Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive975

Rangeblock possible?

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

---

There's a very persistent IP who has been active since at least November 2017. They mostly vandalize pages related to Filipino celebrities and the Super Sentai series. Currently active on User:74.12.122.27, past IPs include: User:184.146.207.74, User:184.147.31.235, User:74.12.123.59, User:74.12.122.234, User:184.146.206.100, User:184.147.28.56, User:184.147.31.76, User:184.146.206.103, User:184.147.29.85, User:74.12.120.15, User:184.147.30.178, User:70.31.127.9, User:70.31.125.221, User:70.31.124.58. Page protection doesn't seem effective, since they just come back under a different IP to vandalize a new page. Bennv3771 (talk) 10:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

74.12.120.0/24 would work but has not been used since 12 January.

74.12.122.0/24 blocked for one month as there has been immensely disruptive behaviour in this range for a few days.

74.12.123.0/24 would work but has not been used since 19 December.

70.31.124.0/24 would work but has not been used since 11 January.

70.31.125.0/24 would work but has not been used since 26 November. Minor collateral damage (one edit 20 January)

70.31.127.0/24 would work but has not been used since 24 December. Minor collateral damage (one edit 2 December)

184.146.206.0/24 Two IPs used in this range are already blocked.

184.146.207.0/24 used as recently as 24 January. Blocked for one month.

184.147.28.0/24 would work but has not been used since 31 December.

184.147.29.0/24 would work but has not been used since 12 January

184.147.30.0/24 would work but has not been used since 5 January.

184.147.31.0/24 would work but has not been used since 1 January.

I’ve worked my way through each of the /24 ranges for the IPs given by the OP to see what is going in each range. The disruptive user is distinctive and there is very little collateral damage in each. I’ve blocked two ranges for a month each, others have not been active for some time and I would suggest holding off blocking these unless the user makes an appearance. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The ranges I'm coming back with that are allocated and distributed to the various networks are 184.144.0.0/13, 74.12.0.0/14, and 70.24.0.0/13 (all from Toronto Bell Canada). These ranges are enormous, and the risk for collateral damage is high. I agree with Malcolmxl5 by attempting to block sub-ranges and as small as possible to mitigate possible collateral damage. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User Jp113040

The following discussion is closed. 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:Jp113040 account appears to have gone on a rampage and is mass deleting content from articles and mass adding content to their sandbox. I first noticed this with removal of content from articles on my watchlist here, here and and here. I immediately reverted all three and then I warned the user here. They then repeated the exact same removal of content here and stated Look, listen, it doesn't matter anymore, I'm the boss of everything on these articles, if you DON'T like it, that's too BAD!!! in their edit summary. Upon checking their recent user contributions here I realized this is a bigger issue. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted their mass edits made without consensus and advised the editor to build a consensus at a centralized located. I have also warned them on their talk page that some of their edit summaries appear to violate both WP:OWN and WP:NPA, and can lead to their being blocked from editing. I leave it to an admin to take any further steps, if warranted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Update user is way overlinking episode titles on NCIS season articles which serve as redirects back to the same article despite aditional warnings on the talk page from User:Beyond My Ken and User:NeilN. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

He's probably just being eager to "fix things" before making sure they're not problematic first - I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume such. Now that he's aware that he's causing issues, I hope that he asks for assistance and lets us help him. Hitting the "turbo button" like that can be disruptive if you don't do it with care - slow down, Jp113040 ;-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

This user has ownership problems going back more than two years - this is the earliest that I could find. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's problematic behavior. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Request review of closure at Disk storage

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

---

Moved to WP:AN § Request review of closure at Disk storage

 – per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Swarm ♠ 23:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Could someone have a talk with User:Rhapsowflake

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

---

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

I think this person means well, but they really don’t seem to be getting what Wikipedia is and how it works. Their writing style is very strange, for example: Among picnics, moon hikes, and more gatherings, the staff has been prudential in safely keeping the earthen world's festschrift in its news publishing. Kathleen Doane wrote "Good Times," an article in the NewsLeaf, a charming piece journaling the nonprofit hub's years of Milfordic turns, environmental twists, and bedazzling to be the well-kept haven. And at Talk:Cincinnati#Food section, where I criticized some other weird writing that is not from this user, they first said Only a fat slob would edit that out. I pointed out that that was unhelpful, and they have now accused me of being a “neurotic freak” along with some other bizzare nonsense [1].

Since I am editorially involved here I cannot get involved as an administrator, and for whatever reason nobody else seems to be watching these pages even though one is about a major city. Asking for an uninvolved admin to step in and take whatever action they deem necessary. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Rhapsowflake has finally used an article talk page, and what they wrote is not promising:

• Writing? What should be read if your sloppy takeoffs are from Ohio., and
• There is no sense to believe it doesn't read well compared with other takeoffs. In like, mild, weather where water we knew freezes, life dealt with less neurosis than other species in warmer weather. You've never been accountable for wrong, or deserve to live somewhere faraway from Cincinnati where people think United States have no fare; neurotic freak, you!

I don't know if this is someone who cannot or will write standard English but none of this is standard English. Between that and their combative and attacking attitude, it is not clear where this can possibly go that ends with the person remaining a member of this community.

User:Rhapsowflake two questions --

1. are you capable of writing standard English and if so would you please reply here and demonstrate that?
2. are you aware that it is unacceptable to attack another editor when dealing with a content dispute? (Please see WP:FOC and WP:NPA)?

-- Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• It is also worth noting that they tend to make only one or two edits each session, and are not on every day, so it may take some time to get anywhere, and may need to continue on their talk page if it sits here too long without a reply from them. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, this is some of the most bizarre writing I've ever seen; it's like we're talking with a machine translation. (Beeblebrox, given your comment at WP:ITN/C about the earthquake, you do live somewhere faraway from Cincinnati :-) I've removed one bizarre bit, adding {{details|Stewardship}} to the wooded-areas section of Cincinnati Nature Center (the Stewardship article doesn't provide extra details on the CNC's woodlands), and now chiming in at Talk:Cincinnati. Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I grew up and spent the first part of my adult life in the Cinncinatti area, but I’ve been in Alaska for nearly 20 years now. I was pleasantly surprised to discover there was an article on the CNC, we were long time members and my dad used to take us there a lot, but then I found all this weird prose and started trimming it, and here we are... All Rhap seems to have added to the food section at the main Cincinnati article is the words “kale salad” so I’m not clear on why they are so defensive about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I think there is a good chance that User:513CincinnatiGroove, the user who added the weird prose to the food section, is the same person. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I initially wondered why you'd say that, but seeing that 513CG added stuff like The emigres, while having been widely discussed, never overtook settlers in population. Cincinnati has a great preservative quality which, despite fierce sugarcoating of late, piques interest throughout United States as a great city of the North, South, East, and West, I'm tending to agree. Note that this edit reverted a bunch of changes in the previous edit, which carried an accurate edit summary of "Rewrote several very awkward phrases. Many words in those phrases were not used in proper context." Nyttend (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Another gem from the second editor is United States meals feature vegetal staples, like sweet potatoes, also called yams, collard greens, stewed tomatoes, okra, corn bread, mashed potatoes, cole slaw, bean salads, and broths, among more tastes. I am of the opinion that both accounts should be blocked under the theory that competence is required. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

No, we should block under WP:JUSTMESSINGWITHUS instead. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

That’s kind of the feeling I’m getting, like they think this is all very clever and the rest of us just don’t get how very clever they are. I’m glad others are now looking into this, I didn’t want to feel like I was stalking this user, but most of their contribs need to be either undone or edited to make basic sense in English. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

How many admins does it take to block a troll? Blocked as WP:NOTHERE (just the latest one).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE editing by User:Trxch

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

---

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

"Trxch" is an account created on 20 January 2018. So far, literally every single one of his edits have been of a disruptive kind. Examples;

• Edit warring on the Azerbaijan page, mass removing sourced content; (rv #1, rv #2, rv #3, rv #4, rv #5)
• Edit warring/tweaking content on the Tabriz page ([2])
• Edit warring/tweaking content on the Template:Azerbaijan topics page;[3]
• Edit warring/tweaking content on the Urmia page;[4]
• Edit warring on the Borchali page. Also removed a source and added unsourced content;[5]
• Ignoring numerous warnings;[6]
• Removes "Template:Iranian architecture and "Template:Largest cities of Iran" from the Ardabil article, an Iranian city (!), and adds the "Template:Azerbaijani population" instead; (Rv #1,Rv #2)
• Adding unsourced content on the Marneuli page; [7]
• Never providing sources to back up his claims
• Added spellings in an alphabet not used in Iran, to articles about numerous Iranian cities, towns, and districts, in order to spread a pro-Azerbaijan Republic POV.[8]-[9]-[10]-[11]-[12]-[13]
• Never using edit summaries

Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that user "Trxch" is on a mission. And that mission is clearly not to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello everyone. First of all - I am not on a "mission". Second, I have already made my points clear to LouisAragon, but unless he/she ignored/did not pay attention to them, I will repeat them here:

I have already cleared up the disagreements faced with user User:CASSIOPEIA ; there was not and is not any disruptive editing or edit war going on here. I fixed spelling errors, removed misplaced/biased sources, added missing links to different related articles in various words wherever possible; there is nothing wrong going on here. I hope that clears it up.

If in doubt, feel free to at least take a good look at the edits made and see for yourself. Nothing slanderous or otherwise malicious intended.

P.S. I consider your arguments as to the removal of Azerbaijani Latin texts from certain Iranian Azerbaijan-related articles unfounded; there are numerous articles about cities, regions, etc. inhabited by different ethnic groups in other countries where (despite the differences in alphabets) one can find the names of any toponyms given in various languages *and* alphabets. For example, there are articles about cities and other inhabited areas in Iraq which contain their Turkish and Kurdish names, written in the *Latin alphabet* (eventhough Arabic language and the Arabic script are the officially used ones). In other words, there is and should be nothing wrong when considering this.

Thank you. - User:Trxch, 26.01.2018

You can tell 1 1=3 all you want. Fact remains, you're incorrect and being highly disruptive on every ground. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Persistent as this disruptive user is in adding unsourced POV content by all means, he just rv'd once more on the Marneuli page; [14] - LouisAragon (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

That is merely your opinion and point of view, and again - nothing "disruptive on every ground" is going on. If you think that no one should edit something and it must be kept the way it was (e.g) two years ago, when it was last edited by someone whose work you did not tamper with - that's not my problem. Besides, it's best to cut on the hostile tone and rhetoric here.

- User:Trxch, 26.01.2018

There is no "POV content", just because you lack the information on the topic of the given article doesn't mean I'm just posting "my" point of view. (*smh*)

- User:Trxch, 26.01.2018

In fact, some of the Latin entries you "fixed" were not even written in Azerbaijani (Latin) alphabet, but rather in Romanized Persian, and some in Romanized Azerbaijani (which, clearly, some Iranian Azerbaijani users tried their best to romanize using the English alphabet, on their own; as - despite Azerbaijani having a standardized romanization in the form of its Latin alphabet - many Iranian Azerbaijanis mainly use the Perso-Arabic script and not all of them have a profound knowledge of the Azerbaijani Latin alphabet, as there is no official education/teaching of the language (or its alphabet - Azerbaijani does not have a standardized alphabet for the Arabic script) itself.

- User:Trxch, 26.01.2018

User:Trxch - You're very on the line of edit warring on multiple articles - especially Azerbaijan. You need to stop this, participate on the articles' talk pages, and resolve the dispute properly. I agree that you're very well within the threshold where an edit warring block would be justified - I'd really like not to do that :-). Can you work with LouisAragon peacefully and let him try and help you? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I'm not entirely sure in what I could "help" him here. Its evident that user "Trxch" is on a mission. He tried to remove reliably sourced content from the Azerbaijan page on no less than 5 occassions. He removed Iran-related templates from Iranian cities, and added Azerbaijani-population templates instead. He's edit warring on tons of pages in order to keep unsourced/ungrounded additions inside the article. He hasn't provided a single source to back up his claims so far. For example, on the Borchali page he's literally edit-warring over unsourced content. That's ridiculous. Please take a look at the other thousands of "new" accounts with similar agenda's/editorial patterns on Wiki, and tell me otherwise. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. I get that it may seem like that at a first glance, yes; however, it should be clear that none of this misunderstanding would have occured had LouisAragon not interfered all of a sudden. There was a discussion with the user User:CASSIOPEIA, but thankfully we quickly resolved our issues. None of my edits carry any malicious intents behind them; in fact, the articles are actually mostly intact and not much has been changed in them, save for added links in some words, correction of spelling errors, addition of spelling in other languages, and removal of biased/misplaced content that was clearly posted there with a particular purpose, it seems. I hope this clears it up. Feel free to take a closer look yourself!

- User:Trxch, 26.01.2018

LouisAragon, chill out dude, what're you on about? -_- What "reliably sourced" content is it that was removed from the Azerbaijan article? Claiming that Azerbaijan's name wasn't Azerbaijan? That is ridiculous, not what you think of it to be. As to Iran-related articles, the template removed was "Iranian architecture"; for being in non-architecture-related articles. Otherwise one wouldn't mind it. The "Azerbaijani population" template was added since the articles were about cities located in Iranian Azerbaijan - it's a sensible choice if you think about it, no need for its removal. Take it easy and don't go ballistic on it all(, seriously though -_-).

- User:Trxch, 26.01.2018

P.S. LouisAragon - And there is and cannot be any "pro-Azerbaijan Republic POV" via the addition of the Azerbaijani-language names of the toponyms. You base your claims based on your slightly distorted vision of what's at hand (no offense intented, I mean it), and that is unfortunate.

- User:Trxch, 26.01.2018

The sources are written by academics. Neither mine nor your opinion means anything. We go by what the reliable sources state. And the reliable sources on the Azerbaijan page, which you outrightly removed, clearly illustrated that the soil to the north of the Aras River was not called Azerbaijan until 1918. You have brought no sources to prove any of your points. No sources to disprove the reliability of the existing sources. All you've been doing so far on Wikipedia is trigger finger edit-warring (illustrated above), removing sourced content (illustrated above), POV-pushing (illustrated above) and giving feigned "explanations" (illustrated here @ ANI and on your own talk page). In other words; WP:NOTHERE in every single aspect of the definition. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• I blocked for 24 hours for the ongoing edit warring. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Drmies - Unfortunately, I think it was the right call. I wanted to try and help the user to avoid that, but it doesn't sound like it was going to happen. Thanks for responding to this while I was away. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure thing. Thanks. This also to say that I do not have the time to look into the substance of their edits, so I won't comment on NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I just counted; "Trxch" made a staggering 24 reverts in total, before he received the 24hr block by Drmies (a few minutes ago).

Even now after receiving the short block, "Trxch" still displays 0.0% intention to build this encyclopedia. "Trxch" also continues to display a complete lack of understanding about the disruptive nature of his edits. I quote, his response, on his own talk page;

• "My edits did not contain any sentences, or paragraphs, no entries regarding my personal opinions and views on a particular subject (...) Just because they are not well aware of (and maybe even oblivious to) the topics that are covered in the edited articles is not my problem; my problem is people like them interfering with my work on a website (...) So you can probably tell where the problem lies here; it's one-sided."

Based on my experience, I can guarantee that this charade will just continue after the block expires. IF admins don't review the posted evidence/concerns, that is. People shouldn't forget that this topic area is highly contentious due to 18th/19th/20th century events, so it attracts "people" like "Trxch" relatively often.

I just can't help but to repeat that I don't see any intention from "Trxch" to edit constructively. Not during his "24 revert-spree", nor after he received the 24 hr block. He's just completely and deliberately oblivious of the purpose of this project. Removing sources, adding unrelated content, adding unsourced content, ignoring warnings, etc. He basically literally admitted (see quote above) that he's just here to make others kow-tow to his self-interpreted unsourced/ungrounded tales. Go figure, ladies and gentlemen.

- LouisAragon (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

1 - He clearly has a BATTLEGROUND mentality and I have a feeling he'll revert the second that block expires, Just gonna throw this out there but preferably I'd prefer throwing him some rope and someone with more authority than me go over to his TP and make it plain as day his next revert will result in an indef block, We can only give him some rope and he can either take that rope or he can strangle himself with it .... It's up to him what move he chooses. –Davey2010^Talk 20:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I say we leave the block as is and give em a chance to prove us wrong. If the disruption continues at all after the block expires, an indef is what comes next and it's not difficult to apply. The ball is in his/her court - either the user learns from this and lets us try and help and educate them, or the status quo continues and the block is re-applied indefinitely. Their choice :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Brians198

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

---

Brians198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been persistently changing the date of birth on Chris Morris (satirist), despite this being currently sourced. Morris' IMDb profile features a different date, which is the date they insist on changing this to. The current source is a published (authorised) biography. I have explained through edit summary that IMDb is not considered reliable for such things. His actions have also included refactoring an existing reference. Having reached his final warning for doing this, it now appears he has logged out and made the exact same edit as an IP user (diff). Nzd (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

If the biography is authorized then it's not independent of the subject, so could potentially present an incorrect birthdate that the biography subject wants people to believe (people sometimes like to misrepresent their age). I don't see the issue discussed on the talk page, so it should be brought up there. IMDb is somewhat reliable (if it were total nonsense we wouldn't like to it from 1000s of movie articles) so if the birthdate discrepancy is significant then I'd want the article to show both versions, with citations. The current stated birthdate has no citation at all so it would be helpful to add one. Also, per WP:DOB I think we're better off leaving out the day and month of the birthdate unless it's relevant to some issue in the article. I'd only worry about the IMDb discrepancy if the years are different. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Linking IMDb - which is a wiki, mind you - as a "further reading" is one thing. Citing it as an actual source is quite another. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing IMDb covers that in more detail. For an issue like this IMDB isn't a source we should be using for sourcing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@173.228.123.121: Yes, the years are different. The DoB actually is directly cited in the infobox. The year is also confirmed by another citation to findmypast (one might argue that isn't a valid reference, but that's probably another argument). A previous discussion on the talk page has a post from another editor saying that they checked with the author, who confirmed that the date had come from the births and deaths register, rather than Morris himself. Nzd (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• See WP:Citing IMDB - IMDb cannot be used as source at all, If his DOB is incorrect then I'm sure there are means and ways of him telling us. –Davey2010^Talk 21:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

We could just remove the birthdate entirely for now until we find a reliable source that's agreed upon that can be used to cite it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I've had no particular involvement in this article (other than recent reversions), but it seems to me that the current date of birth is reliably sourced, and that appears to be the consensus of editors of the article. A single user, with no previous editing history, has persistently tried to change it, citing IMDb and "Google". Having been told that these are not reliable sources and being warned not to do this unless they can provide an actual source, they have now made the same edit while logged out. It was this behaviour I was hoping to address. Nzd (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• This is a odd one, and just shows what a problem things like IMDB are. The 5/9/65 birthdate seems to have spread to a number of places on the web - probably from there. However, the book makes it quite clear that it's wrong. It contains, for example, interviews with people that went to university with him from 1980 to 1983 - a date that clearly backs up a 1962 birthdate and not a 1965 one - including obvious statements like "I have a photo of us (students) taken in 1980...". Ditto interviews with people that played in a band with him in 1984 after he left university, and worked at Radio Cambridgeshire, or the fact that his mother returned to work in 1974 as "he was approaching his teens". Pretty much every single date in the book up until the 1990s would have to be wrong. They're clearly not. Incidentally, the book is independent of the subject; Morris did not contribute to it, only gave permission for interviews with others about himself to be used. Black Kite (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• In an attempt to close this off, can I propose that an administrator drop a note onto the talk page of the editor to reiterate the points re: WP:RS and WP:CITEIMDB? I think the note placed on the IP's talk page is enough at this point with regard to socking. I'm not looking for a block or anything, but it would be useful for the editor to know that one would be a realistic outcome if such an editing pattern were to continue. Nzd (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the user chose to ignore their level 4 warning and change information on another article without a source, so I've blocked them for 48 hours. Not understanding that IMDb is a reliable source is forgivable, but continuing to add unsourced content after all of those warnings regarding this is exact thing is not. Anyone is free to try to assist this user, but this is pretty straightforward disruption. Swarm ♠ 22:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

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

NPOV push and general obstruction on Immigration to Sweden

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

---

For over a month we have been trying to fix Immigration to Sweden which has one of the worst subsection written on all of English Wikipedia. Every attempt to improve it regarding the NPOV and staying on topic has been blocked by user Snooganssnoogans who is lying about the edits he makes in the summary and gives false information here on WP:ANI,WP:NPOV Noticeboard and on the talk page. This is not allowed according to Wikipedia:Don't lie. He also engage in edit wars to obstruct improvements. Last time here he managed to steer away attention from the topic to some meta discussion about sociology, but let's focus on his false edit summaries as of today [15]. He knows very well that this is not repeated information. What he is trying to censor is the 1996 report which goes against the finding of his favorite professor Sarnecki. This is the edit he tries to censor.

Immigrants have been overrepresented in crime in over 25 different studies since 1974, with the latest being the 2005 from Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention. In 2017 demands of an updated report was denied by Minister of Justice Morgan Johansson.

In the 1996 Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention immigrants where showed that children of immigrants where 40 % more likely to commit crime regardless of socioeconomic status in Sweden.

He know perfectly well that this is new relevant information for the article that balance the current NPOV issues. He has never made any attempts to fix the various repetitions in the section and even blocked attempts to remove them[16]. The section clearly needs improvement of flow and include missing perspectives. He also lied in his first comment here on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Can you block him from editing anything related to Sweden so that we can improve the articles? He has been breaking Wikipedia:Don't lie so many times that you should even consider removing the policy if he don't gets banned this time. --Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't find it in the archive? But the last API session also received a lot of comments between different administrators saying "it would be good if someone [admin] reviewed the edits, but I don't feel like doing it myself". Maybe we could avoid this here on the third attempt.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

References

This seems to be the last ANI incident on this topic. Is that what you are referring to? Paul August ☎ 18:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I did try to search the archive, but good thing you found it. As you see he lies about the edits I made there as well. Claiming they were about Sanandaji to distract the administrators from accusation. He also tried to associate me with an edit that used Sweden Democrats as a source, which is obvious less than ideal since they are a poltical party with an agenda of their own. Notice how they refuse to discuss Sno and instead ask each other if they can review my edits. There is also the NPOV Noticeboard discussion that I started after last ANI section, but it hasn't been gaining any attention. What to do now?--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - This editor -- User:Immunmotbluescreen -- has been involved in reports here at least three times recently. I think it's time to take a good hard look at them in terms of WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NPA, WP:HARASSMENT, WP:NPOV and other policies to see if a sanction of some sort is in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I think that is rather overdue. This year is a general election in Sweden, and so there is of course a risk that WP is used as a platform for alternative interpretation of fact, such as in the edit quoted above. (But Swedish politics is one area I try to stay away from on Wikipedia, so I am not going to wade through that quagmire myself. I am too fond of my shreds of sanity.) --bonadea contributions talk 19:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

My pleasure! You will not find any flaw. But that is another discussion. Start your own ANI. I started all three reports you mentioned (and they were only about Sno), but no one is willing to discuss the abuse of Sno.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

There's no need to start another thread. Like all editors who bring complaints to ANI, you are subject to scrutiny for your own behavior. First, don't call other editors liars. Second, don't accuse other editors of bias. Third, the main reason you're here is because you were blocked for a year at se.wiki last month (with multiple blocks preceding the latest block), and it appears that your behavior there is similar to what it is here. You're walking on very thin ice.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Immunmotbluescreen: You also failed to notify Snooganssnoogans of this thread. You'd think after so many ANIs, you'd know that such notification is required. You and Snooganssnoogans have already breached 3RR at Immigration to Sweden, and I'll block either of you if you revert again.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

First and second, Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith suggests that you should in fact notify administrators of lies and bias. Third, it is no secret that I don't get along with the administrators at se.wiki or anyone else who is against NPOV (it is stead on my profile page here). If I wanted to hide this I could have used a different account and IP, but I am not hiding this. You can review that story as welland see that I am without fault there as well.

Answer me this. Do you agree the article should follow NPOV? If yes, how can perspectives other than Sarnecki's be included if Sno can lock the page whenever he want it?--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Immunmotbluescreen: That is the most wrongheaded interpretation of AGF I've seen. The proper application of AGF in this instance is to assume that Snooganssnoogans is not lying and is not biased, but rather that they simply disagree with you. And this is the last time I'll say this: stop calling editors liars.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

That would in turn be the most simplistic, unproductive and outright harmful interpretation of AGF I have seen. Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith#Dealing_with_bad_faith "Wikipedia administrators and other experienced editors involved in dispute resolution will usually be glad to help, and are very capable of identifying policy-breaching conduct if their attention is drawn to clear and specific evidence." I have shown you the evidence and I am now wait for administrators to be "be glad to help"--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I also would call on administrators to help, and in my opinion, the best thing they can do in this situation to help Wikipedia is to block Immunmotbluescreen indefinitely for his or her inability to follow a simple direction and not call other editors "liars". I think we can join those at Swedish Wikipedia and say that we really don't need this editor here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with the other comment, this is an issue that Immunmotbluescreen is creating by their editing. They were also warned about WP:BOOMERANG as well last time they created a ANI on this topic. ContentEditman (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Over the past weeks I've been observing this editor from a distance, and am convinced it is now time for an admin to do the needful. @Bbb23:, @Paul August:, anybody else? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Somebody else indefinitely blocked with instructions on how to get unblocked. [17] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruption and CIR by Thefinalchapter

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

---

• Thefinalchapter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) (season 5) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not sure how to explain this other than this user seems unable to grasp the concepts of RS and V. Edits have now crossed into pure disruption (e.g., [18], [19]). This user's edits have resulted in 2 AN3 reports, the first resulting in semi-protection and the second in EC protection (see [20] where EdJohnston commented that a block was warranted but EC seemed more prudent). The the season page under EC, the user went to the series' parent page to continue their crusade.

Please also see Talk:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) (season 5) where the user has shown extreme inability to grasp Wikipedia policy (WP:CIR). For example,

Please don't let whoever else is editing this page make anymore edits because he is wrong and i am right ... now you aren't even going to respond to what i am asking this is ridiculous that i have to go through this because what you think is wrong ... u can do what u want on wikipedia but please just let me be and let me edit what i want to edit because your edit is false. You don't know the show, you never spoke to the creators of the show, you just want it to be your way and your wrong dude I've been nothing but nice and cooperative this whole time so can you PLEASE just let me do what i want to do PLEASE

They insist that unverified Instragrams and IMDB are WP:RS, for example:

"are you actually being serious about this, i provided sources, you asked for sources where the CREATORS OF THE SHOW have said what i am saying to be true, IMDB should be a reliable source because a lot of people look there to find out information about movies and tv shows so you have to be wrong about that."

Other quotes:

I know that but it says that you answered with a no can you please just accept my editing request please i am such a big fan of this show and i don't want it to end with injustice please please just accept my editing request and it also says that you reported me and that you were the one that did this to me which makes me upset because i bet you probably didn't even watch the show and I'm just saying what the creators of the show said so please just make the page unprotected and also when the page was protected the last edit was my edit so how did u get around it to change my edit AGAIN when it was PROTECTED TO PREVENT VANDALISM. Dude please just let me change it back please dude please. @EvergreenFi I am literally begging you at this point please just let me edit the season 5 plot to how it is supposed to be please I'm just asking you nicely.

Also if you would've just stopped deleting my edits in the first place there would've never been an edit war so technically this is your fault because i was editing it to what is right and you being you didn't like me doing what is right so this is your fault this would've never ever happened if you would've just left it alone

EvergreenFir (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to wait and give Thefinalchapter a chance to make a response here. I agree that the edits and diffs provided show problematic behaviors and I believe that this behavior, combined with the edits made to the articles, are becoming disruptive to the point where a clear set of expectations and a plan of action moving forward needs to be defined and laid out for Thefinalchapter, and that continuing the problematic behaviors discussed will result in being blocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Looks like a classic CIR issue, but I agree with Oshwah that it would be good to hear from them and see if a path forward can be drafted out. Otherwise, a block is inevitable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay ill talk with you guys I don't want to cause any harm here to anything and I'm sorry if i did i just want to be able to edit it that is all i ask. I really do apologize for editing on evergreenfir page i just needed to talk to that person because thy didn't respond to my questions that i asked. I asked frequent questions multiple times and no one gave me an answer so then i went to the front page for tmnt so i can seek attention so I'm glad i got some attention lets just talk i won't cause any harm here i just want to talk.

Okay well i am new here thats why I probably have violated some rules without knowing and i apologize for that i just wanted to make a username to edit the tmnt season 5 page but i guess that isn't okay

Im here and ready to talk now I'm just waiting because i don't know how this works i am new here

I have blocked Thefinalchapter for a month, and have left them a talk page message with some useful advice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Which the editor refuses to take. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

It looks like either gross incompetence or trolling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if another administrator could address their incoherent unblock request, and perhaps consider revoking talk page access. It seems that there is no realistic prospect that this editor might become productive any time soon. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The editor is a child. We should be redacting their instagram links. Clearly this is a case where the user doesn't have enough maturity to be editing. --Tarage (talk) 07:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't looked into the Instagram links beyond a glance, but looking into the account, I agree with Tarage. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I have turned talk page access off - they’re just going to get increasingly frustrated if they carry on. Edits like this just aren’t what WP is about. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IP

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

---

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

Reporting this IP for constantly blanking sections on sports related articles. As everyone can tell by looking at the IP's talk page and contributions, this person is not going to stop blanking articles. Recently, the IP was blocked for the first time by Admin TonyBallioni for a period of 31 hours, but the block was not sufficient enough as the IP started blanking again. A think a more extensive block is required. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 07:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Range block request for 41.245.0.0/16

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

---

• Contribs since January 1, 2018

There's been a lot of cartoon-related vandalism, unsourced edits, etc. coming from this ip range that geolocates to Libya. A brief glance suggests that 10 of the 127ish edits were not related to cartoons, suggesting minimal collateral damage.

Two addresses are already blocked:

• 41.254.2.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 41.254.8.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any disruption outside of 41.254.2.0/24 and 41.254.8.0/24, so I'll block them both for a month. Widr blocked one of them recently for a month, and this looks to be block evasion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you for block and for checking into detail of the ranges! EvergreenFir (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Valkyrie Cain vs ApolloCarmb

The following discussion is closed. 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:Valkyrie Cain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I noticed that this user moved their user/talk pages with redirects to the unexisting account ApolloCarmb. This could be a mistake, but I'd appreciate if an admin could take a look and/or help. I don't think that UAA is the right place for this, so I posted it here and placed a notification at User talk:ApolloCarmb#Valkyrie Cain vs ApolloCarmb. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 14:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Pages moved back. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

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

209.93.13.37 (personal attacks)

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

---

At [21] 209.93.13.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) issued a personal attack after he received the only warning [22]. For level 1, 2, 3 and 4 warnings see User talk:81.3.111.10. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Already blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Do I have to notify him of this topic? Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: No need. The block was placed before you opened this topic. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

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

How to propose page for deletion

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

---

Somehow I cannot google the exact procedure for the AFD process, want to propose for deletion Rendlesham Forest incident. prokaryotes (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

You'll find the AFD process at WP:Articles for deletion#How to nominate a single page for deletion. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

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

2600:1700:CAD0:A390:552F:E14F:25BC:A827

The following discussion is closed. 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 is bugging several experienced users in AFD templates. He is removing them for no reason. Can you guys take a look? —Bey WHEELZ ^Let It _RIP!✉📝^Sign 16:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Already blocked. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 16:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha. —Bey WHEELZ ^Let It _RIP!✉📝^Sign 16:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

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

강병준

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

---

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

The user is either a vandalism-only account or is incompetent to the point that they should not be editing Wikipedia. They edited Federal subjects of Russia today, adding renamed subjects (for example, Kamchatka Oblast was renamed to Kamchatka Krai many years ago, but they persistently added it so that both were in the table) and abolished subject (such as Ust-Orda Buryat Autonomous Okrug which is not a federal subject for approximately ten years). They did it persistently and used socks. Additionally, they created Flag russia which is just a copy of Federal subjects of Russia without attribution. They never replied to anybody and probably need to be blocked indef. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

They similarly vandalized Asian Games sports today, also using socks.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed I am calling this a CIR Fail although it might be a case of NOTHERE. Either way... -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Tnx.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:EBR Taurus

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

---

I have sent EBR Taurus 11 messages about creating unreferenced articles but EBR Taurus refuses to communicate. Please also see User talk: EBR Taurus#April 2017 where they were threatened with a block for repeatedly adding unsourced material, yet this has continued.

This editor has ignored me, both by not responding and by not addressing the issues concerned. They have been pointed towards WP:Communication is required, WP:BURDEN and WP:V but have continued to ignore messages and continued to create unreferenced articles. These include: PSAD Kodam VI/MLW Balikpapan, 2018 Arema FC season. There are also articles with only one blog as a source, such as 2017 Liga 3 Bangka Belitung and 2017 Liga 3 North Sulawesi.

They clearly know how to edit their talk page, but have done so only once, to remove this message: [23]. I would like EBR Taurus to communicate on this thread and show they understand the points raised. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Boleyn, Don't forget to notify the reported user (I have done so for you in this case). Tornado chaser (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

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

76.123.2.127

The following discussion is closed. 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 IP was blocked by Cyp for 1 month on December 11 2017 for personal attacks directed towards one specific editor (User:Codename Lisa). The block expired and the behaviour has continued. The nature of the edits suggest an experienced editor with a specific vendetta. I was previously unaware of any of this and left a uw-agf1 after seeing this, which was greeted with this in response. Not convinced this person is here to do anything constructive. — Warren. ‘ talk , 20:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Mass deletion of airline destination articles based on an RFC

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

---

Airline destinations articles are being deleted and lists in airline articles are being removed based on this [24] RFC. Two FLs weere included in these ones, but seemingly they have since been restored.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Agendabender

The following discussion is closed. 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 edit by User:Agendabender raises serious WP:NOTHERE questions — it's an application of a bunch of triple parentheses to a Jewish last name. The edit is nonsensical in context, but I see absolutely no reason why we should countenance users who edit using anti-Semitic alt-right tropes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Taking a closer look, my best guess would be that they're using one of the absolutely-disgusting browser add-ons which adds triple parentheses to Jewish last names, and didn't turn it off while editing that article; the section in question includes a source written by a woman whose last name is "Berman," and that sent their add-on into paroxysms of nuttery. I submit that there is no good-faith explanation for editing while using a triple-parentheses add-on, and that this user should be immediately blocked as WP:NOTHERE. Racists and anti-Semites have no place on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That is not the only edit that raises concerns. The editor claims to be a former "mod" (not sure if that's an admin or something else) on WP, and announces their intention to push against a perceived "political" bias on their user page. The user has made a truly bizarre claim, using an unreliable source at the UNC Chapel Hill talk page, has tried to push a fringe view at Talk:Gender, has been pushing OR at Talk:January 2017 Melbourne car attack and more. Pretty much their entire editing history consists of them trying to make WP take a far-right political stance. I feel pretty confident in stating that this editor is not here to build an encyclopedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked for the anti-semitic vandalism, the pattern of agenda-driven editing, and their (almost certainly bogus) claim to have been a "moderator" here. Neutrality^talk 01:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

---

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

Geogene

For this comment in response to my prior. At what point does such suppression warrant a topic ban? Can someone kindly evaluate? Humanengr (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

"Suppression"? And no, one comment observing that apparent endless sealioning of an issue "looks like trolling" is not ever going to "warrant a topic ban," so I'm not sure what you're proposing to accomplish here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, Humanengr has been aggressively using article and user talk pages to promote personal (non-mainstream/fringe) beliefs and Original Research, and he has persisted without acknowledging the good faith responses of other users. In particular, instead of building on other editors' responses to try to reach synthesis or common ground that might result in article improvement, he responds with leading questions that unilaterally attribute POV to other editors with whom he disagrees. This pattern of interaction is unproductive and provocative and in my opinion, yes, it's what we call "trolling". And far from "suppressing" Humanengr, the editors on American Politics articles have bent over backwards to AGF and try, in vain, to explain basic WP policy and guidelines. If anyone has the energy to document OP's behavior in detail, we could consider some restriction on him to end the huge waste of time and attention he brings with him to these difficult topics. SPECIFICO talk 17:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to point out that Humanengr has, since March 2017, made over 500 edits to Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, but in that same time, only 21 edits to the article itself. I'm not going to dive into that pool of edits to evaluate their quality, but, at least on the surface, it does seems as if Humanengr may be attempting to dominate the discussion by volume of edits, Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken, But the article edits are key framing edits as noted in my comment below; to which I’ll add my cleanup of cites for the lede para to provide better temporal ordering. Thoughts, given those additional details? Humanengr (talk) 09:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking at the WP:CPUSH essay, checking off how many of these things describe what Humanengr has been doing in the Russian interference article every day for months.

* They often edit primarily or entirely on one topic or theme.

* They attempt to water down language, unreasonably exclude, marginalize or push views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV, or give undue weight to fringe theories – pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, marginal nationalist or historic viewpoints, and the like. Like trying over and over again to put "alleged" in front of "Russian interference".

* They frivolously request citations for obvious or well known information. Like they were doing immediately before I called them out on trolling.

* They argue endlessly about the neutral-point-of-view policy and particularly try to undermine the undue weight clause. They try to add information that is (at best) peripherally relevant on the grounds that "it is verifiable, so it should be in."

* They repeatedly use the talk page for soapboxing, and/or to re-raise the same issues that have already been discussed numerous times.

* They hang around forever, wearing down more serious editors and become an expert in an odd kind of way on their niche POV. They outlast their competitors because they're more invested in their point of view.

* They often make a series of frivolous and time-wasting requests for comment, mediation or arbitration, again in an attempt to wear down other editors.

These behaviors would be considered "trolling" pretty much anywhere. Geogene (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure if Humanengr is trolling or just a POV pusher, But I have not been impressed with some of Geogene styles of attack either. Both users I think have issues with NPOV.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I'd like to see some examples of my "issues" with NPOV. Thanks. Geogene (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

[25] is a dismissive comment that implies you accept there was interference we we should accept there was (As no RS does explicitly say there was interference). It is certainly POV pushing as much as the OP is a troll. This can also be seen as POV pushing as you clearly comment on another users motives [26], with this added for good measure[27]. This is (of course) borderline and not actionable, but then neither is the Trolling accusation. But what many of them are (including) the trolling accusations are disruptive in that they make article talk pages about users, not the article. As you say about the IP's here [28] these posts are a huge time sink, and wastes everyones time.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, you claim it's "POV pushing" when I told somebody to quit casting aspersions? [29]. Also, you just accused me of violating NPOV because I accept that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. Are you serious? Geogene (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I said "This can also be seen as POV pushing as you clearly comment on another users motives", as I also went on to say "This is (of course) borderline and not actionable, but then neither is the Trolling accusation.". My point is that (yes) if you want to assume bad faith and read the worst possible motive into a users comments yours can be seen as POV pushing (and how about the first link, are there any RS that say unreservedly that Russia interfered?). No I did not say you violated POV because you accept that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election (which is by the way a POV, one you claim you were saying in an article talk page). I said you claimed RS agreed.Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Let me ask another question. Do you have any sort of positive doubt that Russia was involved in some way in Donald Trump's election? Are you trying to influence the article in that direction? Geogene (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not about my views (or me). Oh and this can also be read as POV pushing, it does not matter what you or I think, what matters is what RS say. Anything else is POV pushing "it did happen and our article must not be allowed to imply otherwise) is POV pushing.Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: this is about you, since you're deeply involved there, and since you have found your way into this thread and begun to throw accusations. And, where are those sources that say it didn't happen? I'm assuming you must have them. Geogene (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Found my way? [30]. You cannot prove a negative, but you can prove a positive. I do not need a source saying "it did not happen", as that is not the basis of an argument I am making, but you have claimed RS have said something. It is thus down to you to either provide that source or admit there is not one.Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

(ec)Slatersteven: That link shows a straightforward summary of the problems with Humanengr's longstanding behavior wrt American Politics. Personally, I would characterize Humanengr as a user who does not understand site policy about due weight and original research, but it's been explained over and over and other editors have concluded his behavior is not constructive and have lost all patience with him. SPECIFICO talk 19:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I said he has issues, I do not agree he is a troll.Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

And if you want to wikilawyer this, I didn't say they were a troll. I said they were trolling.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geogene (talk • contribs) 19:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Which is the same thing, and you know it. But agreeing he has issues, but not the one he had been accused of is not.Slatersteven (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't agree that it is. And I think you should be introduced to WP:SPADE. Geogene (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

(ec)I think both Geogene and Slatersteven are great collegial editors who've made lots of article improvements. "You're a troll" is a personal remark and cannot be evaluated. "You're trolling" describes a specific action and is readily verified or falsified. Humanengr often trolls, according to the definition of that behavior we commonly understand around here. Geogene did not label him a troll, which would be an hurtful personal remark, especially where the problem arises from incompetence rather than ill will or malevolent intention. The two statements are formally and substantively dissimilar. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This is wikilawyering in a nut shell "ahh I did not say he was a "X", I said he wrote like one". As I said I agree that Humanengr has series issues that should have been reported here a while ago. But I do not accept that saying someone is trolling is not calling them a troll, after all are you not what you do?Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Helpful guidelines - Fair enough. Let's not get sidetracked, however. Here is guidance we can use to consider Humanengr's behavior:

• Disruptive editing and the pages WP:DE WP:CIR SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems from the above that SPECIFICO agrees with Slatersteven that Geogene called me a troll? Do I read that correctly? Can some more neutral party pls weigh in on this point in isolation? Tia, Humanengr (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Humanengt I went out of my way to defuse the label "troll", which I said is not useful and could be a hurtful label, and to concentrate on your behavior, which is what Geogene did. So as I have explained at too much length already above, I do not think it's useful to accuse Geogene of something he did not say. SPECIFICO talk 23:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, SPECIFICO, the issue is not what you said but what Geogene said. [Cont’d below in response to Geogene.] Humanengr (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

You want someone to weigh in on that point in isolation? Isolation from what? The question of whether or not you were trolling at the time? Why would you want to separate those two issues? I was pinged again. Geogene (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I’ll broaden the issue. Can an admin please weigh in here regarding the issue of verb vs noun (saying someone is ‘trolling’ vs calling them a ‘troll’)? That would be informative. Thx in advance, Humanengr (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Note also here that I credited you specifically for a compromise re ‘concluded’ and ‘high confidence’ in the lede. And this is how you repay? Humanengr (talk) 07:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I've noticed a tendency to not learn from RS, but to constantly push views that can only come from fringe and unreliable ones. This creates endless circular discussions with no progress. This makes them a time sink, where we cover the same stuff again and again. No positive learning curve shown by abandonment of debunked views and adoption of newer and improved ways of seeing things. An inability to see the difference between a RS and an unreliable one gets right to the heart of WP:COMPETENCE. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer, re ‘views’: cites pls for where am I pushing ‘views’. Humanengr (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• I can see how that comment could look like trolling (I can't imagine a person who follows this issue would actually need a citation for that), but I don't think that it was trolling. A number of points could be made by first asking for a citation, and then responding when such is given.

I can't speak to the disruption caused by either party on that page as I've not been paying close attention to it lately, but I will say that I've seen both editors contribute positively to discussions in the past, and haven't seen either behave in an over-the-top partisan manner, or engage in disruptive behavior before. One or both may well have become disruptive in the past few months, but given my experience with them, I'd need to see some pretty clear evidence before accepting it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, Have you taken into consideration this post? Are you of the opinion that all know the trend in “the general public’s sense of ‘interference’ as being ‘allegations’ was becoming weaker”. (I, for one, have not seen polling data either way.) Thx, Humanengr (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Denial of the Russian interference went from plausible ignorance to fringe conspiracy theory nonsense over the past /- 2 years. Of course that could change when the 400 pound basement Hackensack hacker is apprehended. In the meanwhile however, for Humanengr and a collection of IPs to bring up a continuous unfocused stream of carping complaints without the remotest suggestion of workable edit improvements is unacceptable. It doesn't matter whether it's called trolling, it should be prevented and as long as we're here we have the opportunity to craft a fair and constructive restriction on this kind of disruption. SPECIFICO talk 19:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• I think Humanengr (talk · contribs) was extremely unhelpful on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. This is WP:TE. They should stop editing this page or this may finally lead to a topic ban. My very best wishes (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

My focus all along has been the framing of this article. Toward that end, it was

1. This exchange between JFG and myself that led to the insertion of “is highly confident” (later helpfully further changed by The Diaz to “with high confidence”, a direct quote from the PS) in the lede sentence.
2. The effort starting here, progressing through this and ending here that led to 3 words of context in a navbox at the bottom.

The lede sentence and the bottom navbox; the former to start the body with an accurate statement of what the ODNI did find and the latter to show any such alleged activity is not unique.

But I failed on one issue that Slatersteven captures perfectly when he says: “no RS does explicitly say there was interference.” Note that Geogene misinterprets by responding “where are those sources that say it didn't happen?”.

And the title presents ‘interference’ as fact.

I regret my failure to correct the top of the frame. Apologies for that.

I believe if you look at the record, you will see that the frame has been my focus.

