoning and disruption transferred to other areas. But it's at least worth a shot as a reasonable, intermediate option before we consider a full CBAN. And honestly, I would suggest to those who are inclined to argue for B2C's value as an editor, that they are doing this user no favours by opposing all proposals here: if something isn't done to redirect their energies, what I have seen of the record suggests that they will get themselves removed entirely, instead, with time. Snow let's rap 07:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3 (Born2Cycle banned)

going no where. at last glance we were up to 5-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On the basis of the evidence provided in the previous two sections, Born2Cycyle is site banned from editing English Wikipedia as a net negative to the project. He may appeal this ban in 6 months. Support as proposer. First choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose Per my comment above, this is even an even greater restriction than the one directly above. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Support as alternative to #2 (my preferred option). I observe in posts above that B2C still seems to be leaning on accusations of bias and claims not to understand why others' are concerned about his behavior. While it's unfortunately a very familiar response, it doesn't inspire confidence that either one of these proposals will make him internalize the need for change, but it's still worth trying. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Support only choice (though I won’t oppose the RM one.) while proposal 2 would limit the RM related disruption, as we’ve now seen B2C is perfectly willing to find other positions that he’s willing to crusade over. The BLPCRIME discussions would still be ongoing about how we should ignore the BLP policy for confessions if this ANI wasn’t started and he had to shift his energies here. As some have pointed out above, the problem itself can be seen in this very thread where he overwhelms discussion, doesn’t get it, and casts himself as a victim. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose and speedy close. Shame on you for proposing this Beyond My Ken. I hope whoever closes this reads the previous sections and does not read this section in isolation and it is unreasonable of the BMK to want people to reitterate the opinions they have already given and IMHO of there is no consensus among those who have already expressed an opinion to support this proposal. There is a clip on youtube about Brexit that could apply to these two new sub-sections -- PBS (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Hmmmm.... I suppose your "shame" also applies to Tony Ballioni, isaaci, Arthur Rubin, Swarm, Thryduulf, Huwmanbeing, SMcCandlish, and DBigXray, each of whom supported at least one of the two proposals you "shamed" me for. In actuality, of course, the only shame is in allowing Born2Cycle to continue their disruptive decade-long behavior. What, exactly, do you propose be done about it, or do you think consistently WP:Bludgeoning other editors is just fine and dandy? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Applied to the situation as a whole, the clip is on point. This seemingly is something like the 15th such discussion just at ANI... ╠╣uw [talk] 19:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose as per PBS. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose per my comment in the first proposal. This seems to be a more serious version of that proposal, and so I am likewise more seriously opposed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose per my comment above. That proposal didn't gain consensus, so quite why anyone thinks a harsher punishment will is beyond me. I suggest people stop beating a dead horse and move on to something else.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose per PBS. Reading through the comments from some of those very keenly involved in this effort to permanently eject an editor from the community, I can't help but think this is part of an ongoing long-term personal war between editors. RandomGnome (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose, we should not be afraid of people with opinions other than our own, nor should we want them to be removed just because we don't like that they are prepared to argue with us. B2C does not cause disruption to articles. A tip for all - whenever you see someone being described as "editing tendentiously", this is almost always a faux-polite way of saying "I find this user annoying". Being annoying most assuredly does not warrant a site ban. Fish Karate 10:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Although tendentious behaviour is not mutually exclusive with annoying behaviour, the real hallmark of tendentious editors is they assume that any resistance to their edits is founded in bias towards an opposing point of view. (taken from the essay on tendentious editing) As described in previous statements and seen in this discussion, this is a common behaviour of the editor in question. This can lead to budgeoning discussions, also discussed in previous statements, which is disruptive to the community decision-making process. I support any action, including this proposal, to help provide incentive for more collaborative behaviour, rather than continuing to dismiss criticisms as being other people's problems. isaacl (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Support as first choice. Support (almost) any sanction considered (as I don't frequent ANI) that much. I've been involved with a number of his move wars (I think, back in 2015), and, if he hasn't learned not to do what led to his block, he needs time off to reconsider. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose as excessive. A far less restrictive original proposal was strongly rejected, so this has no chance. This looks like a labeling exercise, and it isn't actually supported by evidence, anyway. B2C's issues have almost entirely been confined to one area (RM); he is not a "net negative to the project", just arguably to a single process (though actually less so over time).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC) Except that at least 90 % of what he does is involved with that process, so the overall is a net negative, in my view. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose as too excessive when weighed against the severity of the problem. Levivich? ! 21:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC) Support - Per BMK. I really don't see any strong argument whatsoever that this user is not a net negative, but plenty of reason to ban.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  08:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Support. Something needs to be done to prevent B2C engaging in the same disruption to the project he has engaged in for a decade or so, if a site ban is the only way to do this then unfortunately a site ban is required. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose per my oppose in discussion of the first proposal. Dekimasuよ! 21:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose - I think at this point, an indef ban is too much. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose - I think that BMK is not taking into account how the net affect of the user's edits would be different if RM related things were not to be considered. I think that if the main problem is related with the RM area, and the user gets topic banned from things related to RM, the user might have a positive net affect. Now considering the fact that the majority of the user in question's edit is in the RM area, a topic ban from the RM related things would almost be quivalent to a ban. If the user actually notices at that point the problems that they are creating, they can then actually still show how they can make this place more positive by editing things outside of the RM area in good ways. What was stated in the previous sentence would not be possible if the user is banned. Now in the scenario that the user ignores the topic-ban, then I would be in support for a ban. Also I agree with User:Sjones23 at the situation at the current moment that, a ban really seems to harsh at the moment. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 4 (Born2Cycle limited to one comment per day in RM discussions)

Given that the two previous proposals seem destined to fail, I would like to propose another possible solution that I think addresses the issues raised without placing an unreasonable restrictrion on B2C.