I will comment further anon as necessary, Humanengr (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

no RS explicitly state there was such interference that is such spectacular bullshit [31], [32], [33]. You have a bizarre POV that's at odds with reality. Worse, you're perpetually trying to Debate Club it into the article. You never let anything go. You were just now complaining about the article's title. You're still trying to plant "allegedly" in there to cast aspersions on the mainstream view. People have been trying that since December 2016. It never goes anywhere. The reality of Russian interference, per sourcing, never goes away. You know the former, you must surely be aware of the latter, yet you keep bringing it up. This is unacceptable. Geogene (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

And I can't remember exactly what Slatersteven said earlier. If you quoted them correctly, then shame on them, they should be embarrassed for such an absurd falsehood. But--this is a key thing--they're not tendentiously trying to wear everyone down with endless argumentation to change the article to reflect their (alleged) POV. In fact, their lashing out at me here earlier is probably the first time I've seen them cause any problems. Geogene (talk) 07:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, are the links provided by Geogene in the preceding para sufficient to change your view expressed above that “no RS does explicitly say there was interference”? thx, Humanengr (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, Care to comment? I’m getting a better handle on our differences but think we are in sync on this. I await your take here given your exchange with Geogene above. Humanengr (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Well people need to read more then the headline "– a security research firm said that the same Russian hacking group" "and should largely be considered an arm of Russian intelligence as they attack American institutions." "The hackers, said to have links to Russia’s GRU military intelligence unit" "The intelligence community concluded last year that Russian hackers probed election systems". So in fact they seems to be very careful to attribute or caveat the accusations whilst saying it happened. As I said we need a source that unequivocally says it happened.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Examples - It's in the nature of this kind of behavior that single diffs don't readily convey the extent of the problem. So I am linking a few threads. These are just from the current talk page. This has been going on for a long time. Other editors may have further examples. There is a long history of the same behavior at article talk and elsewhere. Keep in mind, the concern is what Geogene correctly described as trolling. It's not overt incivility, personal attacks, etc.
There's_still_little_evidence_that_Russia's_2016_social_media_efforts_did_much_of_anything[34] [35] [36] Then after that long first thread went nowhere, he reopens the issue again here: Recapping from above § on WaPo’s Philip Bump on social media SPECIFICO talk 14:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Here is a diff from December, 2017. Humanengr gained no support in a long thread rehashing a previously settled issue on the article talk page, but he continued to press a pointless and circular discussion of the question. So @MrX: launched an RfC to definitively settle the issue. The link shows some of Humanengr's engagement at the RfC. Note that he mass-pings @MrX, Neutrality, Geogene, O3000, SPECIFICO, My very best wishes, Slatersteven, Fyddlestix, Casprings, Gouncbeatduke, and ValarianB:, which can only be expected further to prolong the repetitive discussion. SPECIFICO talk 14:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

[returning to main section as the subsection below has been closed]

Request for guidance from admin: In this very discussion, Geogene invokes vitriol: 1) here with “Whatever happened to lance the boil?” in response to Jusdafax’s suggestion of compromise* and 2) here with this “You'll be lucky if you get out of this without a TBAN”. At what point does this warrant sanction in this community? Humanengr (talk) 06:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Humanengr:, a TBAN was proposed for you. Some (including me) thought it should be a month. Others thought it should be indefinite in length. It was just closed as "No Consensus". Do you not understand what that means? Geogene (talk) 06:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@admin, I do not believe #2 above was a necessary component of the argument. Note also that the response to my post does not address #1. Humanengr (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Propose TBAN from Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

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

---

Let's see where we stand on this. Per MVBW above, please indicate your views on a TBAN of @Humanengr: from this article and related topics, broadly construed. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Per above. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I can see where you're coming from, but I'm reluctant to TBAN him from the whole subject area at this point. It's a gut feeling, that's all. What would 'broadly construed' consist of? Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 00:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Standard Wikipedia definition for TBANs -- just means that the user could not go to an article on the CIA, e.g. and remove a reference to the report on Russian hacking. Unless others have a better definition for this case, I think using the common framework makes it easier to deal with. SPECIFICO talk 00:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Has he been warned before (I am not sure this has been raised here before). If the answer is yes I support a TBAN, if the answer is no then he should be warned that his actions are unacceptable and that if he continues he will get TBAN (with maybe a small temporary sanction at this stage).Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – Humanengr has been engaging in polite dialogue and careful editing of the contents (as noted above, he made many more edits to the talk page than to the article itself). I understand that he can be criticized for verbosity and insistence, but that's a far cry from "trolling". Most of his contributions and questions are designed to try and improve the article. Sure, some editors disagree with his POV, and this is why we have talk pages. In my view, neither Humanengr's nor Geogene's behaviour are actionable. They should go back to the talk page, mutually AGF, and strive to reach consensus. (Full disclosure: I'm one of the "regulars" at that article, so I'm well-versed in the events reported, their history, the evolution of the article, and the perennial disputes about it.) — JFG ^talk 12:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a serious issue with him raising the same damn thing 15 times worded slightly differently whenever he does not get consensus (over, if I recall rightly, over multiple forums). But without kind of community Waring it seems unfair to ban him over this.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I would add I find it very odd that no one deemed his actions report worthy, until he reported another user, and then they leaped straight for the TBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

When someone is just being disruptive with WP:ICANTHEARYOU, it is not an easy case to bring, and even harder to get action on, from what I've seen. Most editor don't want to risk WP:BOOMERANG and gain nothing. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Humanenegr has been warned more than once by Admins, and numerous times by civilian editors, on talk pages. SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

So now admins have been militarized? EEng 16:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Cf. GorillaWarfare, NuclearWarfare and Bongwarrior. - MrX 🖋 17:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Not to mention D'Armies. EEng 01:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

EEng, why are you dragging me into this? What topic ban am I getting? I'm militarized? Y'all heard I got a Daisy Red Rider for Xmas? Drmies (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Procedural comment – SPECIFICO is under an April 2017 sanction enjoining her to refrain from requesting sanctions against her fellow editors, except via the WP:AE process or an uninvolved admin's talk page. Her public call in this thread for a boomerang against Humanengr appears to be a violation of her own AE sanction, which arose due to similar inappropriate behaviour in the past. Pinging NeilN for comments, as the administrator who imposed the sanction on SPECIFICO. — JFG ^talk 12:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• @JFG: I agree that input from NeilN would be helpful here, but this discussion could at least be argued to be about community sanctions, not discretionary sanctions, which would therefore fall outside SPECIFICO's sanction. Of course an admin could unilaterally impose a TBAN as a result of this discussion and then who knows where we'd be? GoldenRing (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• @JFG and GoldenRing: While the wording of my sanction restricted SPECIFICO to those two specific places, the purpose of the sanction was to stop SPECIFICO's practice of calling for sanctions on article talk pages and user talk pages. Requesting sanctions on an admin-geared noticeboard is not disruptive and does not go against the purpose of the editing restrictions I placed on them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose – It seems almost prejudicial to "see where we stand" on a topic ban on an editor without a proposal for the topic ban which has been backed up with accusations of bad behaviour supported by diffs. This proposal lacks such evidenced accusations, and cites this post by My very best wishes which neither proposes a topic ban, nor contains supported accusations. Cjhard (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Links are provided in upper section. SPECIFICO talk 17:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support. I think that comments by Humanengr do not help to improve this page, but result in significant waste of time by other contributors. However, this should be up to contributors who frequently edit this page. If they want to debate these issues with Humanengr to infinity, this is their business. My personal inclination, as an occasional participant of this page, would be to support this proposal. If there is a clear violation of anything (I do not really know), this should be reported to WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, seems like much of this is a difference of opinion rather than actual disruption. And jumping straight to a topic ban is a step too far. fish&karate 15:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

It's certainly way beyond a difference of opinion. A TBAN or page ban seems less restrictive than a block, but if you feel there should be, say, a 6-month time span set for the TBAN that would be less of a restriction than a TBAN that would need additional community process in order to lift it. SPECIFICO talk 16:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments like that on article talk page can be viewed as an WP:NPA problem. When repeated multiple times, this is a WP:TE pattern. Hence my vote above. My very best wishes (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support per previous comments by SPECIFICO, Geogene, Bullrangifer, and Beyond My Ken. This user is congenial, but their many voluminous posts are a time sink and a net negative in this subject area. Volunteers should not have to waste hours upon hours of their unpaid time swatting at every oddball theory this user comes up with. Several attempts have been made to get Humanengr to alter their approach, to no avail. They show a lack of understanding and inability to grok our core policies like WP:NPOV and WP:OR. - MrX 🖋 16:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Considering the obvious contentiousness that led to this, I could get behind a 1 week TBAN for one or both parties. Note that this is exceedingly short on purpose: I've seen them both engage productively, so I know they can. But apparently tempers have been rising, based on the discussion here, so maybe doing something to cool them down would help. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support a one-month topic ban on Humanengr, for all things Russia/Putin. Now that I'm aware they've been arguing "nationalist bias" over at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. [37]. I guess if they can't cast doubt on whether Russia interfered, next best thing is to say America does the same thing. This is obviously tendentious. Geogene (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Time-sink, tendentious, POV pushing. Needs to stop. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Geogene. This is a specious, other things argument. Yes, America does interfere in the politics of other nations, and has done it for generations, BUT that's not the subject here. For me, the tipping point is the continued pushing of doubts about whether Russia interfered in the election. To me, competence as an editor is intimately related to a positive learning curve. We should learn from RS, and trust them in the same way we should place our trust in scientific research. For scientifically falsifiable "facts", the best we can do is trust good research and place it above our own opinions. The same applies here. We should place our trust in RS, and change our minds, giving up the opinions which differ from them. We can "have our own opinions, but not our own facts" (Moynihan). It's not imperfect, but science and RS are self-correcting, unlike erroneous opinions.

Until Humanengr starts openly admitting that Russia interfered (and is still interfering in US politics) in the election, I will not totally trust their competence. A month-long topic ban seems appropriate, and I think we have a right to expect evidence that the topic ban has effected a change of their opinions on the matter. Otherwise, in the future, I'll support a much longer, and wider, topic ban. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Et tu? Let’s start here: “Yes, America does interfere in the politics of other nations, and has done it for generations”. How many of those were reported unequivocally (Slatersteven’s term above) as “America interfered …” (your terms) by your vaunted RS news media? Tia, Humanengr (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

That is not the subject of discussion. This is about Russian interference, not American. That's for a different article. Bringing up American interference is a red herring to change the subject. It doesn't help you. This diversionary tactic is also an example of the tu quoque fallacy. Just because America interferes does not justify Russian interference, and in this article we're only dealing with Russian interference. United States involvement in regime change is thataway >>>>>. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The subject of discussion is the standard you offered to judge one’s behavior: “We should learn from RS, and trust them in the same way we should place our trust in scientific research. Etc., etc.” I offered a test of that standard by applying it to a different sample set. In response, rather than admit you can’t provide data to validate your proposed standard, you improperly accuse me of tu quoque:

Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3. Therefore X is false.

I do not claim Russia did not interfere. I dispute the unequivocal claim that they did.

As Slatersteven noted, no RS news media source makes that unequivocal claim.

The issue is not my competence but, judging by your own criteria, yours and Geogene’s and SPECIFICO’s in reading RS news media as stating unequivocally that Russia interfered. Humanengr (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

You are ascribing statements and views to other editors that you can not document with diffs. SPECIFICO talk 03:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

You, here:

Oh. Glad to try to explain my view. The article is about the interference in the election. Some aspects of interference were first reported in the press around March 2016 I believe, then in subsequent reports in various media throughout the balance of the campaign. Then after the election we had official confirmation that the intelligence community had been tracking this and then we had the so-called JAR in early January, 2017. Now I think it is important to differentiate between the events themselves and the sources and reporting that revealed those events. Obviously the process of investigation and revelation is ongoing and we do not yet have a full accounting of all of the various modes of interference and their extent and effects. So, whatever was in the JAR was placed there by its authors to balance two sometimes conflicting needs. By the way this is true of any revealed national intelligence estimate. The goal is to give the public as much information as possible about the interference while not revealing our intelligence sources and methods. Given that constraint, the information in the JAR was incomplete. The information available to officials with security clearance was far more extensive and detailed. That's still the case today.

After the JAR came out, we started to get various editors who claimed, because the JAR could not reveal those still-classified details, that the conclusions in the report are incorrect. We initially had many such editors. Now we're down to a small few. They cite marginal sources for this fringe viewpoint, and are quite adamant about their POV. They are attaching great significance to the level of detail in the JAR because they seem to feel it casts doubt on whether the Russians were involved in any cyberwarfare against the US. But this is nonsense. The report is just one account of part of the story. The story itself is the interference itself. That was my point -- that this fetish about the report itself is off-target.

Thank you again for explaining your position. Humanengr (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

1. That blockquote is from 3 months ago. 2. It is from your personal talk page, when I went there hoping that you could refocus your participation on sources and article content. 3. It doesn't document the political stance you ascribe to me above. You will never be able to document that, because I have not said it. 4. This shows (more clearly than anyone else could ever hope to explain} why the TBAN is necessary. And, to update my view: I think it should not have an end date. It could, of course, be lifted according to standard policy. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Where did I ascribe a political stance to you? The boldface terms in the above simply show your use of the term ‘interference’ without qualifier. For an example of ascribing political stance, see what Geogene ascribed to me. Humanengr (talk) 11:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment This is a helpful example of what attempting discussion with Humanengr is actually like: Endless sealioning, Whataboutism, and a tendentious pro-Russian POV. This is why they need a TBAN, because they're still not getting it. Geogene (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Pls provide a specific cite for “pro-Russian POV”. Thx Humanengr (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I have to say Humanengr you are not doing your case any good here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I followed this article and participated in talk page discussions for quite some time. I don't remember Humanengr edit warring or otherwise forcing text on the article against consensus. Their worst crime seems to be insistence in arguing for their position on the talk page. This editor is clearly making an attempt to improve the article through collaboration with other editors, otherwise they wouldn't spend so much time and energy trying to convince people. That might get tedious if the same points are repeated, but it doesn't seem deserving of a ban. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Lean Support. I can see why this topic ban might be deserved now, especially given behavior in this thread. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 17:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Once again, a proposal to block someone for courteously maintaining their position on the talk page: a position in this case consistent with the editorial line of the BBC (that Russia may have attempted to interfere in the election, but that this is not established as a fact). Someone should give Humanengr a medal for maintaining their cool in the middle of all this nonsense. -Darouet (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Darouet:, when did the BBC say that this "is not an established fact"? Geogene (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Geogene: As I've pointed out on a number of occasions, e.g. here [38] or here [39]. Last I checked their editorial policy remained the same. -Darouet (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any copies of the BBC's editorial policies in those links. All I see is a couple of editors repetitively and tendentiously trying to cast doubt on the mainstream viewpoint. Here's a recent (last month) AP source that explicitly makes the connection between the Kremlin and the DNC hackers. [40]. It's not controversial. It's not even in serious dispute, outside of the RT/Sputnik News orbit. Thank you for the timely reminder that this is not the first time TBANs have been discussed for disruptive editors in this topic area. It makes Humanengr's conduct harder to understand. Geogene (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

So what do the MAJORITY of RS say? We can find one or two sources that say it did happen, that does not make it "mainstream". Also what do you think "mainstream means"?Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

That it happened, obviously. When Twitter is contacting users to tell them they were in contact with Russian propagandists, the debate is pretty much over. [41]. That said, it's not my job, or any other editor's job, to inform you about things that you should be able to figure out on your own. It's absurd that you seem to think that it is. At this point, if you're having trouble understanding that your own apparent views are not in the mainstream, then you're a net negative to that page. Read a newspaper. Geogene (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

And what is my view? As to the majority of RS saying it happened, really provide a source.Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Darouet:, "courtesy" and "cool" are not at issue here. There's plenty of documentation been cited regarding competence, tendentious refusal to get the point, and other disruptive behaviors that are not rebutted by kudos for courtesy. If you have substantive rebuttals to the concerns that have been documented here, that would be helpful. SPECIFICO talk 23:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: All you've documented is that Humanengr has routinely disagreed with you, Geogene and MrX. That's not enough to have someone banned. -Darouet (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, that is something I have neither mentioned nor documented, nor do I know whether it's true. The fact is I have no opinions about politics and the like and I have no idea whether the many other editors who favor a TBAN have any such opinions. I have opinions only about article content and conforming it to reliable sources, as I stated to Humanengr in his talkpage thread he linked. Frankly Darouet, your snide dismissal and personalization of this long ANI thread is a stain upon the page. SPECIFICO talk 00:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

You're not impressed I managed to do all that in so few words? -Darouet (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Darouet and Red Rock Canyon. The parties involved need to learn how to compromise, and bringing this dispute to AN/I was not the way to do that. Jusdafax (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jusdafax: Whatever happened to lance the boil? Geogene (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - I certainly hope the new norm is not relentless topic bans of the opposition simply because they view an article from a different perspective and have sources to support their views. We're supposed to be abiding by NPOV which means all views should be included if properly sourced. Of course there are going to be pods of editors with like views that will dominate local consensus - if there's a challenge, call an RfC and resolve the issue fairly. There will always be situations wherein an opposing view or challenged edit falls in the minority - that doesn't automatically make it wrong. Opposing views are how we reach NPOV, otherwise our political articles would appear as though they were written by the same political party which is of far greater concern. Discuss, discuss, and discuss a bit more and if you feel you've lost patience, take a break, but let the discussion continue until an agreement is reached. My suggestion here is to issue some trout slaps, and recommend a  Self-whale... for when a trout just isn't enough or two but please, can we move away from always wanting to TB the opposition so the dominant POV can have free reign over an article. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

For editors who are not familiar with the history of this article, I think it is grossly misleading that a small number of editors should come here -- editors who deny the overwhelming mainstream RS consensus that Russia interfered in the 2016 US elections -- and pretend that this is a simple content dispute, that WP should "compromise" with their fringe POV, that there's no such thing as civil but disruptive interaction. I was struck that @Darouet: went to the trouble of providing links in his/er comment above [42] or here [43] that show Darouet is one of those who refuses to get the point and drop the stick. In fact, the "highly motivated" editors who reject mainstream RS are begging the question of disruptive editing, which is the only issue that's been put on the table here and which is sufficient to require a preventive TBAN. Just so you don't think this is a sneaky sidewinder stab at Darouet or others, look here -- this is from Admin @Neutrality: seven months ago in the very thread Darouet apparently thinks supports hiser view: [44]. Darouet's other link shows himer arguing (two months earlier) against the result of an RfC that had just concluded by continuing to harangue the article talk page rather than as other suggest to him, challenging the close of the RfC according to process. Frankly, the only reason Darouet has not been propopsed for a similar TBAN is that shehe is not nearly as energetic as others who've already been banned. The significant point is that several editors have appeared here to raise straw man arguments and other deflections without addressing the clearly presented concern about civil but egregiously disruptive editing. And no it's not about AGF, either. It's more likely an issue of competence and ignoring our basic editing policies. SPECIFICO talk 20:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

What do "hiser" and "himer" mean? -Darouet (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Those are widely mooted gender-neutral English neologims [45], so that be you! 👌 SPECIFICO talk

I was going to suggest a compromise, but cannot countenance your repeated misrepresentation. Again, as Slatersteven noted, there is no mainstream RS (and, I’ll add, much less a concensus) that states unequivocally that Russia interfered. That is not the same as denying “that Russia interfered”. Humanengr (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The current article text accurately summarizes the RS narrative of significant events related to the topic. You seem to be looking for a curveball but it's a changeup down the middle. It's fairly simple to paraphrase what's in the bulk of mainstream sources, and the article reflects the best efforts of the community to accomplish that. SPECIFICO talk 03:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Compromise? When you don't have any sources backing your position, and consensus has been decidedly against you for months? This is WP:CIR territory. You'll be lucky if you get out of this without a TBAN. What is about guaranteed to happen, is that I'm going to disable the ping function from you (because you are constantly pinging me for no apparent reason) and pretty much ignore you on the talk page from here on. Because you endlessly drag up issues that have already been settled, because you ignore sources that don't fit your POV, you repeat the same false assertions repetitively after they've been disproven, and your tendentious lack of WP:CLUE is a timesink. Geogene (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Humanengr said he is going to fight something he perceives as a "repeated misrepresentation", but that something is actually a majority view, probably even a mater of fact. That does justify a topic ban in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Geogene’s bad faith accusations on my Talk page

User:Geogene, who on his User page claims to have ragequit Wikipedia because he disagrees with Jimmy Wales, came to my Talk page a couple days ago with this bad faith accusation. I banned him from my page, as I was working on an article and the accusation was on its face absurd. Indeed, while I !voted against the idea of a boomerang topic ban for the OP, in my Oppose I noted that the OP should not have brought the matter to AN/I in the first place, urging compromise.

In my response to Geogene specious allegations, in which I note I could recall no previous interaction between us, I pointed out on my Talk page that his astonishing accusations were a breach of WP:AGF. Despite my ban, he returned with the declaration “let that be a lesson to you.”

I again asked him to stay off my page, and gave the matter no further thought. However, I then noticed a ping from Geogene, made before his Talk page attack, where he wanted to inform me of his snarky comment [46] on my !vote regarding the boomerang, which is his reference to a contentious ArbCom case from 2015.

Geogene has a long memory, it seems. So long, that it seems clear to me he sees me as an enemy and assumes (wrongly) that I feel the same. It’s clear to me that his edits are acting on a grudge, a clear violation WP:BATTLEGROUND.

Now it occurred to me to use the Editor Interaction Tool, where I discovered this MfD discussion, [47] also from 2015, that I had completely forgotten. In the thread, in a section later hatted, Geogene accuses me of making a personal attack, gains zero traction, and, though unable or unwilling to trouble with the correct spelling of my Username, apologizes for his accusation, but only after being urged to by others. [48].

In his cherry-picked diffs on my Talk page, Geogene purports to show I am following his edits, and worse, prepping my !vote-stalking with set up edits to other threads on this page, which if true would be a very high level of devious behavior. Until now, Geogene was someone I couldn’t recall, a minor player in a minor dispute from years ago, and after 75k edits, frankly an eminently forgettable editor. But now I see that his meretricious attack on my good name is not the first time he’s done this. And this time, an apology won’t cut it.

I hereby ask that Geogene be sanctioned. I ask for a non-involved admin to review this, with my choice being that an admin indef block Geogene now, pending further review. If the above matter, initiated by Humanengr, is closed, I ask that this section be kept open for further discussion and review until it can be closed with resolution. Geogene’s attempt to bully and intimidate, as I see it, requires prompt and firm action.

And if my own truthfulness and trustworthiness are in doubt, I’ll point out that my identity is known to the Wikimedia Foundation, having been personally active in the San Francisco WMF offices. Jusdafax (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

They could "indef" me for....something or other. Or, Jusdafax could quit stalking my edits at AN/I. Does anyone give a damn that they volunteered to answer phones (or something) in San Francisco? Sad. Geogene (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Make your case for me being a “stalker.” But I’ll observe you don’t begin very well. Jusdafax (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

It's on your talk page. Where you should have left well enough alone. But seriously. Do you think it matters if you were the best toilet scrubber (or whatever) that the WMF could find who would work for free? Do you think the community owes you for that? I don't. I think you're minimally competent as an editor, you seem to have that weird sense of entitlement, and you stir a lot of drama. And that wouldn't be any of my business, except that you have an uncanny way of knowing when I'm at AN/I for something. Am I the only participant in the GMO arbcom case you've been stalking? Should I have a look? Hmm... Geogene (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Why did you un-hat this? SPECIFICO talk 04:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

It was somebody logged out [49]. But the rationale is doubtful, since you're not involved in this subsection. Of course, that's the structural problem with AN/I. An editor that causes disruption can be brought here, several editors can endorse a sanction...and then any busybody with a long-term grievance against any editor(s) in favor of sanctions can derail it out of spite. Everyone has seen that once or twice before. Geogene (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

As you mentioned the GMO topic, Jusdafax was warned at AE as a result of this tendency to follow around editors to admin boards. I honestly wasn't expecting to see their name here when I saw the initial conflict. This looks like be a retaliatory attempt in continuing that battleground behavior that can easily boomerang on them given that previous warning. The above known identity / WMF stuff looks like some very strange special pleading too. It's concerning that this is still going on after all this time.Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

That cuts both ways, King. Rather than relitigate the GMO case and its aftermath, I am asking for action to be taken on the matter I raise above. Geogene’s charge that I am a “stalker” is a serious one. You want to make this about me as a tactic, but it’s all about Geogene’s abusive accusations, for which no substantial evidence has been produced. Your continued hostility toward me doesn’t change the facts that right here, right now, there is active WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior by Geogene, and you are coming here to stir the pot.

To review: I made a !vote at ANI, on the above thread, for no sanctions for the OP but asking for compromise. Geogene has the gall to claim that !vote is stalking (with added gratuitous insults towards me) and that I !voted here three days earlier to set up my !vote for no sanctions, which by the way a goodly number of others agree with. So, he attacks me on my Talk page, intended to have a chilling effect and snarks on my !vote about the ArbCom case, which he, and now you, want to make it seem to the community that I can’t get over. But ANI is a highly public page, and I have a long history of comment and discussion here.

It seems to me that Geogene’s 2015 direct apology to me, which I utterly forgot as trivial, for the same type of bad faith accusations he is making here, has festered, and when I spoke up here he snapped. It also seems you both expect me to be afraid of you, with your veiled threats, which I think is the core of this matter. I mentioned my WMF work proudly to establish my good character, as opposed to the hateful rant Geogene expresses on his user page. Furthermore, Geogene attacks my character with references to “cleaning toilets.” This is who you are standing up for? Right. I again ask for an uninvolved admin to review this matter. Jusdafax (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I consider Jusdafax to be one of the top prima donnas in Wikipedia. The WMF thing is either something they bring out to try to convince everyone how very special they are, or they actually believe that the Office owes them a few free blocks or something. Neither explanation is flattering. This sort of character, combined with their GMO conflict history, their tendency to fly off into bombastic rages at the first sign of criticism, and what seems to be a biased cluelessness about policy are all reasons why I'm not excited that they keep inviting themselves into board threads about me. This needs to stop, and if it continues, then I have every right to continue to initiate discussion about it on their talk page, if they like it or not. If that fails, I'll take it to AE. If they want to convince anyone they're not hounding me around the boards, I'm not sure how repeatedly complaining about some apology I gave them in 2015 is supposed to clear them of anything. I also think it's ridiculous that they started this thread claiming they don't see me as some sort of enemy, and then immediately called for me to be blocked indefinitely. That's weird; a lot of things about Jusdafax seem to be like that. I dislike them, that sentiment is clearly mutual, and it would be best for everyone if they would just stop looking for opportunities for conflict with me. Geogene (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

At this point, given how Jusdafax is trying to ignore the previous warnings (more special pleading) about the long history of the vexatious use of ANI/AE to follow around editors as you and others have described, it would be fair for an admin to enforce the GMO discretionary sanctions here for something like a one-way interaction ban without a need for the community to vote on it. That being said, you could also document the long history, especially in the GMO topic that both you and Jusdafax (as well as myself) have been involved in to varying degrees at AE as a followup to their previous warning there. It would be a mixture of GMO and politics DS since the disruptive behavior in the GMO behavior seems to be proxying over to this politics topic now.

Otherwise, this section really should have been left closed given the rest of it being closed unless Jusdafax is really intent on ignoring their previous warnings and risking a boomerang for the same behavior that's gotten them in trouble before. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Everybody calm down

If I dare submit an oversimplified thread summary: Humanengr came here to complain about Geogene, didn't get much traction, then Specifico agitated for sanctions against Humanengr, got mixed reactions (7 support, 7 oppose), and now Judasfax is opening a secondary case against Geogene. I believe everybody should cool down: nobody needs to be sanctioned for getting a bit obnoxious about what is ultimately a content dispute. Civility and AGF warnings may be enough to bring all editors back to productivity. — JFG ^talk 09:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

OK consider yourself warned. You may resume editing. SPECIFICO talk 13:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Is a consensus to remove an entire category of articles sufficient reason to delete them all?

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

---

See [50]. This discussion as open for 26 days, the airline project was informed and a post was made ont he categories talk page as well. Once we had a close with a clear consensus that we should no longer have these articles, I began deleting them. I am now being told that that consnesus was not binding and all these deletions must be discussed again at WP:AFD. There is also some suggestion that I am somehow violating WP:INVOLVED. Seeking broader input as discussion on my tal page does not seem sufficient to decide this broader issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Obviously a consensus to delete a category does not give a consensus to delete every article within that (former) category. That's absurd logic. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a slightly more (in my opinion) directed discussion at AN itself. If you want to give "general feedback" I suppose here is fine, but the other discussion gives specific options on how to proceed. Primefac (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Pretty sure this discussion was opened first, witht he whole point being that this was being discussed in too many places at once. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

And the RFC was not a discussion of whether to delete the category but rather to get rid of all articles within said category. So there’s the question: is that consensus just a formality, and despite WP:CON and WP:NOTBURO is unenforceable and AFD is absolutely required? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I prefer to keep the discussion here so the general reader can drop their lines.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Huh? Getting rid of the category does not give license to delete the articles. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

In fairness, it looks like the RFC was meant to cover the articles in the category, not just the category itself. Still, I don't think it's very wise to effectively speedy delete FLs (and other pages) without even tagging them, as was the case for at least one of the articles. I could see doing that for a BLP violation or copyvio, but not in this case. The pages should have gone to AFD, where the nominator could have used the RFC result as evidence in favor of deleting the articles. Instead we have another drama-fest in the making, which could easily have been prevented. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

So, the consensus is meaningless unless it is re-established at AFD? Honestly asking as that seems to be the argument most people are making and I’ve never heard it before. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

No, you just misinterpreted how to respond after the consensus. And then, to refuse a polite request to restore deleted material based on your own interpretation is even worse. Just restore the deleted material, it's not controversial in any sense, and your refusal to do so is actually strongly against what we would hope our admins would do. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I would view the RfC as an approval to place the prod tag on individual articles. The RfC mentioned Lists which it's not clear that these articles are "Lists" without "Lists of" in the name and if they are, they are standalone lists. Please undo the deletions. these are arguably not lists and the articles can have different information seperate from a list. --DHeyward (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Just gonna dump my 2c here but the norm is to send to AFD, Hate to be all "Lets follow by the book" but these should go via AFD not CSD RFC. –Davey2010^Talk 23:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Here's an example why this was a bad idea: Eastern Air Lines destinations was deleted. It's a defunct airline so it's destinations are historical, not an index. Eastern Air Lines exists. Eastern Air Lines#Destinations is now a section that only has a red link. I imagine there is now a red link in all the articles. "Where did Eastern Airlines fly?" is a legitimate question that Wikipedia could answer up until the deletions. --DHeyward (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I am of course aware I was creating tons of redlinks. The system informs you when deleting a page if anything else links to it, but I can’t do everything at once, I had barely gotten half the deletions done when it suddenly turned into a drama fest on my talk page, so the whole thing’s stopped for now while we figure this out. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

So undelete the whole lot, and we can start again. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

It was a lot of work, and would be nearly as much work to undo. I’d rather wait until this has been properly discussed, not just by people who are upset about it but by the broader, uninvolved community. At the moment it’s best if nobody does anything. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

An IP has been blocked for not knowing the way to ask for this to stop [51]. This is not just a ″delete and undelete festival″.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Funny you should try to lay that at my feet when you repeatedly warned them to stop. Didn’t look like you were particularly sympathetic to them. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

You say that "It was a lot of work, and would be nearly as much work to undo.". Sorry, but you should have made sure you were using the tools in accordance with community norms. Bill H Pike (talk, contribs) 00:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I'm less concerned with the red links than the removal. Simply deleting the section in Eastern Air Lines#Destinations wasn't in the purview of the RfC and the historical record of the information has been removed even though it will never be updated (it's not an indiscriminate index, it's a historical record - you can't use that list to find out where Eastern Airlines will take you)). Had this been at AfD, a merge is likely the result. Many of these articles have lists inside the articles such as Accidents or Hijackings. Splitting destinations was likely a an article size issue. These articles are case by case.). I'm also not interested in finger pointing. Eastern Airlines was my first guess at a problem and it brought up more issues than I even suspected which is why I would like the information restored. It's less work than moving them to Draft or User space which would be my next request since I can no longer see the material. --DHeyward (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Beeblebrox is clearly involved and so should not be deleting hundreds of articles without due process. Andrew D. (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• There was not a consensus to delete the articles outside of the normal process. Bill H Pike (talk, contribs) 00:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• I agree. All articles should be restored, immediately. AfDs are in order here, deleting a category is not equivalent to the nuclear option for all its articles. Beeblebrox, please take steps to undo what you did. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• As I said in the other thread, a mass undelete is in order here, and I'd like to see a mass PROD. Also, that IP shouldn't be blocked, or at least have the warning counter reset. – Train2104 (t • c) 00:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to bring it up, but Beeblebrox actions make me question my confidence in her his ability to use the admin tools in accordance with community norms. If Beeblebrox keeps defending her his actions and other admins are forced to clean up her his mess, the community will need to consider its options. Bill H Pike (talk, contribs) 01:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Correcting pronouns. See User:billhpike#Pronouns Bill H Pike (talk, contribs) 02:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I don’t know where you got the idea that I am a female, but you are incorrect. As to the rest of it, You may note that I brought this here for discussion so that a consensus could be reached, and have sated that I think it best if nobody take any unilateral action until this seems resolved. It’s only been a few hours since any objections surfaced. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• I still haven't heard a compelling explanation as to why airline destinations have been deemed eeeeevil and must be destroyed (apparently without following standard process -- seriously, wtf?), but bus and train schedules are hunky dory. Wouldn't the "Wikipedia is not a directory, go to their web site!" argument apply there as well? I mean, we've gotta have tens of thousands of articles that describe train and bus destinations. — Warren. ‘ talk , 01:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

This really isn’t the topic of this discussion. We’re trying to get clarity on whether the deletions I was doing were supportable or whether AFD is mandatory in this type of situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Requesting rangeblock for: 197.211.32.0/19

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

---

• 197.211.32.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Ever since this range was unblocked (only a couple of days ago), there's been nothing but spam and other disruptive edits. Also please disable talkpage access, as this is where most of the spam is taking place. 46.120.202.51 (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Pinging KrakatoaKatie and Primefac from the block log. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

On it. Primefac (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The range was briefly blocked but the block was lifted due to collateral. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Sanathndk and Sri Lanka Signals Corps

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

---

I edited the Sri Lanka Signals Corps article a couple times a few months ago in an attempt to clear up some of the problems with grammar and referencing, and User:Sanathndk began making edits with no support in the citations I'd used, which was the Corps' official website. He also started making edits to the formatting of officers' names and their initials, making, for instance B.H.M.A (which I'd put in, following what I'd observed as general Wikipedia style on initials) with B H M A, and then began loading the article with strings of postnominals after nearly every officer's name. When I tried reverting these to prevent the article from becoming one long mess of abbreviations, he reverted the edits giving no explanation of why he was doing so. I then gave up making any edits to the article when this email was sent to me, but went ahead and wrote him a message on his talk page, to which I've had no reply.

This guy clearly believes the page is his property, and while the issues here are minor, the problem lies in the fact that he's made no effort to engage in a discussion, and is loading the article with fluff and unverified information. I noticed just a while ago that he's gone ahead and put in another inline citation which is just a link to the frontpage of the Sri Lanka Army website, which doesn't back up the statement he's used it as a citation for. I'd undo this, but at this point, I don't want to get called out for creating an edit war. Could someone have a look through this all? - ක - (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Editing

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

---

Whenever I try to add/edit information about the Wikipedia page Emma Blackery I am accused of vandalism to that page and I do not understand why. PuffyPanda (talk · contribs)

They're saying you're replacing sourced content with unsourced content. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

You must provide references to reliable sources, PuffyPanda. The proper place to discuss the content dispute is Talk:Emma Blackery, where no one has commented for several years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Possible Modern Fire socking

The following discussion is closed. 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 received a message on my talk page that I'm having a bit of trouble understanding, but it appears that socks of Modern Fire may be involved here based on the articles in question. It's been since early October that the last round of socks were blocked or globally locked, so I'm guessing they've been back at it, but I'm having a hard time following what exactly is going on (see also [52], where this user tagged someone as a sock). Not exactly sure why the message was left for me, other than perhaps I've reverted Modern Fire socks previously. Thanks for any assistance. Home Lander (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

They've also edited without logging in. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 16:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@LeoFrank: That's interesting. Their choice of username is also curious based on this. Home Lander (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Threats in Edit Summary/on User Talk

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

---

Not necessarily credible, but administration attention would be appreceated. See here and here. Many thanks in advance for all assistance. Scr★pIron^IV 16:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

He ends by saying "SOB" so maybe he's despondent and it's a cry for help. EEng 17:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Son of Zorn

The following discussion is closed. 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 has created many unreferenced articles, and has ignored the eight messages I've sent over several weeks, but has carried on editing.

The editor has been directed towards WP:Communication is required ,WP:V and WP:BURDEN, but still no changes. Unreferenced articles include: List of G.I. Joe: Renegades characters, List of Mr. Pickles characters, List of programs broadcast by Universal HD, List of Kaijudo characters, List of Trollhunters episodes, Storyville (web series), List of SuperMansion characters and If You Give a Mouse a Cookie (TV series).

I've run out of other options to address this. The editor has never responded to a talk page message and has ignored more than a dozen messages from other editors raising concerns. Boleyn (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Very frustrating, Boleyn. Thank you for keeping your temper admirably. I've blocked indefinitely, with a note that they may be unblocked by any admin, provided they respond and show some willingness to discuss the problems. Bishonen | talk 22:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC).

Thanks, Bishonen. Let's hope they now communicate. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I've redirected the List of Universal HD shows back to the main article; the consensus when it switched to Olympic Channel wasn't 'create a new textwall of what repeats the channel aired in the past' (and even by scan alone there was a whole lot of WP:MADEUP in that list; it looks like they literally copied List of television shows produced by Universal Studios, along with a few NBC shows, and cherry-picked what shows they thought could air on that network). Also surprised they didn't get a username block since their name is the same as a defunct Fox series and they were warned to change their name based on misappropriation of copyright. Nate • (chatter) 16:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Vnk414

The following discussion is closed. 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 (Vnk414) Is currently socking and vandalising pages in Wikipedia on airlines and aircraft, such as he did on Airbus A330neo. I would request that user to be blocked by either User:Drmies, User:Alex Shih, or User:Oshwah this February, so that his double-crossing edits will never happen again. Other users including Jetstreamer kept lending him lots of -4im, and -4 warnings, but wasn't blocked yet.

(Non-administrator comment) Already blocked, closing. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Vnk414 is not currently blocked, and has never been blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 22:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: This is a duplicate thread to mine above. Something is definitely going on here. Home Lander (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I have removed a checkuser block template that was incorrectly placed. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

{{Checkuser needed}}: Please evaluate this thread and my thread above; I believe there is more going on here than meets the eye. Home Lander (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

 Declined. Reopen the SPI if you like. Just so you know, the case is  Stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I looked at the block log, and Vnk414 has never been blocked, the earlier block notice was placed by a sock, [53] I reverted this edit, but left the warning[54] that the sock left before the fake block. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

There is something odd about User: CathayA350Aviation's editing, Cathay's first edit he pretends to be using twinkle(by ending the edit summary with "(TW)" despite not having twinkle since it is his first edit, also, twinkle would make the TW a link)[55], here he reverts Vnk to reinstate unsourced[56], then he tried to request page protection based on false premises(his userpage has never been edited by an IP)[57], then he falsely changes the suspected sockpuppet notice he had placed on Vnk's talk and user pages to say confirmed and indeffed[58][59] and restores it after being reverted[60] and leaves the user who reverted a final warning for blanking[61], then he reverts an admins edit[62] and leaves the admin a final warning for vandalism[63]. And this[64]? Tornado chaser (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Although he does seem to make mistakes in formatting g and I don't wand to be to quick to ABF on anything that could be attributed to error. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Update, Cathy was just checkuser blocked. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Twice because I got momentarily confused. The account is  Confirmed to Modern Fire (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Tornado chaser and Bbb23 for the help here. I've mass-reverted their edits as well. Think we're done for now. Home Lander (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Range block request

The following discussion is closed. 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 a rangeblock for 2600:1700:B6A0:7940:*. Everything from this range over the last couple months as been date vandalism on TV pages. Some have histories of blocks ([65]). Example diffs: [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71]. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

NeilN has blocked the /64 subnet for three months. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

And 2600:1700:cad0:a390::/64 for three months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Seetun

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

---

I have tried to communicate with this editor many times about their repeated creation of unreferenced articles.

I have directed them towards WP:Communication is required, WP:BURDEN and WP:V, but no response.

These include: 2018 Thai League 4 Southern Region, 2018 Thai League 4 Bangkok Metropolitan Region, 2018 Thai League 4 Northeastern Region, 2018 Thai League 4 Northern Region, 2018 Thai League 4 Western Region, 2018 Thai League 4 Eastern Region, 2018 Thai League 4 Bangkok Metropolitan Region, 2018 Thai League 4, Thailand Division 1 League 1997-98, Sakon Nakhon SAT Stadium, 2007 Thailand League Division 2, Ubon Ratchathani University Stadium.

I can't see Seetun haven't edited their talk page except once, and that wasn't in English. Boleyn (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Déjà vu, Boleyn! I've blocked this one indefinitely also, with the same comment. Bishonen | talk 22:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC).

Thanks, Bishonen. Boleyn (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:RafaelRL1905

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

---

I have sent seven messages, over a period of weeks, about this user's lack of communication and creation of unreferenced/unclearly referenced articles. No response, except to continue creating unreferenced articles, which I suppose is a response.

I have directed them to WP:Communication is required, WP:V and WP:BURDEN, but no response. The unreferenced articles include: Rondoniense Social Clube, Pinheirense Esporte Clube, Campeonato Paraense Second Division, Clube Atlético Itapemirim, Real Desportivo Ariquemes Futebol Clube and Sociedade Desportiva Sparta. Gladson do Nascimento and Santiago Krieger are unreferenced/unclearly referenced biographies of living persons.

Also seems to be the same editor as the (lately inactive) Raefaelgooner. I have run out of other ideas for how to address these issues. Boleyn (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Déjà vu again, Boleyn! I've blocked this one indefinitely also, with the same comment. User:Raefaelgooner doesn't seem to exist, might there be a typo? One theory would be that perhaps all those editors don't respond because they don't speak English, or don't trust their English, and have been creating articles by cut and paste. Have there been any copyright issues? (I can't face checking — I didn't really expect to find myself doing three of them. Have to go to bed now! Please stop! 😉) Bishonen | talk 22:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC).

Sorry, it's User:Rafaelgooner. There don't seem to be copyright issues, but yes, those reasons are all possibilities for why they don't answer, lots also think they've done their bit by writing an article, and just don't get the idea that it should be sourced. I have a watchlist for repeat offenders I have tried to communicate with many times, but that's it for now! Thanks for all your help, Bishonen. Boleyn (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Boleyn: I've received an e-mailed unblock request from RafaelRL1905, in Portuguese. So I guess there's a language problem. It's not clear to me if they knew they have a talkpage or not, but of course I've directed them to it now. But if they can't communicate in English at all, the English Wikipedia isn't a good fit for them, and I told them so frankly. It's a collaborative project. Bishonen | talk 14:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC).

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

Rotating IP vandalizing by adding The Holocaust to List of hoaxes

The following discussion is closed. 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 hopper very determined to add The Holocaust to List of hoaxes:

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

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

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

Also places swastikas into warning templates placed on IP's Talk page: [72] [73]

LuckyLouie (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

These are various AT&T Cell data IP's. Not sure we should rangeblock them. SQL^{Query me!} 02:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Another admin has protected the page. A rangeblock may be in order here. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I put in a brief rangeblock. GAB^gab 02:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Sword Art Online

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

---

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

IP has been attempting to vandalize article Sword Art Online. See filter log. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Trivial vandalism. I reverted it and warned the IP. No further action needed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Oh, wait, I see the edit filter log now. This IP has been hitting the edit filter repeatedly. Still, it looks like the edit filter is preventing most of the vandalism. Not sure what there is to be done here. I've not heard of blocking someone or semi-protecting an article just because someone's trying to get around the edit filter. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

You want the vandalism board. --Tarage (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Admins who respond to the vandal board don't block IPs based on the filter log, but this seems like a vandal-only IP now that the IP has gotten around the filter log. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

There's probably a good reason AIV admins don't normally block just for triggering the edit filter: It's really not disruptive on its own. Also, I just discovered the "uw-attempt" series of warnings ({{uw-attempt2}} through 4). Given the IP got no warnings, AIV would've declined this anyway. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Mendaliv Thanks for the template link, didn't know there was one for triggering the filter log. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Possible personal attack and possible sock

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

---

165.225.96.76 (talk  · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) have possible personal attack on their talk page. For sock reports, please see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Teambk. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 04:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

IP blocked as a sock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Frankly the editor toward whom the claimed PA was directed wasn't being exactly patient with the IP either. This message particularly bothers me, especially the first sentence: If you want to talk with me First, Please sign up with wikipedia otherwise your IP with show and I will know where are you from. I don't care if this IP is block evading, that sort of "I can tell where you are in real life" statement is threatening to most people, and shouldn't be expected to calm a situation. And I'm honestly not sure how much of a PA any of the IP's statements were. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• I suspect English is not Ministerboy's native language so some of the aggressive language might not be intended as such but I take your point. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Dear NeilN, Sorry to make you uncomfortable in my word that not clearly. I just angry because he insult me and he try to make me aggravate, Actually I just tell him to sign up wikipedia becuase IP address can identify his action and his location so when he do something he must realize that in history page,we know who did it or not everyone know it from this he must respect other people and editing with reference everytime. From my word that make you misunderstand, I am sorry for this and I don't want to hurt him in real life I just warn him. Thank You Ministerboy (talk) 06:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Sound rider

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

---

Sound rider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). 8 january: change water to alcohol on Toilet Duck article. Reverted by Howicus. 9 january: reverted the revert. Reverted by "Mean as custard". Skip to 26 january: replace section (including the previously vandalised "water") to "memes". Reverted by Fram. One minute later Sound rider changed the section to "memes (do not change)". Do not change? 20 minutes later "Mean as custard" reverted this. I can't report the user on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism because they haven't been warned. And I'm not going to warn Sound rider, I'm not a fool. Alexis Jazz (talk) 06:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

While he has not been warned you can still report him to AIV, his actions clearly indicate a vandalism only account and that would be a much better forum than here. --Church ^Talk 08:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it. [74] --Church ^Talk 08:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Possible meat puppet 86.179.83.42 of 109.159.100.122 or vice versa.