Boorn2Cycle is limited to one comment per thread per day in RM discussions.

• Support as proposer. This will prevent the alleged bludgeoning without unreasonably restricting B2C's ability to express his opinion.- Nick Thorne ^talk 09:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Of the 3 issues people have brought up about B2C (closing move discussions that he/she appears to be biased on, editing policy talk pages and making multiple comments in move discussions) the making multiple comments in move discussions seems to have been the least problematic. In addition if you look at this post, you can see that many others do this also. As I pointed out before, there was some consensus to prevent B2C from closing move discussions and editing policy talk page but little on making comments (even repeated) at RM discussions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• oppose per Crouch, Swale. Also, that's inherently unworkable in a discussion. Wouldn't the most effective/least restrictive "solution" be that B2C not move pages as the result of RM discussions or close RM discussions? I don't see that as a proposal.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Dlohcierekim, would you mind making a proposal? We need some sensibility here as I am sure you could agree. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 00:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @MattLongCT:"We need some sensibility here as I am sure you could agree."-- Ain't it the truth. Proposal 5 seems to be gaining traction, so let's wait. B2C's "oppose" tells me they are neither willing not able to deal with the problem behavior. Nor, I suppose, do they see the problem.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support as this is basically the exact same thing I proposed in the first place, but limited to RMs. I still maintain that now that he's found other hobby horses, the disruption is just going to spread, but okay, let's give this a try. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support - third choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comment in the proposal 2 discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support as second choice. (my first choice is RM topic ban) Based on the history of ANI and AE threads and a previous block for same reasons, the warning stage was long gone. Criticism via previous threads and self enforced restrictions have all failed thus far. The discussion in the section before proposals and closed proposal have actionable evidence diffs that merits some sort of restrictions. I doubt this proposal may stop the problematic behavior but will certainly be helpful for the RM participants. This can be tried.--DBigXrayᗙ 17:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Ivanvector. RandomGnome (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ivan's comment in Proposal 2, and my oppose there as well, based on my general opposition to muzzling editors. Also this is unpractical. You'll get one giant wall-of-text per day in any discussion in which B2C takes part, because he'll have to respond to 24hrs worth of comments in one shot. It will also get in the way of other editors taking part in a discussion with B2C because they'll have to wait 24 hours for any questions to be answered. ^Leviv_ich? ! 21:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support - As a bare minimum.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  08:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I only came across this discussion by accident and my first response was "Is he still here and still getting away with disruptive editing?" Deb (talk) 08:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose this will just slow down the tendentiousness not prevent it so would be pointless. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I have not seen any problematic contributions in to RM so far. Kraose (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support, but prefer a modification. Better to count words, or characters, than "one comment", although is much better than "one edit". "A maximum of 1000 words per week on any single topic in dispute, across all pages, with the exception of his own user_talk and other own userspace." How he divides those 100 words is his decision, but it would be great if he would make them concise and only in the relevant place. As we can all see with BLPCRIME, which was nipped early by this thread but no so early that the pattern was not clear, the problem is not restricted to RM, and and instances of the problem rapidly spread to other pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I am not even going to bother commenting on the other more restrictive proposals since there seems to be no consensus that can be reached. These aren't votes, but I still don't want to waste my time when I see perfectly legitimate arguments get so dragged down by excessive badgering. I do feel B2C needs to cut it out with the way he has been acting on this thread for the most part. I was seriously indifferent until I saw he was taking the behavior to ANI. He doesn't seem to get what he is doing. That's a problem. Let's at least do this. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 00:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support, somewhat weakly just because I'm not a big fan of sanctions that limit behavior to an arbitrary number of instances (but agree that it's preferable to no response at all). ╠╣uw [talk] 01:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The fact is that the other two proposals seem to be more of a better solution than this one to the problem. The major problem with this solution is that the user could make each one RM related discussion edit that they do everyday non constructive. In the end it will come back to a AN/ANI issue all over again. This specific proposal is almost basically a topic-ban. Lastly there is no in system mechanism that prevents the user from making a second edit on a RM discussion in a single day, where as like in a block the system itself prevents the user from editing anything. The main point that I am trying to say here is that it will take as much work to make sure that the user in question is abiding to this proposed sanction (if enacted) as it would if the topic-ban proposal sanction was to be enacted. Why choose the less useful option when the better option (the topic-ban proposal), would take the same amount of time and work to enforce. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per SMcCandlish and others. I think it’s time to drop the stick and move on. B2C has had the Sword of Damocles dangling over his head far too long now. Calidum 18:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Multiple comments in RMs isn't really the reason for these proposals, just a way to have him sanctioned for something. FineStructure137 (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 5 (Born2Cycle warned)

Sigh, as this was what I had proposed at the end of the first proposal before it was shutdown, I'll propose it formally: Born2cycle is warned that excessive comments in discussions can come across as bludgeoning, and that the community considers this to be disruptive. He is given a final warning that if he exhibits these behaviors in the future, he may face sanctions.

• Support as the thing most likely to achieve consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support, simply because ending this with no action whatsoever is totally unacceptable, and my two proposals above aren't receiving much traction (although more than it appears on first sight). I support this as the very least acceptable action -- in other words, my fourth choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose because this feels like a witch hunt now, and also my comments in the second proposal. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I had proposed this a few days ago in the first proposal, and it had gotten some support before it was shut down. I didn't propose it formally because of the other sanction proposals above, but did now in hopes of getting some sort of closure to this thread that could gain consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm striking my oppose since no formal sanction is involved, and this is also basically the gist of my proposal 2 comments that I keep referring to. I fear this warning being used as a sword of Damocles by some people who probably know who I mean by now, though, and for that reason I will not support. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support As I have elaborated in the opening thread about the recent RM thread example I came across, This proposal is the bare minimum that should be done if this ANI thread gets closed, even though I feel we have already passed this warning stage. Based on the history of ANI and AE threads and a previous block for same reasons, I think the warning stage was long gone. Criticism via previous threads and self enforced restrictions have all failed thus far. The discussion in the section before proposals and closed proposal have actionable evidence diffs that merits some sort of restrictions.--DBigXrayᗙ 17:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support as a bare minimum, though I do suspect that even if this passes, we are going to end up here again. Or, more likely, at AE. Still, worth a try. Black Kite (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• I (as someone who has supported B2C) would be fine with this, however I'd largely change excessive comments in move discussions to closing move discussions that B2C is likely to be seen as biased for the reasons I gave in the above section, TonyBallioni do you agree with this? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  Note that I don't see a problem with B2C closing controversial RMs just those that are borderland on what the best title is and that he/she is likely to be seen as biased, if both don't apply I don't see a huge problem. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• I generally agree with B2C in most things related to article titles, but I support this because he has exhibited the behavior described above. It’s not block worthy at this point though. Calidum 19:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Define 'excessive'. Is it excessive, or just oppositional to editors who don't like what he has to say? B2C's comments don't exist in isolation, so are those opposing his views also being 'excessive' in their commenting? This prop seems open to trouble from the get-go. I think this would be better phrased with a clear definition of the amount of commenting/number of comments - which was done in the previous proposal, though my opinion is that Prop 4 is too restrictive on B2C at this point. RandomGnome (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The community is typically very tolerant of minority opinions. I have many of those, and can be verbose, and I don’t think I’ve ever had anyone want me to be sanctioned for it. The fact that even those opposing sanctions have negative B2C stories and experiences shows that he pretty much steamrolls over the line between vocal dissident and WP:IDHT/WP:BLUDGEON.
    In terms of defining, that’s difficult to do, but it’s a definition that the consensus/comments at ANI and AE will help define if another report is ever made. The take home lesson here should be “stop repeating yourself over and over until others give up or people just don’t comment at all.” TonyBallioni (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Question 1: It's very common, perhaps even occurring more often than not, that whenever I comment a lot in an RM discussion, at least one other editor is commenting more than I am. Why am I being singled out for this behavior? I think context matters, and I realize I have been problematic in this area in the past, years ago. But that was brought to my attention, and I've tried very hard to not be bludgeoning, in particular by avoiding being repetitive, as I was prone to do in the past. I'm a bit confused as to why this is being brought up now, as the alleged misbehavior on my part this time was not excessive commenting nor bludgeoning, nor even in an RM discussion, and no recent examples of such behavior have been cited, as far as I know. Where is the recent/relevant evidence supporting such warning to me today? Can anyone clarify? --В²C ☎ 20:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Question 2: In the real world, a key characteristic of our justice system is that judges and jurors don't personally know the accused. I mean, Rand Paul doesn't get to be on the jury of the neighbor who body slammed him. Jayme Closs won't get to be on Jake Patterson's jury, of course (and not just because of her age). But here on WP, while I don't have a problem with involved editors making a case against another editor as has been done here, and "testifying" about their experience with the accused, it seems to me that only editors previously uninvolved with the accused editor (and, ideally, with the accuser(s)) should be able to determine and !vote about whether there is actual wrongdoing by the accused and what, if anything, the "sentence" should be. As the accused here, it feels really unfair to have all these people with whom I've had disputes in the past, many of whom have expressed animosity towards me, weighing in about whether and how I should be sanctioned or warned. Anyone know why it it is like that here, and/or whether an "objective judge/jury" approach has been proposed and considered before? Thanks. --В²C ☎ 20:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Generally speaking, Wikipedia is not a court of law and we don't operate on presumption of innocence or anonymity of the jury or any of that (good!) legal stuff, we operate on a consensus model of community-moderated decision making. It works well, but we also tend to get old enemies coming out of the woodwork shouting "'e turned me into a newt!" whenever old conflicts are triggered, and in my opinion that's a weakness of the whole thing. However, we also have the Arbitration Committee for more complicated disputes, which this really isn't. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