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

---

86.179.83.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)109.159.100.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This user seems to support a user who was harassing me, and might be a member of his family. This user seems to support him, and added a nonsensical test edit on my talk page here. I have recently gotten a user blocked as he was harassing me (this user) after I undone his pending edit, but he undone it and harassed me. I undone his harassment but he added another one. I undone it again but he undone my edit on my talk page. He seems that he does not want to stop. He used his talk page to harass me again, so his user page access was revoked. I begged him to stop, but he blanked the page. He might harass me in 24 hours' time as his block expires then, and he keeps on calling me... let's just say rude names. They also remove warnings from each other's talk pages if the other is blocked. It is getting serious.  Anchorvale ^T@lk  07:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a single banned user - User:Iniced. You can normally tell by looking at the IP's geolocation. I recommend minimising any interaction with him/her, especially on their talk page. They are more likely to change IP address than wait for a block to expire. In the future don't hesitate to report them to admins (either at WP:AIV or SPI), and if they continue hassling your talk page, or any articles, then seek some temporary semi-protection (WP:RFPP). Or feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Thanks, but how would they change their IP addresses?  Anchorvale ^T@lk  08:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll spare you the technical details but it's really quite simple for some people, and they can do it all day long. That's why it's not such a good idea, ever, to rely solely on blocks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Thanks. Seems they're both from England.  Anchorvale ^T@lk  08:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Another of their friends are trying to irritate me (109.151.14.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)). Help me!  Anchorvale ^T@lk  09:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP. So for clarity, when I say minimise your interaction, what I mean is don't even do this and definitely don't do this. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok! Thanks!  Anchorvale ^T@lk  10:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Edit warring, insults in edit summaries, possible WP:CIR issue

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

---

Divergence5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edit warred and used inappropriate edit summaries on Magnus Carlsen, Roger Federer and a number of other high-profile sports bios.

On Magnus Carlsen they edit warred in June 2017, after which I opened a talk page discussion. They did not participate in that discussion until 18 August, the day after they began edit warring again, using edit summaries such as "STOP YOUR TERRIBLE EDITS NOW. NOW!!!" and "I don't know what the talk page is. ... You're illogical". They returned yesterday to make the same edit, without any further discussion on the talk page. Their latest revert had the summary "Sorry mate, u wrong".

They have made similar edits on Roger Federer, edit warring while using ALL CAPS in edit summaries (1, 2,3, 4), and calling another editor an "idiot" when reverting their changes. In their past 500 edits, ranging back to May 2014, they have made 0 edits to Talk:Roger Federer.

They have acted similarly on Rafael Nadal, again using edit summaries such as "Bad edits. DO NOT EXTEND the lead.". They have also made 0 edits to that article's talk page. Hrodvarsson (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I just picked one of the articles (Federer) and reviewed the recent history of the page. Have you tried to discuss this with the editor, either on Talk:Roger Federer or on their talk page? To a degree I can understand his frustration, as peacock terms are forever appearing in the article ([75] for example), but he does need to be a little more collegiate in his editing approach. fish&karate 13:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The only interaction I have had with this person is on Magnus Carlsen. I listed the other things as examples of this conduct across multiple articles. I do not have Roger Federer on my watchlist and have not edited that article so I do not know the specifics of the content dispute(s). The same ALL CAPS plus insults in edit summaries tied with a refusal to discuss their edits on the talk page is what I was referencing. I understand WP:PEACOCK but how is that related to reverting someone with the only explanation being "idiot"? WP:BITE, WP:SUMMARYNO. Hrodvarsson (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 24h. I suspect much longer blocks will be necessary as we go forward. Swarm ♠ 18:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Heavy copyvio on talk page

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

---

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

A IP address named 89.91.144.191 has been continuing to put copyrighted text and images on talk page by adding copyrighted text and non-free images. They repeatedly making so many edits that in violation of Wikipedia Copyright policy.

Here is some diffs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=822979641&oldid=822977794&title=User_talk:89.91.144.191&type=revision

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:89.91.144.191&type=revision&diff=822962008&oldid=822623699

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:89.91.144.191&type=revision&diff=822623560&oldid=820837056

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:89.91.144.191&type=revision&diff=820466754&oldid=820416686

These edits has copyrighted text on it and in violation of CC BY-SA and GFDL licenses.

Anyone can block this IP with no talk page access? Plus, also can you remove some revisions for IP user talk page under RD1? 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:14CD:EE54:DBF2:DB27 (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I revdeled - almost all the page because there are copyvios going back a long way.S Philbrick(Talk) 17:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, block this IP indefinitely with no talk page access for copyvio? Also i has filled in for IP user's talk page protection. 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:14CD:EE54:DBF2:DB27 (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I haven't yet sorrted out why the talk page still has a copyvio on it - I revdelled that edit, I thoughtS Philbrick(Talk) 17:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

This IP user keep adding lot of copyvio on talk page even after revdel. 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:14CD:EE54:DBF2:DB27 (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

This IP user now blocked for 2 weeks for copyvio. 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:14CD:EE54:DBF2:DB27 (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

But not their talk page access which is where the problem is. TheVicarsCat (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Also anyone can reblock this IP user without talk page access? 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:14CD:EE54:DBF2:DB27 (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Nothing and block settings not changed for IP user to disable talk page access, so it time to close it. 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:14CD:EE54:DBF2:DB27 (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Wanted at AIV

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

---

Various administrators doing various administrative tasks, if you catch my meaning. Thank you. Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 08:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

As of this reply, aiv is caught-up. Thanks. (PS, wouldn't WP:AN be better? AIV isn't an incident, it's an epidemic.) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Bosna Sarajevo

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

---

Repeated creation of unreferenced articles. I have contacted this editor seven times over a period of three months, but have had no responses despite pointing them towards WP:Communication is required. Please see User talk:Bosna Sarajevo, where I have detailed the unreferenced articles they have created and refused to discuss or add sources to. This editor has been editing for six years but has never responded to another editor's messages. I have run out of other options to try to address this. Boleyn (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello there Boleyn! 😀 Blocked indefinitely with the usual explanations, see e. g. [76]. Bishonen | talk 23:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC).

That editor seems to have some communication problems. I had my doubts that he speaks English, so after receving no answers after my first posts at his talk-page in English, I tried in Serbo-Croatian (his native language as Bosnian) but, again, I receved no answers. I called his attention several times for issues he was doing wrong, and some of them he did corrected after my explanations to him at his talk, so by that it means he does read the posts at his talk-page, but never answers. Honestly, I doubt he understands the rules such as notability, and I doubt he is able to understand them, as well as understanding well English (I think all of his articles were created in a copy/paste manner from already existing ones). I guess it is a youngster we are dealing here. He should edit his own language Wikipedia, so unless he starts responding, an indef-block looks fine. Regards, FkpCascais (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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

If an editor given false information on his User page and repeated reverting and disrupting wiki how to deal this matter ?

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

---

(Casualdrop (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC))

Be more specific. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Explain

(Casualdrop (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC))

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

Distressing 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.

---

On 25 Jan, Störm left a message on my talk page telling me that I need to “notify” checkuser about my “alternate accounts”. This was surprising as I joined Wikipedia 3 months ago as an inexperienced user who used AFC to submit drafts. After getting my drafts approved, I started editing Wikipedia as a regular user and I did not make any other account either. However, three days later, they left a similar message again on my talk page with “more sureness”. They said that they were sure that I was using two accounts but at the same time they wrote that they could not find suspicious behavior. Like their previous communication, they asked me to leave the other account. This is upsetting as I do not maintain any other account other than this one (I did recently get my user name renamed but that should not be a problem.) I feel this is a kind of harassment. Is there any way they can stop discriminating me or I can prove my “innocence”.  M A A Z   T A L K  20:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, that's harassment. @Störm: if you have evidence that this user is abusing multiple accounts then file an investigation at WP:SPI. Otherwise leave them alone. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ma'az: it's required when you discuss an editor on this page that you place a notice on their talk page notifying them of the discussion, usually using the {{ani-notice}} template. I have done that for you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I was figuring the way to leave the message using the said template but you sent before I could. Thank you.  M A A Z   T A L K  20:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Ivanvector: Störm had a very god reason for asking, since Ma'az obviously isn't a new user, but someone with considerable experience here. Their very first edit was creating an article with references and all, an article they then added to all through that day, before submitting it to AfC (who declined it...), and they then resumed editing that article the next day, including filling in bare references withreFill, a tool no new user would know about. So, Ma'az, which other accounts have you had before you created this one? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't call needing 80 edits to create a fairly straightforward draft a sign of "considerable experience". Based on the evidence presented this looks like a witch hunt. If Storm really "can confirm that you're using two accounts simultaneously." it should go to SPI. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Seems you didn't read my entire post, entirely missing the part about "...filling in bare references with reFill, a tool no new user would know about". - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Are you suggesting that new users are too incompetent to read the help page on citations? power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)@Thomas.W: You cannot force another user to declare perceived account to you. This is serious allegations without evidence and well borders on harassment . if you have evidence file SPI, if you don't, then stop this please and apologize. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC).
  • (edit conflict)I suggest you check Ma'az's talkpage, i.e. do a little legwork, before trying to tell users who have more experience in this kind of thing than you have what to do. Multiple users have asked Ma'az on their talk page which other accounts they have had, not only Störm, and Ma'az's replies are a good reason for suspecting that they, indeed, aren't new (check this section). Besides, requesting a CU-check at SPI without having a clue about a possible master would probably be declined as being just fishing. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, actually you're right right I am not experienced in ABF and going around people's talkpage asking them to name their alternate accounts. I have made a number of edits to SPI and majority of people I reported have been proven and blocked because I went there with evidence. If you have it file case, if you don't have, continue your work of experienced users. –Ammarpad (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Actually, it is just favoritism. Using ReFill is not a crime nor a matter of experience. ReFill is automatic tool and I found it the way of beautifying references from the link given in article’s history.  M A A Z   T A L K  21:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Why did you report Störm only, and not Saqib? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Storm accused me twice, not Saqib.  M A A Z   T A L K  21:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

And about my talk page, read that section carefully. Nowhere in my talk page any other user has accused me of other accounts.  M A A Z   T A L K  22:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Hello Ma'az -- When I started, I got hammered not once but twice. When I tried to defend myself, the attacks were redoubled. The argument was, An innocent person would not defend herself so vigorously. It was a self-sealing argument. Eventually, the SPI Clerk declared me not guilty. With time, the catcalls from the back benches about the conclusive evidence of my peculiar English and strange misspellings ("behavioral investigation") subsided. Protest, or not, eventually they will find someone else to pick on. Go forward and edit boldly. Rhadow (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your support :) . I have seen on Wikipedia that certain experienced users (who although are quite respectable) misuse their experience to bully other users. Thereby making Wikipedia less user-friendly, less consistent, and more like a "partial-bureaucracy".  M A A Z   T A L K  22:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Frankly, I don't give a flying fuck whether or not this user is a returning user who might have had an account previously; creating new accounts, even many accounts, does not in and of itself violate any English Wikipedia policy. If you have evidence that this user is editing contrary to the multiple accounts policy, put this evidence in an SPI and it will be investigated. If all you have is a hunch that they might be a returning user just because they know how things work but you can't connect them to any specific actions that contravene the policy, but you continue following them around insisting they tell you what their prior account is, then Ammarpad has aptly described what you are doing as a witch hunt, but what you are doing is also harassment and it is not supposed to be tolerated here. User:Ritchie333/SPI considered harmful has some useful insights on this. Congrats on your 50,000th edit btw. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Unwarranted aggression from Anmolbhat

The following discussion is closed. 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 find this sort of aggressive behavior by User:Anmolbhat (complete with threats and unjustified accusations of POV pushing) to be against the spirit of collaboration. Is there any disciplinary action which can address these unwarranted threats? Instead of offering a source that supports the assertion that the Sindhi diaspora is made up ONLY of Sindhis that migrated before Pakistan’s formation in 1947, we have a user who aggressively asserts otherwise by making an unwarranted reversion, and who threatens users with bans while totally ignoring the logic behind rewording of a lead paragraph that was originally written in a way to deny that Sindhis have migrated out of Sindh even after Pakistani independence.

For reference, this is the edit he claimed was POV. Its common sense that Sindhis didn’t just migrate during the British era. (Addendum: for example, there are semi regular reports of Sindhi Hindus migrating from Pakistan to India, like this) No source provided claims otherwise. Even if he wanted a source to state the obvious, the threats and aggression are completely unwarranted. As are his attempts to smear my edits.

One more addendum, he wrote in his message: “By being a lone opposer of sanctions against Pakhighway and blaming "editors from India" for Pakhighway's WP:CIR,[77] without naming one such editor with evidence, you proudly endorsed his disruption and doing exactly what has forced others to seek sanctions against Pakhighway. But what else one would expect from a disruptive editor like yourself? It would be better if you avoid disruption before others have to seek sanctions against you.“

The opinion I expressed was this. I think it was calm and rational, not “proudly” “endorsing” disruptive behavior. I did add more to my statement than what he quoted (see the last link I posted) but a review of the time stamps shows that my completed comment in full was up several hours before his message to me - so he saw the entire opinion I expressed. The aggressive tone, and warnings of dire consequences for what he finds so objectionable appear to me to be nothing short of intimidation.Willard84 (talk) 08:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Anmolbhat does need to tone it down and start being a bit quicker to discuss and slower to just revert, but I'm not seeing enough reason to block him just yet. If this does turn into a long term pattern, he sets himself up to be topic banned or blocked. Your tags seemed reasonable, but you keep adding info that may or may not be correct but aren't sourced. According to WP:BRD, you need to take it to the talk page or at least source them before putting them back. That doesn't justify his aggressiveness (and the silly warning he put on your page), but it is a path forward for you. Fighting over unsourced material is just a content dispute and not a strong one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Willard84, it is not a threat but a general warning, given your history of editing as well as your recent editing where you are pushing POV of Pakhighway on the article without participating on the talk page and edit warring to enforce his POV, because he canvassed you.[78] Attacking people by citing their nationalities especially without evidence is casting WP:ASPERSIONS and it will lead to a topic ban. "those from India", "indian nationalist editors",[79] is how you referred. I am shocked that you are still not grasping the issues with your statement. You have also tried to support Pakhighway on a different article recently,[80] which was unwarranted.

Why you are appealing topic ban of Pakhighway[81]? It still seems that you are endorsing his disruption and not getting over the result of the thread. Don't bring your content dispute here, and you had to consult me before filing a complaint about your content dispute. Read the above notice of this page, "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page."

@Dennis Brown: it is also clear that Willard84 made zero attempts to discuss this issue on my talk page and came here to seek sanctions. I left a warning to willard84 because he had been warned by an admin few months ago that more edit warring will lead to topic ban.[82] My warning was merely a reminder. He was tagbombing something that is already sourced [83] and was being discussed on talk page with multiple sources backing it.[84] What I don't understand is that why he did this only after he realized that he is not going to win this content dispute? Anmolbhat (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:Don't template the regulars is a good read. Instead, it is better to start a discussion on the article talk page (in a calm, neutral manner), STOP reverting, and then go to their talk page and just say "I've started a discussion on the talk page of the article. Rather than keep reverting each other, lets find some common ground. Out of good faith, I've left the article as is until we can get others to pipe in and work it out.". Be the bigger man/woman. This might sound simplistic, but it works. People get in too big of a hurry to force THEIR version today, instead of being patient and forming a consensus on the talk page that an admin can clearly see. If someone is then fighting against that consensus, then we can block for disruptive editing. Until there is a clear consensus, all we see is edit warring and a content dispute. This applies to BOTH OF YOU, and half the editors here, for that matter. Both of you would do good to quit pointing fingers and instead swallow a little pride, and just go hammer out a compromise on the talk page. That is how good articles get written, and that is the goal of Wikipedia. Everyone has a POV or bias of some kind. Pointing it out is seldom helpful and tends to just aggravate the situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Nicely put! I agree with all that you have said. Anmolbhat (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Brown I am not sure if this is relevant here but Willard84 (talk · contribs) was canvassed by another editor to edit the page. There was an ongoing discussion on the article talk page. This was disregarded and the page was edited without proper consensus. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Canvassing is an issue for AFD and other discussions only. I invite others, and others invite me to edit pages all the time. This is true when we think someone has experience and skills to add. Inviting someone to vote in a discussion would be WP:CANVASSING, but not inviting them to edit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I’d like to point out that I did in fact try to discuss the issue. You can see the response I gave on my talk page here: This really is a troublesome matter. Diaspora includes recent migrants, and not just those compelled to migrate. There is no time qualifier to the definition of the word. That is, you didn’t gave to emigrate prior to 1947 to be in diaspora. Diaspora just means members of a community who migrated abroad. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gujarati_people#Diaspora. That’s why there’s a section on Sindhi Americans on the diaspora page. Are you seriously claiming that these people migrated before Pakistan was a country?? To pretend the Sindhi diaspora doesn’t come from Sindh province of Pakistan defies logic. If you think Sindhis only emigrated during British times, and not modern times too, then you need a source for that. Because that truly defies logic. I personally know Sindhis who immigrated from Pakistan, and so are this members of the diaspora. I’ve included mention of both facts. And let’s not forget that wide scale exodus of Hindus from Sindh didn’t begin until Karachi riots in early 1948 [1] - when Pakistan was indeed a country. So many Sindhi migrants in India came from Pakistan, not British India, as is being claimed without reference. Also, where’s the reference saying they also emigrated from Punjab? If it’s in the lead, it needs to be a substantial number. Willard84 (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

It was to this that he wrote his initial threat, without even addressing a single point that I made!. In it I address the fact that the outrageous claim that Sindhis only migrated during the British era is silly. Does the more obvious fact that Sindhis have migrated even after 1947 need a citation while his preferred version suggesting that migration only occurred prior to 1947 get to stand without citation? You can see here that user AdamGerber80 said: The Sindhi diaspora comes from the Sindh British province not from Sindh, Pakistan because the Sindhis which migrated out of Sindh never lived in Sindh, Pakistan.

No citation was provided for this claim, despite it flying in the face of common sense. Sindhis make up 15% of Pakistan’s population, yet we are to believe they make up zero percentage of emigrants? It was this statement that was being used to justify excluding mention of Sindh as a Pakistani province altogether, not just that some Sindhis moved prior to independence. At least that’s what I understood given the stance against any mention of Sindh also as a Pakistani province. If it really isn’t obvious that Sindhis migrated even after 1947, it’s even less obvious that they only migrated before 1947. I already had given a source stating many Hindus stayed in Karachi until 1948, and another news link about Sindhi Hindus that has recently migrated to India. Perhaps I’ll add those as references since this for some reason appears controversial to some editors.

My message to the administrator who blocked PAKHIGHWAYS is completely appropriate too - I found the punishment was harsher than what several users had suggested. How can I be faulted for this? Pointing out a third statement in which I agreed with him over another unrelated point to me appears obtuse to this whole discussion. That appears to me to be “scraping the bottom of the barrel” to come up with anything to discredit me.

And my comment about “Indian editors” is totally taken out of context. In the original post which I mentioned above, youll see my response was about competing nationalisms and rigidity and inflexibility,, not that Indian editors are somehow bad. Let’s not forget the title of that thread was “Pakistani nationalist editor,” so I’m not the one that introduced nationality into that discussion. I don’t think anyone reading what I wrote really would take offense - because it’s not tinged with anti-India bias as is being claimed. Especially since I was referencing a single unnamed editor in particular, in addition to troublesome rigid nationalist viewpoints that I’ve seen on here many times.

As for this insistence for the name of the user who I was alluding to is being used to dismiss me. I didn’t mention the name for that own users privacy. At least two people on the discussion thread that I posted on here were even involved in the issue. So me not mentioning this person by name isn’t a negative against me, because frankly, that was a relatively minor point anyway in what I was saying about rigidity and nationalism.

Anyway, I like the suggestion of toning it down. I was happy to discuss, as evidenced by my attempts to engage in discussion. I’m not happy being talked to with overt aggression tinged with threats to have me banned.Regardless of the circumstances. Anmolbhat simply can not justify the overt hostility and threats. Thankfully he hadn’t tried to justify this, and I hope he has learned a lesson about proper behavior from all of this.Willard84 (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

People are generally likely to be far more impressed by discussion on the relevant article talk page than on user talk pages. Even if someone posted on your talk page, it's generally best to move the discussion to the article talk page as soon as possible. (It does look like you did start discussing on the article talk page fairly soon, but your comments above seem to primarily refer to discussion on user talk pages.) In any case, remember that being involved in a discussion is not an excuse for edit warring. Also, the best defense for any change you intend to make is generally "here are the WP:reliable sources which support the change"; not "where are your sources?" or "it's obvious" or "you're wrong". BTW, while I agree Anmolbhat was too harsh and you are entitled to disagree with community or discterionary sanctions or proposed community sanctions in a resonable way, if you do find yourself in disagreement it is worth reflecting on what such a disagreement that may mean of your understanding of the norms here and whether that cause problems for you. Nil Einne (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Again, there are no saints here. Take it to the article talk page, everyone stop reverting until a consensus is reached. It doesn't matter if it is the "wrong version" while you discuss. This isn't a competition. I don't see any need to argue over trivialities here, neither of you is perfectly innocent. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Bijanii pushing POV and disrespecting users across dozens of pages reported by User:UCaetano

The following discussion is closed. 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:Bijanii started pushing for including an (IMHO) unrelated category across many pages, as well as renaming and redirecting pages from certain events ("Arabian Gulf Cup" to "Gulf Cup of Nations", a non-existent name for the event which is officially named "Arabian Gulf Cup"). Has been systematically reverting other users who engage in BRD, and refuses to stop editing en engage in a discussion for conflict resolution.

Also, consistently attacks other editors and widely accuses them of being sockpuppets. User continuously uses "rv blocked sockpuppet" to revert other user's changes. Other pages where the user is edit warring: - Arabian Gulf Oil Company - Arabian Gulf University - Arabian Gulf rugby union team - Arabian Gulf rugby sevens team - Arabian Gulf Rugby Football Union

Please advise. I could revert his/her edits to trigger a 3RR on him, but I don't want to follow that path. Thank you. UCaetano (talk) 05:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and blocked Bijanii, due to the severe edit warring as well as personal attacks (unsubstantiated accusations of sockpuppetry, as well as inappropriate warnings against vandalism). The situation is aggravated by the fact that Bijanii is just coming off an edit warring block, as well as the fact that they were edit/move warring with several different users across a significant number of pages. Bijanii was recently dealing with IP socking, but the notion that they thought all of these established accounts were block-evading socks and/or vandals is simply not believable. Their behavior has become seriously disruptive and I've warned them that serious changes will be needed going forward. Swarm ♠ 07:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Sultan Aji Muhammad Sulaiman Airport

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

---

I have reported the same incidents quiet a lot of times many months ago. There have been a dispute before about how the start of the sentence of the article. However, it has been agreed that according to the talk page [85] that is is going to start like this:

Sultan Aji Muhammad Sulaiman International Airport, (IATA: BPN, ICAO: WALL), also known as Sultan Aji Muhammad Sulaiman Airport, formerly Sepinggan Airport...

Yet however, an anonymous user keep reverting my edits which is based on the consensus in the talk page. I have issued a complaint but the anonymous user apparently keeps ignoring me. Therefore, I need help from other people to help me in this issue. Secondly, I uploaded the logo of the airport from the airport's official website [86] and placed it in the article. However, the anonymous user keeps reverting my edits, stating that the logo is not official, although I know that it is not true since I uploaded it directly from the airport's official website. I have already asked for editors for help in the article's talk page and other editors has classified this incident as "trolling"[87], yet this anonymous user still keeps reverting my edits.

I have been nearly blocked due to edit warring before on this article with similar anonymous users. I just want to say that I will not do the same thing in the future and all of this happens because I was really frustrated by this anonymous user who are preventing me from contributing to the article. Thank you. CWJakarta (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of 6 months. Swarm ♠ 17:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

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

---

Why describe president Uhuru Kenyatta as overthrown president.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.57.18.70 (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

If you mean this reversion of cluebot, then it appears to be working perfectly. Of course a better question is: is the OP (105.57.18.70), actually Kevin Rashid Odipo (who made the reverted edit) filing this logged out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheVicarsCat (talk • contribs) 14:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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

help

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

---

A look at Steve Smith (American Dad!) suggests that it was recently hit with a drive by vandal attack, but I can’t fix it on a tablet with Any kind of ease. Can someone take a look and see when this got messed up and then put it back together? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B04F:2C26:24EE:B2B5:8661:E25 (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done, I think. If I have missed something please post on the article's talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I went even further back to October 15; there was a whole lot of OR/opinion added between then and now. Nate • (chatter) 16:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Paid editing, and edit warring, at Mayville High School, Southsea

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

---

Over the last week, a series of IPs and one registered account have been attempting to force material onto the Mayville High School, Southsea article. The material is at times a direct copyright violation, at others non-neutral and/or wholly unencyclopedic. The IPs (User:86.132.158.136, User:82.18.101.57) both geolocate to the community where the school is located (Portsmouth, Hampshire). The registered account, User:Teamlocalsmedia, is apparently editing on behalf of Team Locals Media, a design studio located in Portsmouth who has this school as a client (see bottom of school's website for proof). Their intent appears to be to edit on behalf of the school (see diff) on the school's article here. I have dropped various warnings to all three accounts to no avail. Today, they are still trying to force material onto the article [88]. I don't think blocking the IPs would help, as at least one of them and possibly both are in dynamic pools. A block of the User:Teamlocalsmedia is in order as an account being used to represent a company. I think a protection of the article is in order, but would like other eyes to have a look at this. All three accounts have been informed of this discussion. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: Thanks for the report - I've blocked the account (Teamlocalsmedia) as a UPOL violation, and put short-term semi-protection on the article. I don't think any further admin action needed here yet, but I'll keep an eye on the article, as they may register another account. We'll cross that bridge when we get to it - TNT^❤ 21:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the quick response. I appreciate it! --Hammersoft (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Copyvio backlog

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

---

There is something of a backlog at Category:Requested RD1 redactions, to which your attention would be appreciated. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Swift block needed

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

---

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

Obvious corporate account name, after some back and forth disclosed here they are a social media marketing firm and in that same diff, removed the username warning I gave them. As is obvious in their contribs they are edit warring fiercely to promote David L. Katz. Please block per one gynormous WP:NOTHERE launch of what should be a brief WP career. Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Done. Bishonen | talk 22:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC).

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

Chilling (though ridiculous) ArbCom threat by admin

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

---

At WT:DYK#Back to one set per day, there is some dispute about whether the error rate has increased since the refresh rate has been raised from one set every 24 hours to one set every 12 hours recently. Basically, User:The Rambling Man (TRM) claims that the error rate has increased significantly, and User:Gatoclass claims that the error rate has remained roughly the same. Problem is that TRM counts the errors which reach the preparatory area (preps) and the queues, while Gatoclass only counts the errors that actually reach the main page. Most of the errors caught at the preps and queues are found by TRM.

As Gatoclass seemed to be missing the argument set forward by TRM rather spectacularly, TRM said " I think I'll take some time out and just start reporting the errors once they get to the main page, that should underline the point you're missing, and I won't have to race against you promoting hooks and protecting them without time to fix them all. "

Gatoclass's reply: "In short, disruption to make a WP:POINT - your specialty at DYK, though I never thought to see you openly declaring yourself. Well, go ahead and do that. I will see you at WP:ARBCOM. Gatoclass (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "

So, out of nowhere TRM gets accused of disruption (not doing a voluntary task, checking preps and queues, is something most editors and admins do, so I guess we are all disrupting enwiki to make a point as well?), and instead of trying any preliminary steps in dispute resolution, the immediate threat is "go to Arbcom".

Some more back and forth ensues, after which Gatoclass makes it rather obvious why he wants to drag TRM to ArbCom immediately: "Off you go then. I'm sure your good friends at ARBCOM can be relied upon to see things your way.". As most of you will know, TRM has been treated harshly by Arbcom (perhaps well-deserved, but harsh nevertheless) and isn't really a fan of them as a group. But threatening to bring someone to ArbCom because a) they stop doing some voluntary task (and with good reason) and worse b) because Gatoclass thinks that TRM at ArbCom is a sure win for them (which I highly doubt, considering the utter weakness of their initial argumen) is really a terrible way to conduct a discussion.

I raised the issue at User talk:Gatoclass#Conduct unbecoming of an admin, but the answer shows no signs of improvement.

Can some editors here perhaps inform Gatoclass that every editor has the right to raise errors and issues at whatever stage they prefer, that taking them straight to ArbCom for this is a clear array into WP:BOOMERANG territory, and that threatening someone with ArbCom because that editor and ArbCom don't go along very well ("your good friends at Arbcom") is trying to get an unfair advantage in a dispute by bringing up unrelated matters and playing power games. Letting these kind of threats from admins go along unchecked seems not advisable to me. Fram (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Let me get this straight and do a TL;DR for you Fram. The threat is to report TRM to ARBCOM for refusing to do a voluntary task? Mr rnddude (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Indeed. Fram (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) That's how I read it. It's also bullshit. If TRM is too busy to do DYK for a few days (as we all do get from time to time) is Gatoclass really threatening to take him to ArbCom? That is totally bullshit, and Gatoclass should absolutely not be threatening such things. TRM is free to take time off of Wikipedia whenever he wants, and cannot be threatened for not doing work he's doing voluntarily anyways. Totally unacceptable. --Jayron32 15:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Livid, I am absolutely livid. Yes, TRM is making a point, not a WP:POINT, just a point. A perfectly valid point because Gatoclass refuses to address reality. To threaten an editor for refusing to devote themselves to voluntary work is utterly unacceptable. I can only hope that this is a single – egregious, but, single – lapse in judgement. If it is not, ARBCOM awaits. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: An admin is supposed to know what disruptive editing looks like. Not undertaking a volunteer task is not disruptive editing. Your Arbcom threat is bizarre and seriously calls into question your judgement. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Gatoclass knows what disruptive editing is like, he was suggesting that TRM would be intentionally waiting to report errors in order to get them pulled from the main page, not just being disruptive for not having the time to deal with them. He isn't saying he would be reporting him for DE for not doing a voluntary task, he is saying he would be reporting him for doing a voluntary task at the point where it is most disruptive (to the DYK, rather than the quality of the encyclopedia) Its a deliberate assumption of bad faith on gatoclass' part. Personally I have no problem with that tactic anyway. ERRORS is a much better resolver of issues than DYK - but in order for errors to be involved, it has to progress to the main page. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• I have to agree that this is conduct very unbecoming an admin. Gatoclass might also be reminded that the last time an admin and TRM got in a squabble about conduct unbecoming an admin and it went to ARBCOM, that admin got desysopped. Softlavender (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Given the dysfunctional nature of DYK and its emphasis on points scoring rather than quality content, waiting til DYK's hit the main page before reporting at errors would be a perfectly valid response (which I will explicitly say, is definitely NOT what TRM was suggesting he would do) as ERRORS both recognizes and acts faster on problems without the conflict of interest that comes from having to deal with DYK regular's pet DYKs. In short: If DYK doesn't want to be embarrassed on the main page, it should sort itself out, not blame other people who don't have the time to deal with it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• The ARBCOM restrictions placed on TRM are very broad to begin with. It's hard for me to see how TRM's dialogue here rises to violating these restrictions. Moreover, though, not engaging in a voluntary task being WP:POINT means that pretty much every Wikipedia editor and admin should go to ARBCOM for WP:POINT.--WaltCip (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Um, no, this is not about reporting somebody for "refusing to do a voluntary task". If TRM was simply walking away from DYK, there wouldn't be an issue. The issue here is that TRM has threatened to alter his routine to error checking DYK at the 11th hour specifically in order to, I quote: underline the point you're missing. He is, basically, threatening to destabilize the main page of Wikipedia, viewed by millions, in order to force DYK back to a 24-hour cycle when he was unable to achieve consensus for that on the DYK discussion page. If that is not a clear, indeed egregious, example of threatening to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, I don't know what is. Gatoclass (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Gatoclass: Walking away from a specific volunteer task because you don't agree with how a process is structured is not disruptive editing. I'm flabbergasted you would think it is an egregious example. TRM is free to point out errors at any time he wishes to. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• (ec) Then you don't know what a "clear" or "egregious" threat is. My time can be spent how I like. E.g. today, I haven't been able to be online until now, as you know I will normally review OTD then the new DYK hooks, out of the kindness of my heart. Today, I couldn't. And your completely disheartening and baseless threats have forced me to re-evaluate my priorities. Are you suggesting now that if I send a couple of ERROR reports about the latest queue, you'll take me to Arbcom? Your threatening behaviour is not welcome or appropriate in my opinion, you should consider your position. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• In summary Gatoclass: you don't know what is. The only difference between them leaving DYK altogether and them leaving DYK until it hits the main page is that you get no help, versus you getting delayed help. You should be trying to fix the issues TRM is pointing out, not threatening them. TRM is not obligated to do anything around here. It doesn't matter if they say "I'll be here at the 11th hour" or "I won't be here at all". They are equally entitled to do so, and say so. If the lack of their presence causes disruption that means the process was fucked to begin with. Fix it. Don't string up another editor for refusing to do it for you. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• The only way I can think of for this to make even the tiniest bit of sense is to argue that TRM committing himself to something, then pulling out at the 11th hour, is kind of a dick move. Otherwise it's hard to see how it can be disruptive to not edit. I'm not arguing that, in case it needs to be said. Reyk _YO! 16:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion on DYK is quite clear: TRM states that the current high turnover of DYK items (hooks) is being nominated, promoted, protected means a significant time investment on his behalf in order to get errors fixed before they hit the main page. That the high rate of errors is reflected on the DYK talk page. That unless the rate slows down, he will be unable to commit the time in order to get errors fixed prior to the main page because he understandably has other stuff he wants to do. Given TRM does a significant amount of the error checking at DYK, if he says he cant keep up with it, I am happy to take his word at his assessment of his own ability. Previously as an admin TRM could edit through the protected hooks which would mitigate this somewhat. Now he has to rely on others. Given the rate is not being dropped, it is perfectly reasonable for him to state he has assigned it a lower priority and it will now get the least amount of attention. If the consequence of that is more DYK errors are pulled off the main page, that is not TRM's fault for not reporting them earlier because he wants to spend time doing something else, that is DYK's fault for promoting them in the first place. It is in no way disruptive editing as it effectively puts the burden of mistakes appearing on the main page, on TRM, pretty much because he has devoted a significant amount of time and effort previously in making sure they never get there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

No, he didn't talk about "not being able to keep up", and it would be absurd to suggest any such thing, given the amount of time he spends on mainpage projects. What he proposed doing was altering his routine to attend to DYK last, giving him the opportunity to embarrass DYK and in his own words underline the point you're missing.. Gatoclass (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

If content gets pulled from the main page for being bad quality, its the fault of the people who were responsible for promoting it. No one else. Everyone can read the associated discussion. You don't want to decrease the rate of DYK's, fine, its not TRM's job to wipe up your messes. If that results in DYK looking stupid, that's a natural consequence of not getting your house in order. It could be equally argued that deliberately promoting error-ridden content to the main page is disruptive. And that's your bag given you are responsible for a lot of it. Should you be sanctioned for repeatedly being responsible for bad quality content appearing on the main page? Because I'm willing to place money on which way the community is going to jump in that ARBCOM circus. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is the fault of the people who promoted it. That, however, does not excuse adopting a strategy designed specifically to embarrass those people, by waiting until errors hit the main page before seeking to have them corrected. Because that is not a strategy that simply embarrasses those responsible for the errors, it embarrasses Wikipedia, on its most visible page. Gatoclass (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Gatoclass, are you volunteering to double-check all the DYKs for accuracy? If not, why not? Are you trying to embarass Wikipedia? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• TRM is a volunteer, Fram is a volunteer, I'm a volunteer ...... we're not paid to do this ... we take time out of our busy day(s) to come here and improve the encyclopedia but we cannot be here 24/7 365 days of the year!, To threaten someone with Arbcom all because they cannot be here 24/7 is in very polite terms silly and as noted above is unbecoming of any admin, If Gatoclass goes to Arbcom it's only going to end one way and that would probably be either desysop or stern warning. –Davey2010^Talk 16:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• I often start the day by taking a look at the main page. If I notice something amiss then I report it at WP:ERRORS. Sometimes when I've done this, editors such as Dank or Iridescent have suggested that I ought to have spotted the issue in advance by reviewing the queue. TRM himself joined them, suggesting that he could be looking at these items in advance of them being posted to the main page ... it seems quite reasonable for some to ask him to look ahead by a day (or even 17, in some cases) ... all we're asking here is that if Andy believes such fundamental issues exist in articles or blurbs, he makes the point sooner rather than later. I wasn't inclined to look ahead like this and so now appreciate clarification of this issue. Andrew D. (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

  Times changed Andy. The error rate now is through the roof. I have better things to do with my time but will still look at DYK, albeit much lower down on my priority list, and since the rate has doubled, that may even be at the last minute or after it. Which "issue" needs clarification? The threat of being taken to Arbcom for leaving it to the last moment to note errors you mean? I agree that needs to be explained. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• I often contribute to WP:ERRORS, and frankly given the attitude of some of those who take it upon themselves to run the front page, I wouldn't blame anyone for wanting as little to do with the whole shebang as possible. Ludicrous to threaten to take someone to Arbcom for choosing to spend less of their time driving rusty nails into their eyeballs. DuncanHill (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Absolutely agree TRM is not in the wrong here considering the volunteer nature of WP, and that Gatoclass' statements in this are troubling for an admin. TRM has basically been volunteering to help those admins who post the DYK queue to the main page (including Gatoclass) by pre-error checking the queue. There is nothing requiring TRM to do that, nor any required step in DYK, but this all helps to make the DYK admin jobs easier to pre-check the queues. If TRM decides to back off, that means there's now more responsibility on those admins to check the queues carefully, since posting a bad DYK is on their admin responsibility. TRM owes nothing to Gatoclass here, and is not disrupting any process, simply requiring them to check the queues as the process already has set out for them. If its come to the fact that Gatoclass has relied too much on TRM's pre-check, that's not TRM's fault. --Masem (t) 16:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Also note that TRM repeated, and indeed more explicitly stated, his intention with this post, namely the comment since you've made it clear that, according to you, there's nothing wrong with the DYK process at all, there should be no risk with me only now looking at DYK once it's updated on the main page, should there?. Gatoclass (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, he has a point. If the process relies on a single editor being available, and will fall apart if the editor gets hits by a bus, you're doing it wrong. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, both editors should just stay away from DYK. The Wiki-community or Arbcom won't hold it against them, if they do. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

Proposed resolution to the long-term problem of WP:OWN and gaming at DYK:

1. Anybody who contributes to more than one DYK discussion in ten days becomes a DYK-involved editor and starts a clock running.
2. When the clock has been running for six months or 600 edits, the editor must take a break of not less than 3 months from DYK, enforceable by blocking.
3. The clock is reset if the editor makes no edits to DYK for 3 months.

How about that? Guy (Help!) 15:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• No. --Jayron32 15:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Good intention, but terrible idea I think. Alex Shih (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• With all due respect to Guy, this is a solution in search of a problem, particularly in this case where in would take both protagonists out of DYK. Which is not an outcome I, for one, am interested in seeing. Vanamonde (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• No thanks. DYK is already overcomplicated enough as it is, it doesn't need more WP:CREEP / red tape. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  16:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Nope, Good intention but this is a solution in search of a problem. –Davey2010^Talk 16:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Why would this be a good idea? Lepricavark (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The admin has reiterated his threat to take me to Arbcom if I fail some invisible test of his. This matter is not resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Just stay away from the area-in-question. Ya can't be taken to Arbcom, for that. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, technically he could. ArbCom would laugh it out of the room faster than we did. It's clear that Gatoclass has no foot to stand on; he could still take it to ArbCom over community consensus, which were this a social media thread, would result in a whole shitload of people posting those pictures of Michael Jackson eating popcorn. Gatoclass knows ArbCom is a non-starter for this, and if he doesn't, he deserves whatever blowback he would get for trying to press this further. At this point it's a "drop the stick" issue for both sides. --Jayron32 19:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Isn't threatening to take someone to ARBCOM a violation of ADMINACCT or something like that? What does he expect TRM to do, quit his job and focus entirely on Wikipedia? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

(EC)Yeah no, it doesn't work that way. Maybe if it were two editors in equal standing, but this is an ADMINISTRATOR talking to a NORMAL EDITOR. This sort of behavior is not even remotely okay. --Tarage (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

So what should we do about it? Lepricavark (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Since when is the ability to take someone to Arbcom part of the admin toolkit? GMG^talk 19:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Taking someone to ArbCom is not an admin action. Anyone can do it. It is therefore quite different from the admins who threaten to block editors they disagree with. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

TRM does not need to "drop the stick"; he is reporting admin abuse and it is Gato (and Gato alone) who should have dropped the stick. By reiterating his threat, despite crystal clear community consensus, he should be blocked. But he is an admin soooo...TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Community consensus already confirmed this and now further comments have only added to that unanimity. As I said, this has gone on far too long. We have the following sequence of events 1) Someone asks here if Gatoclass was wrong. 2) Everyone agrees Gatoclass was wrong. 3) I close the initial discussion confirming the consensus that Gatoclass was wrong. 4) Someone posts here demanding that we continue the discussion to confirm that Gatoclass was wrong. 5) A bunch more people pile on and agree that Gatoclass was, in fact, wrong. How much gravedancing do you people need to do?!? --Jayron32 19:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem I'm seeing is that after the close of this discussion, Gatoclass continued to add to the discussion on their talk page that (as I read it) asserts they are still in the right to accuse TRM of disruption, contrary to the consensus here. Admins are expected to understand how consensus work particularly after an ANI directly about their behavior. --Masem (t) 19:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

They can assert whatever they want. They aren't going to do anything about it because, in light of this discussion, actually doing anything about it would be galactically stupid. Just as TRM has every right to edit whenever he wants, Gatoclass has the right to hold whatever opinion they want. We can't force Gatoclass to believe something they don't believe. We don't actually need them to admit fault. Community already found them at fault. Their opinion of their own actions is irrelevent, and so long as they actually don't do anything beyond state their opinion, there's nothing further to do. I'm of the full opinion that if Gatoclass were to actually press on, rather then simply state their opinion, it would come back faster than an curved Australian stick. Let them blather. It means nothing. --Jayron32 20:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

While nothing has been posted in a while (I think Gatoclass is offline at this point), and hoping the stick has been dropped, I do think that, even if they aren't pursuing something like AN/AE action, that continuing to express one's opinion that an editor is being disruptive in contrast to a clear consensus of admins that state otherwise starts entering into the area of personal attacks and assuming bad faith, which an admin should not be doing. I fully agree there's nothing more to see here if the stick has been dropped, though. --Masem (t) 20:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Gatoclass is threatening to go to ArbCom to complain about TRM threatening to stop working on something. Frankly, this is one of those problems that will sort themselves out. My advice is to sit back and enjoy the show. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep. It's waaay down on the list, but ArbCom is technically part of the dispute resolution process. If someone threatens to take someone to places like ANI, AN, AE, or ArbCom, and they should know better, and they're told it's silly, and they won't listen, then the correct response is to allow them to take action as they see fit...and probably to re-close threads like this... again. GMG^talk 20:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Obligatory meme comment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

No, it's completely unacceptable for an admin to make this kind of threat. And then to back it up with claims to be duty bound to direct my decision to de-prioritise the shambolic DYK to the bottom of my daily routine (principally as a result of his threats) to Arbcom should I even dare to notify the community of an error too late for him to "like". This closure lets Gatoclass off the hook 100%, it doesn't address his non-admin-like behaviour, it even allows him to continue to threaten me. Wow. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• And, by now, I'd expect someone to have noted that we're very much in WP:INVOLVED territory. GatoClass clearly is monitoring my actions by his decision to tell me he's going to take me to Arbcom if I start addressing the numerous errors at DYK at ERRORS instead of his preferred location, so right now we have someone who is, by definition, not really objective enough to make such decisions. To continue to assert they can is probably an indication that they ought not be allowed to continue to administrate the site. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

If you want him to be desysopped, this ain't the venue for that. I'm all for community enacted de-adminship, but we don't have that option yet. Lepricavark (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Jayron32 "... it's a "drop the stick" issue for both sides ..." are you kidding? An admin has threatened me with Arbcom for deciding that I won't dance to his tune, while I have done ...... nothing? How is it a "drop the stick" issue for us both? Do you mean "it's a leave the admin alone to make his threats" and "tough shit to the editor who dedicates hours a week to reviewing DYK but now no longer wishes to commit to it because of the hostility and threats"? Just clear that bit up for us. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

  It's been made clear to Gato that he shouldn't pursue this. If he does, then it's a problem -- namely, his. For now, it's done with. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• • TRM, if you feel your grievance has not been addressed, then you are obviously looking for some sort of formal censure. That is beyond the scope of this noticeboard and should be taken up at AN or with ArbCom. An uninvolved administrator has advised you that would not be productive, but of course you are free to do what you will at the proper place. This is not it. John from Idegon (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Cease and desist demand at WP:RFPP

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

---

See Special:diff/823253681 BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Also Here. Clubjustin ^Talkosphere 04:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

User Has been Blocked. Clubjustin ^Talkosphere 05:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

And not just blocked, but capital B Blocked. EEng 05:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:StefanovicPFK

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

---

I have contacted this editor several times since November 2017, but no response although they have continued editing. They know how to use the talk page (responded once to another editor, but not apart from that) and I'm not the only one to contact them about creating unreferenced articles over the last 2 years.

I have directed them to WP:Communication is required, WP:V and WP:BURDEN, but no response. These unreferenced articles include: 1999–2000 FK Partizan season, List of most expensive Serbian football transfers, Bogdan Riznić (an unreferenced biography of a living person), 1991–92 KK Partizan season, 1989–90 FK Partizan season, 1955–56 FK Partizan season, 2007–08 KK Partizan season, 2008–09 KK Partizan season and 2010–11 KK Partizan season. Boleyn (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked until they start communicating. Any admin can unblock without talking to me once that starts happening. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Zekarya

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

---

• Zekarya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Stormy Daniels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Repeated addition of material to a BLP that a couple of us believe violates WP:BLP policy. Edit warring to keep this material in the BLP before consensus is reached on the article talk page: [89][90][91][92] Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours for edit-warring by Canterbury Tail. I removed the most recent edits by Zekarya as contentious poorly-sourced content in a BLP.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Please block for grammar too. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: I'll open a phab ticket to have that option added to the block drop-down menu.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI the same edits are now being made by Linsdees (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). MarnetteD|Talk 20:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked Linsdees as an obvious sock and found another  Technically indistinguishable account in the process (Jungianjew).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Bambi

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

---

Ummmm ... WP:LTA/BF101. User:Bambi is editing exactly the same articles that Bambifan frequented. Probably worth a look. --McDoobAU93 17:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

They just outed themselves, editing an article they should in theory not know anything about ... unless they are the subject of said article. --McDoobAU93 18:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• McDoob, did you miss the bit telling you that you MUST notify an editor about a discussion about them? DuncanHill (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

  I'm inclined to omit that step for LTA accounts, personally. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

That was my reasoning, Sarek ... I've kept up with Bambifan for some time now, and his socks are rarely alerted to these reports, if at all. --McDoobAU93 18:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Then you need to change the notice. DuncanHill (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Or perhaps individuals encountering the rare instances wherein notification would be entirely counter-productive could be trusted to use common sense and disregard the requirement. WP:IAR is policy for a reason.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you User:Ponyo. Drmies (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment after close, IMPORTANT! - Please block Ponyo indefinitely and strip them of their bit for advocating the use of common sense on Wikipedia! This outrage cannot be allowed to stand!!! Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Xfactor1234

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

---

I have contacted this editor on several occasions, but they have ignored all messages, despite being directed towards WP:Communication is required, WP:V and WP:BURDEN. They are persistently creating unreferenced articles.