In this discussion, I count ten times you've expressed your view that those expressing concern about your behaviour have been in disagreements with you. In addition to being repetitive, it isn't encouraging to those trying to provide feedback on your actions, as it feels like the feedback will be swiftly dismissed. Regarding who should be involved in a community discussion, in a volunteer environment, those completely uninvolved with a given situation are a lot less likely to want to invest the time and effort in learning the complete context and then weigh in. (You can consider how many times you've chosen to provide an opinion on a matter in which you were previously completely uninvolved, versus the number of times you've provided opinions on matters in which you were involved.) In the legal world, judges are paid to adjudicate and jury duty is mandatory. isaacl (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support, as I had supported it per Tony in Proposal 1 before it was closed, and to Ivan's point, I support this because it's a Sword of Damocles, which is what I feel is needed, based on B2C's excessive (in my opinion) posts in this thread, and also the content of those posts, which don't give me hope that the message is being heard. For example, Questions 1 and 2 just above here. My answer to Question 1 is: "other people do worse" is never a valid argument for anything, and this is not "being brought up now" but has been brought up, from what I can tell, many times before. B2C, I really can't believe you'd make such an immature point as "other people do worse" or "why am I being singled out?" You really, after all this time, don't understand how your behavior differs from the norm? If so, you better start paying attention to what people are telling you! For example, you didn't need to ask Question 1 or 2. Those questions aren't questions, they're defenses, and they're focused on the behavior of the community, rather than being focused on your behavior. My answer to Question 2 is: this is not the real world; in courtrooms, people's rights are at risk; here, only privileges are at risk. In courtrooms, the government is taking away rights. Here, there is no government, it's a self-organizing consensus-based community. It's an entirely different situation, and I worry that B2C doesn't understand this very basic aspect of Wikipedia. My concern is B2C is more interested in defending himself and being proven right than in really changing his behavior in response to community concerns. I wasn't going to !vote in support of anything but I strongly agree this needs to be closed with some kind of action, this is most likely to get consensus, and a Sword of Damocles will at least help prevent a second lengthy discussion like this. I'm OK with the word choice "excessive", because what's excessive will vary from case to case. I trust an uninvolved reviewing admin can make that judgment call if the need arises. I hope it won't. ^Leviv_ich? ! 21:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Striking out my support !vote after reading this detailed analysis of B2C's original block concluding it shouldn't have happened, which led to his being unblocked, along with the AE that led up to it, the AEs since, a couple of the past ANIs, and a bunch of stuff on various editor's talk pages. At those AEs, ANIs, etc. I see the same names over and over again. Looking at the thread cited in this ANI, Talk:Kidnapping of Jayme Closs, I don't see anything objectionable that B2C is doing. Dropping a DS template on an editor while in the middle of a talk page dispute is, if not jerky behavior, certainly unpleasant, and that would be true no matter who does it. The Jaggi Vasudev RM and MR that was pointed to did show problematic behavior, but that was back in November–why would we issue a warning based on that now? I don't see any recent behavior that justifies this ANI thread, or a final warning, or any sanction. I think B2C's tendentious arguing behavior was brought out in this thread, and folks are alarmed because of it (I was one of them), but after having a fuller understanding of the history, I believe B2C has essentially been provoked. I don't know if I would oppose a final warning or just stay neutral, but I'm coming around more to the opinions expressed by Ivanvector (witch hunt) and F2K (show me the diffs) on this matter. ^Leviv_ich? ! 06:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

That “detailed analysis”, one person’s take, which you must note includes a lot of points one what B2C could be advised to to better, must be noted was an opinion that could not be responded to without perpetuating the already bad grave dancing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Enough already. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support this symbolic reminder. Next time: B2C is weak on nuance and subtlety, big on objective, so I think he would need an objective constraint. The central problem is tendentious verbosity, and which only escalates when he is cornered. The counter rule: A maximum of 1000 words per week on any single topic in dispute, across all pages, with the exception of his own user_talk and other own userspace. No limit on edits, because he should be encouraged to edit his own posts to improve concision. Also, due to unclear trust in judgement of reading consensus (a very nuanced, non-objective skill), no more admin actions (closing discussions, closing RMs, even relisting) without a formal admin mentor. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support as a minimum. Thryduulf (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support If you haven't made your point after three or four posts, it's time to move on and spare the rest of us. Write an essay on how unfair life is, but give the community a rest. Johnuniq (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• Question 3. What constitutes “excessive comments in discussions“? In most discussions I comment only once or twice, but often I’m part of a negotiation towards a consensus and that can take considerable back and forth to come to a mutual understanding and to work out any misconceptions and differences. Here, for example, is a recent RM discussion where I commented five times in a classic WP consensus building process. Was that excessive? Who decides, how, and how am I to know whether I’m close to the line, much less crossing it? Some discussions require more to get there. Often it can look excessive at first glance, but when you actually read the discussion closely you can see how it develops, or is attempting to develop (not always successfully!), consensus. As to SmokeyJoe’s insinuations about my consensus reading, I believe I have as solid a record as any other RM closer. Of the dozens if not 100s of closes, I don’t recall ever even being taken to MRV, much less overturned there. I have had two closes reverted by an admin, that I can recall, one of which was subsequently closed by another admin almost identically to how I closed it. I think the other went the other way. Nobody is perfect. —В²C ☎ 07:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • At that RM, User:Cambridge51 could be accused of excessive verbosity and badgering, but it takes a trend, and he is vindicated by actually succeeding in persuasion as opposed to ineffective repetition. You’re going to dig your heels in as the exemplar closer are you? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• Reluctant support - I feel this remedy is below the bare minimum, but if it's the only feasible progress made by this thread, I must begrudgingly support. The above question, in which the user demonstrates a lack of competence to even accept a hypothetical warning against WP:BLUDGEONING behavior, is, alone, enough to convince me to support this. I would like to see stronger measures, but if this is all we're going to get out of this, so be it. However, I strongly reject SmokeyJoe's use of the word "symbolic". IMO, the emphasis is on "final warning".  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  08:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Consider my use of that word to be intentionally provocative for the next time this happens. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• minimal support for a minimal remedy Recommend that B2C step away from the computer more often each day. Clear the mind. Smell some roses. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• question 1 from-- Dlohcierekim (talk)Are we seeing an example of the problematic behavior in this discussion?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. This warning is not based on any violation of any policy or guideline. WP:BLUDGEON has been cited, but it is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and it describes fairly common practice, especially in RM discussions. Also, the key point made there is that bludgeoning is an ineffective or even a counter-effective method of argument, not so much that it causes problems to others. In others words, the big problem with bludgeoning is that it’s shooting yourself in the foot. Okay, so let’s discourage it for those reasons. But does it mean shooting oneself in the foot should be a crime? When someone else engages in the common practice of responding to (nearly) every comment in a discussion, I read or ignore them depending on my level of interest. I choose to engage or not based on my level of interest. Such behavior in no way discourages me from participating, and I don’t see why anyone would be discouraged from participating if I’m the one doing all the comment responses. So I don’t see such behavior is disruptive. Seeing all the supports above is painful to me, and it looks like I’m going to be warned, but I hope it comes with a clear explanation to this point as well as my three questions above. Thank you. —-В²C ☎ 07:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • If you know what "shooting yourself in the foot" means, B2C, you should be aware that you have literally just done it. Deb (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
    • What does that mean? Can anyone here speak directly in plain English, please? So the community’s reaction to my shooting myself in the foot is to pile on and shoot me some more? Look, some find the practice of commenting a lot to be annoying (those who characterize it as “bludgeoning”), others don’t mind and are sometimes persuaded by it. I provided an example above. I’m not aware of any scientific analysis showing whether on average it is persuasive or counter-productive. But that’s beside the point. The main point is that it is behavior that is harmless to others and the work that we do, and therefore should not be punished, sanctioned or even cause warnings to be issued, and that’s why people engage in it all the time with no issues. Singling me out for warning me about behavior that is considered acceptable whenever others do it - but may lead to sanctions for me if I continue to do it - is blatantly unfair and unjust. Too much commenting on talk page discussions like this? That’s a wikicrime? Where is it documented? No matter what’s going on in an RM discussion section on the talk page of some article does not prevent others in any way from discussing article content improvements in other sections. So how can over-commenting be disruptive? And if it can, shouldn’t consensus be developed to clearly describe and explain the supposed problem on a policy page, before anyone is sanctioned, or warned, for it? —В²C ☎ 09:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
      • You seem to be admitting to "over-commenting". Anything that starts with "over-" is likely to be disruptive. Deb (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Some folks may want to reconsider their !votes on the proposals above on the basis of these two comments from B2C.
        • Proposal 2 - total topic ban
        • Proposal 3 - site ban
        • Proposal 4 - one comment limitation
      • Tell me again about how he is "getting it." Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Your comments are illustrative of the concerns others have raised. You asked people to tell you their concerns, they responded, and you replied that your behaviour wouldn't discourage you, and so it shouldn't discourage them. You have unequivocally told others that their views are wrong, and should be replaced with yours, without providing for any shades of grey that could accommodate a middle ground. As to whether people should just ignore any comments they wish, while that is an option that perhaps should be taken more often, fellow collaborators want to do exactly what you've asked them: read your comments without prejudging their content. This means in good faith, they strive to read as much of the comments that they can manage. The essay on bludgeoning has sections describing the negative effect this has on others. While it's true no one is obligated to satisfy you, in a spirit of collegiality, editors do their best and will invest effort in doing so. Editors have a responsibility not to take advantage of this faith placed in them. isaacl (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
      • To expand further: you said you don’t see such behavior is disruptive since Such behavior in no way discourages me from participating, and I don’t see why anyone would be discouraged from participating if I’m the one doing all the comment responses. You are implicitly stating others shouldn't find your behaviour to be disruptive, since you don't—you described it to be "harmless". This is asking others to substitute your judgement for theirs. isaacl (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
        • That's not what I'm implicitly stating. I'm saying I don't see why. That doesn't mean there is no good reason. But you've since given a good explanation; now I see why. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 19:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
          • You said it is behavior that is harmless to others and the work that we do, and therefore should not be punished, sanctioned or even cause warnings to be issued. Since you definitively said the behaviour should not even cause a warning, this seems incompatible with your agreeing that others might have good reason to consider your behaviour disruptive (and if you thought that, it would have been helpful to say it explicitly at the same time). Nonetheless, I'm glad if my comments have been useful. isaacl (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support if the other proposals fail. Deb (talk) 11:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Deb, only if other proposals fail - something must be done.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support for the reasons already given by the various supporting comments above. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• Reluctant Support because policy does not clearly define appropriate sanctions to take in cases such as these. The onus appears to be on the one 'bludgeoning' to step back. Unfortunately B2C has made little effort in that regard if this ANI thread is anything to go by. I understand fully the need to defend oneself, but ultimately this leads to WP:WORD or WP:STICK when it's done point by point over and over again, which is disruptive and a thoroughly inefficient way to build an encyclopedia. It's certainly not collaborative or consensus-building. I am still troubled by what appears to be the same few editors who seem to be taking full opportunity to nail B2C here with draconian proposals (see above), but yes, I concede something must be done. I would counsel B2C to take a Wikibreak and reflect on how to behave in the best interests of the project and not simply getting his way. RandomGnome (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support as last resort. I am really surprised we could not find any other solution people would agree on besides this. It feels like the system is being a let down in this case. I generally expect higher levels of conduct from others than the combative behavoir by B2C in this thread alone. sigh. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 00:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