Those created just in the last month, and still needing references, are: 1969 in Norwegian television, 1968 in Norwegian television, 1968 in Swedish television, 1969 in Swedish television, 1967 in Norwegian television, 1967 in Swedish television, 1967 in Portuguese television, 1966 in Swedish television, 1966 in Portuguese television, 1966 in Norwegian television, 1965 in Portuguese television, 1965 in Norwegian television, 1965 in Spanish television, 1964 in Norwegian television, 1963 in Swedish television, 1963 in Norwegian television, 1962 in Norwegian television, 1962 in Swedish television, 1961 in Norwegian television, 1961 in Swedish television, 1960 in Swedish television, 1959 in Swedish television, 2018 in South African television, 2017 in South African television.

I don't usually run out of steam and usually make a list as far back as it goes, but this is a long list. This user has been editing Wikipedia for 11 years and seems to have never responded to any concerns raised on their talk page. Boleyn (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• For a previous thread about Xfactor1234 (talk · contribs), see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive948#Mass creation of mostly empty articles. DuncanHill (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, DuncanHill. It certainly demonstrates a pattern of disruptive editing which has taken up a lot of other editors' time. Boleyn (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked until they start communicating. Any admin can unblock without talking to me once that starts happening. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate and offensive language

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

---

Inappropriate and offensive language made by User:Davey2010 following the unfounded nomination for article's deletion here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JGSP Novi Sad and also on user's talk page here - [93]. For sake of our community, we should put aside our emotions (per Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing_with_incivility) once we have realized that we have made a mistake and eventually apologize to other users involved in a discussion.--AirWolf ^talk 14:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• What admin action are you asking for here? Reyk _YO! 14:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@AirWolf: "Consider the possibility that something you said or did wrongly provoked a defensive, irritated or fed-up response." Did you really have to bring this here? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Hi. Next time you nominate some articles for deletion as you did in the case of JGSP Novi Sad, try adding Template:Unreferenced or similar template first.--AirWolf talk 11:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)" - Maybe if you wasn't being so condescending then maybe you wouldn't of been told to "Fuck off and read AGF" - Entirely my fault for the wrong search entirely my fault but I certainly don't appreciate you then coming to my page and then start being all condescending! - Your !vote on the AFD was more than enough - A condescending post wasn't needed. –Davey2010^Talk 14:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

FWIW I will say my AFD reply wasn't at all needed and I apologise for that - That was the correct venue to bring up the whole BEFORE thing so I've redacted most of that reply. –Davey2010^Talk 14:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think these two sentences were condescending at all. I had to point to you that you've nominated the article for a deletion too soon, and that you should have probably made "Unreferenced" tag. I just don't understand how you haven't asked yourself how is it possible that there was not a singe news coverage for the sole public transport company of a large European city. You should have checked it twice before making unfounded nomination. Also, language used in the end was totally inappropriate. I accept the apology and keep up the good work. Just be more careful in the future.--AirWolf ^talk 14:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Not all major operators gain coverage, There's plenty of major operators that get next to none coverage, I searched once - Nothing came back so I did what anyone would've done and that's to nominate it, Maybe try and not be condescending in future and things will go a lot smoothly between yourself and editors. –Davey2010^Talk 15:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• My understanding is that it is within the right and prerogative for editors to ask others to "fuck off" from their user talk page, and that it does not rise to the level of incivility. This was a minor frustration. Just let it deescalate naturally.--WaltCip (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• WaltCip, this did not happen on Davey2010's talk page, but publicly at AfD. Civility is a pillar of Wikipedia and this is a clear violation. Experienced editors know they shouldn't act this way, but we have bad days. I appreciate Davey redacting his comment, and I think this will deescalate naturally, but I also appreciate AirWolf for calling it out. We need more civility, and tolerating profane attacks is not the way to get it.Jacona (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Jacona - It happened on my TP [94], The AFD reply was me telling everyone to "f'ing assume good faith", Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Well shit, offensive or bitchy language is hardly a fucking excuse for trying to get some cunt blocked, or for stirring up a shit storm at ANI. (Sorry Davey, I'm not calling you a cunt, I was just looking for an excuse to use another curse word in order to make my point).

In other words: cursing is not uncivil. I curse far more when I'm in a good mood than when I'm in a bad mood. Telling someone to "Fuck off" from their user page can certainly come across as uncivil, but isn't necessarily so. Imagine the party handing you a beer and saying it with a grin; then it's just casual and relaxed, possibly even friendly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I think civility is important but it's not enough that a comment is annoying or irritating - I know tone is hard to judge on the internet, but consider that you might say "fuck off" to a friend, depending on the circumstances, if they woke you up or something. Most people would not casually make a derogatory racist remark to someone, or abusively berate them with aggressive ad hominem insults - even for people who are kind of grumpy this is outside the bounds of socially acceptable behavior. This is my understanding of how civility is enforced on Wikipedia. Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, and my group of friends is one in which we regularly insult each other in the worst (read: funniest) possible manner we can think of. But all of us are aware that our shared history and shared knowledge that it's all in good fun is what makes those insults acceptable. And sometimes even among us, we don't do it. If my buddy Jeebs is feeling down, I'm not going to insult him, even if it would be hilarious. At least not until I'm completely sure he would laugh at it. To strangers, one should avoid saying anything directly insulting, and one should always read dismissive or rude comments in the best possible light. No-one can do it 100% of the time, so we also need to allow a little slack for threads like this. And Davey's response thus far has been exceedingly gracious. Oh, and also, shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits. I say them because I can, and the more people get use to it, the happier we all will be. :D ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Nitinshus

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

---

Nitinshus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user keeps on adding spam links to Tourism in India after 4 warnings.  Anchorvale ^T@lk  09:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Blocked indef by Cryptic. WP:AIV fodder, really. Kleuske (talk) 09:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Opinions requested

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

---

Looking at the edits (and naming similarity of the named accounts) suggests these are likely socks:

• Aponmanik (talk · contribs)
• Aponmanik123 (talk · contribs)

The primary edits have been promotionally worded, and at-best are redundant to Super Bowl LII. Also, a large number of the edits seem to rely on onstream24.com as refspam.

The created pages that are clearly promotional can be tagged with {{G11}}. But at least one of the created pages are in draft space, and as yet is not overtly promotional (see Draft:Philadelphia Eagles vs New England Patriots). I didn't see a speedy criteria for general content or draft space that covered this one ... leave it for now? Thoughts? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Dilpa kaur

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

---

• Dilpa kaur (talk · contribs)

Could an admin take a look at the contribs of this WP:SPA account, especially these diffs here which clearly show that this account is engaged in meat puppetry. —MBL ^Talk 08:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes it's a disruptive meat puppet. See [95] filed a report just after JosephusOfJerusalem (another SPA) had his report rejected.[96] On report he writes, "Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#India-Pakistan_2: A civility restriction. Any suggestion that any editor is not editing in good faith will lead to an immediate block."[97] Same green font and sentence that JosephusOfJerusalem had applied, "Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#India-Pakistan_2: A civility restriction. Any suggestion that any editor is not editing in good faith will lead to an immediate block."[98]

Few things are clear here, they both are obsessively trying hard to get me blocked/banned, and using same templates/style/words and they are edit warring in tandem. Such deception needs to be dealt with indef block, because these accounts are WP:NOTHERE, all they care about is their disruptive ethnic agenda. Anmolbhat (talk) 08:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@MBlaze Lightning and Anmolbhat:--Hmm..Some similarity at the AE report but I ain't seeing much meat-puppetryin light of Ammarpad's evidence, the overlap looks to be strong except the hazy overlaps which is not uncommon, given the highly polarised editing atmosphere at your main-space overlaps with Dilpa.You can file a detailed SPI report, including relevant diffs etc.And, Anmol, it's best to comment on content and not on contributors, at article talk-pages.Winged Blades^Godric 08:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@WBG: I don't think it is ripe for SPI but I believe the above report is beyond talkpage comments. Do you think this is also mere happenstance? Dilpa kaur (talk · contribs) removed content with claim of MOS violation. Reverted by Raymond3023. See the next edit –Ammarpad (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I ran Interwine but missed the diff.Thanks:)Winged Blades^Godric 09:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Saving a template from the preceding report, working on it when the reported person displays more bad behaviour, as is the case here with Anmolbhat, is not meatpuppetry. Your other diffs [99] are a misrepresentation, sometimes i struggle with making my pre-planned edits on my mobile because it gets frozen and goes haywire and copying from my phone notes and pasting and saving becomes a hassle. This[100] was a temporary notice on my part on the page to underline the issues with the text I was trying to remove, until I could fix the text properly when my phone improved, which I did within 5 minutes[101]. This seems like a detraction from the current AE case against MBlaze Lightning's friend Anmolbhat who has just broken the civility restriction. My guess is that when I by mistake pasted my report on Anmolbhat by mistake in the wrong place and came back to insert it in the right place later, during that time MBlaze Lightning started planning a diversion from the AE case against Anmolbhat. What should be looked into is the long-term tag-teaming between MBlaze Lightning, Anmolbhat, Capitals00, Kautilya and some others. Dilpa kaur (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You can make up whatever you want to but we have already understood that you and other disruptive SPAs are meat puppets, with nothing to do here except edit warring in tandem and pushing your disruptive ethnic agenda. According to you, we should investigate long term editors like Mblaze, Kautilya3, Capitals00 so that your meat puppetry can be justified. You make no sense. Anmolbhat (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Just a comment from somebody who has closely watched this go down for the last few weeks but has mostly been a bystander. I have not directly interacted with Dilpa kaur (talk · contribs) or JosephusOfJerusalem (talk · contribs) but have noticed their edits and their editing behavior so far has not been typical of a Wikipedia editor and raised some doubts in my mind. There was a RfC at Talk:Kashmir conflict recently and there seemed to be a Wikipedia:Vote stacking on that page. Now this might seem typical of India-Pakistan pages given the different views. But quite a bit of editors participated in that RfC with little or no edits on the actual page. What was even more concerning was the fact that many of these editors had been dormant for quite some time before the RfC, commented on the RfC and went back to their dormant selves. This behavior clubbed with the behavior on recent articles like Kashmiris, Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus, 1947 Poonch Rebellion, Violence against women during the partition of India is concerning. In these cases editors have been recently created (past 1-2 months) accounts who have very little editing history on Wikipedia and most of it resolves around a limited set (4-5) of India-Pakistan pages and seems to be pushing a certain POV. An editor was recently blocked for a week for violating the 1RR block for their edits which they falsely claimed were copy-right violations. In my opinion, the administrators need to have a closer look at this since there seems to be something more than what meets the eye. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Adamgerber80's uninvolved observer comments are exactly accurate. I couldn't have said it better myself. There is serious tag teaming/meatpuppetry going on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Bishonen I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at this and see whether indefinite blocks are warranted. —MBL ^Talk 00:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I am happy and satisfied reading Dilpa kaur (talk · contribs)'s explanation of the diffs. I don't see any evidence of meat puppetry. I have in the past been falsely accused of socking by MBL and I would encourage people to take into consideration just how many of these accusations he throws around. --Xinjao (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Why you bothered to come back to Wikipedia 29 days only for supporting such nonsensical "explanation"? You can describe though if they are any sensible. Capitals00 (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• @GeneralizationsAreBad: could you take a look, please? —MBL ^Talk 15:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I'm finding it quite difficult to reconcile Dilpa kaur and JosephusOfJerusalem's ostensible identities with their actual editing activity. Dilpa professes (by their username and on their user page) to be "Khalistani" (and hence by implication associated with Indian Punjab), and Josephus claims to be a "Jewish historian, academic and foodie". Yet their editing patterns, by the way very similar to those of KA$HMIR, show an almost exclusive focus on several very niche Kashmiri topics that are contested between India and Pakistan, and they've both shown a detailed knowledge of the specific literature, a very strong pro-Pakistan slant and a keen interest in the related meta-discussions (ANI and AE threads etc.). – Uanfala (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

JosephusOfJerusalem has contributed to several other articles, related to ancient and Jewish history, so your argument falls flat while I am a long time (dynamic) IP editor. My IPs' which I edited from while mistakenly logged out, after I had registered this account, are visible for all to see[102][103] geolocation [104][105] shows clearly I come from the Indian Punjab. How is it possible that an Indian like me can collaborate to produce a pro-Pakistan slant? But yes it is true that there is a strong pro-Indian and anti-Pakistan bias across the articles in the Indo-Pakistan topic area, which several neutral senior editors such as Fowler&fowler have pointed out.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bride_burning#Request_for_Comment) As a responsible citizen I am committed to removing this imbalance and would not be surprised if neutral editors from non-subcontinental backgrounds, such as Fowler and Josephus, have also observed this imbalance and taken it upon themselves to fix it.

I am more interested in how you turned up on a RfC to support Kautilya3's vote,(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kashmir_conflict#Comments) even though you yourself admitted you were not well acquainted with the topic? You even argued that those opposed to the sections up for deletion had not made a case for removing them, even though Winged Blades of Godric said good points were made. What's going on between you and Kautilya3 in the emails? Dilpa kaur (talk) 10:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Says the obvious sock who filed a firolovous complaint against me[106] after other obvious sock had his firovlous complaint rejected.[107]. Anmolbhat (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Note: I've unarchived this because I really want an administrator to take a look at this and do the needful. These socks/meat accounts shouldn't be let go scot free this time. —MBL ^Talk 10:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

After I reverted JosephusOfJerusalem (talk · contribs) on the Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus article, Dilpa kaur showed up in a few hours to revert back to the Josephus's version[108] using the exact same phrase, "last stable version per WP:NOCON", that has been used recently by several of these meat accounts.[109][110][111][112] This isn't happenstance, either. —MBL ^Talk 10:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

There is WP:CONSENSUS every time, but these obvious socks are never adhering anything called "consensus". They won't let any productive edit ever stay. Anmolbhat (talk) 11:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Filer's tag-teaming and harassment

The filer has been part of several spurious and failed attempts at getting blocked the users he disagrees with. Just last month on here MBlaze Lightning created a report against Dilpa kaur so ridiculous (he could not differentiate between the different IPs of @Dilpa kaur: and @Danish.mehraj26:) that he had to revert himself [113]. He also paarticipated against me and @Danish.mehraj26:/@JosephusOfJerusalem: in a frivolous SPI which ended up confirming our innocence. The question is why is the filer so desperately making multiple attempts to get others blocked (his own block log is hardly one to envy)?

And what was happening in the middle of all of this? Two IPs,[114][115] located in two different [116][117] Indian cities, turn up to frame me and @Owais Khursheed: for meatpuppetry. Both IPs were had knowledge of a user known as @Kautilya3:, which indicates they were old users IP socking to frame me and Owais. The different locations of the IPs suggest collaboration between multiple old users is happening on IP levels, and even worse is happening through the accounts where they are using hook and crook methods to get opposing editors blocked.

Senior editor @Mar4d: is had also complained of this trend of a group of editors close to @Kautilya3: wreaking POV havoc across articles in the India-Pakistan topic area.

MBlaze Lightning, Capitals00, Adamgerber80, D4iNa4 and Kautilya3 have an extensive record of tag teaming and supporting each other on articles, often where they have had minimal or negligible contribution to article content or discussion on the talkpages.

For example the senior editor @NadirAli: observed on Talk:Violence against women during the partition of India that Kautilya3 suddenly arrived on a talkpage discussion for an article he had no contribution to. Even more interestingly, MBlaze Lightning turned up on the same page to do a revert[118] to ensure the page looked the way Kautilya3 wanted [119]. This despite MBlaze Lightning not contributing much to the article either.

Another example is Talk:Annexation_of_Junagadh#MBlaze_Lightning_cuts where Kautilya3 turns up, after a long absence from contributing to the article, to support MBlaze Lightning's POV.

And even more. During extensive discussions on Talk:Kashmir_conflict#KA$HMIR_revert_justifications between me, @NadirAli:, @Kautilya3: and @Mar4d:, MBlaze Lightning is absent. He then suddenly turns up only to agree with Kautilya3 and Capitals00 here Talk:Kashmir_conflict#NadirAli_edits, though again this contribution is no more than a line. Despite having no contribution worth the name to the discussion he then reverts to Kautilya3's preferred version.

And then comes in Adamgerber80, who had no contribution to the discussion, to restore MBlaze Lightning and Kautilya3's preferred version during the edit war [120]. Note his edit summary ad then check how much he has contributed to the discussions on talk.

Just recently, MBlaze Lightning again proved to be part of a tag team. Until now he has had no major contribution to the discussion on Talk:Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus except for one vague statement (and no response thereafter when he was questioned) in support of Anmolbhat and Kautilya3's POV [121]. He then did a disruptive revert on the article [122]. Fortunately the edit war has been ended graciously by the admins who have locked the page now so MBlaze Lightning and Anmolbhat can no longer break WP:NOCON and do disruptive reverts.

Then there is Capitals00. In an extensive discussion on sourcing between Kautilya3 and JosephusOfJerusalem Capitals00 turns up to make vitriolic comments,[123] with no other contribution to the discussion, and does a revert [124] to Kautilya3's preferred version while there is still discussion going on on the talkpage.

I do not believe for an instant that we can ignore all this collaboration as a coincidence. KA$HMIR (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• But they are years old accounts with thousands of edits. That's why the actual issue here is with the disruptive tagteaming/meat-puppetry involving you and other very new accounts with no edits outside this subject (WP:SPA). Also you have selectively canvassed only those editors in your message that push same POV as yours. Anmolbhat (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I am adding to my comment since I have been accused of "tag-teaming" by KA$HMIR. I do have all these pages on my Watchlist for quite sometime including the ones I have mentioned. Even though I have no edits on them, I still keep track of all the discussions on their talk pages and additions by other users. I only interject when I feel the need to. This was the very reason that I had reverted some edits of your earlier username on a different page. My edit comments on that revert was out of the fact that the page was turning into state of constant reverts and it was me who requested the full protection of the page to ensure a proper discussion took place. I reverted those edits to a point in the page which was before the edits by NadirAli since they were the topic of discussion on the Talk page to maintain STATUSQUO. Lastly, I do not believe in Vote-stacking and unnecessary "show of support comments" as was on display during that RfC. Other editors had raised valid points and continue to raise valid points in the on-going discussion and I have not felt the need to interject so far. And as a matter of fact I have add disagreements with Kautilya3 and MBlaze Lightning on different topics in the past so your accusation of "tag-teaming" seems pre-mature and ill-thought. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, let us see KA$HMIR. Here are your edits intertwined with Dilpa kaur's (who is supposedly a Punjabi and Khalistani), and your edits intertwined with Danish.mehraj26, and your edits intertwined with Josephus (who is a Jewish historian no doubt).

On the the other hand, here are the filer's edits intertwined with mine, those intertwined with Capitals00 and those intertwined with Adamgerber80.

Do you see the difference? I doubt you would. So let me spell it out for you. We all watch whatever pages interest us, and we jump in when we see the need. In contrast, your troops show up wherever you go. No matter what their professed interests are. That is what we are talking about. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Intertwined contributions only display the ″last 1000 cumulated contributions of the two users″. It does not show intersections. To check intersections you need to use this tool [125]. The tool shows that Dilpa kaur and I have only edited in 4 same places,[126] of which only 2 are talkpages and the remaining two are ANI and AE boards, likely not even on the same threads. JosephusOfJerusalem intersects with Dilpa on 6 pages,[127] of which 1 is the article you mysteriously turned up to 'uninvited' and only 2 are talkpages. His intersections with me are also only in 6 places.[128] JosephusOfJerusalem has contributed to several places [129][130][131][132][133][134][135][136][137][138] where I and Dilpa have not and similarly Dilpa[139] and I[140][141][142][143][144] have contributed where each other has not.

The same is not true for your friends. The tool shows you and MBlaze Lightning intersecting on 404 pages,[145] many of them talkpages. You intersect with Capitals00 on 404 pages too.[146] All three of you intersect in 103 places,[147] many of them talkpages, whereas I, Dilpa and Josephus intersect only on 2 places[148], 1 of them an AE board. Whatever you say now does not wipe the proof I have provided of obvious tag teaming between your meat puppets. I would even request admins to check your emails. Do you really think you can get away with all the tag-teaming without the rest of us knowing that all this is not a coincidence? KA$HMIR (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

That is bogus logic. A sample has to be fair for it to have any validity. The size of the intersection doesn't mean a thing. The longer people are here, the more pages they watch, and the more they watch, the more they will intersect with the others. The intertwine results show a fair simple, and they are showing for you and your friends, people moving into pages they never visited before and siding with one another. This confirms Adamgerber80 observed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Its very curious isn't it how you all end up reverting to each other's versions, even if your meatpuppets such as MBlaze Lightning and Capitals00 have had scant input on the discussion talkpages/article content. The tool for catching the socks and meats is intersection tool. The intertwined contributions show nothing except the last 1000 cumulated edits. The intertwined tool, unlike the intersection tool, is not useful for showing overlaps and tag-teamers supporting each other. KA$HMIR (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

MBL is not helping himself by persistently throwing accusations of sock puppetry, meat puppetry or single purpose accounts. He has been doing this for months, perhaps years; only recently accusing me of sockpuppeterring. He is offending numerous people with such accusations. If he continues, he should be topic banned from filing any ANIs and SPIs or at the least strictly warned. This is becoming too much.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It's probably worth noting that User:NadirAli has edited ANI 48 times in the last eleven years: 46 of those were to a single thread about him last July, one more was this, and then there was the above. Posting comments like the above about an editor one doesn't like to threads in which one is not involved is generally seen as a form of hounding. Even if one was ping-canvassed. The good faith way of responding to canvassing like KA$HMIR's above would be to tell them to buzz off. I know nothing about this dispute, but interactions like this make me really, really think that the various editors not on MBL's "side" should be at the very least cautioned. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri, it's almost as if you've missed the fact that MBL filed an SPI against me despite having almost no prior interaction with me. He has been doing that numerous times. Given all this, are you still sure it's me who's doing the "hounding". Forgive me but your comment is indeed humerus, even if not intended to be so.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Why is having prior interactions with someone a prerequisite to opening an SPI? I would think most SPIs are opened to report accounts one has not interacted with before. Anyway, I didn't miss anything -- you showed up on an ANI involving a user you had conflicted with some months ago (at which time said user had managed to convince a quite conservative CU-enabled user to perform a check on you), and, as a former (repeat) victim of hounding that looked very similar to this, I decided to call it what it was. It seems like MBL opened only one SPI on you, so it's really unclear what you mean by He has been doing that numerous times. [...] it's [not] me who's doing the "hounding" -- are you accusing MBL of hounding you? If so, I would encourage you to present evidence or read WP:KETTLE and retract that baseless accusation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

PS, your comment about my ANI edits are incorrect. I have edited more ANI threads than that in the past 11 years, with only two being directly against me and one indirectly against me and another group of Pakistanis.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Wait, did you do so under an alternate account or something? I did a pretty thorough check, and it wasn't hard (you've made less than 500 WP-space edits in that time). Are you being pedantic and saying that technically February 12, 2007 was less than 11 years ago? If that's the case then let's just say 10 years, 11 months and 5 days. I was rounding up. The above 2014 diff is the only edit your current account made to ANI between February 12, 2007 and your above off-topic remark MBL, whose edit summary did not include Tendentious editing by NadirAli across Multiple Articles. Ctrl F "Incidents" and that section title yourself here if you don't believe me -- the former brings up 48 results, the latter 46. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Yudi98

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

---

I have sent many messages to this editor about persistently creating unreferenced articles, but they continue to edit and not respond. Yudi98 has created many unreferenced articles, like [149] which also had copyright violations. At User talk:Yudi98#Sources and communication I detailed all the articles they've created which remain unreferenced, but they continued to edit but not reply or address the issues. I've run out of other options to get this editor to address the issue and to communicate. Boleyn (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Spierce64006

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

---

I have messaged this editor several times over the last five months. I have directed them to WP:V, WP:BURDEN and WP:Communication is required, but they have continued to create unreferenced articles.

These include: 2017 Tyrone Senior Football Championship, Dub Stars Football and Hurling Challenge, Dublin Under 21 Hurling Championship, 2017 Kilkenny Intermediate Hurling Championship, 2017 Limerick Senior Hurling Championship, 2017 Kerry Intermediate Football Championship, 2017–18 All-Ireland Intermediate Club Football Championship, 2017 Waterford Senior Hurling Championship, 2017 Tyrone Intermediate Football Championship, 2017 Antrim Senior Hurling Championship, 2015 Derry Senior Hurling Championship, 2017 Derry Senior Hurling Championship, 2016 Derry Senior Hurling Championship, 2017 Derry Senior Football Championship, 2016 All-Ireland Under-21 Football Championship, 2016 All-Ireland Under-21 Football Championship. The editor has never communicated at their talk page. Boleyn (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked until they start communicating. Any admin can unblock without talking to me once that starts happening. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Thanks, Floquenbeam. This looks like a 24 hour block, is it meant to be indefinite? Thanks again, Boleyn (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • D'oh. Yes, misclick. I'll change it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Sinclair station articles

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

---

First it was Jgera5, now it's Bbabybear02 saying some Sinclair stations are going to Armstrong Williams. I went to that website and it had a thing about it. Is it a reliable source? Should I revert Bbabybear02's edits? [150] [151] [152] [153] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I found two sources that seem to be about this: [154] and [155]. These should count as independent WP:RS (assuming they line up with the changes proposed at that article...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE sock

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

---

This editor was blocked as being not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. It appears [156] they made a half-baked attempt to make a sockpuppet. Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 03:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Judicial Watch

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

---

Judicial Watch reads like a hit job. I have tried numerous times to edit only to have my sources rejected. I do not understand how I can have numerous sources and none be reliable. Because this was a widely reported story I can add more sources, but I feel I am wasting my time.Phmoreno (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Numerous sources, all right: numerous bad, partisan, and unreliable sources. Also, this is ANI, it's not for content issues, especially cut-and-dried ones like this. Suggest closing and hatting. --Calton | Talk 04:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Apart from Fox News, which is a known partisan source, I had a browse through the about sections of the other sources and they're explicitly conservative. Using these kinds of sources in an article about a conservative organisation is very echo chamber-like. Blackmane (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:SYNTH and POV-pushing

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

---

Dear colleagues, there is a conflict going on in the article List of authoritarian regimes supported by the Soviet Union or Russia; as I'm new here, I would like administrators and experienced editors to help us solve the issue.

In a section related to authoritarian regimes supported by the Soviet Union a user has been trying to restore a part of the text that was discussed at length and reasonably removed by others about a year ago and ignores their arguments, so that I had to register in order to fix things and restore neutrality. He has been adding the Nazi Germany to the list of Soviet-supported political regimes, so as to make it look like the Soviet Union supported the Nazi regime in Germany in the same manner as it actually supported its allies listed in the article, Communist/Socialist governments, etc., regardless of the fact that the sources and modern scholarship in general don't claim anything even remotely close to that and that the text clearly falls under the definition of WP:SYNTH, i.e. "material from multiple sources combined to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", as I and others have noted on the talk page. While modern historians agree that the Soviet Union, which in 1934-9 had been trying to form an anti-German bloc in Europe, later had to sign an agreement with the Germans and cooperate with them in certain things in an attempt to buy time or avoid antagonizing them (so did other countries at the time), they don't go as far as to claim that the "Soviet government supported the Nazi regime in Germany" or anything like that (nor do they define Great Britain and France as "supporters of the Nazi regime" for their role in the Münich Agreement or their trade relations with the Nazi Germany). What modern scholars agree on is that in 1939-41 both Germany and the Soviet Union were involved in a complicated diplomatic game, that they were making preparations for war against each other and used diplomacy one against the other while formally remaining good neighbors, the tension between them was rising, and that the USSR was merely trying to buy time and appease the Nazis while bolstering its defenses (just like that is defined in Encyclopedia of the Cold War (2008) edited by Ruud van Dijk and prepared by a large group of international scholars, p. 597, and in the works of most other historians). There is no mention of the Soviet Union supporting the Nazi regime. Frankly, such recognized world authorities on Soviet diplomatic and military history of WWII as Prof. Geoffrey Roberts, Jonathan Haslam, John Erickson and others would laugh if they heared that the "Soviet government literally supported the Nazi regime". That is not even remotely close to what they and most other historians say in their works and, as has been said, falls under the definition of WP:SYNTH. Cooperation in any field, let alone temporary cooperation caused by obstacles, between A and B doesn't turn A into a supporter of the political regime of B.

I need your advice as to what do in a situation like this, as the opposing user doesn't seem to bother reading messages he doesn't agree with (I also hope I've found a right place to ask for help, as I'm not familiar with the noticeboard). Alter Z (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

One thing that could be done is that this tendentious original research could be hauled to articles for deletion for opinion of the community as to whether it should exist at all. I will do that now. Carrite (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

AfD nomination is HERE. Carrite (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree, as I have never seen an article like this in any scholarly (or even popular) work in my life; the page is full of POVs, original research and misleading edits, and is of very dubious value. We live in a world where there is cooperation in different areas between one-party and multi-party states, monarchies and republics, presidential and parliamentary systems, authoritarian and democratic countries, etc., and I have no idea who would decide to create a list of "monarchical regimes supported by Great Britain", "republican regimes supported by France", and so on, especially when the authors don't see a difference between "supporting a political regime" and "signing an agreement with another country". It's definitely not an encyclopedic article. Alter Z (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Saeedparva

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

---

Please see User talk:Saeedparva#Sources and communication - this editor ignores most of my messages with the occasional response that doesn't fully solve the issue. There is a huge backlog of articles they've created without sources. I'm not sure if language is a major or minor issue here, but I don't speak Persian, and if it is a major issue, I would advise the editor to contribute to Persian Wikipedia rather than here. Boleyn (talk) 07:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Elvis Dingivan

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

---

Somebody stop him. contributions. thanks. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 10:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 10:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Removed his talk page access following that last edit. fish&karate 14:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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

User:FV QV

The following discussion is closed. 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 many unreferenced articles and refusing to communicate, despite being directed to WP:Communication is required, WP:BURDEN and WP:V. Please see User talk:FV QV#Sources. I have been trying to communicate with them for two months, but all messages are ignored. Boleyn (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I suspect that the name FV QV (talk · contribs) is intended as a subliminal message. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Good catch on the name too. Swarm ♠ 23:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Duy Khoa Nguyen

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

---

Duy Khoa Nguyen has had numerous warnings (see User talk:Duy Khoa Nguyen) about not adding reliable sources and creating unreferenced or unclearly referenced articles, including biographies of living people. Duy Khoa Nguyen has continued to edit but never responded to a talk page message. They do know how to edit their talk page, but have only done so to delete messages of concern from other editors.

Issues about unref/unclearly ref'ed blps have been brought to their attention several times over the last year, no changes to editing behaviour. Previous warnings they are risking a block haven't worked either. They also don't give edit summaries, so there really is no way to communicate. Boleyn (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree this editor needs to start communicating. Most of their articles eventually end up sufficiently sourced, but man is it an uphill slog - and their own contributions to the process as often as not seem to consist in removing maintenance templates and/or sources added by other users. I've steered clear of tangling there so far, but it certainly seems frustrating from a distance. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I've started off by applying User:MER-C/payattention.js here. Let's see if it does as advertised. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Nice. Bookmarked. Guy (Help!) 12:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

What does it do? -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 14:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

It creates a popup window saying "Editors have raised multiple concerns with your edits, see <talk page>" whenever you try to edit a page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 14:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

That's very cleverly done, but I would suggest if you're at the point where you are considering putting javascript notifiers into mediawiki to force a user to read their talk page and acknowledge issues because their editing is disruptive, we have a simpler mechanism to do that. fish&karate 14:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, gradation options are good; and this one doesn't create a block log entry, for what it's worth. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Block summaries are space constrained, and a block does not necessarily make it any easier for an user to find their talk page. I don't think a block is necessarily inferior to the JS message approach, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I find myself using the banhammer much more frequently than this script (many of these users have copyvio problems, so the only appropriate response is an indef). MER-C 21:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this, I just want to mention that a lot (if not all) of the South Korean actor/actress articles that user has created have been/ are on my “to do list” of articles to add sources to. I’ve already done some of them, and on more than one occasion the user has completely removed all citations I added to an article. Alexanderlee (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• The above gesture is appreciated, and that's certainly a nifty bit of script, but Boleyn deals with a lot of these users and goes to great lengths to try to get them to communicate before reporting them here, and that's not even mentioning all the other ignored messages and warnings they've received. We're well past the attempts to message them. If they were heeding messages and warnings, there wouldn't be a need to request admin intervention. Blocked indef. Swarm ♠ 23:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Only Korean edit that page?

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

---

User:Snowflake91 and User:Bule Cloud means South Korea national football team should be only edited by Korean? Please see page history for evidence. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic because Bule Cloud said that "You are not Korean, so you have no rights to "compromise" the article", of course everyone can edit it, Im not even Korean myself. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think WP:SARCASM applies here! Humorous edit notices aside, it's important to remember that a lot of enwiki readers aren't native English speakers, especially when editing articles covering countries that do not primarily speak English. Having said that, you did mean well, and the page history did raise a chuckle from me! -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 15:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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

User:KpopBoy repeatedly adding material to articles without proper references

The following discussion is closed. 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:KpopBoy is repeatedly adding material to articles without proper references such as Act. 3 Chococo Factory and "Heroine". The user has been warned on multiple occasions about this practice, and has ignored requests to archive his talk page and refrain from doing adding unreferenced material. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indef. Swarm ♠ 00:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Irobotboy

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

---

I have been trying to communicate with this editor for some time, who has a history (see the many messages and warnings at User talk:Irobotboy) of refusing to respond to all concerns raised, not using any edit summaries, and adding unsourced material to Wikipedia, removing unreferenced tags from unreferenced articles etc. I have no idea but here how to get this editor to discuss the ongoing concerns many editors have raised. I have pointed them towards WP:Communication is required, WP:V and WP:BURDEN, but I can't understand why they are editing in this way. Boleyn (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Lincoln555

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

---

I have been contacting this editor since August 2017 asking them to stop creating unreferenced articles. Most messages have gone ignored, they added sources to one or two, but not the rest, and continued creating unreferenced articles and not answering messages. They have been pointed to WP:Communication is required, WP:V and WP:BURDEN, but no response. Please see User talk:Lincoln555 for the long list of messages they have been sent. Boleyn (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Boleyn, you marked the page for Mikhail Chudov as patroled, and left him messages on how to improve it (just one of the notes on his page, using it for an example). Why do you think it an issue that he hasn't? Frankly, this is only one of several notes you've left here at ANI on the subject of non communication. I'm beginning to think that you are overreacting a bit. If the subject is notable, and in the example above, it is, why do you think the editor has nay further obligations? And if you do, why did you mark the page as patrolled? John from Idegon (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC) John from Idegon (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC) (resigned after correcting ping)

On the other hand, we have one of Lincoln555's latest creations, 1941 Milan–San Remo. The 1941 Milan-San Remo was held in 1941. The race started in Milan and finished in San Remo. That's pretty much it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure where the criticism is coming from, but neither myself or any of the other administrators who have been reviewing these reports have expressed any reservations regarding their necessity. If anything, Boleyn deserves praise for the amount of time and effort they're investing to deal with these problem users; I will note for the record that Boleyn does not come rushing to AN/I after an "overreaction" but instead does so only after many attempts to communicate editing problems, followed by many attempts at pleading with these users to respond at all. And he does this with every single one of these users he reports. It must be maddening. It's clear that in all of these cases, Boleyn is coming here as a last resort, and not lightly. Introducing content with sourcing issues is considered disruptive editing, as is refusal/inability to communicate. Boleyn is correct in his stance that communication is mandatory, a fact that is reflected in policy. Commentary should be directed to his user talk page. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 23:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Magn9359

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

---

I have repeatedly tried to communicate with this editor about creating unreferenced articles, but they refuse to respond or address the issues. Please see User talk:Magn9359#Sources for details of the pages, plus User talk:Magn9359 contains many other ignored messages. Boleyn (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:BP Jedwabne pogrom - request for blockade

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

---

Current Israel-Poland tension around new law disrupts that page and there are vandalism claims on history - I am asking for a blockade until emotions stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.182.136.20 (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

What 'emotions'? I went and looked at the page in question: Icewiz put a POV tag on and went to the talk page to explain their concerns. You removed it and came directly here? No. Go discuss it. This is premature as all hell. --Tarage (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

You also failed to notify ANYONE. Bad form IP editor. --Tarage (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Accusations of socking/possible IP socking at: WP:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_authoritarian_regimes_supported_by_the_Soviet_Union_or_Russia

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

---

Things are starting to get hairy over at WP:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_authoritarian_regimes_supported_by_the_Soviet_Union_or_Russia with one accusation of socking and a couple !votes from IPs. This is clearly a contentious issue, as the original AfD was reported in a closed discussion above this. ANI does attract attention, doesn't it? I'm not specifically accusing any user of wrongdoing, but wanted to get some admin/experienced user attention on what is a contentious AfD. I start to get concerned when I start to see !votes from IPs that have no other edits than to either the article in question or the AfD process. Thanks in advance, Jip Orlando (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Semiprotected due to IP edit-warring to deceptively change !votes. Guy (Help!) 00:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Repeated blanking and reverting by uncommunicative IP editor at 95.132.146.180

The following discussion is closed. 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 today I rolled back what I incorrectly interpreted as two unhelpful edits on an article -- by an IP editor, with no edit summary -- and simultaneously posted a Twinkle editing test notice on the IP's talkpage. The editor reverted my edit on the article, this time leaving a curt edit summary that indirectly explained the intent of the original edit. All would have been fine at this point, albeit a bit late. But the editor also reverted my Twinkle post on the IP talkpage, instead of leaving an explanatory message. I found this to be inappropriate, and restored my message, adding a note. The IP editor simply reverted my edit, leaving an unhelpful edit summary. This was repeated two more times, me using rollback and adding warnings re disruptive editing, the IP simply reverting these and blanking the page.

This is not a big deal, and it arose out of an innocuous misunderstanding that would have been avoided if the IP editor had deigned to leave an edit summary in the first place, (something the editor seems rarely inclined to provide). But in any case, I don't think it's appropriate that the IP editor repeatedly blanked the IP talkpage instead of discussing the issue.

Please note: I first reported this incident at AIV, an error due to my acting in haste and not really thinking about the nature of the incident. Please let me know if I should be at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring instead, or elsewhere, or if you think this incident does not warrant attention at all. Thanks in advance for your comments. Eric ^talk 03:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:TALK all users are free to blank their talk pages. That action assumes that they have acknowledged the message even if they chose not to respond to it. Also, please be careful in using the term rollback as that suggested you have the rollback tool which you do not. At this point, I would suggest letting the issue lie. The IP geolocates to the Ukraine, so I suspect there is a language barrier at play here. Blackmane (talk) 04:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Eric, once it was clear that those edits were not "test edits", then it was not appropriate for you to keep templating the IP talk page, repeating your "test edit" error. As Blackmane points out, it is perfectly acceptable for people to remove such warnings from their talk pages, more so if the warning was in error. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

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

May need range blocking

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

---

175.158.209.0/22 - some really annoying and persistent vandalism going on. BytEfLUSh _Talk 05:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Moved from AN:

Requesting range blocks for 175.158.208.*, 175.158.209.*, 175.158.110.*, 175.158.211.*. Persistent vandalism on Fire Emblem articles. See range contribs. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe the CIDR range is 175.158.208.0/22 EvergreenFir (talk) 06:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Follow the moving posts. Correct you are. Came off a one month block yesterday, now blocked for three. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Dilipankhiya continuing to create unsourced BLP stubs

The following discussion is closed. 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:Dilipankhiya has continued to create unsourced BLP stubs after a series of warnings. There may also be an element of sockpuppetry here: User:42.106.31.69 seems to edit many of Dilipnakhiya's creations and few other articles - see Vivek Dhakar for latest example, edited by the IP 4 minutes after creation, and Rajiv Mathur edited after 3 minutes. Dilipankhiya has not responded to the many talk page requests and does not appear to understand the importance of sourcing for all articles but especially for BLPs. A block might draw this to their attention. PamD 08:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indef. Swarm ♠ 08:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Static IP 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.

---

79.136.43.37 (talk · contribs) needs a block. They've been slow edit warring a rambling screed back in at Talk:Paleolithic diet ([157][158][159][160][161][162][163]), and pracing around their own talk page with some rather ignorant "gotcha" arguments and claiming that other editors are "pretending" something. I don't know what we're supposed to be pretending. All of that does little other than scream "I'M NOT HERE TO BUILD AN ENCYCLOPEDIA!!!" ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked for one week. --Jayron32 14:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

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

User Eduar17

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

---

Repeated wrong information and disruption from User:Eduar17. Batternut (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Second evasion of topic ban

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

---

One month ago, Avaya1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) violated his topic-ban from editing Israel-related content and was warned that he will be blocked if it continues: ANI thread. I noticed, he learned nothing and still doing the same: [164], [165]. @Cullen328, Drmies, Kudpung, Lankiveil, and SarekOfVulcan: pinging participants of the previous discussion. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• I would be in favour of an indef, but I'm concerned with the semantics of the TB as pronounced by my learned colleague Drmies. Not being a spcialist on nationhood, ethnology, or world religions myself, I'm not sure if 'Israel related' applies to all articles mentioning, or about Jews in general. If it does, then this is a clearly tendentious editor and clearly an indeff at this stage is warranted, and I would have no hesitation at pressing the button. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Kudpung: In the first diff provided, he edited info about pre-independence Israel (scroll down). In the second one, he edited article about Israeli company. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

(ec)While I would be equally cautious, I think that although the first diff is in a historical context, it removed a reference to the modern state of Israel. Not knowing the background of the editor in question they could be pro-Israel (then the edit would be acceptable in itself while still violating the topic ban) or they could be anti Israel (then the edit would be both disruptive editing and violating the topic ban). The second edit shows that they still skirt around the subject. Agathoclea (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Agathoclea: "the state of Israel" part was added by him two minutes before: [166]. Still, I'd say that Zionism, which is foundation of Israel, is within the area of the topic ban. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Looking at those diffs, I'm hesitant to call those violations. In the first one, he seems to have promptly corrected the mistake of referring to Israel, and I'm not sure that the second one wouldn't be stretching broad construction a bit too far. The case could be made, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yeah, I'm with Sarek, more or less. The second, no one should block for that. Then again, User:Avaya1, dancing around the edges of a topic ban is never a great idea. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• I think another warning/reminder will suffice here for now. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Threats on userpages

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

---

Please see this and this. Administrator attention is requested. Thanks in advance for any assistance. Scr★pIron^IV 17:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Already dealt with.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

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

InternationalSupporter3

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

---

On Sheffield Eagles and related articles, User:InternationalSupporter3 has been removing references and making unsourced changes, e.g. [167]. Repeatedly warned for several months, no response to any of the warnings, evidently doesn't care. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week. --Jayron32 16:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Dunav osiguranje

The following discussion is closed. 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:Mihailo79 has violated WP:OWN and WP:NOR in Dunav osiguranje article, putting promotional content of, supposedly, the company he works for, and even put several image files of himself in the article. Also, he reverted my edits ([168]) in which I have removed these images and later on my talk page pointed that he has crated the article and is actively maintaining it. Also, that this article is "practical part of his doctoral dissertation" and that it is better to stay the way it has been before (my edits) so that he doesn't need to remove content himself (which he eventually did). For more of that talk, see here: [169]-AirWolf ^talk 14:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

This is great discusion. May i say, the real Wiki delicacy. Looking forward for positive solution. Mihailo79 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Mihailo79: The positive solution is for you to realize we're an encyclopedia and not your playground and act that way. One more edit like this and you'll probably be blocked for a good long time. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Dzabe se trudis. Na ovoj enciklopediji malo tko ce ti procitati taj rad. Trans: You're wasting your effort. On this encyclopaedia very few are going to read your work. Ali kako god okrenes, ovde nemate svoj clanak. Zato ako vec pises, drugi ce ti poporavljati i preradjivati stagod napises kako god treba da bude enciklopedicno. However you look at it, you don't have your article here. So if you're already writing, others are going to fix and adapt your work however necessary for it to be encyclopaedic. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ja apsolutno nemam ništa protiv unapređivanja svakog članka, pomaka na bolje, ali smatram da je svako prerađivanje članka u lošiju verziju loše za wiki zajednicu. I have apsolutly nothing against upgrading articles in better condition, but i think that it is not good for wiki comunity to upgrade in the worse article. Mihailo79 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Dobro. Jednostavnije je objasnit zasto se ove promjene prave nego sto jesta komentarisat samo onako. Galerije slike se rijetko koriste ovdje ali kad se koristi mora imati neki razlog. Kao za primjer, slika zgrade je mogla ostati. Nikakav problem sanjom nema. Ali ostale slike nemaju nikaku directnu relaciju sa subjektom clanka. Slika Kim Kardashijena nema nikake veze satim sto je napisano. Skoro svaka "insurance" kompanija daje zivatno osiguranje. Pogotova svaka kompanija ima "coffee break". Drugo, enciclopedija nije mjesto za pisat oglas. Sto se kaze "stick to the facts" - recimo prevodjeno da to znaci "ostani sa podatcima". Ovo "Dunav osiguranje is a modern company, a leader in the Serbian insurance market, and the only Serbian company registered in all types of insurance in the country" je misljenje a ne cinjenica. A zadnja vazna stvar je da sve, manje vise, mora imati citat(?) koji je provjerljiv.
  Ok. It's simpler to explain why these changes are being made then it is to just commentate. Galleries of images are rarely used around here, but, when they are used, there has to be some reason. For example, the picture of the building is fine and could have stayed. There's no problems with it. However, the rest of the pictures don't have any direct relation with the article subject. A photo of Kim Kardashian has nothing to do with what's written. Almost every insurance company has life insurance. Especially, every company has coffee breaks. Second, the encyclopaedia is not a place to write adverts. What we call "stick to the facts" - approximately translate to mean "stick to the facts". This "Dunav osiguranje is a modern company, a leader in the Serbian insurance market, and the only Serbian company registered in all types of insurance in the country." is an opinion and not a fact. The last important thing is that everything, more or less, has to have a citation which can be verified. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Proizvode koje sam naveo ima samo Dunav u zemlji i svetu. Slika je vezana za poslove osiguravajućih kompanija i sve su uklopljene tako da odražavaju sliku, misiju i viziju Kompanije Dunav. Wiki zajednica je prihvatila ovu stranu u ovom obliku duže od godinu dana. Sada su se javili pojedinci koje te slike vređaju, kojima te slike smetaju. Enciklopedija ne treba da bude suvoparna i da odbija ljude od čitanja članka već atraktivna u svakom pogledu. The products i have mentioned are rarity and only Dunav osuguranje got tham in portfolio in the Serbia and the World. The picturey are connected with the mission and vision of Dunav osiguranje. Wiki comunnity has acceptes this page in this form for more than a year. Now some individuals find tham offended with these pictures. Encyclopedia shouldnt be boaring but attractive in every way. Best regards, Mihailo79 (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Please provide reliable, independent sources for any edits you make to the article. That means finding news, scholarly or industry articles or similar sources to support any claims of fact. Currently, the only claim in the article which seems to be reliably sourced is "The company gave its own building, Grmeč cafe in Belgrade downtown, to painters to use it as a studio." I sense an AfD in the near future... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

You sense poorly MPants. Its last AfD closed as a keep and for good reason. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Then I suggest you go get the sources that were in the article then and add them back in. Right now it's all primary except for one claim, and that's not even remotely kosher. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Side note: If you really must use both Serbocroatian and English here (though, I'm not sure it's allowed), at least first write the English message and then the other one, preferably within the <small> tag.
Usput: Ako baš morate da koristite i srpskohrvatski i engleski (iako nisam siguran da je dozvoljeno), makar prvo napišite poruku na engleskom, pa tek potom na srpskohrvatskom, unutar <small> tag-a.