  Levivich is probably one of the most skilled and amazing editors on this site. I do not know how they did it, but they really found an equitable solution to this problem. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 23:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support as per the concerns by Deb and TonyBallioni. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

bounced ANI sink -- Dlohcierekim (talk)

• Oppose per my previous comments. This proposal feels like a last effort to get something thrown at B2C, when the kitchen sink has already bounced off. Being annoyed by a user on talk pages should not lead to sanctions against that user. It's not like the talk page content B2C provides is off topic - it's all on-topic, just voluminous. And prolixity in and of itself doesn't matter, and whether his views on certain policies are in line with community consensus or not doesn't matter, if it does not lead to article disruption. As it does not, I don't feel there is any action to take, As ever, if I can be shown one instance of disruptive editing to articles I am willing to change my view on this. As it stands, though, I'm with Ivan on this in that this is very much a sword of Damocles-style warning, and is basically a fait accompli - it's almost guaranteed that should this be passed, B2C will shortly thereafter be blocked for breaching this edict the first time he edits a talk page, it will be brought here for 'review', the usuals will immediately say 'good block', any objections will be robustly ignored, the thread will be closed after 24 hours and one minute, and another enthusiastic albeit non-standard editor will be lost to the project. Fish Karate 09:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. Thanks to Levivich's detailed explanation in reply to my inquiry at User_talk:Levivich#My_behavior, I think I finally get it. I've distilled what they said into a draft version of a generalized essay at User:Born2cycle/Hold the pepper. I wish it existed 15 years ago so I could have read it then, and applied it to the dozens if not hundreds of discussions I've ineffectively disrupted with peppering since. --В²C ☎ 00:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. I would direct attention to User:Born2cycle/pledge in which this editor makes a number of promises. This pledge was made seven years ago, in January 2012, and the contents stand in stark contrast to recent statements by this editor. So very much time has been wasted by coming back to this forum over and over about the same editor's behavior. Surely at some point we should say "enough is enough". This in fact happened with the block last year, which was then unilaterally lifted. There are people on both sides of both actions, of course. But how many times must we go through this? Omnedon (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Excessive comments" is too vague. More appropriate here might be something akin to WP:3RR but of course, it would apply to all.—Aquegg (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Heavily Wasn't the block that the user got unblocked from a big enough warning for the user. At this point I think the only option would be some sort of action to take place against the user (as in the user either gets a topic-ban or a site ban). I already am in support for a topic-ban for RM related discussions as stated in one of the sub-sections above. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Except none of those are going to pass and something needs to come of this. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @TonyBallioni:What about my comment about a possible 6th proposal where the user in question gets their pending-changes reviewer permissions removed? The comment is right before the first proposal sub-section heading. The only reason why stated in the reason for giving it to them was "Trusted", and this was also almost a DECADE AGO! Looking at the current user actions.... do you think that the user is worthy for such permissions any more. In my opinion they are not worthy of such permissions anymore. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Pending changes is by far the easiest permission to get and is for all intents and purposes not that useful for anything. We hand it out on request to any established user and most users who have been here 3-4 weeks can get it if they don’t show any red flags. If I could get rid of it from my admin bundle I would. I also don’t see how that wouldn’t be punitive: B2C has been consistently disruptive for the better part of a decade, but I don’t think he’s ever approved a bad pending edit (in fact he’s never used it.) A warning also isn’t exclusive to some other sanction, you’ll notice many of us supporting have supported other sanctions (I still support a site ban, for instance). Supporting this just basically means that if no other action gains consensus, you want it closed with some action. A warning also documents the community’s consensus that the behavior is disruptive, which is important. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's toothless. Change "He is given a final warning that if he exhibits these behaviors in the future, he may face sanctions." to "He is given a final warning that if he exhibits these behaviors in the future, he will be sanctioned." Moriori (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Moriori, well, that’s the intent, but you can’t bind future users. Also, while I agree a warning isn’t the best option (I still support a site ban), it is also likely the only thing that can gain consensus at this time, because there is generic agreement that this needs to stop but no agreement on what to be done. I don’t see this as excluding other options, but as the minimum thing needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