Regarding Dunav Osiguranje, I agree that it's notable, but the previous version was really awful. It read as an advertisement (still does, somewhat), and I can only agree with this edit summary from NeilN. BytEfLUSh _Talk 20:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• No problem. The switching between languages wasn't absolutely necessary, it was a choice for communication purposes. I didn't think of the small tags though, that would have been a good idea. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Would you buy a used insurance policy from this man?

-EEng

@Mihailo79: What are you doing? You are adding primary sources once again, and the WTF gallery is back: [170] after you acknowledged that you will play by the rules. BytEfLUSh _Talk 07:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

You are violating the freedom of Wiki comunity. Sham on you. Mihailo79 (talk) 07:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

What freedom? What exactly are you trying to accomplish here? You are violating Wikipedia policies over and over, even after so many warnings not to do so. BytEfLUSh _Talk 07:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I dont know what are you talking about. That wiki page was the part of my PhD that i am finishing. Now you are destroying my work. I cant be happy about that. What ever you do think about what is good for wiki community. That old Dunav osiguranje was good for wiki comunity. Dunav has old public capital, it is the Company of all serbian sociaty. From the street singer to the president. All that text and gallery points on that. Dunav osiguranje is the only company in the World that still has sociaty capital. Fact. I wrote only the facts. Mihailo79 (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Let me translate this gem from AirWolf's talk page:

I created the page and I'm keeping it updated. Creating Wiki articles is a practical part of my PhD on Marketing metrics. (emphasis mine) My work already cites the Dunav osiguranje Wiki page, and I have described it in details in my thesis that I should be defending soon. I would ask you to please keep the page as it is right now so that I don't have to re-do my work. It's entirely about the style, there's nothing wrong about the relevance of data, Wiki community doesn't enter into conflicts regarding esthetics and style.

Obviously here to create an encyclopedia, right? Mihailo79, or anyone else, if I made a mistake in translation, please feel free to correct me. BytEfLUSh _Talk 07:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The way Mihailo79 is treating the gallery section in the article makes it obvious that he is treating Wikipedia as a playground rather than an encyclopedia. It appears that a block will be the only way to stop this behaviour. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree a block is needed. [171], [172], [173], [174] Seems to be mainly here to promote the company and himself. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Enough already. User is very clearly not here to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. Indef block applied. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Some crazyness going on here

Resolved

There's a bit of an edit war going on here. Somebody unfamiliar with Wikipedia (for whom I also suspect a WP:COI) has created an unnecessary disambig page by cutting-and-pasting from RTV. They've largely messed everything up and just revert all my attempts to simply create a redirect to iNews. Help a brother out? Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 10:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a follow on from indonesian speaking only sock(s) who were playing with tv articles to do with Indonesia from a week or so ago JarrahTree 10:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Redirect page fully protected to enforce talk page discussion. Amortias (T)(C) 12:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Looks as though we’ve got a cut and paste move in the history from INews TV to INews. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I’ve done a history merge so that’s taken care of. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Problems with User:Koala15's editing

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

---

Koala15 (talk · contribs) made this edit on Decker (TV series) and this edit on First Kiss (Kid Rock album) (amongst other edits) within the last week which removed a huge amount of valid content without any explanation or talk page discussion. Upon further examination of the user's recent contributions the following is clear:

• The user is a longstanding serial mass reverter and vandal. They have been blocked two times for similar behavior and have an exceptionally long history of removing content and reverting edits without explanation as well as persistent edit-warring. At least 30 Wikipedians including myself, and at least 3 Admins(Ad Orientem (talk · contribs), BD2412 (talk · contribs))(Edit third admin: Tokyogirl79 (talk · contribs)) have had numerous problems with their edits being reverted by the user with no explanation and general edit warring from the user. They continue this behavior even after being warned. (Edit: According to WP:Vandalism these edits are considered as such due to "The unexplained removal of encyclopedic content," constituting vandalism. I think after all the warnings he has received that we can define this as vandalistic editing.) [175][176][177][178][179][180][181][182][183][184][185][186][187][188][189][190][191][192][193][194][195][196][197][198][199][200][201][202][203][204][205][206][207][208][209][210][211][212][213][214][215][216][217][218][219][220][221][222][223])
  
• User has been warned at least 15 times about this behavior. ([224][225][226][227][228][229][230][231])
  
• User has been reported to the Administrators noticeboard at least 10 times for edit warring and general disruptive editing such as vandalism. He was discussed at length on these other occasions: [232], [233][234][235][236][237][238][239][240]
• There is a large discussion about him from 2 years ago at [241] regarding his civility and competence as an editor. He has clearly not complied with any of the advice given.
• EDIT: User has a long history of making uncivil remarks per the discussions at ANI.
• EDIT: User refuses to abide by WP:COPYRIGHT, has numerous infringements stretching back years.

This user has no place anymore on Wikipedia per all of this coming to light. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 01:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

As one of the participants in the above-referenced (July 2015) discussion of Koala15's editing practices, and with benefit now of two and half more years worth of evidence: Koala15 is incapable of learning from experience, from other editors, or even from the several corrective processes that have been prompted by those practices. The ability to learn is an essential component of competence as a Wikipedia editor. I join the OP in calling for a long-term, if not indefinite, block. General Ization ^Talk 01:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the problems are that severe; I'd like to see more recent diffs of bad edits and not just warnings, many of which are old. Koala15 certainly appears to have a communication problem. I look forward to hearing from that user. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't count on hearing from Koala15. A review of Koala15's edits in the article Talk space for the last 15 months shows that they enjoy creating Talk pages, but have almost never (possibly have never) engaged in a conversation with another editor in that space. They contributed only one comment to the discussion here that resulted in their most recent block, and then only after having been blocked. That comment sums up, I think, why we are here again. General Ization ^Talk 01:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

These two edits make in the past week are the only edits that I know of first hand from the user. They both lack an edit summary and involve mass removal of valid content, including sources. this editand this one. The user was blocked for this same behavior within the past year. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 01:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I would also add that the user has had multiple warnings to correct this behavior per the above links. The user has refused to abide by those requests. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 01:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I think both those edits are mostly fine. On the first diff, Facebook/Youtube links generally aren't included in articles; the prose diffs appear to be moves. (I can't defend removing the Requested Move notice, and have no opinions on categories at all) On the second one, no references are removed and I find the inclusion of 5 genres in the infobox to be preposterous. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

All the information removed in the second edit was included in the sources that were attached. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 01:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

If those two edits were done only in the last week, who knows what other kinds of blind removals the user has committed to. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 01:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is another recent edit with no summary and a confusing removal of information. [242] -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 01:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Another strange edit removing information of negative reception for an Ice Age film. [243] -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 02:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Another one. [244] -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 02:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

OK. I think a requirement to use edit summaries would be ideal, but if Koala15 isn't involved in the process that's simply a long and painful way of blocking him. I'll wait for feedback from other contributors before commenting further. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Just for good reference, here is another blatant removal of content [245] -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 02:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm pinging other users who have had run-ins with the user. @EauZenCashHaveIt:, @Callmemirela:, @Ricky81682:, @Kingofaces43:, @Politoed89:, @Tokyogirl79:, @Azealia911:, @Lagrange613:, @Softlavender:, @Wikimandia:, @Kingofaces43:, @HighInBC:, @StephenCezar15:, @Alansohn:, @Deathawk:, @Wufan10304:, @Beeteegee:, @NinjaRobotPirate:, @Eschoryii:, @Rtkat3:, @Doniago:, @MissTique:, @Sabbatino:, @DarthBotto:, @Iknow23:, @Musdan77: -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 02:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I've found another instance of vandalism [246] -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 02:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@R9tgokunks: please stop canvassing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, I was unaware of that being a thing. I haven't been involved in something like this before. I'll stop.-- Gokunks (Speak to me) 03:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Not helpful. WP:CANVASS exists to protect the institution of consensus-building from the subversive rigging of discussions. There's literally no attempt at consensus-building going on here, they're simply trying to make the case for a discretionary block from an administrator, and there is nothing wrong with soliciting additional input to help make the case for one. I don't see how you can ask for more diffs and then scold the user for attempting to solicit additional input. @R9tgokunks: I'm busy at the moment, but I'll be able to look in to this at some point tonight if no one else gets around to it. Regards, Swarm ♠ 05:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Despite the ping comment, I'm largely uninvolved aside from popping into an ANI proposing a block a few years ago with this comment. Seeing that this kind of stuff is still going on, it's clearly becoming a long-term waste of the community's time even if its seemingly low level disruption. As discussed in previous ANIs, the WP:ROPE should have been short years ago, so I'm unfortunately more inclined for longer-term blocks at this point if low level stuff keeps up (though I'm just repeating myself from my 2015 ANI comment at this point apparently). Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• I've noticed that while the discussion on his competence took place in July 2015, he was blocked in July 2017, and then literally a day after the block expired, he went back to the same edit-warring and reverting behavior as see in the two succeeding posts post-block.here and here His behavior is obviously unchanged per the recent edits I have pointed out. This is a grave situation and I feel preventive measure must be taken to keep this from happening again. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 03:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• Okay, so I've reviewed every diff. Two major things stand out to me. The 2015 discussion[247] that made a strong case for a longterm pattern of behavioral problems yet was closed without action (though the closer notably suggested that ARBCOM may be needed to deal with this user). And the June 2017 discussion[248] that made a strong case for, and resulted in, a block, and also resulted in the documentation of the resumption of the behavior that led to the block, immediately after its expiry. For this, Koala was warned, but no further action was taken. Let's be honest. Koala has over 100k edits. We don't sanction these editors lightly, ever, no matter how disruptive they become. Koala is a low-level offender, but a longterm one, and the biggest issue is their lack of communication. In my view, the appropriate response should be low-level, but longterm as well: Koala is to be blocked indefinitely. The block is to be lifted at whichever point Koala makes a pledge to simply communicate going forward, to engage in good faith discussion and, if necessary, to engage in dispute resolution whenever they become involved in any dispute. A simple pledge to behave how every other editor is expected to behave. Koala is to be taken at their word and unblocked without issue if such a pledge is provided, and no one will bother them further. If they don't live up to their word once given, the indef will simply be reinstated. I'll hold off in case anyone has a better idea, and if Koala is willing to give us such a pledge in the meantime, then great, no block necessary. But I think it's clear that a change is needed on Koala's part. This has gone on way too long. Swarm ♠ 07:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• I would be more comfortable with an outright indefinite block.
• The user has had many chances to atone, and has been nothing but uncivil and uncooperative along the way.
• The fact that I have dealt with the user first hand, two times this week, says alot about his editing style. It is overly brash, confrontational, lacks competence, implicitly vandalistic, and I don't see this situation improving.
• I also feel this user clearly doesn't care for the consensus aspect of Wikipedia, which is a huge red flag that this behavior will continue.

But,if no one else agrees with a flat long-term block, then I'd deal with that -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 09:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've looked as well, and I say go ahead, Swarm. As for the header of this discussion, I know the recommendation that new ANI threads should have an informative, neutral title is more honoured in the breach than the observance, but this header is really not right. I've changed it. Bishonen | talk 10:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC).
• Well... Koala15 is generally uncommunicative, but he's not completely uncommunicative. I know that he left at least one message on my talk page (diff). He also does some useful anti-vandalism mixed in with all the edit warring. I think an indefinite block is a little harsh, but I don't have an alternative to offer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• Can this be fixed with a 0RR restriction? Example text:

Koala15 is subject to a zero revert restriction indefinitely, with the exception of reverting obvious vandalism. If an edit made by Koala15 is challenged or reverted, he is required to gain consensus on Talk prior to reinstating the edit.

Would that do? Guy (Help!) 11:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we can manage without something that addresses the uncommunicativeness, Guy; he has been told off about it often enough. For instance, look at Koala's most recent edit on his talk (the first since November 2017), where he responds to a complaint about an unsourced article that he created. Apparently he has given references, but they don't contain the right information . A serious complaint, in other words. Koala replies that he does do research, and has got the information from "books and newspapers and stuff like that". And when he's politely urged to add the fruits of his research as actual references to the article, he doesn't reply, nor remedy the article's sourcing; he just goes on editing other articles. That's very frustrating for other editors, and seems unfortunately typical. He has also been upbraided about his lack of edit summaries, another communication issue, but nothing changed there either. Bishonen | talk 12:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC).

That is a superb example of Not Getting It, isn't it? Guy (Help!) 12:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

How about:

Koala15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to a zero-revert restriction. Koala15 is also required to cite sources for all new articles and all substantial edits. Koala15 may not replace sourced text with unsourced text.

Would that work? I am really looking at what ArbCom might do here, to avoid blocking. Guy (Help!) 12:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this would be a case for Arbcom, but I think Swarm has come up with the best suggestion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Endorse Swarm's suggestion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• I just reverted on Welcome to Happiness--but, Gokunks, "Investigation regarding your account is underway"--what the fuck? What the hell kind of heading is that? You're not a cop, and we aren't cops: if you can't phrase things neutrally and politely, just use the template. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't get why this editor is so mad at me, but I apologize for reverting his edit. I misread it. I also don't get why people are trying to paint me as some sort of vandal. I'm probably one of the most constructive editors on here. I've had disagreement with other editors but who hasn't? Would a vandal have created over 2,000 articles? I doubt it. Koala15 (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Koala15: No one is calling you a vandal. But your lack of communication is a serious issue. Do you understand why? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've sent the conditions I proposed above to Koala. In deference to JzG, I've given him a chance to agree up front, in order to avoid blocking entirely. Just to be clear, this isn't an attempt to indef a power user (I don't want or expect any indef block stick permanently), but an opportunity for them to correct the problem themselves and to go about their business, out of respect for their contributions. Worst case scenario, they fail to do so, and the indefinite block will act as a failsafe which can be conditionally lifted in exchange for harsher editing restrictions such as the ones Guy proposed. Swarm ♠ 19:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Koala is not a vandal and their contributions by and large have been constructive. However as noted above and over various other threads, their refusal to communicate is so pervasive that it is disruptive. I told them to stop a long time ago and was neither the first nor the last to do so. We have a wall of text above that can be boiled down to this... Koala needs to promise to make no more edits, including reverting, and or redacting content w/o an explanatory edit summary. That's it. If they will promise to do so then I think we can move on until/unless it becomes clear that they are not keeping their word. If/when that happens they should be blocked. No need for endlessly rehashing the obvious. @Koala15... are you prepared to promise that you will stop this very disruptive lack of communication? Understand that if you fail to keep said promise that any admin would be within their right to just slap a block on you without further recourse to ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ad Orientem: Uh...Ad? With respect, you just repeated exactly what I suggested yesterday and have already sent them on their talk page. Perhaps you could actually read and contribute to the discussion, rather than jumping in and declaring it pointless? I know you're a fairly new admin, but you will undoubtedly learn with experience that unilateral admin actions against users of this magnitude almost always fail to stick. If you want to actually do something that will make a difference in these situations, the response needs to be tactfully discussed, planned, and measured. Jumping into a long AN/I thread, attempting to "boil down" extensive discussion, and interjecting with your own unilateral solution is not especially helpful. Particularly when another admin is already negotiating with the user. Or when your idea is redundant to what the discussion has already come up with. Swarm ♠ 20:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I stand corrected. (bowing out). -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I am good with this. Thanks, Swarm. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Luigi Laitinen changing multiple birth dates without references.

The following discussion is closed. 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, I have spent a rather long time reverting edits made by User:Luigi Laitinen who is changing the birth years, days and months of Wiki subjects without any sort of references. I first noticed this pattern when Luigi Laitinen changed the birth year on an article I created (Mart Müürisepp) without reference or explanation when the birth year was previously referenced. I then reverted the edit and noticed the user's contribution page had countless incidents of the user seemingly randomly changing the year, month or day of individual Wiki subject articles with no explanation and no references for the changes. After a while of reverting these types of changes without references, I noticed that there are currently too many for me to manually revert at this time. I finally stopped at the article entry for Lin Han, which was edited by the user on 21 January 2018. If you look at this contributors page here [[249]], you can see that on 21 January 2018 and further back, there are so many that entries that have had the dates changed by Luigi Laitinen without reference. I am not sure how to proceed from here. I appreciate all input. Thank you. ExRat (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I took a look at Joan Cassis where Luigi Laitinen changed the year of birth from 1962 to 1952. The references already in the article make it clear that 1952 is the correct year. Accordingly, you reverted to a version that was in error, ExRat. She graduated from high school in 1970, and her age at death in 1996 was reported as 43. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't assume enough good faith. But, without any sort of references used by Luigi, it is so difficult to tell. Particularly, when there are so many articles that have had the dates changed and many already have references. There are articles going all the way back to November of 2017 that have had the dates changed. ExRat (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

BLP policy says that "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." If you see an article where an unreferenced birth date has been changed to another unreferenced birth date, the solution is not to revert. You have no way of knowing which date is correct. Instead, you should look for widely published reliable sources verifying the date, and add the best one or two as references to the article. If the date of birth cannot be verified, it should be removed from the article. Luigi Laitinen, do not change birth dates without providing a reference to a reliable source. Our core content policy verifiability requires this. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I would note that sneaky changing of numbers and dates is a very often used vandalism mode. I come across it so often that I once created a series of standard user warning templates for it, but they were deleted as duplicative of another series. (Well, I thought they were useful - I probably should have left them in my user space.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Umm. Looking at User:Luigi Laitinen's edit summaries, it seems clear that he is reconciling Article DOB and Person box data DOB, in articles where they do not match. So, this is more of a typo correction. User:Cullen328, AFAIK, he doesn't need to provide (additional) reliable sources, because they are already present in the articles, which are short bios/sports bios. User:ExRat I have checked your first 14 reverts, and he appears to have checked the DOB against the sources/article sources. The reverts have now placed incorrect info to the articles. (Look at Teodoro Mendes Tavares, in "college" in 1986, born in either 1931 or 1964? WTF??) ExRat, could you please self-revert these edits, so we don't look like an edit war is happening? (Sorry, dude). Will post offer of assistance on your TP. I feel that User:Luigi Laitinen is a good faith wiki gnome, who wants to be an asset to the project. Not a Vandal. Thanks!Tribe of Tiger (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Tribe of Tiger, you are correct that additional references are not needed if a reference to a reliable source confirming the date of birth is already in the article. You are also correct about Teodoro Mendes Tavares, since the existing reference to the Catholic hierarchy website verifies that he was born in 1964, not 1931. I have edited the article accordingly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help. I am sincerely sorry if I caused some chaos. I was honestly confused by the multitude of date changes without any sourcing and I suppose I believed there was vandalism happening. I will be more diligent in the future. I have offered User:Luigi Laitinen an apology on his talk page and have reverted my reverts (save one, the original article Mart Müürisepp, which I created and whose birth was referenced). I should have assumed good faith in the edits, but was a bit at a loss because of the lack of sourcing/inline citations and the great number of date changes. Once again, my apologies to all for wasted time. ExRat (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

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

User:TheRealBoognish reverting all edits to Kid Rock that aren't his, seemingly.

The following discussion is closed. 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 last reported this user last week for breaking 3RR with 5 reverts and general edit warring and behavior that seemed disruptive and inappropriate.[250]

The article that he was participating in this at was instead protected for almost a week. He has a history of editing that article many times per day that suggests he thinks he has some sort of ownership of the article, and has ironically accused others of trying to "control the article."

Granted, the user was very open to collaboration in the period that the article was closed. I was very hopeful. The article was unprotected and the user had made good edits to it. I decided to collaborate and change a few things to better fit what I see as what is more common on Wikipedia, I changed "Artistry" to "Musical style" per the content of the section, and I added a sourced interview stating that Kid Rock calls himself a Republican, including the fact that he calls himself such and I also differentiated liberalism with social liberalism.

My edits were removed by the user and he gave hollow or no explanations for the reversions.[251][252] I feel this user needs to learn to work with others instead of reverting everything anyone else does to articles. I have had to remind them twice that one cannot claim ownership of articles. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 09:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Did you read my edits at all? They aren't revisions, they are different changes, and not tied to keeping "my" version of the article, and I gave explanations of my changes. Many of them expand upon changes you make. It is clear that you are trying to prevent anyone else from editing the article in a way that you disagree with. I cleaned up grammar and condensed the repetitive prose. I added and expanded upon content. There was already discussion of Kid Rock's involvement with the Republican Party. "Republican" is not a political ideology or philosophy, it is a very specific political Party. You got to work with other people, not try to own articles. Also, we went over this, I did not break 3RR. Your behavior is unprofessional and disrespectful. Ypu don't discuss anything, and you flat-out denied instigating an edit war for no reason, claiming you are a neutral party when you were one of two editors repeatedly reverting the article when anyone made changes you didn't like. You are trying to push a your-way-or-the-highway approach to editing. I'm trying to remain civil. You haven't discussed any changes, yet you go to the noticeboard without trying to reason for the changes you are demanding? Why? And what purpose does repeatedly saying the same thing accomplish? Do you even read the articles or do you just want your "stamp" on an article in the form of bad grammar, misplaced commas and repetition? I suppose next you'll say that I've added no changes to the article. What's really the issue? That the section named "artistry" isn't named "style and influences", even though there's barely any cited information about his influences and the section covers more than merely his "style"? Can you please act like a mature adult for one week, be civil and discuss things? Delete this thread and start a discussion on the talk page. There is no call for this. You are wasting administration's time unnecessarily and not helping the article with endless bickering over style and not adding anything to the article. You got it locked for several days for no reason. TheRealBoognish (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• I changed it to Musical style, which is largely what is in that section. There is no mention of any other art than music. I can give you 10 examples of featured articles on Wikipedia about bands that use that same format. (see The Beatles, Nine Inch Nails) You gave NO reason for that change and did it stealthily. Every edit I have made to the article you have reverted or undone. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 10:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• That literally makes no sense. You're accusing me of making reverts so subtle they don't look like reverts at all. One could almost say they aren't reverts. Also, if music bios don't have Artistry sections, then what is this, then? Stop splitting hairs. User:R9tgokunks, there's no agreement to change the section name, and there's nothing controversial in the edits I've made. TheRealBoognish (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

R9tgokunksplease delete this noticeboard thread and discuss the issue here: Talk:Kid_Rock#Artistry_vs._Musical_style TheRealBoognish (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• This edit wasn't mine. I didn't revert it. Do you really think that I have nothing better to do than sit around reverting some article ebery time someone else changes it? Ever stop to think there might be reasons for my changes,R9tgokunksTheRealBoognish (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• R9tgokunks, it was protected for 2 days, not almost a week, and you made the ANEW report after it had already been protected, meaning that blocking at that point served no purpose. Please get the facts straight on that. Just from looking at the history, I can't see the obvious reverts at first glance. I'll let someone else handle this, but you need to show the reverts here, not just accuse someone who has different views from you of edit warring. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• Are there post-1932 American politics restrictions on the article? Seriously, good luck you two. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Incremental numbers vandal, round 4

The following discussion is closed. 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 incremental numbers vandal is back again after another 1 week block. See previous ANI threads. The vandal uses the IPv6 range 2600:1017:B024:0:0:0:0:0/40 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

A range block will probably have some collateral damage. If it were available, this would be a good use case for user agent blocks. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

2600:1017:b000::/40 blocked two weeks this time. There isn't all that much in the way of useful contributions coming from it, but if someone wants to shorten the block length, they can. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Demoreasimpson

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

---

• Demoreasimpson
• Demoreasimpson16

I have come across this editor in my comings and goings through the project. The editor seems to vandalize a radio station article in a minor way, (like changing the community of license), which seems to been his/her M.O. and moments later changing it back. Myself and another editor, User:L293D, warned the user on the original Demoreasimpson account. I added a Warn4im warning for obvious and continued vandalism and an obvious sock was created and the vandalism was continued. With either account, no "good edits" have been made and both accounts appear to be vandalism-only. I would ask for the offending accounts to be blocked and a CU to be run to see if any sleepers are out there.

I haven't created an ANI discussion for over a year or asked for a CU or a user to be blocked, so please forgive me if my interpretation of policy and/or where to start discussions is a little outdated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:48 on February 3, 2018 (UTC)

Both accounts have been notified of this ANI thread. I have also notified L293D, but solely because I mentioned him (in passing) in the above post. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:00 on February 3, 2018 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: You should have filed this at WP:SPI. Also, the master is Demoreasimpson16, not the other account. The master is determined by the account creation date, not the date of the first edit. In any event, this was pretty obvious. I've blocked and tagged both accounts. Thanks for reporting the disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23! :) Sorry, we used to be able to do quick CU requests here, but that was a year ago. :) Thanks for the blocks for those accounts. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:55 on February 4, 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Beyond My Ken

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

---

I am writing to request third-party involvement in a situation involving User:Beyond My Ken.

Early this morning, I noticed that a number of pages on my watchlist had recently been edited by Beyond My Ken. (I do not believe that I have ever interacted with Beyond My Ken before.) I also noticed that rather large chunks of sourced material (in some cases, multiple paragraphs) that I had added to various pages had been deleted with no discussion whatsoever. While I am mindful of WP:OWN, the subject lines of the edits didn't make sense to me and the deletions seemed a bit overboard. I undid the reverts and visited Beyond My Ken's talk page (User talk:Beyond My Ken), where I pointed out the problem, told him that I didn't appreciate his disruptive edits, and stated that I would seek third-party involvement if needed. Beyond My Ken responded with what I can only describe as a diatribe, accusing me of being "here to do hit jobs on politicians you don't like, and promote those that you do" and adding that "any article about a Democrat that you edit -- such as Andrew Cuomo and Bill de Blasio -- you add as much dirt as you can find -- violating WP:WEIGHT and at times WP:BLP -- and on any Republican or conservative's article -- such as Kathy Marchione -- you add as much styraightforward promotional material as you can..." Beyond My Ken added that he intended to continue to revert my edits. Two other editors (one of whom I have had disagreements with) made comments in support of Beyond My Ken. Beyond My Ken then reinstated his reverts of my edits, referring to me as a "POV editor." Rather than continuing a non-productive conversation, I came here.

First, I believe that Beyond My Ken has violated WP:PA and WP:HOUND.

Second, the material he deleted was NPOV, was notable, and was sourced.

Third, the accusations are not true. I do edit pages that have controversial content, and I do edit boldly. However, my goal is to improve every page that I work on and to produce pages that are balanced, well-written, well-sourced, and neutral. I don't believe I have violated any Wikipedia policies. I have edited the Wikipedia pages of many members of both major political parties, and I believe that I have improved those pages and treated the subjects of those pages fairly. If anyone truly believes that my edits have resulted in an article that is slanted, I am open to input and willing to work with others to restore NPOV. However, I don't appreciate disruptive edits or personal attacks.

As required, I have notified Beyond My Ken of this discussion.

Thank you.

SunCrow (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Break out the boomerangs. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 23:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Yep, the "WP:NOTHERE boomerang". - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 00:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I've dropped that standard ARBAPDS warning, but I suspect that given stuff like this it probably won't be necessary, as they won't be here much longer. Black Kite (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

[edit conflict] look at SunCrow's contributions to Family Research Council and its talk page should show how their definition of NPOV is wildly at variance with how it's actually used. --Calton | Talk 00:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• You need to provide specific diffs. I'm not going to go digging around all yours and his contribs to figure it out. I would also note that NPOV has nothing to do with sources per se. Your understanding of "notable" seems flawed here as well, since an individual fact isn't "notable". More importantly, if you are going to accuse someone of hounding or personal attacks, you MUST provide evidence in the form of diffs. Otherwise, you are casting aspersions, which IS a policy violation (WP:CIVIL) and we don't need a diff for it because it is right here on this page. Put up the diffs or withdraw the claims, please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Move to close with no action: I'm going to suggest we be charitable here and close this as a pure content dispute, which, on the face of SunCrow's complaint, it is. There's no suggested motivation for the claimed wikihounding; in fact, apart from the use of the term, there's nothing to suggest its presence in the complaint. In fact, without more, checking out someone's other edits after encountering something you think is out-of-policy is both normal and acceptable. As SunCrow says, I do not believe that I have ever interacted with Beyond My Ken before. Where there's no history of difficult interactions, it's probably impossible to make a case that there's wikihounding. And, again, this is entirely on the face of SunCrow's complaint: It does not take into account anything we know about either SunCrow or BMK. Based entirely on that, it's a content dispute dressed up to be a behavioral dispute. And on that basis, I think we should be charitable and just close this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • When someone says First, I believe that Beyond My Ken has violated WP:PA and WP:HOUND., I really can't just close it and ignore their complaint. IF BYK has done something that is too aggressive, then we need to address it. The other stuff is more content related, but the quoted portion is a strong accusation that I can't just blow off and close over. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
    • You only need to look at Family Research Council, where this editor has been reverted by four other editors in the last two days, to see what's happening. BMK has seen one or more of their excessive POV edits at one article, and then looked at what else they've been posting - and reverted that as well. This can be closed, with a warning to SunCrow to stop throwing POV edits at such articles and then edit-warring over them, which the ARBAPDS warning should hopefully achieve. Black Kite (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
      • • SunCrow is annoyed at a series of reverts of SunCrow BMK made on Feb 1. I concur with Black Kite that BMK saw a POV edit and checked what else SunCrow was up to. This is not hounding, it is normal checking for other problems after finding one problem. Legacypac (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Move to Close with Admonishment of SunCrow

The discussion at the bottom of User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken should have headed off this ANi but it did not. There is zero basis for the complaint and User:SunCrow needs to reread and take to heart the advice given them about POV. Legacypac (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

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

User:PumpkinSky and User:HalfGig

The following discussion is closed. 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 has been annouced on Commons that User:HalfGig is an illicit sockpuppet of User:PumpkinSky, and has been used to cheat with voting on 96 Featured Picture Candidates. Both accounts are now blocked on Commons and likely that PumpkinSky's admin bit will be removed shortly.

No evidence of such wrongdoing has been indicated for the Wikipedia accounts, but per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, I don't believe it is permitted for PumpkinSky to operate both accounts here. My guess is that the HalfGig account was created in order to continue to participate at Feature Articles after the PumpkinSky account had become toxic to the community there. Users with long memories will recall that PumpkinSky is itself a clandestine sockpuppet of User:Rlevse. -- Colin°^Talk 11:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think at the very least User:HalfGig must be indefblocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Having checked the users, there is both technical and behavioural overlap inconsistent with our Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy. Both accounts blocked - TNT^❤ 11:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Ownership and false citing

The following discussion is closed. 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:Beyond My Ken, who in past encounters has proven quick to anger and condescending, is now owning the article Crusader Rabbit to the point where he will not allow an editor to even add archival links to an existing citation.

More troubling is that he insists on including falsehoods — specifically, claiming that cited sources support specific claims when they demonstrably, objectively do not. When I tried to discuss this on the article's talk page, he told me I had to mark the unsupported claims with a citation-needed tag. Aside from the fact this would result in a sea of tags, isn't the onus on whoever inserts or reinserts information to WP:VERIFY it?

I've tried twice over the past few days to remove unsupported claims and add an archival link, and he twice wholesale-reverted. Can an editor be allowed to own an article so much that he won't allow archival links, and to knowingly leave false citations? --Tenebrae (talk)

"The fact that you're knowingly making falsehoods — falsely claiming that a cited source supports the information when you know it does not" You are being highly disingenuous, here. No where did BYK say any such thing. I don't see anything wrong in BYK wanting to discuss your proposed changes on the talk page. Casting aspersions and failure to assume good faith, is a problem though. Ken wants to create a great experience for our readers, just as you do. I think this can be talked out on the talk page. --Adamfinmo (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

(random person weighing in) Discuss it on the talk page. Also, if you don't want unsourced information, Wikipedia probably isn't the right place to be. I agree that things need to be cited, but sometimes circumstances make it difficult to cite properly, and otherwise there's huge gaps in the article. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 19:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

"if you don't want unsourced information, Wikipedia probably isn't the right place to be." That's the opposite of our core policy, WP:VERIFY. No, we are not supposed to be going around adding unsourced claims. I can't believe anyone would suggest we should. Additionally, it's not "unsourced" — it has a source, but a false one that doesn't support the claim. Pretending to add a source when you know it's false is a deliberate falsehood.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it's good to have unsourced material, I'm saying that many articles are hopeless unsourced messes that can't be deleted because they're notable, and there's too many of them to deal with in a timely manner. Deleting anything unsourced is bad too because then there's huge gaps in the article and it's incoherent. Check this one out, for example. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 20:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not certain why Tenebrae felt it necessary to escalate a simple content dispute into a mess of unsupportable behavioral complaints, but there is indeed a discussion ongoing on the article's talk page, where content disputes generally get dealt with, and I am participating in that discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Add "CN" to the end of "aired on KNBH (now KNBC)" - Problem solved, Now I would suggest Tenebrae closes this and continues discussing this on the talkpage which is what they should've done in the first place, Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill!. –Davey2010^Talk 20:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I notice no one here is mentioning the refusal to allow an archive link. WP:OWN is a genuine issue when one editor will not even allow an archive link — which I tried to do twice and mentioned on the talk page, to no avail. I can't add "CN" or anything else since another editor will not allow me to edit the article whatsoever. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

There's a stark difference between owning an article and reverting a disruptive editor ..... You're nuking almost the entire article over sourcing issues .... Nuking isn't the answer not when it's an article like this anyway, Drop whatever stick you have, Close this and go focus on something else (preferably that doesn't involve nuking!). –Davey2010^Talk 20:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Your term "nuking almost the entire article" is completely false. We're talking 1,100 characters — not words, characters. Anyone is free to see by my edit that your "nuking" comment is incendiary and inaccurate. We're all entitled to our opinions but we're not entitled to make incendiary, inaccurate claims about fact.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a fact, You are almost nuking the article, As I said add a CN tag to those that fail your "high sourcing standard" and then move on, As I've said this entire report is premature and in short assumes Bad Faith. –Davey2010^Talk 20:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*Support a boomerang trout and expression of stern displeasure for the filer in the area of WP:OWN and for not working this silliness out at the talk page and simply adding a cn tag in the article. Sheesh. What a waste of ANI bandwidth. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

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

70.79.149.167

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

---

70.79.149.167 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I am not sure whether they are a sock or not but for their POV pushing they have been already blocked twice, last time by me for two weeks, and they still continue [253] [254] . I am afraid they are in need of a longer block. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I would like to inquire what is questionable or historically incorrect about the changes that I have made and why am I being threatened by this editor. Your explanation will be appreciated. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.149.167 (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Ryan Hampton (Author)

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

---

Hi, I work with Ryan Hampton, the author of AMERICAN FIX. His book is currently published by Macmillan/St. Martins Press. See here: https://us.macmillan.com/author/ryanhampton/. I am trying to submit him at articles for creation for someone else to consider writing an article about him. He is considered in the United States as the lead activist on opioid related issues and has plenty of notable references to back it up (NYT, Slate, WSJ, etc.). However, when trying to create a title under RYAN HAMPTON (AUTHOR) it says the name is banned and to contact an admin. Since I am close to the subject, I am only requesting an article for creation under his name. Since his notability is verifiable, is there a way to have the ban on his name lifted and his background submitted to articles for creation? Please let me know. I will disclose my closeness to the subject in the article when submitted. Thank you! D4g2018 (talk)Garrett Hade —Preceding undated comment added 02:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you should try here Wikipedia:Requested articles, with this much coverage HuffPost, Forbes, LA Times, seems like Ryan Hampton (author) should pass WP:GNG. Heiro 03:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Or better yet here Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By profession under the author section. Heiro 03:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

If there is some kind of ban on this topic then the discussion belongs, at least for now, on one of the Admin noticeboards. Unfortunately this is outside of my competency which is why I suggested they take it to WP:AN, although they seem to have landed here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Weird, I followed links to the blacklist pages, searched the archives, no mention of Ryan Hampton, with or without (author), popped up. Heiro 03:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Gaming the system - vandalism user:Rickyc123

I would like to bring ANI attention that @Rickyc123: for I think he might have commited vandalism of gaming the system as he has done for many months. I post it here instead of at AIV as it a long list and not obvious vandalism which one could spot but need to go through many pages, diff histories, talk page, contribution page to notice. (a) copy and paste draft article (while the draft articles were waiting to be reviewed and create the articles under his name (b) delete draft article content and informed the article is not suitable and redirect to other page. Later recreate the same page by copy the initial editor draft content and created as his own (c) created many subjects with 30 words each page, where the subjects have yet to pass the nobility requirements, and redirect to other pages. As other other editor want to create the subject when the subject has met the nobility criteria, the editor cant create them as they have been created and redirected. The editor could only remove the redirect tag and create the article and once the article is created, user:Rickyc123 redirect again and claim as his own creation. He has created page before and have been warned on not copied and paste other draft content to create his own, and should know not to create pages that cant meet nobility and direct it to namepage to stand by under someone create it and claim his own.

My assistance in Wikipedia is counter vandalism and I am an active mixed martial arts editor, particularly on UFC Ultimate Fighting Championships fighters pages and events, As such, I come to know most of the regular mma editors. I did not write anything on Rickyc123 talk page above this as the list is too long and the vandalism has been going on for more than 9 to 12 months, and conversation in talk page would not able to solve much as an admin/s intervention would be a better choice.

(1) Initial notice of User:Bennv3771 gaming the system - I came to know after Rickyc123 copied draft article (while still waiting for patroller to review the article) when @Bennv3771: tag a "Giving proper attribution per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia" message on Polo Reyes - see here [255]. I found out later Ricky123 had removed the tag -see here [256] and I restored the message back - see here [257] prior the page was restored to the original editor. Upon checking on Rikcyc123 talk page, I found out that he has done that to many other draft articles and make them his own - see here the message from User:Bennv3771 - see here below text and link here - [258]. I believe there are still some drafted copies he has copied and created as his own besides what was discovered by User:Bennv3771

(2) The Ultimate Fighter 27 / The Ultimate Fighter: Undefeated I had created a page on 9 January 2018 [259] and was reviewed by user:Abishe on the same day (00:56, 10 January 2018 Abishe (talk | contribs) marked revision 819420326 of page The Ultimate Fighter 27 patrolled - see here [260] and here [ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Ultimate_Fighter_27&oldid=819420326&diff=prev]. I noticed later on January 27, the page has been changed the creator to Rickyc123. Do note the page has been changed from "The Ultimate Fighter 27 (the original name which I created) to "The Ultimate Fighter: Battle of the Undefeated" and now is renamed again to "The Ultimate Fighter: Undefeated" - see here the change of names [261] and see here [262].

(3) Frank Camacho I wanted to created a article, title/subject name Frank Camacho, which was deleted four years ago on January 17 2014 -and also was AfDed on November 2, 2017 - see here [263], as the subject would be passed NMMA criteria on 27 January 2018 as the subject would have fought 3 top tier promotion fight. I found out the I could not create the title as it was redirect to List of current UFC fighters, same as like many others fighters. For such I wrote to Teahouse and seek for advise - Here is the full Teahouse conversation - Frank Camacho. After the communication on Teahouse User:WereSpielChequers has moved the creator back the Embryomystic, on the copy I have created on 27 January 2018‎. From the diff history of Frank Camacho - see here [264], I found out that User:Rickyc123 has redirected Frank Camacho AfD copy to List of current UFC fighters - see here [265].

Upon further investigation from his contribution page and talk page, I found out he has done that to many AfDed fighters page and redirected to List of current UFC fighters, which all the fighters do not have page currently and as well as other similar pages in WWW fighters, Tennis, and more. What he tries to achieve is to claim other editors work as his own by first created a few line of the subject then redirected to a namepage which associated to the subject. And when an editor has created the subject and got published, Rickyc123 redirected the page and make it into his creation.

Here are the pages without namepage page, either been AfDed or have not been reviewed/created which are directed to a namepage where Rickyc123 created a few line in hope of other users create them and redirect again to claim his own in the future. Here I some could find as one have to go line by line on this contribution page from beginning of 2017.

(i) Pages of MMA fighters without a page redirected to List of current UFC fighters - Justin Willis, Marcelo Golm, Adam Wieczorek, Dmitry Poberezhets, Aleksandar Rakić, Michal Oleksiejczuk, Marcin Prachnio, Magomed Ankalaev, Azamat Murzakanov, Trevin Giles, Oskar Piechota, Markus Perez, Julian Marquez, John Phillips, Tim Williams, Daichi Abe, Abu Azaitar, Davi Ramos, Matt Frevola, Wang Guan, Dan Ige, Martin Buschkamp, Grant Dawson, Merab Dvalishvili, Alex Perez, Benito Lopez, Mark De La Rosa, Raoni Barcelos, Boston Salmon, Said Nurmagomedov, Lauren Mueller, Deiveson Alcântara Figueiredo, Joseph Morales, Priscila Cachoeira, Emily Whitmire, Gillian Robertson, Shana Dobson, Montana De La Rosa, Melinda Fabian, Polyana Viana, Xiaonan Yan, Caio Alencar, Bryce Mitchell

(ii) Pages without a page redirected to The Ultimate Fighter: Undefeated - José Martinez Jr., Luis Peña (fighter), Ricky Steele, Kyler Phillips, Dulani Perry, Suman Mokhtarian, Bryce Mitchell, Brad Katona, Tyler Diamond, Jay Cucciniello, Allan Zuniga, Mike Trizano, Richie Smullen, Joe Giannetti, Thailand Clark, Aziz Pahrudinov

(iii) players without a page redirected to Southampton F.C - [[Will Wood], Alfie Jones, Jake Flannigan, Yan Valery

(iv) fighters without a page redirected to List of current Bellator fighters Leandro Higo, Ádám Borics, Carrington Banks, Logan Storley, Jordan Young (fighter), Carrington Banks, Jordan Young (fighter)

(v) fighters without a page redirected to List of current WSOF fighters - Bekbulat Magomedov, Ramil Mustapaev, Tyler Manawaroa, Shamil Gamzatov, Vagab Vagabov‎, Islam Mamedov

(vi) 2018 US open individual events to US Open (tennis - 2018 US Open – Women's Doubles, 2018 US Open – Mixed Doubles, 2018 US Open – Men's Doubles, 2018 US Open – Women's Singles, [[2018 US Open – Women's Singles Qualifying], 2018 US Open – Men's Singles Qualifying, 2018 US Open – Men's Singles

There more which I will take up many line to list them all such as 2018 Australian Open, The Championships, Wimbledon, World Squash Championship, Professional Darts Corporation which could be found on user:Rickyc123 contribution page from 2017 onward, and there are many other individual without pages below just to name some.

(vii) the pages without an article and redirected to namespace (just name some) -

• 70th Primetime Emmy Awards redirected to Primetime Emmy Awards,
• Alex Palmer ‎ redirected to West Bromwich Albion F.C,
• Nathan Trott redirected to West Ham United,
• Aaron Wan-Bissaka redirected to Crystal Palace F.C.,
• 2018 FA Cup Final redirect to FA Cup Final,
• Taila Santos to List of current Invicta FC fighters,
• and many many more.

Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Entities with no pages of their own are often redirected to entities which logically "contain" them. For example, songs without separate articles are often linked to an album, an artist, or a composer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:OWN, nobody can "claim the work of others", since nobody can claim any of their work as theirs anyways. There is no special perk to being the "creator" of an article, and such redirects are commonplace - I've made many myself, several of which have been expanded by others to full articles. ansh666 01:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with ansh666 that editor have some certain ideological ownership of content behavior, user is quite new in not long ago and not entirely proficient the policy guidelines, I don't think he is a vandal. SA 13 Bro (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I did leave this edit on Rickyc123's talk page when I realized many of the pages he created were copy-and-pasted from other users' draft's and AfC submissions (before the submissions were assessed, which resulted in them being declined because the "article already exists") without attribution, despite demonstrating that he knew how to move drafts to articles in the past. Those articles have been histmerged now and Rickyc123 hasn't copy-and-pasted another article since as far as I know. Bennv3771 (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I do think Rickyc123 has a case of WP:IDHT and lack of communication as demonstrated in their talk page history (most of the "negative" messages have been removed). Such as when he immediately recreated a whole bunch of redirects that had just been deleted per consensus. Perhaps Rickys123 needs to cool off from creating articles/redirects and brush up on Wikipedia policies regarding creating articles. Bennv3771 (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The point is when he create more than hundreds of redirect which (1) either the pages were AfD, (2) nobility no meet (2) when other editors create the page and he redirect to back to claim his own, (4) copy and paste of editors work while pages are still waiting to be review and caused the pages to be not review as the page had created. He has create pages before and what he intention is want ownership by stealing other ppl's work . What are we going to do with all the redirect without a page that nobility is not made? That is gaming the system which is a vandalism. I dont think he should have the redirect right and all ownership should be move back to the original creator. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I think seeing as this is about me, I should be able to defend myself.