What intent? May be banned, or will be banned? We do not have to bind future users, we have only to bind one user. Let the onus be on him. Moriori (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Moriori, I understand your justification which is reasonable, but I don't get your oppose, since you appear to be in agreement with the intent but have a difference of opinion on the wording. Your proposed change is not going to drastically change anything as far as the practical implementation of this proposal is concerned.--DBigXrayᗙ 08:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

You don't get my oppose? I thought saying it's toothless was pretty clear. The practical implementation of will instead of may would be that if B2C is disruptive again they will be sanctioned. No arguments. Just action.Moriori (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I can support the spirit of this proposal, because it's important for every user to be respectful of the views of their colleagues, and it would clearly be a good thing if B2C could ruffle fewer feathers going forward. There were encouraging discussions between B2C and Wbm1058 on his talk page regarding improving relations. Having said that, the wording "may" is important and it is imperative that any proposal for sanctions be brought back here first, not dispensed on the whim of a single admin. It should be clear by now that there was no consensus anywhere in this thread that B2C's behaviour actually crossed any lines on this occasion, and there are wildly differing views as to his conduct. Finally, I request once more for those seasoned editors and admins who brought this complaint to please (a) assume good faith, because that seems to have been sorely lacking here, and (b) try to meet B2C halfway in coming to a satisfactory way forward. Work with your fellow editors, not against them, and accept them for who they are.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • True, he does not really "cross lines" in single cases, and he doesn't actually disrupt mainspace, but there definitely is not a failure of AGF on our part. This is ten years of chronic trouble. There is no serious charge of intentional disruption. Wbm1058 has offered quiet advice by email, and the Avoid the Pepper advice seems to have made a breakthrough, and so there is hope of change beyond the previous pledges. If it fails again, the principle to go to is not AGF, but Wikipedia:Competence is required and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

    Maybe AGF is the wrong term, then. You're not alleging that B2C is deliberately causing problems. But what I mean is that I urge you and the others be more accepting that this is simply B2C's way of contributing to the Wiki and that plenty of people (not just me) think that his contributions are useful. Alleging that he lacks competence, when he's actually one of our most knowledgeable and experienced editors in the article title space, is exactly what I'm talking about. If I'm honest, there are a few editors out there that really irritate me as well, (I won't name names) and in a darker moment I might wish that they would leave... but sometimes we have to accept that the community is a diverse one, and not everybody works in the same way. I support measures that encourage B2C to engage with the community the way it wants him to, of course, but I want it to be two-sided. Take on board the points raised in the many "oppose" votes in the proposals above, and work positively with B2C rather than always viewing what he does with suspicion. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

    • Quite right. There is recent evidence for optimism. I am hanging out to see him correctly close a RM displaying a clear consensus for a longer title. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

      Like James Bond filmography → Portrayal of James Bond in film? See: Talk:Portrayal_of_James_Bond_in_film#Requested_move_10_January_2019 which I closed finding consensus for the longer title about two weeks ago. Or what about my close of Rise of Macedon → Expansion of Macedonia under Philip II at Talk:Expansion_of_Macedonia_under_Philip_II#Requested_move_21_October_2018 back on November 7? Do these not count? I'm not sure what your point is. Do you believe I have closed some RMs in favor of the shorter title contrary to consensus? Where? --В²C ☎ 17:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: These are RMs where B2C has recently participated. Editors are invited to review any or all and determine if there is a problem that needs addressing. ^Leviv_ich 17:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• B2C's comments
• Talk:Vinjhan#Requested move 3 January 2019
• Talk:Northumbrian Old English#Requested move 4 January 2019
• Talk:Université catholique de Louvain#Requested move 4 January 2019
• Talk:Discovery Channel (Australia and New Zealand)#Requested move 6 January 2019
• Talk:Animal Planet (Australia and New Zealand)#Requested move 6 January 2019
• Talk:Marshall Medoff#Requested move 9 January 2019
• Talk:Natalia Keery-Fisher#Requested move 12 January 2019
• Talk:Farlow, Shropshire#Requested move 13 January 2019
• Talk:Herne Bay#Requested move 14 January 2019
• Talk:South Newton#Requested move 15 January 2019
• Talk:Louise Sand#Requested move 15 January 2019
• Talk:Positron emission tomography–magnetic resonance imaging#Requested move 16 January 2019
• Talk:Suspenders#Requested move 17 January 2019
• Talk:Jewish deicide#Requested move 17 January 2019
• Talk:Radisson Hotel Group#Requested move 17 January 2019
• Talk:List of One Piece episodes (season 1)#Requested move 18 January 2019
• Talk:List of Attack on Titan episodes#Requested move 18 January 2019
• Talk:St Ishmaels#Requested move 20 January 2019
• Talk:Sounds of Silence (2006 film)#Requested move 22 January 2019
• Talk:Common chimpanzee#Requested move 22 January 2019
• Talk:Abbey Hill#Requested move 22 January 2019
• Talk:Suspenders#Requested move 23 January 2019
• Talk:Cardross, Argyll#Requested move 24 January 2019
• Talk:Julian Castro#Requested move 24 January 2019
• Talk:Chimpanzee#Requested move 24 January 2019
• Talk:Lithium (medication)#Requested move 29 January 2019
• Talk:SDCCU Stadium#Requested move 29 January 2019
• Talk:Golden Ring#Requested move 29 January 2019
• Talk:Bethungra, New South Wales#Requested move 30 January 2019
• Closes
• Talk:2018 Independence Cup#Requested move 2 January 2019
• Talk:Saraswati Nagar#Requested move 2 January 2019
• Talk:Entry of women to Sabarimala#Requested move 3 January 2019 2
• Talk:Catherine Hill#Requested move 5 January 2019
• Talk:John Grogan#Requested move 8 January 2019
• Talk:She (pronoun)#Requested move 13 January 2019
• Talk:Who Gets the Dog? (2016 film)#Requested move 13 January 2019
• Talk:Huron University College#Requested move 16 January 2019
• Talk:Timor-Leste national football team#Requested move 17 January 2019
• Talk:Hephthalites#Requested move 19 January 2018
• Talk:Thor (Marvel Cinematic Universe)#Requested move 19 January 2019
• Template talk:Pornography#Requested move 23 January 2019
• Talk:List of actors nominated for Academy Awards for non-English performances#Requested move 24 January 2019
• Nom
• Talk:Okkupert#Requested move 31 January 2019