1) Copy and pasting drafts: I am guilty of copy and pasting drafts. But this was while I still quite didn't understand the function of them. It was brought to my attention by User:Bennv3771 I have since found out about the move function and I have not repeated this since.

2) The Ultimate Fighter 27 situation All I did in this instance was change the name of an article by copy and paste as I don't know how to change the name of the article and when I looked at previous The ultimate fighters they used the official title of that season rather than what season it for example The Ultimate Fighter 25 is actually called The Ultimate Fighter: Redemption.

3) Redirects As for these I don't see what the problem is I'm redirecting people to somewhere which shows at least some information about the people they're looking for Such as when the MMA fighters are redirected to List of current UFC fighters viewers are shown what division they are in, their pro record, their UFC record and who their next fight is against. The footballers get redirected to something which shows their position, age and nationality. As for the tennis and darts events. The mini sub-categories are almost always redirected to the main articles and I even checked this by looking at previous years of the same event articles and this people never got any stick.

4) Taking Ownership I don't quite understand this one as how can I take credit for an article that like 100s of people edit on and I don't actually gain anything from creating an article or redirecting an article. I don't get how I can take ownership of an article. None of the articles in Wikipedia "belong" to me they belong to Wikipedia and I don't see what the problem is with redirecting articles.--Rickyc123 (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Rickyc123

User:Rickyc123 I do counter vandalism work and am an active MMA editor, for such, I do check pages/logs of your claim. On your claim (1) is not true. From you talk page in May 2017, you had been informed by User:Semper liber of you copied Semper's draft content and pasted onto your own creation and publish it - see here [266]. You deleted the message meant you have read it - see here [267]. You then apologized to Semper liber on Semper's talk page - see here - [268] and as well as apologies again at the MMA Project talk page - see here [269] where you were advised by User:PRehse copy and paste should be avoided at all cost and should move the page to name page to retain the attribution of the creator. Bennv3771 brought it to your attention was on December 2017 - see here [270], where you copied Bennv3771's draft Age Before Beauty (TV series) page and pasted to make it your own page. The evident showed you lied and re-offended again with insight of not to do so.

You attempt to evade your action by deleting the "attribution tag/message" by User:Bennv3771 on Devin Clark (fighter) and Polo Reye - see here [271] and [272] respectively. Further investigation from User:Bennv3771 you have copied other editor draft pages and pasted it to create you own - e.g. Yellowstone (U.S. TV series), Age Before Beauty (TV series), Thin Ice (2018 TV series), Kerman Lejarraga, Caleb Konley, Marco Polo Reyes, Devin Clark (fighter), Danielle Taylor (fighter)). It might be more draft pages you have copied and published your own, Adims could check the abandoned draft pages against your creation pages, which it might reveal more of such actions.

This would go back to you point (4) Wikipedia content is belong to Wikipedia as contribution is a collaboration effort from many editors however, the proper arbrituation need to be made. For your action, many editors draft or creation were either not being review since a copies have been made by you or redirect from you, that would make editors discourage and not create any content. Content of Wikipedia is the foremost agenda in Wikipedia core. No content no Wikipedia. What you do is do able to put your created page which you do not work of an put them on your user page WP:ownership - that is not the spirit of a Wikipedia and by using all the evasion and sneaky loophole or techniques, to me that is Gaming the system is a form of vandalism.

on point (2) and point (3) I create Frank Camacho and The Ultimate Fighter 27 and both of them were redirect and creation name became you before admin change Frank Camacho to the deleted draft editor who create the drat 4 years ago. You have create hundreds of pages (either they were AfDed, subjects which do not meet notetabiliy, or subject/event has yet to occur - such as US open but also subject that you had previous created and was Afed/CSD) and redirected all to a general name space - Question : why do you do that for?

If you are here to contributed, this does not fit your motivation. upon checking when do that, once the article is created, you redirect it to the general page and redirect back again and since you make the creation of the page first, you name is your creation. This is exactly what happen to my creation page The Ultimate Fighter 27. You use this technique as it is not easy to detect. This is if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck".

As I am familiar with the MMA pages in Wiki, here is the list I could find that your previous AfDed/CSD article which you created and redirect to List of current UFC fighters - Julian Marquez, Alex Perez (fighter), Kerman Lejarraga

And below are MMA articles were AfDed or CSD created by user:Kasabia33 because they dont meet nobility criteria even as todate, Azamat Murzakanov, Daichi Abe, Aleksandar Rakić (fighter), Boston Salmon, Gina Mazany, Lauren Mueller, Deiveson Alcântara Figueiredo, Davi Ramos, Oskar Piechota, Adam Wieczorek, Matt Frevola, Xiaonan Yan, Terrion Ware, Marcelo Golm, Benito Lopez, Martin Buschkamp, John Phillips (fighter), Joseph Morales (fighter), Trevin Giles, Danny Henry (fighter), Priscila Cachoeira, Raoni Barcelos, Magomed Ankalaev, Ji Yeon Kim, Merab Dvalishvili, Tim Williams (fighter), Abu Azaitar, Markus Perez, Grant Dawson,

You have created many articles yourself, and also went to AfD to protest some of your creation page for such you are well aware, no page should be created if the nobility is not meet and not to mention for those subjects have been AfDed. And yet you created them with a few line of info and redirect them to List of current UFC fighters. My questions is why you did you action such a manner, as it is your are WP:NOTHERE but trying to claim ownership where you could post on your talk page or under you creationlog, for this deter other editors who acutely wanting to contribute. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 18:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, Rickyc123, there clearly are problems with what you are doing. It may be deliberate, it may be caused by a llack of technical knowledge, but in any case you should probably stop creating articles and redirects for a while and familiarize yourself more thoroughly with our rules on copying versus moving and so on. I'll take one example: The Ultimate Fighter 27 / The Ultimate Fighter: Undefeated.

• On 16 December 2017, you created the latter as a redirect[273]. No problem.
• Between 9 and 14 January 2018, Cassiopeia and others created the former as an article[274]. No problem.
• On 26 January you redirect the former to the latter[275]. As that is the oldest of the two, this may not be a problem (I don't know the standard naming convention for these articles).
• At the same time, you changed the latter redirect into an article[276], by copy-pasting the content of the former article. The end result is that the actual work, the article writing by Cassiopeia and others, has disappeared, and that the article history now shows that you wrote the article instead[277].

This is a serious problem, and one you certainly should have been aware of after the same happened with the drafts. Fram (talk) 08:43, 29 January 2018 (UT

@Fram:, Thank you for understanding my points and explained in much better way than I could. User:Rickyc123 not only

(1) copied and pasted drafts copy from other editors while they drafts were waiting to be review and made it his own (because he could create page without going through Article for Creation progress and

(2) Create a page with only text "#redirect" and immediately redirect to a related main page (for example, such as tittle :Frank Camacho to List of current UFC fighters, and when the page Frank Camacho is created (in this case I created the page) then he redirect my copy back to his and his name would be the creator.

He create the page and redirect first for

(1) not being the page to be review as it has been redirected,

(2) because during his first create, the subject is yet to meet the nobility criteria (but will be soon),

(3) or the event has yet to happen yet ( will soon be happened) and

(4) he doesnt want to do all the research and adhere to the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia and steal other editor's work and claim his own. He done this not only to @Sember liber:, @Bennv3771:, @FrogeyesIT:, @Somethingwickedly: and @85.84.34.93:. and many more which evident will revealed once investigation is done.

Just look at his page creation log, why a editor created coutless of pages (my previous msg only contain a portion of the pages he created for redirect) with text content only one or two words such as #REDIRECT# and immediate redirect to a general pages. The evident on pages Frank Camacho and The Ultimate Fighter: Undefeated shows his intentions to claim his own his own later. On his page creation log, his submission pages (many) was either CSD, PROD, AfD until he steal other editor work sometime in May 2017 and pasted to published his own. And since Oct/Nov 2017 he starting to use the redirect method. I dont understand how could a page be created (without going through reviewer as it has not content and even it has will subject to AfD since it is not notable yet on the time of creation) and allow redirect immediately to other pages which by pass any change of review. It is not Rickyc123 does not understand the technical stuff in Wikipedia or Wikipedia policy on page creation, it is his way to do the minimum and sneaky way to make claim to show how many pages he has created where his contribution log revealed how many good faith/contribution edit he has done vs page creation/redirect pages and deletion of CSD & AfD tags. This is not the spirit of a Wikipedian, not here to contribute WP:NOTHERE, not here to collaboration, as he has confronted and informed of his actions where he apologies and did them again and again (and claim again later he didnt know) but his action a form of WP:Vandalism by WP:Gaming the system, which is similar to WP:PUPPET in a different way and it deters good faith editors to contribute. More will reveal when evident when investigation is done. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)

• @Rickyc123: Will you agree to refrain from performing any cut-and-paste moves in the future, without exception? Swarm ♠ 17:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

  There appears to be some history merges needing to be carried out here. @CASSIOPEIA: please could you tag the articles you've identified as requiring a history merge (to restore attribution) with {{histmerge}}? Failing that post the full list here. Thanks. fish&karate 11:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

  I've done the merge for The Ultimate Fighter 27 / The Ultimate Fighter: Undefeated. fish&karate 11:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

  @Fish and karate: Hi, That was my end goal: to restore attribution to the creator of the page besides what are we going to the repeat offender (ueserRickyc123) and I want to know could a page with a few word (page that could not met the GNG at all at that time of creation) be created and immediate redirect to a general related page without going through the normal reviewing requirement where the reviewer could find it on the NPP brower. Give me a day or two, let me search and investigate and find the links and articles. I will come back here and let you know as there are some more articles besides the 6/7 I know of (some have been restore attribution, some restore to the wrong creators. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 19:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Fish and karate:, {{@Fram:, I included @Anthony Appleyard: for Anthony Appleyard has histmerge the articles and thank you Anthony for checking and assistance, I run through the the below and with what I could find the copied and pasted by User:Rickyc123 have all histmerge and properly attributed to original creator by you. see below: There are 2 more

(1) Method: Copied from Draft from other editor and pasted make it his own

No	Date created	Page Name	By orignal creator - User name	Date created by User:Rickyc123	Histmerge Date	Histmerge By	Status
1	12/5/2017 [278]	Polo Reyes	User:Semper liber	6/6/2017 [279]	20/1/2018 [280]	User:Anthony Appleyard	OK - Proper attricubtion to orignal creator
2	26/5/2017 [281]	Devin Clark (fighter)	User:Semper liber	6/6/2017 [282]	20/1/2018 [283]	User:Anthony Appleyard	OK - Proper attricubtion to orignal creator
3	10/5/2017 [284]	Danielle Taylor (fighter)	User:Semper liber	6/6/2017 [285]	24/12/2018 [286]	User:Anthony Appleyard	OK - Proper attricubtion to orignal creator
4	12/J1/2017 [287]	Caleb Konley	User:SeosiWrestling	16/10/17 [288]	24/12/2017 [289]	User:Anthony Appleyard	OK - Proper attricubtion to orignal creator
5	14/1/2017 [290]	Kerman Lejarraga	User:85.84.34.93	16/10/17 [291]	24/12/ 2017 [292]	User:Anthony Appleyard	OK - Proper attricubtion to orignal creator
6	14/1/2017 [293]	Darren Till	User:Semper liber	6/6/17 [294]	2/2/2018 [295]	User:Anthony Appleyard	OK - Proper attribution to original creator

(2) Original Content with no content and immediately redirect another general related page without going through review / not in NPP list. Once other editor removed the redirect and create the content - the creator became Rickyc123 owned. There are about 35/36 of them, but I just put a few example here.

No	Create Date by [[User:Rickyc123]]	Page Name	Redirect to	removed fr redirect	Create content by	Page Curated Date and by	Histmerge By	Status
1	13/11/2017 [296]	63rd Filmfare Awards	#REDIRECT Filmfare	27/12/2017 [297]	User:Db135	13/1/2018 by User:Sadads[298]	N/A	No Proper attribution to content creator
2	16/11/2017 [299]	Craig of Creek	#REDIRECT Cartoon Network	3/12/2017 [300]	User:Spin Boy 11		N/A	No Proper attribution to content creator
3	16/11/2017 [301]	The Heroic Quest of the Valiant Prince Ivandoe	#REDIRECT Cartoon Network	4/12/2017 [302]	User:2601:2C0:C280:21A0:B870:2519:3AEE:7A46		N/A	No Proper attribution to content creator
4	17/11/2017 [303]	The Ultimate Fighter: Undefeated	#REDIRECT The Ultimate Fighter	9/12/2017 (original page name is The Ultimate Fighter 27) [304]	User:CASSIOPEIA	10/1/2017 by User: Abishe [305]	User: Fish and karate	No Proper attribution to content creator

(4) a series of #redirect with no content was deleted by Redirect team - see here [[[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 31#The ABC Murders (TV series)]] which I believe Rickyc123 hopes be the owner once the articles have creator by other and many pages have yet to put froward to redirect team for assessment where redirect without content - see Rickyc123 pages creation log.

There are also MMA fighters without content have been redirect List of current UFC fighters which I will report to wiki redirect later. There are as below Justin Willis, Marcelo Golm, Adam Wieczorek, Dmitry Poberezhets, Aleksandar Rakić, Michal Oleksiejczuk, Marcin Prachnio, Magomed Ankalaev, Azamat Murzakanov, Trevin Giles, Oskar Piechota, Markus Perez, Julian Marquez, John Phillips, Tim Williams, Daichi Abe, Abu Azaitar, Davi Ramos, Matt Frevola, Wang Guan, Dan Ige, Martin Buschkamp, Grant Dawson, Merab Dvalishvili, Alex Perez, Benito Lopez, Mark De La Rosa, Raoni Barcelos, Boston Salmon, Said Nurmagomedov, Lauren Mueller, Deiveson Alcântara Figueiredo, Joseph Morales, Priscila Cachoeira, Emily Whitmire, Gillian Robertson, Shana Dobson, Montana De La Rosa, Melinda Fabian, Polyana Viana, Xiaonan Yan, Caio Alencar, Bryce Mitchell which I will report to wikir edirect.

(4) Frank Camacho Originally created by User:Embryomystic on 10 January 2014 was deleted [[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Camacho]]Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Camacho. User:Kasabia33 recreated the page on November 1, 2017 and was PROD and CSD on November 2, 2017 [306]. I dont know the result of the PROD and CSD (can't find the info) and User:Rickyc123 redirect the page to List of current UFC fighters on [307]. I recreated the page on January 27, 2017 [308] and later found out the creator is User:Rickyc123 instaed of User:Kasabia33 of I. And question the matter in Teahouse#Frank Camacho and User:WereSpielChequers histmerge the original creator to User:Embryomystic. My question since the original creation was deleted why the attribution is not to User:Kasabia33 if his/her copy was not PORD or CSD?

Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 21:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• I have looked through the rest of the list of 18 article names in User talk:SoWhy#Deleted draft log. I found and histmerged one more histmergeable case: Draft:Darren Till to Darren Till. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Administrator note As he has stopped responding here, I have formally warned Ricky that continued cut-and-paste moves will result in a block. If that issue persists in the future, please file a new report and cite the warning given to him. Swarm ♠ 00:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. @Fish and karate: and @Fram:, I have added in the table one with the info histmerge done by Anthony Appleyard. Kindly review the rest as the above info provided and what actions would be taken. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Rapidly changing IP making lots of little edits

Take a look at the history of Robert Byron, 13th Baron Byron here. Lots of little edits by IPs starting 105.73.27. Similar things on the other articles edited by the IPs listed there, mostly to do with members of the Byron family. This seems to me to be rather suspicious, so, does this ring any bells, and what, if anything, should be done? I shall leave an ANI notice on the latest three IP talk pages. DuncanHill (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The range is 105.73.27.0/24. GAB^gab 22:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately no, it does. It sounds like a generic case of mass vandalism attacks. My suggestion would be to RPP the page, and move on. Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 02:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• @GeneralizationsAreBad: I don't know much about range blocking, can/should that range be blocked? Swarm ♠ 00:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: I just wanted to note that in case someone wanted to scan the range for further edits. No comment on blocking GAB^gab 15:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

User: Musashi miyamoto

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

---

There has been a long discussion on edits made by Musashi miyamoto on Talk:List of unsolved problems in physics. The problem began when Arianewiki1 reverted [309] Justification for these additions were they were simply questionable, and Arianewiki1 reverted them for multiple issues including no edit comments or questionable cites. Also was guidelines for Musashi miyamoto to go to the article's Talkpage to discuss.

They were notified in Section "Edit warring" by DVdm on 20th January, which later incurred a 24hour block for 3RR[310]. It was declined once[311], but were conditionally unblocked.[312]. Arianewiki1 (and others) have many tried explained editing policies under Talk:List of unsolved problems in physics#News edits and Talk:List of unsolved problems in physics#Reverting unsupported and improperly cited material.

There is now a continued problem 12 days later, especially in the wrong claim of ROWN - Revert only when necessary and the other editing responsibilities. This has crossed into disruptive editing.

The main issue now is with section Problem in astronomy, not physics and Arbitrary section break. Arianewiki1 again explained to Musashi miyamoto is ignoring basic editing policies.[313]

Musashi miyamoto response was here[314] and here[315]

Responses in these two links specifically include the statements:

• "You have also not explained why you point me to WP polices, which are not relevant to my edits." (I repeatedly have)
• "You again lie in your above text in virtually every single sentence, thus not being WP:Honest, WP:COOL, and ignoring WP:AGF, as well as you are WP:cherrypicking"
• "The fact that you attack me personaly additionally proves that I won the argument, because that's the reason why you attack me personaly - you cannot rebut my proofs, so instead you chose to attack me personaly"\
• " "Consider" means consider according to the rules described in WP:ROWN, and not 'consider' in an arbitrary way."
• "The burden of proof is on those who claim something, so if you claim that the sources are not reliable you have to prove it, if you claim that something I said is incorrect you have to prove it, if you point me to some WP polices, you have to prove that they are indeed relevant to my edits,..."
• " If you will be further personally attacking me by spreading lies about me and falsely accusing me of any wrong doing, or in any other ways, an appropriate action would have to be made via ANI to stop your abusing, disruptive behaviour." (A direct unwarranted threat, where [316] could never be construed as such.)
• "I have never attacked anybody. I am being under attack."
• "I can see now that there is a clique of people here supporting each other regardless of the facts. How pathetic! You should be ashamed of yourselves."

Clearly, there are multiple breaches of policy defying WP:DE and WP:PA: and more. Worse, this extends to other editors: XOR'easter, DVdm, Jordgette, Steve, who also disagree with Musashi miyamoto edits.

Arianewiki1 has further objectively responded to this here.[317] Further reading of response to Arbitrary section break shows no real justification for any of the points above.

Musashi miyamoto also has a history of other personal attacks such as "calling fellow contributors "sadistic perverts" or "dishonest""[318] which they admitted it, whose excuse was "... it was just a way to express how it looks how some editors behave, but it was obviously not a medical diagnosis, so this should not be understood literally but metaphorically." [319]

This continuing general pattern of disruptive behaviour must stop. I've made reasonable attempts to resolve this impasse without success and am only meet with deliberate obfuscation. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Arianewiki1 has made this note as a continuation of her/his abusive and disruptive personal attack against me. Arianewiki1 personally attacked me, without any provocation, among others by spreading lies and falsely accusing me of things I did not do, Arianewiki1 did it repetitevly, several times. I repeatedly asked Arianewiki1 to stop his/her abusing and disruptive behaviour and concentrate instead on the task at hand (example: "I once again ask you to behave reasonably, and focus on the issue of proving your POV, if you still disagree with my already proved POV, instead of personally attacking me without any reason."), that is proving her point of view by quoting reliable sources confirming her point of view, but Arianewiki1 ignored all my requests and have not shown even a single source proving her point of view. Instead Arianewiki1 started attacking me personaly and each time Arianewiki1 exacerbated her/his unfounded attacks becoming more aggressive each time, what proves among others that Arianewiki1 is not WP:COOL. Arianewiki1 does not listen what her/his opponent in discussion has to say, ignores what has been said or misinterprets what has been said, Arianewiki1 has not being WP:Honest, because Arianewiki1 was filtering out sentences that do not match her/his assumptions (She/he did it even in this ANI notice! All her/his accusations are groundless, and I can show it later).
When I provided 6 reliable sources to support the edit on inertia Arianewiki1 and 2 others said that they oppose it for the reasons explained in WP:FRINGE and WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYN, Arianewiki1 also added WP:Cherrypicking. When after looking at all those polices and finding that they are not relevant in any way to my edit, I asked them all individually, to explain and prove why they invoked those polices, none of them explained that or provided with any evidence despite repeated requests to do so. Thus, they prevent me from making a proper rebuttal, because without knowing why they pointed me to those polices, I cannot say anything apart from that that there was no reason to invoke them. That way, by remaining silent and not explaining or proving their actions, they disrupt a proper process to reach consensus.
As already pointed out to Arianewiki1 "The burden of proof is on those who claim something, so if you claim that the sources are not reliable you have to prove it, if you claim that something I said is incorrect you have to prove it, if you point me to some WP polices, you have to prove that they are indeed relevant to my edits, what's so difficult to understand about that? It is not enough to say that my view is allegedly wrong, you have to prove it that it is wrong, because you claim it that allegedly it is wrong, not me. I presented plenty of proofs that my POV is the correct one, and you just ignored them, and not presented any evidence to the contrary. Therefore I see no reason to abandon my views, because nobody proved that they are wrong."
Arianewiki1 persistently assumes lack of good faith contratry to WP:AGF. I had to remind her that she/he breaks WP:AGF already 5 or more times.
I am very busy, so I cannot reply in full now (it can be days before I can do that). I can give some examples of his/her inappropriate behaviour later, if there still will be a need to do that. In case you would like to see her/his behaviour now, please look at Arianewiki1 actions in this whole thread. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Musashi miyamoto: As already pointed out to Arianewiki1 "The burden of proof is on those who claim something, so if you claim that the sources are not reliable you have to prove it, if you claim that something I said is incorrect you have to prove it - either you're being sarcastic, or you clearly do not understand how burden of proof works. BytEfLUSh _Talk 21:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

"When a party bearing the burden of proof meets their burden, the burden of proof switches to the other side." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law) I have been saying this all the time. I proved my point of view with evidence (6 reliable sources re: unknown inertia origin), so then the burden of proof switched to my opponents in discussion. They had to prove anything they claimed in reply to my proofs, and they did not. So what are you talking about? Musashi miyamoto (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

You did not provide six reliable sources — "Calphysics.org" is not a reliable source. The other references are better, in that they were at least nominally peer-reviewed, but relying on them places undue weight on ideas with little currency in the physics community (note that one of them is a debunking of another; that the Google Scholar citations to Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff (1994) include "Science and the Akashic field", "Quantum shift in the global brain" and a paper claiming that general relativity is inconsistent with the existence of gravitational waves). Arguing that the meaning of inertia has been a question in the philosophy of physics is one thing; spamming us with citations which happen to mention that in order to justify your promotion of McCulloch's fringe theory is completely unwarranted. XOR'easter (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

First of all I did apply the rules of burden of proof correctly. You all who opposed my edits failed to provide evidence when the burden of proof was on you. Thus, you disrupted the correct proceedings to achieve consensus. You are not WP:HONEST by ommiting the fact that Calphysics.org only reprinted the Science paper. You knew that, because that information is very clearly printed at the beginning of the reprint. I added this link to Calphysics.org only for your convenience, so that you could read the paper for free and now you repay me for that by using it against me, how dare you really? The same thing was doing Jordgette reagarding paper in arxiv, which was printed in EPL. I assumed that experienced editors would know that if a paper on arxiv is printed that information is usually put there, and you would see it. Yet, you 'conveniently' for your false thesis, ommited that fact, and ignore it further even when pointing it out to Jordgette already three times. So what's wrong with you, people? Why are you doing this, if not to push your POV against WP:HONEST and WP:NPOV?
So all my 6 souces are reliable sources.
I do not understand what you are talking about further, because it was not me who was "Arguing that the meaning of inertia has been a question in the philosophy of physics is one thing" but my opponents, they claimed it to be philosophy, not me. So please do not put in my mouth statments, which are not mine, that is not WP:HONEST. The fact that those notable physicist have been working on the source/origin/cause of inertia has been already stated in the wikipedia article on inertia. I merely wanted to add this to Unsolved problems in physics, because that is an unsolved problem in physics, and I added later 6 reliable sources, which were lacking in the aforementioned chapter in the inertia article. You removed it now from the article without any good reason. You did it probably, because you yourself claimed "Most of the other items point to full articles, where references can be found", so by removing the whole chapter from the inertia article you most likely falsely want to claim now that there was nothing in the wikpedia article on inertia about looking for the source of inertia by notable physicists in Wikipedia article on inertia, to which my edit on inertia on Unsolved problems in physics pointed. The fact that one is debunking another (BTW, this is source no. 4, which I provided) proves my point that the cause/source/origin of inertia is unknown, because none of the hypotheses became a theory proved by experiment. This is mainstream reasearch, because there is no other reasearch on that than this (there are no other hypotheses as to the cause/source/origin of inertia), so what there is, is mainstream, and even if it wasn't there is no reason to remove it, becasue this is notable information with reliable sources, primary, secondary (article in Science) and so on.
What's that supposed to mean: "spamming us with citations which happen to mention that in order to justify your promotion of McCulloch's fringe theory is completely unwarranted.". Please stop falsely accusing me of spamming and promoting something (you violate that way WP:AGF), I do not spam or promote anybody or anything. I quoted this source, because it was the latest source (year 2013) published in a reliable journal (EPL), which said: ""The property known as inertia has never been adequately explained, and has been rather a neglected part of physic.". This way I was proving that this is still on going problem, that we still do not know the cause/source/origin of inertia. But if you do not like that source remove it. 5 others will still be sufficient. Though I think it would be a mistake to remove the most recent paper on this issue. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Linking to an unreliable site for a copy of a supposedly reliable source is terrible, terrible practice. What you are doing is the physics equivalent of telling people to go to Ray Comfort to get their copies of the Origin of Species. And as for the Inertia article, I removed that section because it's fringe POV-pushing in any article. And as for "This is mainstream reasearch, because there is no other reasearch [sic] on that than this" ... that's not how being "mainstream" works. XOR'easter (talk) 05:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

You can always look at the original, so I do not see a problem. Of course I can add the reference directly to the original, if that bothers you, that's not a problem. Anyway, there 6 reliable sources, not only primary but secondary and so on. You say that you removed, inserted by some editors long time ago, entire section in the inertia article "because it's fringe POV-pushing in any article.". I do not understand why you did it. Even if you considered it fringe, which it is not, that was not enough to remove it, especially that you did it without consulting this removal with anyone and removed the entire section of the article. The proper thing to do was to add sources to that section. It was easy to do, because I gathered all the sources required. Just because you consider it fringe does not mean that there is no place for it in wikipedia. There are plenty of fringe science in wikipedia, for example Emdrive. In order for a fringe information to be in wikipedia it has to be notable enough, and its notability is tested by seeing, if there are reliable secondary sources, so even if you considered it fringe, you should not remove it, because there are reliable secondary sources (the article in Science for example). So please do not edit wikipedia, 'as you please' or on a hunch, but only by following wikipedia rules. Please, also note, that someone asked two years ago to expand the section on origins of inertia, so it can be seen that wikipedia users are interested in that subject, and there are no wikipedia rules, which - with the sources that we have - should prevent them from seeing that in this wikipedia article. So I request that you revert your edit, which removed the whole section in the article on inertia, and add there the 6 sources, which I found (put the direct link to Science). Because otherwise you are not improving wikipedia, but quite to the contrary make it worse, and against the rules about fringe information insertion. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Please also note that the fact that in the inertia article on wikipedia are not given and explained now any sources/causes/origin of inertia at all, further proves my point that my edit about inertia on the List of unsolved problems in physics was a correct one, since when there are no explanations in the article on inertia what is the cause/source/orign of inertia, then this question 'What is the cause/source/origin of inertia?' should be on the List of unsolved problems in physics. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 07:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The text I removed from the Inertia article misrepresented the status of fringe ideas, presenting them as not-fringe. Simple as that. XOR'easter (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

That's not true, because the chapter says that these are speculative theories: "==Source of inertia; speculative theories==", so why do you say that it presented them as not-fringe? Even if if did present them like that you could have edited it, so that it presented them correctty. You do not improve wikipedia when you remove entire chapter from the article and all information from the article of inertia what is the source of inertia, and at the same time remove the question: "What is the source/cause/origin of inertia?" from the List of unsolved problems in physics. So please, revert your removal and edit it appropriately adding the 7 sources and in any other way you consider appropriate. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

He has also employed supporting techniques like WP:canvassing in a pair of users [320], [321]. That said, he seems to have said sorry several times about it. --MaoGo (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I did not know about that rule. This rule is counterintuitive, therefore it was impossible to obey it not knowing about it. I expressed my concerns about this rule here. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I second everything Arianewiki wrote and just wanted to add the additional background / context that Musashi miyamoto is an enthusiastic proponent of the EMDrive (see also Talk:RF_resonant_cavity_thruster/Archive_7), a WP:FRINGE physics thing that, if it existed, would violate the law of conservation of momentum. So his edits at Unsolved Problems amount to arguing that conservation of momentum is not a rock-solid, well-understood law of physics (as is widely believed in mainstream physics), but rather an unsolved problem. Now, don't get me wrong, there's nothing inherently wrong with people strongly believing fringe theories. But I definitely think there is something wrong with such people pushing those theories on wikipedia. (Indeed, I myself hold strong non-mainstream fringe beliefs on several topics, but I do not push those beliefs on wikipedia, I use my personal website instead.)

I don't know that there is a rule against editing topics where you have personal strong non-mainstream beliefs, but there should be; it is the common denominator to all the worst and most frustrating experiences I've had in my years on wikipedia, including notorious cases like David Tombe and Sadi Carnot, both of whom wasted probably thousands of hours of everyone's time (especially mine) before each of them got banned in separate ArbCom cases. Some strong early actions by administrators would have helped immeasurably. --Steve (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Please, do not put in my mouth words, which I did not say, this is not WP:HONEST! I am not "enthusiastic proponent of the EMDrive", I am not arguing that "conservation of momentum is not a rock-solid, well-understood law of physics", I do not "strongly believing fringe theories", I am not "pushing those theories on wikipedia". This is all figment of your imagination, in other words it's a lie. How dare you falsely accuse me of things, which I did not say and do not claim?
BTW, why do you say that Emdrive would violate 'conservation of momentum', when there are listed in the wikipedia article on Emdrive a number of hypotheses (which explicitly claim that conservation of momentum is preserved in Emdrive), which if some of them happen to be true, would show that it can work without violating conservation of momentum. To most of researchers, including NASA, Emdrive worked. It remains to be seen if it will be working in space, if it will then it will need further research, if not, that invention most likely will be debunked - it is as simple as that, there is no magic here, only science. Anyway, your remarks not only that are false, they are not relevant to these edits and discussion. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 05:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing is definitelly broken, because it creates hostile environment or atmosphere for editors who want to improve wikipedia, but who do not have time or stamina to struggle with aggressive and disruptive or abusive editors who push their POV disregaring all the evidence provided and the proper process to achieve consensus, as can be seen in this case. This discourages such editors from editing wikipedia, and as the result quality of wikipedia suffers. Such disruptive wikipedia editors use tactics like remaining silent, i.e. not replying to evidence and arguments which successfully rebuted their POV. Jordgette leads the way in this tactic by not replying to any of my replies successfully debunking her untrue statements, even when I explicitly asked her to reply. If this tactic would be cosidered sufficient to achieve consensus, then it would paralyse any editing when any group of colluded people could block any edit simply by expressing their opposition at the beginning of the talk and then remaining silent when the evidence is provided to rebut their POV or by only stating links to policies without providing any reasons and evidence why they do so.
Therefore in my opinion admins should ensure that a proper process of reaching consensus is carried out by following proper rules of burden of proof: "When a party bearing the burden of proof meets their burden, the burden of proof switches to the other side." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law) That's what many editors (nearly all opposing editors in this case) avoid, i.e. when their opponent provides evidence they do not provide any evidence for their counterclaims, and by that way they disrupt the proper process of burden of proof and therefore they disrupt the proper process of reaching consensus.
Another tactic, which just has been used by Arianewiki1 is closing the discussion on the article talk page without allowing her opponent to reply to her edits on the article talk page (made only recently), that way she tries to prevent any discussion at all to reach consensus, she single-handedly decided to close the discussion, thus disrupting the proper proces of burden of proof and reaching consensus, she did it against WP:NPOV, WP:HONEST and so on.
Also admins should ensure that there are not formed any cliques here. Some editors know each other, some others are grateful to other editors for their support, which they received from them in the past, and as a form a gratitude they support them in any future discussions, even if that support is objectively unwarranted - such behaviour is against WP:HONEST but it happens, probably also here, because some editors just claim multiple times that they agree with another editor without showing their own reasonable reasons why. Admins should also ensure that this does not create wolf pack behaviours or witch hunt, when one editor attacks (even personally) another editor without any good reasons, and all other editors who know that editor or who support that editor for wrong reasons or who just feel the need to follow the wolf pack behaviour (or in that case more like sheeps behaviour) attack that user en-masse without any good reasons (not providing with any evidence supporting their attack). Admins should also ensure that editors do not use multiple accounts, i.e. when one editor is falsely claiming to be many different editors. I kindly request to check if that is not the case here. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Musashi miyamoto has succeeded in burying what might in principle be legitimate points to include in an article under a farrago of fringe POV-pushing and repeated misuse of sources. Whether it is intentional or not I don't know, but they exhibit an inability to tell in practice what a secondary source is. Their first additions to the article raised a few red flags for me: among other problems, they gave undue weight to a paper that attracted no attention from anyone but the original writer and his co-author. Moreover, their additions put Bernard Haisch on a level with Einstein. Later, they added a source to "support" their statements about quantum physics, a source which does not say what they say it says. Then they proposed a version which managed to be even worse, adding Harold E. Puthoff to the roster of "notable physicists", using a blog post and a fringe website as sources, and citing different copies of the same paper as different sources. This seems to be something of a habit: later, amid an undistinguished list of "more sources", they included a second copy of the same story they'd already linked to. XOR'easter (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

If you considered that in principle these were legitimate points then you could have helped to edit the proposed edits, so that they would remain in the article. Your 'diagnosis' that it was allegedly my fault that they are not there is incorrect. I proved above and on the article talk page that other editors did not follow the proper procedure to achieve consensus, they disrupted the proper process of burden of proof and therefore they disrupted the proper process of reaching consensus. You also are incorrect about citations. As to the paper in EPL, I explained several times, that I added it first, because that was the most recently published (year 2013) paper that I could find that explicity said that "The property known as inertia has never been adequately explained, and has been rather a neglected part of physic.". This way I was proving that this is still an on going problem, that we still do not know the cause/source/origin of inertia, despite decades of reaserch on the subject and several different hypotheses published. I did not put "Bernard Haisch on a level with Einstein", someone else did put all those physicists in one sentence, because I copied that sentence from the chapter "Source of inertia; speculative theories" in Wikipedia article on Inertia (so I naturally assumed that if it is already in Wikipedia then there was consensus achieved about that). If you disagreed with that you could have proposed different text of that edit - that is what talking on the article talk page is for, but you didn't propose how to amend that edit, so why do you complain about that now? Besides, if Bernard Haisch has an article about him in wikipedia that means that he is a notable physicist (otherwise there would be no article on him in Wikipedia). It is written in his article on Wikipedia: "He has developed with Alfonso Rueda a speculative theory that the non-zero lowest energy state of the vacuum, as predicted by quantum mechanics, might provide a physical explanation for the origin of inertia, and might someday be used for spacecraft propulsion." The same with Harold E. Puthoff. He is a notable physicist, if he has his wikipedia article. I added him to the list because of that and because he was one of the co-authors of the paper with Bernard Haisch, which I added as one of the sources. BTW, I have just found the 7th source where Haish and Puthoff published together on the origin of inertia: "Recent work implies that the ZPF may play an even more significant role as the source of inertia and gravitation of matter.". However, if you had any objection of adding them to that sentence you could have amended that sentence or propose how to amend it, but you didn't. Regarding double slit paper, although they did not state in explicitly one can figure out that from their paper. I'm not sure why you say this: "using a blog post and a fringe website as sources". I assume that you point out to that sentence: "Also, Prof Jose Perez-Diaz, who came to see me last year for a few months, and I enjoyed our many discussions. He is now trying to detect QI/MiHsC using a LEMdrive arrangement." found here. I added this link only after Arianewiki1 demanded source for this part of the sentence: "is pending experimental confirmation". That was unimportant part of the edit, and could have been removed, but since there is a reliable source I added that source. I am sure you have no doubt that blog of a scientist who is collaborating with the scientist in question is a reliable source of that information. Where else such information what scientists currently do could be found if not on their blogs? You said: "citing different copies of the same paper as different sources". That's not true, I did not cite different copies of the same paper as different sources. I added a link to arxive, but when people didn't see (or pretended that they do not see, because it is hard to believe that experienced editors would not know that) that the paper has been published in EPL, then I added link to EPL and left the original link to arxiv so that people could still have free access to that paper. That was obvious. But if you had any objections you should have expressed them on the article talk page, and suggest what would be an appropriate action regarding this in your view, but you didn't. Regarding another copy of the New Scientists article I did not notice when I was talking with you that the other copy was the same article, because it had different date, different cited text, and completelly different view. However, I did not insert that citation in the article edit, but only in discussion with you. I discuss quickly , because I have very little free time, but when I would be adding sources to the edit in wikipedia article I would double check them and therefore I would not put another source for the same article if both are either free or both are behind paywall - that would obviously make no sense to put them both in such case. Anyway, you had your chance to contribute effectively on the article talk page to make these edits better, but you didn't, that's a pity, but you still can propose your version of those edits. I encourage you to do so, if you consider, as you said above that 'in principle these were legitimate points'. Thank you. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

"Regarding another copy of the New Scientists article I did not notice when I was talking with you that the other copy was the same article, because it had different date, different cited text, and completelly different view." So, you didn't read it. And you are simply incorrect when you say they have different dates. Both are dated 7 April 2010 [322][323]. "I am sure you have no doubt that blog of a scientist who is collaborating with the scientist in question is a reliable source of that information." No, it isn't. "Besides, if Bernard Haisch has an article about him in wikipedia that means that he is a notable physicist (otherwise there would be no article on him in Wikipedia) ... He is a notable physicist, if he has his wikipedia article." This is shameless equivocation between the jargon sense of "notability" on Wikipedia and what the phrase "notable physicist" would mean to the reader of an encyclopedia article. XOR'easter (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I read what was available. There is a different date on the Science Direct: "Available online 9 April 2010.". Also titles are different. I did not notice that there is yet another date there, because I am reminding that I discussed quickly with you there and I wrote from memory here about those differences. I have rebuted all your accusations, so it is not significant that I missed one date - that's nothing comparing to the number of unfounded accusations you thrown at me, which have been rebutted. You're not being WP:HONEST ignoring that fact.
"No, it isn't." Please explain why, and please explain what can be the source of such information then.
That is only you opinion about notability, not supported in any way, but OK, if you did not like that Haish was in one sentence with Einstein, even though that information was in that article for ages, you could have edited it in such a way that you would like it. Removal of the whole chapter did not improve wikipedia. Because of your removal Wikipedia users will not have now any information in the inertia article what are the sources of inertia. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

"I read what was available." No, you didn't even do that, because ScienceDirect gives the date of original publication, 7 April 2010, right up top. And not reading the sources you present in support of your argument is scholarly malpractice. As for "that information was in that article for ages" — misinformation can hang around Wikipedia for years, but it's still misinformation. Have you met the Brazilian aardvark? XOR'easter (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

There was another date there and that was the date I saw: "Available online 9 April 2010.". So what, that I made a mistake of not seeing another date when discussing quickly with you? I am only human, so I can make mistakes, but that mistake was completely insignificant. That is only one mistake, and I showed you here and elsewhere that you made many, many more mistakes than me. That was not the only source, that was one of 9 sources for the quasars time dilation problem, and as I said before, I would have reviewed the sources, which I presented in a quick discussion with you, before I would have cited them in the article. The purpose of adding that particular source was to show that there are secondary sources. I do not have to read entire article of secondary source to know that it is a secondary source - what would be the purpose of this? Only the primary sources were important in this case regarding substantive issues, secondary source was needed only to show that that information is notable enough to be in wikipedia. So it was common sense that there was no purpose in reading entire article of that particular secondary source, only to show in a discussion with another editor that there are secondary sources. You are nitpicky (without good reason), because that was the only mistake in that discussion, that I made, so you hang on to that like a lifeline, because all other of your accusations have been rebutted. That is not WP:HONEST and not WP:NPOV approach to the matter, because you should consider the whole picture and not just nit-pick.
There was no misinformation in wikipedia. All these physicists are notable. Of course that Einstein is commonly considered the greatest, so about every other physicist you can say that he does not match Eistein, but if all those other physicist have their entry in wikipedia then they are notable, too. And if you did not like how it was phrased in the wikipedia article (and I remind that it was not my edit) then you could have proposed your version, and not just remove that valid information along with the entire section in wikipedia article without any valid reasons and against wikipedia rules (because you already knew from me the 6 sources, so you could have added them there and edit it approprietly, there was no reason not to do it, and there are several reasons to do it). Musashi miyamoto (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

"I do not have to read entire article of secondary source to know that it is a secondary source - what would be the purpose of this?" To know what it says, perhaps? I didn't want to bring this up, but by copying text from Inertia without attributing it, you plagiarized; the text you added to your plagiarism (compare previous diff with what I cut out) made it worse by aggravating the fringe POV-pushing and the giving of undue weight to a paper that has had essentially zero impact in the physics community. XOR'easter (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I knew what it says, it said about Hawkins paper in MNRAS who found no time dilation when looking at light coming from quasars, that was enough to know for the purpose of quick discussion with another editor to show that there are secondary sources.
Articles from wikipedia can be freely copied also in wikipedia, if the source is provided, and there was a link to the original source: Inertia, so I did not plagiarize anything. Later this sentence was modified, so it was not a quote anymore.
All wikipedia polices have been met to add this question "Why is there an absence of a time dilation effect in quasar power spectra?" to Unsolved problems in physics article. There were multiple primary sources from the most prestigious journals: Nature, The Astrophysical Journal and the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, and several secondary sources including New Scientist. It is hard to find a better tandem than Nature and New Scientist, the former is the best place for science papers, the latter the best place for popular science papers. Nobody criticised Hawkins work on this subject. His work is reliable and has been published in very prestigious journals, as well as discussed by others in popular press, and quoted by other scientists. That is enough for the subject to be in wikipedia, because the primary and secondary sources prove that it is a notable information according to the Wikipedia criteria. So really, going by the book there is no reason whatsoever not to add this edit. You should not edit arbitrary, but by following wikipedia polices, if wikipedia polices are met then there is no reason not to add that edit to the article.
The same with edit regarding the question "What is the cause/source/origin of inertia?". There are 7 sources primary and secondary, and evidence that the most notable physicists in the world were working on this problem and asking that question, so if you edited wikipedia by the book, and not arbitrary, as some of you appear to do, then there is no reason not to add this edit to wikipedia. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Musashi miyamoto has now repeatably said (without evidence) in this ANI [324]:

• "Arianewiki1 has made this note as a continuation of her/his abusive and disruptive personal attack against me.",
• "Arianewiki1 personally attacked me, without any provocation, among others by spreading lies and falsely accusing me of things I did not do, Arianewiki1 did it repetitevly, several times. I repeatedly asked Arianewiki1 to stop his/her abusing and disruptive behaviour and concentrate instead on the task at hand"
• "Instead Arianewiki1 started attacking me personaly and each time Arianewiki1 exacerbated her/his unfounded attacks becoming more aggressive each time,..."
• "Arianewiki1 persistently assumes lack of good faith contratry to WP:AGF. I had to remind her that she/he breaks WP:AGF already 5 or more times."

This is direct evidence of either not understanding the process or avoid scrutiny by using 'accuse the accuser.' The main offense here is just stated as WP:PA of me "...by spreading lies." and "abusing and disruptive behaviour" (all without evidence), which is now done within an ANI, which is probably enough to engage a significant sanction. They did the same tactic to DVm, saying "BTW, this is a lie: "Unsourced content." [325] Anothr is this reply.[326]

As for " I am very busy, so I cannot reply in full now (it can be days before I can do that). I can give some examples of his/her inappropriate behaviour later, if there still will be a need to do that."[[327]] is simply a tactic to avoid scrutiny.

Really. How can this edit [328] be construed as Musashi miyamoto 'complaint' [329]? How does saying: [330] be possibly twisted as : You again lie in your above text in virtually every single sentence,...? Similiar unfounded arguments by this User is in another ANI here [331] and reading the history on User_talk:Musashi_miyamoto shows a litany of such behaviours.