• Comment I just want to point out that not only has nobody pointed out anything wrong with my activity in the list of all my recent RM activity above that Levivich has compiled so helpfully, but this AN/I was started due to my terse reaction to an WP:INVOLVED admin[195] [196] placing a warning on my talk page[197]. That doesn't excuse my reaction (referring to him as a "jerk")[198], but I think it helps explain it. I don't see how or why this rises to the level of even the type of warning being considered here. --В²C ☎ 19:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Very good points, *until* you shoot yourself in the face again with that last sentence that reasserts you claim of inability to understand nearly everyone and failure to take Livivich’s excellent advice in his talk page. You offer a half acknowledgment and non apology, ok, but then wrap up with “but I am completely innocent”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
    • That's not what I said. I am not completely innocent. In particular, I recognize my taste for peppering discussions and I'm learning to back off. I've acknowledged I should not have called Tony a "jerk". I'm simply saying that, and my recent RM activity, does not rise to the level of warranting a warning of the kind proposed here. Evidence has not been presented showing it is. So why are we here? --В²C ☎ 23:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support as a bare minimum, but if this is the only option to pass, I'm not hopeful anything will change. Jonathunder (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 6 (RM Area/Discussions that B2C wants to participate in require Wikipedia:Editor_assistance for a temp time)

(Non-Admin Proposal):This would probably be the lowest level possible sanction, probably even lower than a warning. Basically this sanction would span a specified amount of time, by the sanction enactor. In this sanction, for every RM Area/Discussion that B2C wants to start or take part in during the sanction timespan, B2C will have to use Wikipedia:Editor_assistance. The good thing about this is that if B2C abides by this sanction, and ends up doing the same issue again, it would not be his fault. HOWEVER, if he does not abide by the sanction, or does not follow the advice given at "WP:EA", then B2C would be at fault. B2C will NOT need to use "WP:EA" in edits that do not relate to RM Discussions. The reason why this sanction would fit in this situation is because of points 2 and 4, and how the EA would help B2C (as stated what EA's do on point 3), over at [[199]]. This would also make it clear if B2C is willing to reform in how they take part in RM Discussions, as in point 4 the EA would be able to see how is B2C doing. Basically if B2C does not go by the advice given by the EA, it would show that B2C maybe is not willing to reform, and the next round of ANI or AN discussions more stricter sanctions could be proposed (like the ones that failed to get consensus above).

Side note to proposal: Although B2C is a experienced user … however in the context of this whole entire discussion it is obvious that B2C is not as experienced when it comes to them taking part in RM Area/Discussions. If this was never the case, then this discussion would probably not be here at ANI. I am not saying that B2C is bad user, B2C is a very good user. However it only seems to be in my own opinion that they need help when it comes to starting or taking part in RM area/discussions, and I think that "WP:EA" would probably be the right venue to get this help that he needs. However, I could be wrong and maybe there are no EA volunteers that are experts when it comes to RM Area/Discussions, however I could be wrong in that assumption as I never checked yet if there are. There might be volunteers that know about RM Area/Discussions, and I just do not know about it. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• There are many reasons other than "B2C is not as experienced when it comes to them taking part in RM Area/Discussions" that could explain why this discussion is here. There is a list just above of all the RM discussions I've been involved in recently, over the last few weeks. Is there a problem with my behavior, or any evidence of my needing assistance, in any of them? What exactly is the purpose here? --В²C ☎ 23:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Murder of Rachael Runyan

Murder of Rachael Runyan‎ probably needs a careful eye. Considering Utah's original version of the Amber alert was named after Rachael, her article deserves to be put on many Administrators' watchlists just as a precautionary measure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Benjamin Austin (talk • contribs)

• Why? It is helpful if you provide a justification if you are asking for people to spend time monitoring it. It's a new article on an old event and I don't see anything unusual in the history. Am I missing something? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Paul Benjamin Austin This is the admin Incident noticeboard for urgent, chronic, and intractable problems. Did you mean to post this at the regular admin noticeboard? What prompted your request? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 03:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)