This whole issue stems from me reverting Musashi miyamoto edits and receiving an Edit warring notice by DVm.[332] User_talk:Musashi_miyamoto said: "And why haven't you send such a warning to Arianewiki1, when he started this reverting, and is continuing to do this without any real reasonable reason whatoever, and does not start a thread on talk page, even though I requested that he do so?"[333]

This is further evidence of using WP:DE than in improving articles. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

You are again violating WP:AGF and WP:HONEST by saying "is simply a tactic to avoid scrutiny". Arianewiki1, having apparently a lot of free time, has started this notice knowing very well that I would have very little time to defend myself, because I already said that I am very busy twice on the article talk page and here. It passed several days before I was able to engage in the discussion there again, but when I did I replied to everyone as promised (re: inertia) and provided with 6 reliable sources for inertia edit. And now Arianewiki1 perfidiously exploits that fact that I will not be able to reply quickly to defend myself against her false accusations and lies (it takes a lot of time to gather and describe evidence, when it is so extensive as in this case; any advice how to speed it up would be welcome) by falsely accusing me as above. I am very busy until mid of February, and even then I will only have a day free, and I cannot spend all that day only on wikipedia, but neverthelless I will try to reply then to every major accusation showing the evidence of her abusive and disruptive behaviour, if it still will be relevant to do so. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

"Arianewiki1, having apparently a lot of free time" Please stop. This is ANI, not YouTube comments. You are only digging yourself a deeper hole. I urge other editors to resist the urge to defend yourselves or argue points that have been presented any further. Enough oxygen has been sucked out of Wikipedia already. -Jordgette [talk] 03:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

You know what, you're probably right. XOR'easter (talk) 05:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Consensus on wikipedia is achieved by talking and presenting evidence to support your talk and not by remaining silent. The talk page is called exactly that 'talk page', not 'silent page'. So I am very suprised that you support Jordgette behaviour of remaning silent when your opponent rebuts your POV, instead of criticising such behaviour, because such behaviour goes against how WP:CONSENSUS is achieved on wikipedia. Remaining silent breaks the proper process to achieve consensus, because it breaks the proper process of burden of proof, as showed in more details above. As already mentioned above Jordgette to every my reply where I successfully rebuted her incorrect claims or view simply remained silent. So in my opinion that should be considered that she silently approves my POV, by so to speak 'walkover'. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

"So in my opinion that should be considered that she silently approves my POV" That is not how discussions work. When people give up hope of communicating with you, that does not mean they agree with you. And since it is evident that you are not even reading the sources you are spamming us with, while also ignoring replies made to you (or pretending they never happened), it is reasonable to conclude that the conversation is a lost cause. XOR'easter (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I already explained above why 'remaining silent' cannot be considered favourable for the person remaining silent. I followed the proper procedure to achieve consensus, but my opponents didn't (they among others ignored the proper process of burden of proof, as explained in more details above). So what are you talking about? I am not spamming anybody, I read sources, and do not ignore replies - I am in fact the only person in those discussions replying to all replies of my opponents in the discussion, unlike some other editors, like Jordgette, who does not reply to any of my replies to her. So why do you falsely accuse me that it is allegedly me who is not communicating when it is them who do not communicate, they do not listen what I say, they ignore what I said, and they ignore the proper procedures to achieve consensus. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

You're only digging yourself into a deeper hole here. I advise stopping. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 21:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I am rebutting false accusations by presenting what are the facts and showing evidence where appropriate. How else in your opinion I should defend myself against false accusations? Musashi miyamoto (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. Where you are generally failing when editing here is that CIR competence is required. When saying "..I read sources, and do not ignore replies - I am in fact the only person in those discussions replying to all replies of my opponents in the discussion,..." Actually Musashi miyamoto, you don't have to reply. All you are doing is needlessly perpetuate the argument. As for saying I already why 'remaining silent' cannot be considered favourable for the person remaining silent. and "Consensus on wikipedia is achieved by talking and presenting evidence to support your talk and not by remaining silent." (Both your words) is absolutle wrong. There is no obligation to reply at all, and Listen even says: The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you.

I'd suggest you read Therapy - Wikipedia is not therapy, which says: Nevertheless, editors who engage in disruptive or antisocial behavior may be blocked or banned. Except in extreme cases, editors are not blocked before problems have been patiently discussed. However, if disruptive behavior is not controlled, ultimately the community will protect the encyclopedia by restricting the editor's participation in the project. Heed that advice and stop blaming everyone else here.

Also Listen says: Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted. The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed.

Making undue statements against policies and guidelines is inherently unwise, especially within an ANI. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem at all in accepting another point of view, if that point of view has been supported with evidence and has not been rebutted, and that's where you failed, because you have not quoted any sources in support of your views, so why do you want me to believe you on your word without any evidence, when the evidence I presented prove to the contrary. If you reach consensus by simply pushing collectivly your POV without presenting any evidence and disregarding the proper burden of proof procedure then you are ignoring also the correct WP:Consensus procedure, and that way it becomes a grotesque and what you do now looks like a witch hunt.
I have shown logical arguments against remaining silent. You have not shown that this argument is wrong. You just ignored it. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Urgent Request to any uninvolved administrator in this ANI. Kindly please kindly affect an " Administrator note" against the new unnecessary PA and DE abuse appearing within an ANI by Musashi miyamoto, so that the substance of the complaint can be properly addressed. If the guidelines for arbitration have not been meet, could it be explained why, then close this ANI.

Evidence immediately above also shows there is a distinct lack of understanding of policies and guidelines that shows significant issues where WP:CIR. Q: Can new problems developed within an ANI be dealt with within that ANI, or does another ANI have to be started?

Thank you for any further assistance in helping to conclude this matter. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree. This goes beyond disruptive editing where one editor keeps typing and typing the same non-points from the talk page, now on ANI, and now berating individual editors who refuse to continue to feed him attention. Wikipedia isn't for everyone — some editors simply create far more disruption and noise than productivity, and I hope and wish the admins' decision will acknowledge this. -Jordgette [talk] 02:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Admins are too experienced to fall for such provocation and false accusations. The discussion on the talk pages and here will show to them that I have not done anything wrong. I followed the correct procedure to reach consensus and burden of proof, and my opponents did not. They are, as can be seen here, aggravated that I remind them that they did not follow wikipedia polices, because that shows that they were disruptive, not me. There is nothing wrong with reminding wikipedia editors that they do not follow wikipedia polices, that is not a disruption, the disruption is to not follow wikipedia polices, and to falsely accuse another fellow wikipedia editor, as they did against me. Arianewiki1 who started this ANI has not shown a single source to support her POV, while I presented 7 reliable sources (6 back then and 1 new now, as shown in the discussion above) to support my POV reagarding edit about the cause of inertia. I asked them multiple times on the article talk page to give me reasons why after providing them with all that evidence they still do not agree with the edit, and they remained silent not explaining or proving why they pointed me to the polices, which had no relevance to my edit, thus they did not follow the correct burden of proof procedure: "When a party bearing the burden of proof meets their burden, the burden of proof switches to the other side." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)
I kindly request to close this ANI. I am not going to edit wikipedia anytime soon, because of that hostile, unfriendly environment, which unreasonable editors who do not follow wikpedia polices create here on wikipedia. As the result wikipedia quality will suffer, because I wanted to improve wikipedia and I cannot because of those few unreasonable editors who do not obey proper procedures to achieve consensus.
I kindly request that admins look at their behaviour and work out some remedies, so that such disruptive behaviour as theirs would not occur again. I suggested to administrators what they could focus on to improve wikipedia editing, I hope that administrators would find those suggestions useful in their work. Thank you for your careful consideration. Farewell (soon). Musashi miyamoto (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

This edit by Musashi miyamoto[334]: Another tactic, which by Arianewiki1 is closing the discussion on the article talk page without allowing her opponent to reply to her edits on the article talk page (made only recently), that way she tries to prevent any discussion at all to reach consensus, she single-handedly decided to close the discussion, thus disrupting the proper proces of burden of proof and reaching consensus, she did it against WP:NPOV, WP:HONEST and so on.

All I did was made an open statement[335]. You can argue with whoever you want, even argue yourself if need be. I've closed no discussion here, but this can't go on forever.

Importantly you already do not have consensus, so your own points are mute. For me, the biggest issue quandary of complete denial of the facts. e.g. Saying I followed the correct procedure to reach consensus and, and my opponents did not. Fact: Consensus says your assertions are unconvincing. Added them to the article if you wish, but they will be reverted solely on the fact you don't have consensus. Test this with an WP:RfC, which IS the remedy, as I've already told you.[336] Onus of prove is Musashi miyamoto alone, as they are the one making the contention. If Mm disagrees, well this should be tested with WP:Requests for comment or RfC, under WP:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology. (So far, it is now 5 to 1 that disagrees with Mm.) I'd use caution, though, as an WP:ARBPS in effect.

As for the "When a party bearing the burden of proof meets their burden, the burden of proof switches to the other side." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law) Bur Wikipedia guidelines even don't say that. Black and white You demand that other editors search for sources to support text that you added, or you challenge them to find a source that disproves your unsourced claim. Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for sourcing content rests firmly and entirely with the editor seeking to include it. This means yu because you want to include it. No one else. Editing obviously does not follow common law (nor common law in the United States). Don't you get that? (rhetorical)

Also Arianewiki1 who started this ANI has not shown a single source to support her POV, while I presented 7 reliable sources But Arianewiki1 has.[337] Statement therefore is not true.

Please stop unnecessarily escalating these arguments and going every time for 'the last word', because this now becoming borderline Hounding and WP:HA. Politely, Desist means desist, but you just don't get the hint. She now asks you do so. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:Consensus policy is quite clear how to achieve consensus, but you ignore what the policy says: "Consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal". "Limit article talk page discussions to discussion of sources, article focus, and policy.". "Consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority).". "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.". "Editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns.". "No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page." WP:OWN. "Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." WP:PG
The policy does not have to explain how burden of proof works, because that is explained in the burden of proof article: "When a party bearing the burden of proof meets their burden, the burden of proof switches to the other side." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law). It is obvious really, so I have been shocked to learn that some of you do not know how burden of proof works! The policy clearly states that 'The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view'. I have proved my point of view with 7 reliable sources for the source of inertia edit, and 8 reliable sources for the quasars time dilation edit. So according to wikipedia polices, you should have accepted that edit. You didn't, against wikipedia polices, without presenting any quality arguments - quality of your arguments was virtually non-existent, because you have not provided any sources to support your arguments (against wikipedia polices which first and foremost require sources). Your arguments were also not relevant to the issue, it was quite apparent that you had troubles understanding what the issue is about, even though your favourite physcists Bernard Haish clearly stated in his paper: "Inertia as formulated by Galileo (ca. 1638) was simply the property of a material object to either remain at rest or in uniform motion in the absence of external forces. In his first law of motion, Newton (ca. 1687) merely restated the Galilean proposition. However, in his second law, Newton expanded the concept of inertia into a fundamental quantitative property of matter. By proposing a relationship between external force acting upon an object and change in that object's velocity (F=ma), he defined and quantified the property of inertial mass. Since the time of Newton there has been only one noteworthy attempt to associate an underlying origin of inertia of an object with something external to that object: Mach's principle."
So Newton defined and quantified the property of inertial mass by postulating F=ma, but by doing so he did not discover the origin of inertia, which remains unknown, but you simply refuse to accept it, even though the paper clearly states that - for you the definition of inertial mass is the same as origin of inertia. Sorry, but the 7 reliable sources I quoted do not confirm your unfounded assumption.
If you really followed the policies you could have proposed a compromise (the policy explicitly encourages to do so). For example you could have said: "OK, your sources confirm your point of view, but my sources (and you should quote reliable soures) say that some people (who?) believe that we should stick to the XVII century theory of Galileo and Newton, which states that 'Inertia is simply the property of a material object', and therefore we do not need to seek cause, origin, source of inertia". The sources which you would quote would have to, in an unambiguous way, state exactly that, that we do not need to look for the cause, origin, source of inertia, because it is enough to assume that inertia is just a property of matter. Then to my edit could have been added your XVII century version, and everyone would be happy, compromise and consensus would have been reached, because both points of view would be in the edit the current one from XX and XXI century and the old one from XVII century. But no, all you had to say was (in a way): I just do not agree, get lost, desist - that is not how you reach wikipedia consensus. The policy explicitly states that you should not just say "I just don't like it" (because that is how your 'arguments' without sources can be interpreted, such arguments bear little or no weight), but provide with sources to support your argument, and you did not do it. You now claim that you allegedly provided a source. That's a blatant lie, there is no source provided in the link you gave to support your argument.
You have to remember that consensus is not reached by voting and wikipedia editors are not experts, so you can't 'win' the argument by carrying out a philosophical academic debate, nor by saying 'I do not agree', nor 'I agree' (when supporting another unfounded claim), wikipedia policy clearly states that you should "try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense". So the only way for you to prove your point of view in this case is to quote reliable sources, which in an unambigous way for every wikipedia editor (i.e. by default a non-expert wikipedia editor) would show that the origin of inertia has been found and that there is a mainstream theory about that confirmed by experiments, or, as a compromise, as proposed above, that some people claim, that we do not need to look for the cause, origin, source of inertia, because it is enough to assume that inertia is just a property of matter. That's how it should be done by the book, but you ignore what 'the book' says, and just push your POV against the evidence I provided (the sources).
So this is how achiving consensus should look like:
A.
1. Editor1 provides edit with reliable sources meeting the burden of proof, therefore the burden of proof switches to the other side;
2. Other editors disagree with the edit providing arguments supported with reliable sources for their arguments (burden of proof switches back to Editor1), or they may partially agree and suggest a compromise,
3. Editor1 either is convinced by the new arguments and/or compromise and consensus is reached or is rebutting the arguments of his/her opponents and the burden of proof switches back to the opponents - this cycle repeats itself until using logical reasoning and evidence presented by both sides a consensus or compromise is reached.

And this is how Arianewiki1 sees reaching the consensus:
B.
1. Editor1 provides edit with reliable sources meeting the burden of proof, therefore the burden of proof switches to the other side, but other editors disregard that fundamental common sense rule and basic fact;
2. Other editors disagree with the edit, do not provide any sources to support their arguments, and if Editor1 points that out to them they only say (in a way) get lost, desist, we are the majority, we reached the consensus without you.
The procedure shown in point no A. follows wikipedia polices, the one in point no. B does not.
You say "All I did was made an open statement. You can argue with whoever you want, even argue yourself if need be. I've closed no discussion here". But your statement stated: "The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion." So it is contradictory to what you say now. You explicitly said that this discussion is closed; if it was not - then you should have stated it there and not mislead by such statements.
You say "Test this with an WP:RfC". You gave me no chance to do it, because you are bombarding me with false accusations and lies, and open ANI, so all little free time I have I have to spend rebutting your false accusations and lies (and even for that there is not enough time), that's why I was not able to do anything else, because of unreasonable editors who disregard wikipedia polices, including the policy saying that in all cases you should stay WP:COOL and "Shower them with love". You already apologised for your actions: "Note: Apologies for 'shouting' but I do it to be implicit to finally deal with this unreasonable editor." (source: Arianewiki1 entry on the article talk page on 04:46, 24 January 2018), so that proves that you were conscious that you were not following the above mentioned polices and more, and yet you continued to break them by exacerbating subsequently your attack even further, and all that just because you disagreed with my edit.
That is not true: "(So far, it is now 5 to 1 that disagrees with Mm.)" You 'forget' about Paradoctor - if he/she agreed for the edit of inertia with one source, then it is reasonable to assume that he/she would still agree for this edit with 7 sources. Besides consensus is not achieved by voting, but by presenting quality arguments supported with reliable, relevant sources - that is what the policy says - so far only I provided quality arguments, supported with reliable, relevant sources, nobody else did that regarding the two edits mentioned above.
That is a blatant lie: "You demand that other editors search for sources to support text that you added, or you challenge them to find a source that disproves your unsourced claim." I have never demanded such things! Please, stop your habit of lying in nearly every of your edit, that is not WP:HONEST. I only requested that you prove you own arguments, not mine, as per the burden of proof procedure. "Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." WP:PG. It is a common sense to follow the consensus procedure as shown in the point no. A, and not B., that includes switching the burden of proof procedure - it is not just a law - it is common sense. What sense would have a discussion when one side only provides proofs, and the other side, which disagrees with those proofs does not, and just says: 'I disagree, therefore I won, and I don't have to prove anything to you, just get lost, desist.' That does not make any sense, but you say that it does, that is preposterous, really.
You say "Please stop unnecessarily escalating these arguments and going every time for 'the last word'" - but that is not me who is escalating, but you. I perfectly understand why you ask for desist - you hope that when I desist, that way your false accusations and lies against me would not be rebutted, but I have the right to defend myself against your false accusations and lies. If you do want me not to reply please stop lying and falsely accusing me of things I did not do or say, then I would be more than happy to not reply, because there would be no reason to. I politely asked you again to stop such behaviour, but you lied and falsely accused me even in this message, to which I am replying now, as shown above. BTW, just curious: You say: "She now asks you do so" - why do you say about yourself in third person?
Concluding:
All wikipedia polices have been met to add this question "Why is there an absence of a time dilation effect in quasar power spectra?" to Unsolved problems in physics article. There were multiple primary sources from the most prestigious journals: Nature, The Astrophysical Journal and the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, and several secondary sources including New Scientist, in total 8 sources. It is hard to find a better tandem than Nature and New Scientist, the former is the best place for science papers, the latter the best place for popular science papers. Nobody criticised Hawkins work on this subject. His work is reliable and has been published in very prestigious journals, as well as discussed by others in popular press, and quoted by other scientists. That is enough for the subject to be in wikipedia, because the primary and secondary sources prove that it is a notable information according to the Wikipedia criteria. So really, going by the book there is no reason whatsoever not to add this edit. You should not edit arbitrary, but by following wikipedia polices, if wikipedia polices are met then there is no reason not to add that edit to the article. Do we agree on that or not, if not, for what reasons?
The same with edit regarding the question "What is the cause/source/origin of inertia?". There are 7 sources primary and secondary, and evidence that the most notable physicists in the world were working on this problem and asking that question, so if you edited wikipedia by the book, and not arbitrary, as some of you appear to do, then there is no reason not to add this edit to wikipedia. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, wall of text. If you want to have people listen, don't bombard us with a 13-kilobyte answer that takes up multiple screens' worth of space. Also, correct "accusations" aren't false ones. Stop repeating the same thing. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 19:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I meticulously replied point by point to my opponents accusations proving them to be untrue. How else should I do it? If he/she didn't wrote so much in one message my reply would be shorter. Please consider what I wrote, becasue I showed that my opponent is incorrect and that even he/she lied more than once in the above message. If you consider her accusations correct, please give reasons why you think like that with evidence supporting you reasoning, and also show me which of my reasoning is incorrect and why. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, "meticulous". That's the issue. It doesn't need to be precise. And I'll admit, the response you were replying to was a bit long (about 3400 bytes). But yours was over 13,000 bytes. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and none of us really want to read awfully long responses. Pick out the important bits from the fluff and give us the important stuff. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 20:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

It takes only 2-3 minutes to read, so let's not exaggerate. But after you finally would read that text I would be grateful for your remarks how I could have made it shorter without loosing the arguments and proofs in their support. Perhaps I would be able to use your advice next time. Thank you. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Some people read slower than others. But as for making it shorter, I suggest re-reading it after you've written and eliminating things that are not absolutely necessary. You don't need to refute every point, just the really important ones. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 22:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The place where the relevant policies are outlined are Wikipedia:BURDEN and Wikipedia:CONSENSUS. Our article Burden of proof (law) is entirely useless here. Remainder of wall skipped per obvious wp:TL;DR. - DVdm (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I see, I am glad that you admitted that you will be 'judging' the 'accused' arbitrary, disregarding all the evidence, which the accused presented. That shows what farce is this ANI, and how pathetic it is what you do. I followed the aforementioned polices, as proved in the above text, which you refuse to read. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Read the WP:TL;DR article. It might help. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 20:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

It did not help. I had to reply point by point to incorrect statements of Arianewiki1 in order to rebut her/his incorrect statements, she/he gave me no choice. Please ask her/him to write shorter messages then my replies also will be shorter. Also, the lower the number of incorrect statements would be in her/his replies, then also my replies would be shorter. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Just note that some people aren't going to read that much text, no matter how important it is. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 21:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Then I kindly ask those people who would not read that text to refrain from 'judging' (from participating in these proceedings), because they would not be able to judge fairly, because fair judging requires consideration of all arguments and all evidence presented and not just some of them. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but you can't choose who participates here. That'd be like a politician saying, "Only people who are Republican are allowed to vote". I know it's not the same, but people will say so. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 00:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

That would be a gross violation of justice, if an admin would judge without consideration of all arguments and all evidence presented and without giving the reasons of his decison and without presenting evidence which he/she accepted and explaining why he/she did so, and without presenting evidence, which he/she found not convincing and explaining why so, so please do not treat this possible violation lightly. BTW, what are the methods to appeal against verdics of the admins here? Your alleged analogy with politicians is completely misguided. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The admins do take everything into consideration. Including people who didn't read everything, but they might consider that when weighing the arguments. As for appealing the verdict, it really depends on what they do to you. If they decide to block you, that can be appealed on your talk page. If it is a topic ban, there's really not much you can do except wait until you can appeal, because some topic bans have a limit on how many times you can appeal. And the analogy wasn't meant to be accurate per se, but I can see how a lot of editors might use something similar and cry foul. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 03:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I tried to discuss the science [338][339][340]. That went nowhere. We're at ANI to discuss conduct, and it's plain to see how that is going. Can we wrap this up soon? XOR'easter (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

We were talking here about the source of inertia edit and quasars time dilation problem edit. In the three links that you provided above you have not given any source for the support of your argument re: inertia and you did not say there anything about the quasars time dilation problem. So your three edits bear no weight regarding the inertia and quasars edits. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I did discuss the quasar time dilation problem. That was the point of the reference I provided, which set Hawkins' work in a broader context, just like a secondary source should. I could hit the library and find citations which say what I said about inertia (and hey, I might find fun things in the process [341]), but since you do not read either the references I provide or the ones you yourself bombard us with, what's the point? XOR'easter (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The reference you are linking does not explicitly mention time dilation anomaly in quasar spectra, but the fact that it cites papers speculating that there can be many causes of the variations show that the cause for those variations is still not certain and therefore unknown, thus it further proves that the edit was done correctly. What you said about inertia does not disprove what I proved. But you could try to achieve the compromise about which I was talking about in the long text above written at 19:28, 4 February 2018. But apparently you are not interested, even though wikipedia policy explicitly encourages to achieve such compromise. Baez essay would be a good source for me to additionaly prove that the source of inertia is still unknown, unfortunately it has not been published in any peer-reviewed paper, so it is not a reliable source, besides McCulloch was rebutting this. I read sources, but it seems that you have not read mine. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Look Musashi miyamoto. Do this "Test this with an WP:RfC, which IS the remedy, as I've already told you." Really. How many times do I have to say this? Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I would gladly do that, if you all abandon this ANI and if you all here would stop bombarding me with your messages, because then I have to correct your incorrect statements and have no time for anything else. So if you would allow me, please, to have some time for other appropriate actions, then I would follow another appropriate path, when I have some time to do that, which may not be soon, because I am too busy. Thank you for your co-opertion and understanding. Having said that I would still be grateful if some of you would unambigously prove to me, which of my reasoning is allegedly incorrect and why in my long text above of 19:28, 4 February 2018. I believe that I proved my point there, and that point is following wikipedia polices. There is no need to hurry now regarding that text (if you all agree not to attack me here anymore), so please read my text slowly and listen to what I have to say there and please understand what I am saying. Many thanks. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

---

URGENT HELP REQUEST @EdJohnston:@Huon:@Blackmane:@Swarm:@BytEfLUSh:

Arianewiki1 says (in quoting Musashi miyamoto): "As for the "When a party bearing the burden of proof meets their burden, the burden of proof switches to the other side." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law) Bur Wikipedia guidelines even don't say that. Black and white You demand that other editors search for sources to support text that you added, or you challenge them to find a source that disproves your unsourced claim. Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for sourcing content rests firmly and entirely with the editor seeking to include it. This means yu because you want to include it. No one else. Editing obviously does not follow common law (nor common law in the United States). Don't you get that? (rhetorical)"

Musashi miyamoto says: " That is a blatant lie: "You demand that other editors search for sources to support text that you added, or you challenge them to find a source that disproves your unsourced claim." I have never demanded such things! Please, stop your habit of lying in nearly every of your edit, that is not WP:HONEST."

Guidelines here say [342] "You demand that other editors search for sources to support text that you added, or you challenge them to find a source that disproves your unsourced claim. Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for sourcing content rests firmly and entirely with the editor seeking to include it."

Lying? How? Arianewiki1 already pointed this out here [343] This is clearly evidence of just another unprovoked PA = personal attack!!

This ANI here is only about Musashi miyamoto and their continued use of WP:PA and WP:DE against policy.

Yet Musashi miyamoto only counter is "...I would gladly do that, if you all abandon this ANI..." and "...(if you all agree not to attack me here anymore)." Nothing is my previous comment above (02:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)) cannot be said to be an 'attack.'

I have asked Musashi miyamoto now on multiple occasions to politely, Desist means desist." Yet Musashi miyamoto comes back with 2,274 response just full of accusations and still expects Having said that I would still be grateful if some of you would unambigously prove to me, which of my reasoning is allegedly incorrect and why in my long text above of 19:28, 4 February 2018..

Musashi miyamoto is evidently now Hounding and WP:HA (and all in an ANI !!). Reading WP:NAM clearly shows Musashi miyamoto is just continuing ramping the escalation.

This has to end. Please advise.

Note: The initial ANI claims: "This continuing general pattern of disruptive behaviour must stop. I've made reasonable attempts to resolve this impasse without success and am only meet with deliberate obfuscation." [@ 07:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)]

Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Added comment: In the 2,274 word response by Musashi miyamoto, I've been accused of to 'lie' have 'lied' ten times, "falsely accussed" four times, and "lied and falsely accused me even in this message".

Musashi miyamoto also say: "That's a blatant lie, there is no source provided in the link you gave to support your argument." and that "Arianewiki1 who started this ANI has not shown a single source to support her POV, while I presented 7 reliable sources." Isn't this link a source? I point out a source making the second statement therefore false, but now it is an alleged lie? Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I agreed to the Arianewiki1 proposal, yet she/he (I will later write only 'she', because Ariane is a female name, and the text looks ugly and less clear when I repeatedly write 'he/she' or 'her/his'; but 'she' or 'her' regarding her/him should be regarded as 'he/she' and 'her/his' in these texts) continues to groundlesly attack me with false accusations, and she repeats her untrue statements not showing any convincing evidence to support them. So why does she do that? It would seem that since I agreed to her proposal she would have no reason to, but since she continues that, that means that she does that for non-substantive reasons. It appears that it is a provocation, she knows that I would be rebutting her untrue accusations, and she hopes that some admins would not look at the evidence, but judge only on her word.
Please note that when she falsely accuses me she either does not give any evidence to support her claim or gives a link, that does not prove what she says, apparently hoping that other people would not look into that link and fall for her false accusations and lies. So please do not fall for that trick of her. Check out the links she provides. For example she already several times stated this blatant lie: "You demand that other editors search for sources to support text that you added, or you challenge them to find a source that disproves your unsourced claim." when I have never demanded such things. She does not present any evidence to support her claim, because she cannot, as I never, ever demanded such things. Then she gives above a link no. 89 to her own rant, which only proves that she is not WP:COOL, and has been accusing falsely from the start. Previously, when I pointed out that she has not shown a single source to support her POV, she gave a link no. 83 where there is no link supporting her POV (her POV is that F=ma explains inertia, and therefeore there is no need to look for the source of inertia), so she lied that she provided with a link supporitng her POV.
Then she says that falsely accusing me and lying about what I said or did is not a personal attack, well it is, so please stop attacking me. And then she in effect denies me the right to defend myself against her false accusations and lies. I proved, among others in my message above sent at 19:28, 4 February 2018 that I have not done anything wrong, I followed to the letter all wikipedia polices, when making those recent edits we talk about. Yet, she ignores that.
Regarding the burden of proof I shown in my message sent at 19:28, 4 February 2018 that this is the correct procedure by wikipedia polices.
I kindly request that admins do something to stop Arianewiki1 of falsely accusing her/his fellow editor and habitually lying, she wastes mine and others time by doing so, her behaviour is unfounded and disruptive. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

Musashi miyamoto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to the following discretionary sanction under WP:ARBPS: a one year topic ban from topics considered to be fringe science, broadly construed. Musashi miyamoto is also reminded to assume good faith and not personalise disputes.

• Proposed. Guy (Help!) 14:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Guy's opinion and proposal cannot be taken into account, because he has a personal grudge against me, since the time when I showed that he broke wikipedia polices, therefore his impartiality and objectivity in this case may be questioned, and for that reason he should be excluded (or exclude himself) from these proceedings and remove his proposal.
Besides, he has given no reasons for his proposal (I have not been even editing any fringe science topics now, so why does he propose that?). He must have confused me with Arianewiki1 when saying "reminded to assume good faith and not personalise disputes", because it is Arianewiki1 who persistently does not assume good faith (I had to remind her about WP:AGF policy 6 or more times in this discussion), and Arianewiki1 personalises disputes by attacking me personally with false accusations and lies, instead of focusing on proving her POV using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense. I only defended myself by rebutting false accusations by presenting what are the facts and showing evidence where appropriate. How else I should defend myself against false accusations if not like that? Also, I said that I am not going to participate in wikipedia editing anymore in a foreseeable future due to the unfriendly and hostile environment created by editors who do not obey wikipedia polices, so what would be the purpopse of such a ban, when I will be gone for years, hoping that in the meantime administrators would apply the suggestions I presented to them. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:WALLOFTEXT. Also, why do you presume Arianewiki1 is female? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Because Ariane is a female name, I tried to use he/she, but becasue you bombard me with multiple messages, and I have little time to reply to them, I have to type quickly, so I forget to use he/she. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for the "bombardment", but I find that you actually respond quite a bit faster than most editors. There was a controversy a few months ago, though, involving an editor who used a female name on-wiki being opposed at their request for adminship because the name was not their personal name and did not explicitly identify them as female. It's kind of an outlier, but I had to ask. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 21:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

First, you didn't show that JzG "broke wikipedia [sic] policies". He removed text with sub-par sourcing (dubiously reliable pop press, primary source in mediocre journal) that was, in fact, plagiarism on your part, so removing it was the correct thing to do in accord with Wikipedia policy. You accused him of vandalism. Apparently AGF applies only to other people. Second, you're making a personal attack immediately after being warned not to personalize disputes. XOR'easter (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not doing any attack, I showed why this admin cannot participate in these proceedings, because he has reasons to be impartial here, due to the issues in the past. My edit there, after consensus, was added to the article - that shows that his actions were damaging to wikipedia, and mine were improving wikipedia. The section, which I created then exists to this day. There was no plagiarism. "While you may expect an assumption of good faith, this is based on the counter-assumption of honesty in your actions.". JzG reverted my edit without explaining reasons. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Your addition to RF resonant cavity thruster was a direct copy of the abstract of this paper. (It would be original research for me to call that paper garbage, but we're not in article space now, so I'll say that here anyway.) The text which was restored after JzG removed your plagiarism was not your writing, and that is the text which is present in the current version. Your contribution violated a basic tenet of academic honesty and does not belong in Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia. Your description of the events surrounding it is a wall-to-wall misrepresentation that I can only assume is intended to smear the character of a Wikipedia administrator. XOR'easter (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I quoted the source (to which I provided the link) with modifications, so there was no plagiarism. JzG did not explain his reversal, and he was obliged to do that by wikipedia polices. The text, which is there now is the result of consensus. Similar text was there before, but was reverted by someone months before, and nobody reversed it back until I started my edit, then someone in the discussion remembered that old edit, and poposed to add this old edit instead of mine, I agreed, and after a long discussion with many editors the consensus was to leave that new text in the article after modifications, so only thanks to me it is there now. You are all the time grossly violating WP:AGF by saying what you say about me. Please stop, first because it is untrue what you say, second it is against the policy. You are making it personal - you should not do that. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Replacing the word "We" in the abstract with the authors' names and then repeating the rest verbatim is not sufficient "modification" to make what you did anything other than plagiarism and copyright violation. Your providing the source just made it easy to tell that you were cheating. Nothing I have said here violates policy. Maintaining the academic integrity of Wikipedia is policy. Your insistence upon AGF while extending good faith to no one else is just sealioning. Furthermore, since you lack the ability or the inclination to recognize your own violations of basic academic ethics when they are pointed out to you, I cannot see why anyone should trust you to contribute to building an encyclopedia. XOR'easter (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Have you never heard of the right to quote? I quoted a part of the abstract and provided a link to the original, as per the right to quote. I even e-mailed the authors of the paper back then informing them about my edit and asking for comments, and they had nothing against it. You are violating WP:AGF assuming without any evidence, that I did not make good faith edits and that I deliberatery violated polices, which I did not violate at all. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Quoting, with no indication that you are quoting, is plagiarism. XOR'easter (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Plagiarism would be if I had not provided a link to the original at the end of the quote. The authors of the paper saw what I did and had no objections. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:PLAGIARISM, WP:INTEXT or, for that matter, any university's code of ethics [344][345]. XOR'easter (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Clearly WP:COPYVIO. Copying text from a website/source and linking to that website/source is strictly not allowed on Wikipedia, so neither can you do that with an academic abstract. And, it's not a quote if you don't use quote marks! In terms of encyclopedia-building (and publishing in general), that's about as basic as it gets. -Jordgette [talk] 03:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think that the fringe thing is the main problem. I.m.o. MM's problem is his failure to understand how consensus and burden of proof work in Wikipedia. He wants to make an edit to an article, inappropriate, off-topic, and/or backed by insufficienty relevant sources, and then insists that everybody else must provide sources that prove, and convince him, that the topic indeed does not belong in the article. And then it turns out that nobody can convince him. The most recent example of this was when, after their block for edit warring, I advised him to first go to the talk page and establish consensus for new additions to the list. Against this advice he made an edit [346], that I undid [347] with an explanation on the talk page [348], [349]. He reverted the undo [350], and then went to the talk page where it was explained to him by everyone else that, for various reasons, the item does not belong in the article. He failed to convince anyone and vice versa. And that is how, after many walls of text, we ended up here. And it went on and on. Even here. So I don't think that a fringe topic ban will work. - DVdm (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Please show me, which of my reasoning is incorrect and why in my long text above of 19:28, 4 February 2018. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

No. As I said, "... failed to convince anyone and vice versa" - DVdm (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

If you do not read what I write then of course that you would remain unconvinced, but then you have no moral right to participate in this discussion, if you do not read what your opponent has to say, because then you do not judge by evidence but by prejudice, so your judgement is unfair and unjust. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I had put the emphasis on "and vice versa" to make it clear that I cannot convince you in any way. You do not have to convince me of anything, unless you first understand the Wikipedia policies, which you do not. So there is no point reading your walls of text. This is why I said no when you asked me to show which of your reasoning is incorrect. That would be a waste of your and my time—and probably everybody else's. So no. - DVdm (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I proved, among others in my message above sent at 19:28, 4 February 2018, that it is you who do not understand wikipedia polices. You are unable to prove that I am incorrect, and you just demand that I believe you on your word? Unbelivable. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Resting case. - DVdm (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• After consideration, I would support this course of action. On the one hand, I agree with DVdm that MM shows "failure to understand how consensus and burden of proof work in Wikipedia". In principle, this affects all areas, not just fringe science/pseudoscience. (If you don't read yourself the sources you shove at other people, that's a fundamental problem, as is ignoring policies and guidelines about, e.g., attributing text copied from elsewhere on Wikipedia in your edit summaries.) However, looking over MM's edit history, it appears that fringe science has pretty much been their only area of interest for years. So, a topic ban might in practice resolve the problem. XOR'easter (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Please show me, which of my reasoning is incorrect and why in my long text above of 19:28, 4 February 2018 Musashi miyamoto (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• That sounds reasonable. This seems like a demonstrated case of WP:NOTHERE with about seven of the "symptoms" in evidence. As for the purpose of a topic ban if the editor plans to depart regardless, let that be the concern of the WP community. -Jordgette [talk] 19:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• I would just like to drop in and say PLEASE DEAR GOD NOT THE RESONANT CAVITY THRUSTER CRAZIES AGAIN! Thanks for listening. EEng 03:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

This is not about any thruster. Please do not make up stuff! Musashi miyamoto (talk) 11:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair point. I suspect the only reason we haven't already topic-banned Musashi miyamoto is that e only made two mainspace edits int he twelve months from his last outing at RF resonant cavity thruster, and the current dispute. Both those edits drew entirely on primary research by M. E. McCulloch (three separate cites). I don't know if that's fringe or not. Guy (Help!) 10:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you that confirmed this way that you have no clue what my recent edits were about and what the discussion was about, that also proves that you did not read much, if anything what was written here and on the article talk pages. I have not done any edits to RF resonant cavity thruster, now. So, please, stop making up stuff, and read what is written, in particular in my message above sent at 19:28, 4 February 2018. Thank you. And two years ago I did a bold edit on the reasearch of the Finnish researchers and not McCulloch. And now I provided with 6 sources to the reasearch of notable scientists on the source of inertia and a secondary source on that, and the 7th source to the reasearch of McCulloch I provided with only because it was the most recent paper on the subject, but it can be removed if you do not like it, 6 other sources are more than enough. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 11:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with the proposal. Cutting out the ungodly walls of text, the root of the problem would appear to be just another case of FRINGE POV in a science article. This is what the DS are for. Swarm ♠ 05:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

My edits I made recently were not on any fringe subject, so what are you talking about? Since when the work of Albert Einstein, Ernst Mach, Dennis William Sciama, Richard Feynman, is fringe? Are you just another person who has no clue what my edits were about? Are you another person who has not read anything or almost anyting here and on the article talk page and expresses her/his opinion not having a clue what is going on and what we talked about? I proved, among others in my message above sent at 19:28, 4 February 2018 that I have not done anything wrong, I followed to the letter all wikipedia polices when making those recent edits we talk about. Also what would be the point of such groundles ban to a person who is innocent, when I agreed to the proposal of Arianewiki1, and also I am not going to participate in edition of wikipedia in the foreseeable future? Musashi miyamoto (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

You really do need to understand the law of holes. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

So you say that if someone is incorrect, or lies about me, or falselly accuses me, the only thing I should do is to remain silent? I do not see how that would help me. I have the right to defend myself against false accusation, lies and incorrect statements. Yes or not? How else should I do it, if not by writing a rebuttal in which I am proving to the opponets that what they say is not true? Musashi miyamoto (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

No, I say that the best argument for sanctions on you, comes from your own comments. You are your own worst enemy. Guy (Help!) 18:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

How so? You continue your trend of terse statements, which do not explain anything. The first time we met here two years ago you did not explain at all your revert. It was against wikipedia policy WP:CONSENSUS, which states clearly: "Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor." Because I proved that you violated wikipedia policy, you have a grudge against me now and therefore are impartial. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I suppose it could be worse: I could write incredibly long comments that merely reiterate my belief that I am right and everybody else is wrong. But here's the thing: your failure to get the problem is not evidence that it hasn't been explained. Repeatedly. By numerous people. Guy (Help!) 19:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Yet another terse statement that does not explain anything. Initially I wanted to suggest that you should sit on twitter and not here with your terse statements, but even on twitter other people tweets bear more meaning than some of yours sentences here, no offence, it's just a fact. I proved that they broke wikipedia polices; your failure to see that, does not mean that you are right, no matter how many people would support you, becasue as wikipedia policy says what is important is the quality of argument whether it represents a minority or a majority view: 'The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view' WP:Consensus. The proved facts are what they are, and anyone who would be willing to see them would see them. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment I have no idea why I was pinged a couple sections above, possibly because I've been mistaken for an administrator, which I am not. I have not been following this thread, therefore I will not be making any comment on the substance of the dispute. However, I will say that anyone who can follow the unholy lengths of the posts above is a saint, which I am not. This may go down in ANI history as the thread with the largest numbers of long posts, ever. Blackmane (talk) 13:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Possibly Useless Suggestion

Most of the posts to this thread, as noted above, are too long to read. Here is an odd suggestion. Just close this entire section as having allowed the parties to vent at each other. If anyone wants to propose administration action, start a new thread (or, better yet, take this to Arbitration Enforcement and spare the rest of us). I don't expect this to be implemented, but .... Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree, I already suggested to close this somewhere above, all I want to do is to end this, it takes too much of my time, which I do not have. I said long time ago that I am not going to edit wikipedia again in the foreseeable future, I was considering RfC, but I doubt, if I have time for that. So let's just go to our other duties and forget about this unfriendly place (that's what I am going to do). Musashi miyamoto (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Several Supports from uninvolved admins, and no credible alternative yet proposed. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

You have a personal grudge against me, so as stated above you should refrain yourself from these proceedings, because your impartiality and objectivity in this case may be questioned. Therefore I ask others to not bear any weight on his opinions and actions, because they are not impartial. Also, you say that there are "Several Supports from uninvolved admins", but who is the admin and who isn't? How to recognize admins? Shouldn't you have some mark by your nickname (a star or something) to show that you are an admin? Otherwise, how we all can know that what you say is true that there were allegedly several supports from admins? Musashi miyamoto (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not following this, and I'm not about to leap in with both feet. But there cannot possibly be more than two dozen editors participating in this thread (and that's being generous), and it would take less than 5 minutes to note all the names and check them at Special:ListUsers to see if they have admin rights or not. Seriously; this is a ludicrous question and doesn't deserve any consideration. Even ignoring what I said above, the vast majority of us know who the admins are by name most of the time, because they're the only ones who do admin things around the project like protecting pages and blocking problem editors. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Some of you live on wikipedia, I do not, so how could I know that? I still find that it would be useful if admins nicknames had a mark by them showing that they are administrators. So that is my yet another suggestion to admins, to introduce such a feature. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

You wouldn't know it from looking at the giant walls of text you found time to write up above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I am under attack though I did nothing wrong, and my opponents falsely accuse me and lie (some of them habitually), wouldn't you defend yourself seeing their wrong and unfair behaviour? My point that admins should be marked has just been proven. I checked all the names in these two relevant sections and there was only one admin apart from Guy (who should not be included here, due to the impartiality problem caused by the past events), so he falsely claimed that there were several admins supporting him, while there was only one. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no grudge against you. The reverse may well be true, but I didn't even remember your username until you dredged up your past POV-pushing. Guy (Help!) 19:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

If you had a grudge against me, you would say the same, if you wanted to harm me, therefore you should refrain yourself from these proceedings, because you cannot be trusted in these proceedings, and others should not bear any weight to your actions and statement here, especially when you above stated this untrue statement: "Several Supports from uninvolved admins". I checked out all the people in those two sections above, and only Swarm is an admin, so there was no support from several uinvolved admins, it was a lie most likely said in order to harm me, which confirms that you may not be impartial due to the events of the past. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Is that paranoia or arrogance I wonder? In the year when you made two edits to one article, all citing the same person, I made 11,000 edits to many hundreds of pages despite taking a break for over six full months. Of course your rebuttal at the RF thruster page rankles with you still, but as I say, I don't remember it even after you brought it up. However, I guess if you were the kind to realise when you've lost and walk away, we wouldn't be here. Guy (Help!) 20:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I just proved that you said not truth about the number of admins supporting you, and you call that paranoia? The section which I introduced on the RF thruster was added after consensus and modification, and exists there to this day, that proves that your unexplained reversal was detrimental to wikipedia and my edit improved wikipedia.
I said that several times that I want to walk away, but you hold me here, because you want to punish me even though I am innocent of any wrongdoing, so I have to waste my time to defend myself against false accusations. If you new anything about legal proceedings you would know that what you do here is a farce. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Guy, Discretionary sanctions are discretionary, and the claim of "INVOLVED" above rings more hollow than a vacuum chamber. So swing that mop, apply the topic ban you suggested and then we can shut this thread down. I'm sure it'll open up at AE within a few hours, but that's pretty much par for the course, these days. Everybody appeals the moment they get hit with sanctions, and precious few of those appeals run more than a few days before being shut down. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

How can you judge me without reading what I wrote and what evidence I presented? Why do you want to punish an innocent person? If you like to be punished being innocent, then perhaps the Guy should apply a ban on you, just like that, for nothing. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd rather not give a vexatious litigant any excuse, I will leave it to someone like Swarm. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I have voluntarily agreed to refrain from editing the wikipedia for a substantial amount of time (likely several years) - I wonder why is it not enough for you? Musashi miyamoto (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oh, wow. (The subsection makes it difficult to know where to post — did you really need a separate header, Robert McClenon? It makes it look like everybody after you is commenting on your suggestion. Anyway, that's not what I mean to do.) I'll support Guy's proposal of a topic ban and a reminder to assume good faith, as a minimum sanction to protect the encyclopedia. But from Musashi miyamoto's input here on ANI, with the numerous personal attacks and bludgeoning, I think we're now across the line and into indefinite block territory. Bishonen | talk 21:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC).

Bish, this is a DS area where any uninvolved admin can act at their discretion, so could I please beg you to just do the honors instead of voicing your support? I know this is a bit weird given that I'm not involved at all, but I've been seeing this thread grow like mold for several days now and I (and I suspect more than a few others) really want it archived and gone. And the consensus here seems pretty clear that the initial complaint is valid. Lord knows I'd be tempted to indef somebody just over this amount of bludgeoning... Probably a good thing I don't have a mop. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Great, let's just lynch him, why not, it's all discretionary, it's all arbitrary, evidence is not important, arguments and their quality are not important. He just wrote too much to defend himself and that is good enough reason to ban him forever. Congratulations! ;< Now I think even the press might be interested in this case. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked. We don't do cool-down blocks, but that last post convinces me you need to take a break of some duration, Musashi miyamoto. I've blocked you indefinitely. Just as advice, I suggest you take some time out before you appeal the block, but that's entirely up to you. Of course do try to interest the press if you wish. Bishonen | talk 21:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC).
  • A creative twist on a legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by User:Ceoil

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

---

After I removed some unsourced dubious content from Mark E. Smith ([351]) and made a tweak to image formatting in the infobox ([352]), neither of which seems controversial, Ceoil reinstated the unsourced content ([353]), and reverted my image fix ([354]) with an edit summary "two can play the same game", whatever that means. I restored the image fix but it was reverted again, without explanation ([355]). I left Ceoil a message asking why he was reverting ([356]). Ceoil then left a message on my talk page ([357]) which didn't really explain anything. He then left abusive messages on my talk page in a series of edits ([358]) calling me a 'prick' and a 'fuck'. I'm not going to engage further with an editor behaving like this - could an uninvolved admin deal with this please. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Butter wouldn't melt from your passive aggressive and deceptively cherry picking mouth. My opinion, and it is only an opinion, of you hasnt exacly been shaken to its foundations. Better luck next time. Ceoil (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Michig, the content you removed wasn't dubious; it was a list of the best-known recordings, and sources aren't needed in the lead (see WP:LEADCITE). If you see someone is in the middle of expanding an article, and they revert you and seem upset, then why not just leave it for a bit? Or go to talk. Yes, I know, no OWN, but even so. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Note, he revered me, not the other way round. Ceoil (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

It was dubious, as I don't believe these are the best known recordings, and it wasn't sourced - a few of them may be among the best-known recordings, others are not. I didn't revert it again, I requested a citation (somewhere else in the article would be fine if it this content was there, but it isn't) and did go to talk to ask why the other edit was reverted. The article wasn't tagged as in use at the time, hadn't been edited for 7 minutes, and had been edited by two different editors in the previous hour, so I'm not sure why you feel I shouldn't have been editing it - several editors have been making substantial edits since he died. In any case, I don't see how removing an unsourced statement, tweaking an image, and asking an editor why they reverted twice without explanation is in any way justification for the abuse I received. --Michig (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil reverted me here, reinstaing unsourced content without explanation, here, removing a tweak to image formatting without explanation, and here, again without explanation. All my edits were explained in edit summaries. --Michig (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I endorse the comments made by Michig. Ceoil has contributed greatly to that article - for which he should be praised - but clearly has serious ownership issues. There is absolutely no doubt, for example, that the list of best-known recordings that he insists on retaining in the lead is unsourced and, apparently, his personal opinion. Rather than simply reverting with abusive edit summaries like this, he needs to modify his editing behaviour and engage with other editors through the article talk page. If he is unwilling to do that, admin action needs to be taken. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Michig: Ceoil has made 521 edits to the article. You're the next contributor, with 24. So clearly he cares about it. It's not a question of trying to justify anything, but when the main contributor is in the middle of a series of edits, a degree of concentration is needed, and it can cause people to get annoyed if interrupted. That's all. I know this is Wikipedia and we have to expect it, but these things happen. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

And you think his 'annoyance' justifies him calling me an 'egotistical prick' and a 'fuck' do you? --Michig (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

No editor has placed an {{under construction}} tag on that page; we are talking about a recently-deceased person where there are a good number of editors willing and able to make positive changes to the article: and some of Ceoil's edits have been poor, in terms of grammar, spelling, and lack of adequate sourcing. There is no good reason why editors, even those making major changes to an article, should not be able to edit in a civil and proper manner, and not have hissy fits like this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Michig, you seemed to threaten him with a block, [359] and that's what triggered the comment you're quoting. I know your comment was ambiguous ("you can expect a block"), but it's important to choose words carefully to make clear you're speaking as an editor and not an admin. I would suggest closing this before it escalates even further. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

What? No. Someone can't just go around calling people a "prick" and have an ANI discussion shut down. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

No. Second ninjarobotpirate. By the way that prick comment [360] was before the "threat" Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Sarah, I think you need to step away and stop making excuses for him - my warning to him came three minutes after he posted this on my talk page, and he will be well aware that this sort of behaviour is likely to result in a block given his block history. --Michig (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Michig: As an administrator, you should know that the civility pillar crumbled into dust a long time ago on this site, particularly when the uncivil behavior comes from an experienced content contributor. We reserve sanctions for incivility for relatively new editors, incompetent editors, and, of course, administrators. It is nice to see "prick" for a change instead of "cunt" - I always felt, from an American perspective, that a little balance was needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
• Not the first, or the second, or the third block for the same behaviour. 3RR violation if you want to tack it on; see [361]. I count 5 reverts at-least. Definitely deserves a longish block for continual personal attacks general edit warring and uncollegial behaviourGalobtter (pingó mió) 17:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The issue is not simply a matter of civility and personal attacks - it is to do with wider issues of Ceoil's behaviour in editing that page, of which the personal abuse - which should not be dismissed - is part. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Pray tell User:Ghmyrtle, of the lager issue you've noticed of the last week and a half, are seemly are feeling free to insinuate. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I have asked both Ceoil and Ghmyrtle to drop it and to discuss at Talk:Mark E. Smith. It was while doing thus that I noticed a reference to this thread. Honestly, you all should know better by now. This is a content dispute that is getting out of hand but not really something that ANI need be bothered with. - Sitush (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Amen. Content disputes are not best served by this revert/bate/noticeboard method. If that approach actually worked, wiki would be doomed to statis, navel gazing, infighting and power struggles. Oh wait, and I notice the pile ons here. SarahSV seems clear eyed as to the sequence. Ceoil (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Now up to seven reverts. Apparently personal attacks is not something "ANI need be bothered with". Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Further personal attacks from Ceoil overnight: [362], [363], [364], [365]. --Michig (talk) 07:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Apparently it's a lager issue ... ? MPS1992 (talk) 09:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked one week for continued personal attacks and edit warring. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Dispute on Scrappy Little Nobody

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

---

• 212.186.7.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Article: Scrappy Little Nobody (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

On 30 January 2018, I closed a talk page discussion involving the article Scrappy Little Nobody. There, an anonymous editor felt that the quoted parts of a review published in Kirkus Reviews were offensive/unencyclopedic and should be removed. Other editors disagreed, and as the atmosphere of the discussion was quickly devolving, I thought it was best to close the discussion right away with an explanation of WP:NPOV, which in my view allows the inclusion of the quoted material.

Despite this, the user has continued to make these edits tendentiously (see article history) and has also spent much effort trying to edit my closing statement despite requests to stop (see talk page history). The user claims that we aren't responding to their claims, whereas in my view, I think the talk page discussion explains the policies and guidelines at issue more than enough.

Accordingly, I see this as a case of WP:IDHT, and I think the IP should be blocked temporarily to prevent further disruption to this article. Since it is my closing statement the editor has an issue about, I believe I'm too involved to act as an admin myself in this case. Mz7 (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like the IP is a young fan who doesn't really know how things are done here. A block for their IDHT, as well as battleground behaviour and competence probably wouldn't go amiss. Blackmane (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for disruptive editing and personal attacks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Notification of canvassing by User:Anthere

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

---

I am writing to notify of canvassing by User:Anthere regarding this diff and this discussion. I am providing notification as it may have an effect on the distribution of money from the foundation, in violation of Wikipedia rules on canvassing. Sport and politics (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I do not see this going anywhere. In any case, this is not canvassing related to the English Wikipedia. I suggest speedy close.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

This is though tantamount to spam on this Wikipedia though, as a form of advertising, if it is not canvassing. Where then is the best place for notification of this?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sport and politics (talk • contribs)

I would say Meta, but given the standing of Anthere in the community and given the fact that many proposers use a lot of channel (including mailing lists) to ask for support, as I said, I do not see it going anywhere. You can also discuss it directly with Florence, I am sure she will listen.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

If the concern is spam, then I don't see why it should be raised on meta. As the message was posted here, it can be dealt with here (I'm not saying there's any chance of this happening). But for starters we'd need more evidence it is spam i.e. participants of the wikiproject who consider the message unwelcome. Then you'd need to provide evidence that this is enough of a problem that being told by participants of said project not to post that sort of stuff isn't all the action that is needed. This evidence would likely come in the form of this being a long term problem. If participants of the wikiproject generally considered it welcome, then it doesn't fit the normal definition of spam. If you consider it an inappropriate way to advertise such issues or a sort of meta canvassing, that's perhaps something which should be dealt with on meta, but it has nothing to do with spam. Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not even sure what Canvassing exactly mean. If it is spamming... well... I have posted 3 call of endorsement for our funding request on the English wikipedia. 3 posts is spam ? Seems a bit of exaggeration here, no ?

Then spam is when a message is not welcome. I believe my message could be welcome by most and possibly unwelcome to a few. In one case, the post was on the discussion page of the Wiki Loves Women WikiProject I started myself (obviously, It should be welcome there). In the second case, in the Women in Red project talk page, WiR having been interested so far by what has been done in Wiki Loves Women framework (so I am not convinced they would consider it spam either). And this week-end, somebody suggested also informing the LGBT community because I was told LGBT rights are challenged quite a bit in particular in Tanzania and we could envision working on LGBT rights specifically as part of WLW project. How would that be really wrong for me to tell the participants of the LGBT wiki project ?

The second thing is that the Wikimedia Foundation EXPLICITELY ask us to inform the relevant, interested, and impacted communities when we propose a project and ask funding for it. So that community members can come and endorse the project OR they can also come and say I am a full nutty and my proposal is complete nonsense. If I pretend informing those communities in posted a little message on my meta user talk page, there is very little chance that the communities will be appropriately informed ! I need to tell them about it where they have a chance to find it.

In any cases, please rest assured that I will not post it anywhere else. I think it would also have make sense to inform WikiProjects related to African communities, but hopefully I already reached out to them through other means.

But seriously... WikiProjects are the places where we can discuss and inform about issues we care about. If posting an information there is spam... well... poor call. Sadly Anthere (talk)

The discussion above is closed. 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: MuhammadWickyKenang

The following discussion is closed. 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: MuhammadWickyKenang has been making nonconstructive edits on articles related to Indonesian Aviation. So far, all of his edits are not related to the articles at all. Here are some examples: [366][367][368]. I have told him to stop his act but he appears to ignore my warning. Therefore, I have decided to report this user and I request help from administrators to deal with this mischievous user . Thank You. CWJakarta (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• MuhammadWickyKenang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked 31h for disruptive editing. Please report back if he resumes without starting to engage on Talk. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

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

User:MarkCamilleriPhD

The following discussion is closed. 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 account is a WP:SPA for promotion of his own books. He's been warned many times at his talk page by three editors (including me) about spamming his own books as a reference. Now, following a level 4 warning for advertising, he's switched tactics by posting Airline product, a near-verbatim paste of three pages of one of his books he's been spamming for in references. The article is referenced only by his book and one other source, the latter of which I assume is a reference from his book. Nomination for speedy deletion as spam by User:331dot was declined as the article itself doesn't advertise anything specific. But this account is clearly meant solely for self-promotion - note his rationale at my talk page for his continual reference spam: "Honestly, I just wanted to share and disseminate knowledge from my book. I genuinely believe that it is a useful resource for students and practitioners. My book has been endorsed by some of the best academics in Tourism and Hospitality." [369] The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

User is not responding at all on Talk, so I have blocked for now and left a message. Guy (Help!) 10:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I see that the page has now been speedy deleted as promotional. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Worth noting that he also tweeted about the article shortly after creating it: [370]. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I think we all know that this user is not here for anyone's benefit but his own, however, let's see if he starts to respond on his talk page. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

It was worth firing up Twitter for the first time this year. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 10:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see it that way at all. It's an expert, trying to contribute his expertise, and not knowing our rules. He needs counseling, not banning. (I mention that the most suspicious thing about the article was that it was exceptionally coherent and well-written for a WP general article, and therefore looks like it came from elsewhere; the contribution someone like that can make at WP is enormous, if we do not chase them away. All that needs to be done is to explain the rules, and how to contribute as an expert. Possibly he won't want to continue under our rules--I know experts who will not contribute here because they do not want their precise wording altered--but I also know experts who do understand that this is an important supplement to academic writing.

This seems so very typical of ANI--a rush to conclusions before considering that the motive might be a good one (even though the action showed lack of knowledge of our rules. Actually, I think that relatively few mainstream academic come here to contribute to content article to promote their work--if they want to promote themselves, they try write an autobiography. And when they do promote their work, it's usually just by adding references to it, not by writing major articles summarizing the mainstream orthodox view of their field. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The issue for me is failure to respond to numerous alerts, but I also noted that his edit summaries consistently refer to "important" sources and so on, this does not show the kind of humility I find characteristic of genuinely excellent researchers. However, we don't yet now if this is the generic issue of academics not realising that Wikipedia doesn't work like academic publishing, or blatant self-promotion. I reserve judgment. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

DGG makes a number of good points concerning Wikipedia and experts, but he overlooks some pretty significant signs that this editor, in particular, is not the kind of expert we need.

First off, I personally find the the addition of "PhD" to a user number to be grating. Certainly those who have achieved doctorates have every right to the honorific "Doctor", but to put in on a user name seems to me to be a pre-emptive strike against having their edits examined closely: "He's a PhD, so what he writes must be correct." Second, taking an excerpt from one's own book and making a Wikipedia article from it is either lazy writing or pormotionalism: they would never presume to try to do that with a professional journal or even a commercial magazine, so they obviously think of Wikipedia as a lesser form of information dispersal. Third, to promote the article by tweeting about it confirms that the purpose of the article is not to improve Wikipedia, or even to spread knowledge more widely, it was to promote the reputation of the writer. Last, there's no possible way to see the failure to interact as anything but a snub, a statement that Wikipedians aren't worth their time.

That's the way the situation appears to me. I hope to be proved wrong. I hope that the editor will request an unblock, perhaps even with an apology for misunderstanding the way things work here, enter into a dialogue with others, and go on to help improve the encyclopedia. We'll see if that happens. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing this, the user did request an unblock via UTRS which was procedurally declined (which seemed a little BITEy), and for some reason they removed an unblock request from their talk page, possibly in error. I agree with the above condemnations, but at the very least, an editor who insists that they're trying to contribute to the project in good faith in a variety of areas deserves to have their block appeal reviewed. Swarm ♠ 11:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:RPP backlog and errors

Please see [371] and fix, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe Malhação2017 (talk · contribs) made a malformed request. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism on the Iran Iraq war page

Hi, could an admin check the activity of user Ehsan iq who changes without any explanation the issue of this war several times whitin recent days ? Thanks a lot ! Farawahar (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

They have been blocked by me for vandalism/disruption earlier on today. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, i’ve just seen his block right now, thanks a lot for your intervention. Farawahar (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

AJJCornhole

The following discussion is closed. 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 writing this article for a business founded in 2005 and I believe it has a default blacklist on the word, "Cornhole", due to the profane nature of the subject matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:AJJCornhole

Can you please assist me or my colleagues?

Thank you,

Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azgoda (talk • contribs) 15:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Azgoda. In order to preserve attribution I believe the best way to approach this is for you to create the article in your sandbox and then ask an admin to move it to the proper title. Also, please read the conflict of interest info I added to your talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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

List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump

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

---

List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump is currently subject to discretionary sanctions. Getting a number of violations of WP:1RR by several editors. I really don't want to go to Arbitration Enforcement yet and would rather ask an uninvolved administrator to take a look, possibly administer personal warnings to those they feel necessary and perhaps an 8 to 24 hour full protect to force people to the talk page. I have deliberately not named any offending editors and I am NOT requesting any sanctions against anybody at this time, just a warning. I am prepared to go to arbitration enforcement if I have to, but I want to avoid that if possible. Safiel (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Safiel: Your edit summary reminder should do the trick. All involved editors are aware of discretionary sanctions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, people have finally taken it to the talk page. Safiel (talk) 05:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Persistent edit warring and disruptive editing from 2.232.70.45

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

---

An IP editor at 2.232.70.45, with a long history of blocks for edit warring, vandalism, and block evasion, is engaged in a spate of disruptive editing at the moment. I have tried to reason with the editor, and, to bring in other editors most recently active on the principal article of contention (see that article's talkpage history below).

• IP's contributions
• IP's talkpage and talkpage history
• Edit history of main article of contention (Cefalù Cathedral)
• Edit history of Cefalù Cathedral article talkpage

Eric ^talk 01:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Answer to false accusations: avoid sabotaging the discussions and responding to your work [372] Edit history of main article of contention (Cefalù Cathedral) --2.232.70.45 (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@2.232.70.45: what was your takeaway from the fact that three days ago, an administrator warned you on your talk page that you were in danger of receiving a lengthy block for your actions in this matter? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 06:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jprg1966: I'm pretty sure notifications don't work with IPs. Doug Weller talk 07:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Good to know. In any case, I hope the IP uses this opportunity to do some self-reflection for their own benefit. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Update: The IP editor has resumed the revert campaign: article, talkpage. Eric ^talk 18:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for one week. Swarm ♠ 23:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits by an anonymous "male"

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

---

Hi admin! Coming here after this suggestion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_159#Talk:Aangan_(TV_series)

You can check out whole Talk:Aangan (TV series); the issue might have been resolved but still "his" behaviour is rude. The latest example of the behaviour is in Draft:Tabeer. Although it is just a draft, but it has been declined several times maybe due to not enough coverage; though I didn't understand why is "he" reverting my edits. His IPs were earlier 182.182.*** and now are 39.38.***. Please check out and let me know what to do. Thanks! :) M. Billoo 13:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Why are you putting scare quotes around "male" and "his"? What possible difference can the IP's gender make to your complaint? If you just want to avoid making assumptions about their gender, better to use singular "they", as I just did. It's now accepted by numerous grammarians and style books. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

There's no basis for admin action here. It appears that you have a personal dispute (not a content dispute) with this user, and that they simply want you to leave them alone. I strongly suggest you stop interacting with this user unless you have a very good reason for doing so. I don't think you need to be intervening on that particular draft. Swarm ♠ 11:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

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

[R]BI 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.

---

Repquesting Block without SPI of GHeidenberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sock of this UAA-blocked account. RBI would also help avoid opening an SPI due to the master's username violation. Dr. K. 06:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Ongoing edit war on The Third Murder

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

---

Hi. I would like the administrators to check the revision history of this page. The article is in an unstable situation as two IP users have been edit warring constantly for hours. I asked both of them to stop, but they didn't listen to me. Please help stabilize the article as soon as possible. Thanks. Keivan.f^Talk 07:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Promontoriumispromontorium is NOTHERE

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

---

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

Requesting a NOTHERE block for this user. I was collecting diffs for an AE filing but appalled by what I found. In the past week this user has made repeated polemic and diatribe comments of pages relating to American politics and transgender issues. These are both DS areas, but this behavior is unacceptable even in non-DS areas.

1. 20:54, 1 February 2018 "Instead it's just you lying biased liberals tossing out every libelous attack you could find from hack journalists who know they can get away with lies and hate because they have people like you turning their lies into "truth" by simply silencing all opposition. This whole page is a joke. You're disgusting people with no respect for journalism, accuracy, or objectivity. You've smeared more feces on this page than San Franciscans did their own park to stop minorities from sharing their experiences."
2. 21:00, 1 February 2018 " Proving the San Franciscans were the violent animals, throwing feces and spitting on cops even when nobody else was around. Left all that out because you're liars and hacks."
3. 05:55, 6 February 2018 " However since I know I can't avail you biased leftist SJWs from controlling the "truth". I'll beat you at your own game. Sex and gender are..."
4. 06:00, 6 February 2018 "Since gender is psychological not biological, it's a pointless endeavor, but the psychotically biased left, who include these editors will defend to their death manufactured, clearly unsupported, unscientific, 1984esque imaginary terminology such as this to back a narrative for political ends. By calling it what it actually is, scientific confirmation of sex, it undermines their lies. And lying is the point. So this article will stand until their narrative changes, not facts. Which undeniably are on the side of renaming or deleting this. "
5. 06:49, 6 February 2018 "But then you lying leftist SJW crusaders use this lie as defense to keep it up, as people can't cite enough sources to call it something else. Something invented whole cloth for sociopolitical reasons, of course there isn't a rich history to reference too."
6. 06:54, 6 February 2018 "It is a whole cloth liberal arts sociopolitical tactic to create terminology in order to be able to attack it"

I see little to no contributions outside of article talk pages. This type of commentary is nothing new either (comment about Caitlyn Jenner and other gems [373] [374] [375]).

EvergreenFir (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Introduction of a malware link into a citation

There's an incident involving a possible malware link being introduced into a {{cite web}} ref by user Ehipassiko2 (talk · contribs) that I'm hesitating to call intentional (hence not "reporting" the user in the section header), but which has potential negative side effects to the encyclopedia, so thought I'd better raise it here in case something needs to be done. (Previously raised at user talk page, and at Teahouse). There are a series of six edits at Feminist views on transgender and transsexual people which mostly appear benign to me, but two among them raised a red flag:

1. 23:53, February 2, 2018 – (ES) adds text with {{cite web}} having valid title and a url identified as containing HEUR.Trojan.Script.Generic.
2. 00:12, February 3, 2018 – (ES) overwrites good title with "HARM IS HARM".

As I said at the Teahouse, there's been no discussion yet, I still assume good faith on the part of this user, and had there been only one such edit, I would have waited for their response. But given that malware was involved, and that the second edit seemed to confirm the first, I'm not sure if waiting is a good idea. The fact that in every other way, the edits appear to be constructive, is either a mitigating factor and a sign that it's all just a big mistake, or else some clever camouflage for ill intent in a topic area under discretionary sanctions.

Although I'm an occasional lurker here, I haven't participated much, so not sure where to go with this. Since a block seems very premature, I guess I'm really only asking for vigilance, although I don't know how that might translate into ANI-ese, and suspect it might not. I suppose mostly, I raised it because I couldn't in good conscience just sit on this without saying something. Should I just forget about this? Mathglot (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I am confirming that I encouraged Mathglot to file this ANI report in a Teahouse discussion. Lacking expertise in malware, I thought it best to bring the matter to wider attention here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

FYI I have posted this Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Input requested in hopes of getting as many eyes on this as possible. MarnetteD|Talk 05:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• FWIW, oncenturyavenue.org seems to have been a legitimate domain at one time judging by Google searches, connected to a legitimate student newspaper connected to NYU Shanghai. It may have been hacked. Additionally, the citation placed by the user is accurately sourced to the NYU Shanghai Writing Department. How they got to the link is unclear. The citation was incorrectly titled, actually using the title of the other source. "HARM IS HARM" is actually the title of the oncenturyavenue page, though it could stand to be made less shouty. How they got to the link is unclear, but it does still show up in Google search, so it may have just been itself cited on another site, and the user chose to use that information and cite the original source without looking into it. I'm willing to assume good faith here. Pinguinn 🐧 06:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
• What specific tool did you use to identify potential malware? [ Opera 43.0. —Mathglot (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC) ]

Looking at Special:Diff/823719240, the meta-scan by Virus Total shows that 1 of 67 and 0 / 67 tools find malware at the URLs added by the user. I suspect that the results are false positive. It is also possible that the website has transient malware from an advertising network BillHPike (talk, contribs) 06:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)A

I looked at the Fortinet results for more details. The description is just the generic phrase “[[https://fortiguard.com/webfilter?q=http://oncenturyavenue.org/2015/03/harm-is-harm-hello malicious website]]”. I’m fairly confident this is either a false positive or a transient occurance. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 06:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

My ISP, which uses an OpenDNS filter to check for malware and other things, blocks it as phishing, but per [https://domain.opendns.com/oncenturyavenue.org] they appear to have nothing on it. Pinguinn 🐧 06:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

There appears to be a suspicious script on every page, which I've preserved here. It's inserted before the DOCTYPE declaration, so I am pretty confident the site was hacked. I don't know what the code does, though. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 01:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, it appears to be a cryptocurrency miner. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, duh. I'll blacklist it. Guy (Help!) 10:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Has anyone contacted the website owners yet? I'll do that if no one else has. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 00:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I've been following with interest, and just wanted to thank everyone for their help and intervention. I have one request: the original problem was noted in edits by a brand new user (Ehipassiko2 (talk · contribs)), and I don't want them to feel bitten or get scared off by the talk page comments. If there's someone here who reckons they have good bedside manner and would be willing to have a look at my comments on their talk page and perhaps add something if you think it would be helpful, I'd appreciate it. Thus far, they have not responded, so I hope they are still paying attention, or will come back at some point and notice the comments. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Possible IP socks of globally locked and blocked User:Relpmek

A series of IPs who all geolocate to same region editwarring at Psychology of art led to autoconfirmed page protection yesterday. New IP IP contribs], same geographic location, now editwarring at Talk:Psychology of art to retain content added by a possible sock (User:Psarto) of globally locked and blocked User:Relpmek. Any admins want to take a look at? Heiro 22:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I blocked the IP editor, but the talk page might need to be protected later. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Saw that, thank you. They used three different IPs yesterday (89.139.84.17, 85.250.150.112 and 93.173.68.163), and 4th (93.173.166.217) today, so is a good possibility they will pop up again. Maybe a rangeblock is possible?, although I don't know if those are closely grouped enough to not take out too big a range. Heiro 22:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate:, or any other admin, IP has now hopped to 217.132.7.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Heiro 05:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Saw this thread in passing. I blocked 217.132.7.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for quacking on Talk:Psychology of art. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

About the time I semi protected Talk:Psychology of art. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

It's possible there are workable range blocks in there somewhere. I'd prefer trying page protection first, though. It looks like Relpmek has kind of narrow interests, so it might work. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

PAKHIGHWAY block review

The following discussion is closed. 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'll notify involved editors in a moment) I just blocked PAKHIGHWAY (talk · contribs). This user was under a topic ban as a result of this discussion. In the section earlier on this noticeboard, "Mass G8 deletion of pages created by an IP", there was some concern the user was editing via an IP address, though this was not involved in my discussion to block. In my opinion and apparently that of others, PAKHIGHWAY has been pushing right up against the edge of the topic ban in a number of edits. What concerned me this morning was this edit, removing "Disputed with India" which seems an unambiguous violation, and then these edits to a talk page on an article about India. It's hard to reconcile these with the user's topic ban. Combine those edits with the existing behaviour and I felt it most appropriate to place a six month block. I am unclear as to whether the topic ban should restart once the block expires, but (if the block stands), we'll need to determine this. I suggest the topic ban be restarted once the block expires. So... is this block appropriate? If so, should the topic ban restart once the block expires? --Yamla (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Definitely needed some sort of block, although six months may be a big leap. I think the topic ban should be reset after each block. - Sitush (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• Agree with Yamla a block was absolutely in order as a clear and present breach of topic ban (and which on top of the myriad of other similar edits could in no way be accidental). However: six months could appear excessive. Don't topic-ban violations usually begin with a month block and increment at the same rate? Mind you, arguably, that's also the discretion we pay our admin corp for—and this editor's been pushing the same crap since the beginning of the year (three blocks already, since 1 Jan, for the same thing?!). >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• I would argue for a block of one month.And T-Ban resets with each block.~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • If the consensus is to shorten the block to one month, I'm quite happy to do so. I'll leave the discussion open for a while yet, of course. --Yamla (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• I guess I can see the rationale for 6 months (the two blocks this year were relatively shorter than desired). But yes, reduce to 1 month seems to be more within the process. Alex Shih (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yamla, more of a procedural question than anything, but is this block intended as an AE action? I ask since I believe the TBAN was a discretionary sanction and was logged at WP:AELOG/2018. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yamla: fix ping. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'll be happy to log it there (thanks for reminding me), though I think I'll hold off until this discussion runs its course. Looks like I'll be shortening it to a month which is a meaningful difference. --Yamla (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• I thought the block was reasonable, this looked to me like this was one of (a) a breaching experiment; (b) a complete failure to get it, or (c) a failure to accept the restriction. The appeal appears to rule out (b). Guy (Help!) 14:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• Given his previous behaviour, blocks, and all the warnings; I think 45 days would be the best call. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Or maybe 38 days, 17 hours, 23 minutes and 9 seconds...~ Winged Blades^Godric 18:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• Right. The general consensus appears to be that 6 months is too long, but a 1 month block seems justified, followed by restarting the one year topic ban. I will now go and modify the block, logging my action to WP:AELOG/2018. --Yamla (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) A block was definitely warranted, to remind Pakhighway of the need to stay away from the area of their topic ban. But given the minor character of the transgression, and the fact that he is productive in an area where there is a dearth of experienced editors, I think a block of more than a couple of days is going to bring the encyclopedia more harm than good. A week might be too much, and a month is excessive. – Uanfala (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• That is up to them. It is not uncommon for a disruptive but productive contributor to be sanctioned. They know what they need to do. - Sitush (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• The block was already shortened, so the point is moot, but I'll just state for the record that I don't think 6 months was excessive in this context. Let's recap, for the anyone who doesn't fully appreciate the situation. This is an editor who is willingly and persistently attempting to POV-push, in spite of numerous sanctions, in an area already under discretionary sanctions for this exact reason. If they were supporting a product instead of a country, they would have already been indeffed as a spammer. They were already in indef territory before the topic ban. But they were given a topic ban, and then they talked their way into getting their topic ban reduced in scope, then they immediately used that leniency to continue the problematic POV editing which they were topic banned for. I blocked them for this, and their block appeal showed no inkling whatsoever of them understanding the issue. Then they resort to the same behavior again, get blocked, and yet again people are calling for leniency. It doesn't matter if a user can edit productively if they choose not to. In my opinion, cutting five months off the original block was yet another unjustified and undeserved act of exceptional lenience. It's exceedingly clear at this point that this user is either unable or unwilling to edit responsibly. In my opinion, this user is well out of WP:ROPE, and the next block should, without question, be indefinite. Swarm ♠ 23:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Saiph121: Take 5

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

---

Saiph121 either cannot understand or will not accept consensus. They have been given plenty of rope. If rope were corn flakes, they'd be Kellogg's. (See their talk page.)

Here is their last trip to AN/I. This is them not hearing that discussion. This is another final warning, from JzG. This and this are Saiph121 making it clear they did not understand or chose not to follow that warning (for which JzG blocked them again).

Now we have this. Saiph121 is again re-adding a non-notable award contrary to the repeatedly established consensus. They challenged that consensus at DRN, where it was found to be a non-controversial one-against-many. They edited in defiance of that consensus and were blocked for it. That brought them back here with the warning and block discussed above.

That new diff also has them re-adding a category which was removed after similar extensive discussion on the same talk page, a trip to DRN, a trip here and a couple of blocks.

Discussion does not work. They either do not understand key portions of the discussions, do not understand that consensus is our basic dispute resolution process or choose not to follow the consensus.

Warnings do not work. Their (extensive) talk page is littered with ignored requests for discussion and warnings.

Short blocks do not work. They have returned from three blocks in a month and a half with no apparent recognition that there is a problem.

I think a longer term block and/or a 1RR restriction is needed. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

First, I will point out that the dispute resolution noticeboard is a purely voluntary service for the resolution of content disputes, but that User:Saiph121 was previously using it vexatiously, apparently in order to avoid consensus. The fact that their trips to DRN were dismissed should not be used as evidence that they were wrong on the content. However, second, I completely agree with User:SummerPhDv2.0 that this is a case of tendentious editing. I don't see that longer blocks are the answer, because by now the question is whether to give an indefinite block for competence or as not here to collaborate or to fashion a restriction. I propose a Topic-Ban on all versions of Beauty and the Beast, broadly defined, and on film-related topics for six months. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I do not mean to imply that the DRN results are indicative of the content questions, only that they clearly show that Saiph121 is not recognizing when consensuses exist and that they are binding so long as they remain.

I do not think that a TBAN on Beauty and the Beast is sufficient. Saiph121 has a recurring pattern, discussed at Talk:Culture_of_the_United_Kingdom#Extensive_and_growing_example_farm. They add content and, when reverted, repeatedly restore the content (often while logged out). They do not respond to discussion requests, responding only once a consensus is established and enacted (a process currently underway on that same talk page). A topic ban would apparently need to cover all film related articles (broadly construed). While I think the broader range of articles is necessary, I think a 1RR on such articles will quickly get us to the point where they either "get it" or end up blocked. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Clearly SummerPhDv2.0's actions against me are truly a case of witch-hunting despite all the explanations that the awards that he stated are "non-notable" are truly false as these are linked which is being called "bluelinked articles" that really exist and this topic ban being issued with a threat against me is considered a violation of my freedom to edit a topic and yet all of this threats of long bans and topic ban restriction is a form of persecution in which my intent was stating on the truth. Saiph121 (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

This is bizarre. I took less than 5 minutes to review the discussion and I can see that this specific point has been explained to you over and over again. There's a clear local consensus that only notable awards should be included, and that the organization that gives the award being notable and having its own article does not make the award itself worthy of inclusion. You've ignored everything everyone said to you, you've ignored warnings, and you've ignored blocks. I'm blocking indef, and would not support an unblock without strict editing restrictions. Swarm ♠ 23:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

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

William Foster Nye

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

---

There was a speedy deletion notice which I contested. I took the article from an 85.7% Earwig down to a 2% earwig. It was deleteed (can't recover who did it) anyway as a copyuright violation. SNAFU. There was no copyright violation. Nobody was "fooling Earwig", as you alleged. This was a contested deletion which should have been WP:PRODd IT. Deletionn violated WP:Before. There was a 2% chance of a ccopyyright violation per Earwig. <There was no copy vio and no close paraphrasing. You deleted based on an alleged copyright violation. The expansive, new and novel Procrustean approach is clearly outside of policy. WP:Before violated. Article could have been improved and expanded. The mere coincidence of proper and trade names doesn't make this a copy vio. I would also note that User:Fram left a notice at here at User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 's talk page, and he is currently blocked from editing. Talk about a self fulfilling prophecy. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The page was nominated (not by me) for deletion as a copyvio (an old one, the RAN copyright investigation has been ongoing slowly for years). 7&6 contested the deletion and edited the article, but the end result wsa enough to fool Earwig's tool, but not enough to actually get rid of the copyvio. I deleted the article and left a note at RANs talk page, with two long examples of such remaining copyvios[376]. 7&6 seems to think that if Earwig's tool is happy, no copyvio is possible and the article may not be speedy deleted. That's not how it works, and I hope they haven't done too many other similar copyvio "cleanups" as that would mean a lot of potentially problematic content. Fram (talk) 13:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I am with Fram on this one. Trivially rewording an article so that automated tools don't spot the copyvio doesn't make it not a copyvio. Speedy deletion was the right move. The subject may or may not be notable and if it is, you're very welcome to write an article about it; don't make it a close paraphrase of a source. GoldenRing (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @7&6=thirteen (can't ping, sorry) This discussion is all over the place! Not only RAN's talk, but Fram's talk, Oshwah's talk MelanieN's talk. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Before 7&6=thirteen began working on the article the content was a verbatim copyvio. Tiderolls 14:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC) The post to which I was responding has been removed. Tiderolls 16:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• The earwig tool is great in some circumstances or as a rough guide. Spotting large completely lifted chunks of copyvio text is one area where it excels. Spotting copyvio text that has had a word or two changed but is substantially the same overall is not. Changing the occasional word does not necessarily make it not a copyvio per ENWP's rules, there is paraphrasing, close paraphrasing, and there is switching a word in the middle of a sentence to bring earwigs % down. From looking at the example's on RAN's page left by Fram, I am of the opinion this certainly (albeit in good faith by thirteen) falls in the latter category. Editors should not place high value in earwigs results. Its a good indicator. Its not infallible.

What I would suggest is that given RAN has shown no interest in fixing his extensive copyvio problems over the years is that there should be no requirement of any other editor in notifying him if they nominate anything of his mess for deletion due to copyright issues. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Your personal attackS on User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is just an irrelevant Red herring and Argumentum ad hominem, and Poisoning the well. Falacy. The article was fixed, and you want to kill it because you don't like the creator. There is no copyright violation NOW. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes there isn't one now because the article was deleted. As has been pointed out, merely changing a word or two does not make it not a copyvio per ENWP's rules. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're only 1/2 right: The fact that the user above you used an ad hominem argument doesn't mean the article was fixed. Actually, the article was not fixed, as noted by several admins above. I have looked at the deleted text, and I agree with their assessment; the article was still functionally a copyright violation, and needed to go, even after the fixes. If you would like to start over, from scratch, and create a whole new article with completely different text that you write all by yourself with your own writing that isn't copied or closely paraphrased from anywhere, you're quite free to, and no one will stop you. But the now deleted article should stay deleted, as there is nothing in the edit history worth saving, including YOUR edits. --Jayron32 16:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

There was not a change in a "mere word or two," Take a look at the diffs. I would put them here for the world to see, but you deleted the article and I don't have access. You don't want full disiclosure or fair comparison. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC) 16:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The woeful and insufficient procdural undepinnings of this deletion are admitted above by User:Fram: "

The page was nominated (not by me) for deletion as a copyvio (an old one, the RAN copyright investigation has been ongoing slowly for years). 7&6 contested the deletion and edited the article, but the end result wsa enough to fool Earwig's tool, but not enough to actually get rid of the copyvio. I deleted the article and left a note at RANs talk page," Everything I said above is true and ADMITTED! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Have you tried taking this to WP:DELREV yet by any chance, which is the venue to dispute a speedy deletion? RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. Will do. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• DRV can handle the question of whether to undelete this particular file (preview: DRV is not going to overturn), and I'll comment there. But I've reopened this thread, and don't think it should be closed open we get an idea of the scope of the problem, and until Thirteen acknowledges he understands this: User:7&6=thirteen, you need to listen to what a whole bunch of people are telling you here. Incrementally changing someone's copyrighted work until there is no longer an Earwig match is still a copyright violation. You can't do that live in an article, you can't do that in a sandbox, you can't do it in draft space, and you can't do that in a file on your computer. That is not writing an article, that is modifying someone else's article. It is always a copyright violation. If Earwig came back 0% match after you did that, it's a copyright violation. Fram did the right thing here. I'm concerned at the deep, fundamental misunderstanding if what copyvio means. How many articles have you used this technique on? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I did not initially write this article. I totally rewrote it. I will take this up with WP:DELREV, as there is precious little of the original article that was untouched. This was not "incremental" change; it was a wholesale rewrite.

I would have gotten more sources and rewritten it further, but this article was getting a "fast trial," and a deletion; not to be confused with a constitutionally sound Speedy trial. So the rewrite went bye-bye because of the preemptive first strike. You will get no apology from me as all I did was improve the article only to have it derailed without a modicum of due process or respect for the rules. Apparently the rules don't matter to you? I hope that is not what you meant. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you understand, in cases like this the rules are that it gets deleted very quickly. A number of the admins above can *see* the deleted content and see its a violation by our policies. From the examples on RAN's talkpage *I* can see its a violation of our copyvio policy. In situations like this it is almost without exception speedily deleted - or if it has been re-written, revision deleted. Your reworked version was not sufficiently different to be kept as a non-copyvio. This is not a huge issue, but you need to understand there are legal implications which mean in situations like this action is taken quickly unless it can be demonstrated sufficiently that a significant rewrite has occurred. That did not happen. The problem with making incremental or minor changes that lower the earwig % is that you are not writing your own work, you are modifying someone else's work, which is still ultimately a copyvio by our policies. It needs to be re-written, not modified to comply with our rules. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Rewording can and does make copyrighted text non-copyrighted. So I think the only thing that needs to be done is for an uninvolved admin to take a look at the before & after on that page and decide if the edits by 7&6 were enough of a change. This requires some judgement, but there's no need to go around arguing. We're going to have to trust the admin who does this, either way, as it is currently not visible to the rest of us. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

OKay, after seeing some of the examples given at RAN's talkpage (here), I agree that it was still a copyvio. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Also Jayron already noted they looked at the deleted content and I trust their judgement on this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand there are legal implications. Indeed, I venture to guess that I am professionally trained better than you in that regard, but I digress.

But the extent of copyright and WP:Copyvios and WP:Close paraphrasing is not what you imagine. To be sure, the latter is an amorphous standard, which like Whizzer White said about pornography, "I know it when I see it." You have confabulated both a violation and a new standard. When Earwig is 0%, that is by any objective standard a good indication that there isn't a problem. I understand that you were all acting inn good faith, but you were wrong. So I also understand that you claim you are implementing rules, but I do not understand that you were factually right or procedurally correct. This was a deletion that happened in minutes, even as the article was being (and had largely been) rewritten. You quickly cut off my ongoing editing. And while you say it should not have been "incrementally rewritten", the hurried deletion made a larger rewrite impossible. QED. Heads I win; tails you lose. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Well everyone above disagrees with you, so I suggest the more likely explanation is you're wrong. If you take this to DRV I would expect to be disappointed. Its clear you don't understand the problem, so someone uninvolved might as well close this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Apparently you don't understand the concept of "rush to judgment" and 'o'er hasty deletion.' Or WP: Before You choose to disregard the ongoing progress in rewriting the article. Or the ignored contested deletion (which is admitted). that someone chose to leave a notice on a blocked user page (which made correction by him impossible) – which should have made it a fait accomplit but for my happening on that edit – is also ignored. This would have been fixed long ago if you hadn't deleted the article. There were less drastic and destructive ways to have handled it. We will have to agree to disagree as to your analysis or lack thereof. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Sigh, since you can't tell the difference between two editors (hint, I didnt delete anything) and you appear to be ignoring the consensus above, I think we are done. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. User:Only in death you did not delete anything. I was not directing my comments about you. If you took it that way, I am sorry for the misunderstanding.

Rather, I was addressing the essentially flawed process and lack of due process. And a needless controversy that could have been avoided with a little patience. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• The only good thing about a copyright violation is you don't need a copy of the deleted article to use as a reference to write the new article; you can just use the original article it was stolen from. If you'd like to know the web address RAN took this text from, it was here. In fact, if you want all of the references, I can look at the deleted article and provide the references so you can write a new article from scratch. That is the only way this is going to work; I can guarantee the deleted article is not going to be undeleted at DRV. But what you were doing before the article was deleted was not fixing a copyright problem; it was obscuring a copyright problem. Admins can look at your contribs on the deleted article; there aren't that many to look at. But, for example, changing this:

In 1840 at 16 years old, he left his family’s Cape Cod. He became apprentice to a master carpenter in New Bedford, Massachusetts. He left New Bedford to build pipe organs in Boston, took to sea as a ship's carpenter, he worked at an ice house in Calcutta and participated in the California Gold Rush of 1849. He returned to New Bedford to start an oil and kerosene business.

to this:

Nye was born in 1824. At the age of 16 years, he left his family’s Cape Cod to become an apprentice to a master carpenter in New Bedford, Massachusetts. Upon completing his apprenticeship, he went to Boston and began building pipe organs. Thereafter he took became a ship's carpenter. During his voyages, he worked at an ice house in Calcutta and participated in the California Gold Rush of 1849. Returning to New Bedford, he started an oil and kerosene business.

is not "fixing copyright problems". --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

So I caN't get access to the final deleted iteration. Retrench and denny. Thank you. See you at WP:REVDEL. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Harassing message

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

---

There is currently a WP:SOCK investigation on TheIrshKicker40 which is kind of hanging at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheCorageone1. An article the master sock was working on a lot just got deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Wrestling (2nd nomination) and we have nominated this users newest article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Pacitti. After this, I received this message on my talk page [377]. I would like to request admin action against this user and my page history edited to remove these comments from visibility. Thanks! - Galatz^Talk 19:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

He says he's leaving Wikipedia. A block would help affirm that decision. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd also think it's worth checking out JMichael22 too as there is significant overlap. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

This also has some crossover and similar tone to many Dwdpuma socks and Martimc123. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Chrissymad has left an ‘only warning’ on TheIrshKicker40 talk page and I have revdel the offending edit. No comment on the SPI. They are apparently quitting so we may hear no more from them. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

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

User:KolbertBot is malfunctioning

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

---

Hello, this user/bot is reversing our (The OU Students Association's) changes meaning the page is incorrect. Please can you investigate?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KolbertBot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_University_Students_Association — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oustudents-media (talk • contribs) 11:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Oustudents-media: The bot merely replaced a http link by a https version (for security reasons) and worked properly. Your additions were removed by Viewmont Viking for an apparent conflict of interest and possible copyright issues. Also, your user name conflicts with policy, since it suggests shared use and may be construed as promotional. Kleuske (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Apparent verbal abuse at Antisemitism

The following discussion is closed. 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: Malik Shabazz criticized me yesterday for a minor edit on the Saudi Arabia section of Antisemitism. This included three uses of the f-word in violation of WP: Don't be rude and WP: civility. I deleted these and was told by several editors that this was 'disruptive editing'. The f-word is nothing but verbal fungus and I see nothing 'disruptive' in deleting it, still less do I see it as a cause for blocking me. Since then he has called me 'blind' and a 'liar'. The first is in very poor taste ( I have cataracts in both eyes) and the second is unsupported by any evidence. Details are to be found on the Antisemitism talk page and on the two most recent entries on my own User: Crawiki talk page. Crawiki (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

You've already been told by three admins on your talkpage that rewriting other people's comments to comply with your personal views constitutes disruptive editing (and been blocked for refusing to listen), so I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by forum-shopping here, but if you insist: rewriting other peoples' comments to comply with your personal views constitutes disruptive editing. You are not the Chief Censor of Wikipedia, and it's not your place to censor other people's comments except in a few exceptional circumstances none of which apply here. It's especially not your place to censor other people's comments when you're arguing in support of a tendentious position (that Saudi Arabian immigration authorities don't discriminate against Jews) which can be disproved by about five seconds Google searching. ‑ Iridescent 13:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• I was going to make a well-thought-out, patient and polite comment on how curse words are just words that add emphasis to otherwise monotonous statements and subtly point out how ridiculous it is for a mature person to get upset because they happened to read some words (not even ideas, just words) that they dislike reading and go run off to cause drama over it. But then I considered how sensitive people on the internet are, so I decided to just go fuck off and die in a fire like the shitty cunt I am. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
• Pinging NeilN, who offered to unblock Crawiki if the OP agreed to "drop the stick" on this issue. Now Crawiki is here, just a few hours later, beating everything in sight with said stick. If you can't handle some gentle fucking criticism (and Malik Shabazz was pretty fucking patient with someone who was clearly POV-pushing), stay out of the kitchen. Fuck. Grandpallama (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

  While I get that we can all say 'fuck' whenever we want on Wikipedia, it's never particularly necessary to do so. Especially when you're doing so to pointedly offend someone who is more sensitive to language than you are. Fish Karate 14:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

  It's not to pointedly offend someone. It's to "particularly" pointedly make the point that their attempts to bring here an issue which was addressed ad nauseam to them is inappropriate. Grandpallama (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, first, everyone, stop poking Crawiki. It's not particularly funny or clever. Second, Crawiki, you wrote here that your "standards are higher than the 'community at large'." They probably are, but that doesn't mean you can impose them on the community. You have a couple choices - you can either accept you will encounter the occasional profanity here or you can work to change our WP:CIVILITY policy to outright ban all profanities. However I think the latter option would be akin to climbing the Reichstag. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:CIR issue

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

---

See INews TV. I encountered the DAB (now) in this state, that is mainly in ( I presume) Indonesian. Weeding out red links and irrelevant links got me into trouble with 125.161.104.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who seems dedicated to promoting INews (an Indonesian TV network) and its subsidiaries. Communication with this user proves impossible, since they (apparently) do not speak any English and complain in (I presume) Bahasa Indonesia about vandalism from the users trying to keep the DAB-page in order (1, 2, 3). Also this user does not seem to comprehend that linking to a DAB-page, which links back to the article linked from isn't a good idea. The user in question has been warned multiple times for disruptive editing, but does not seem to know or care. I think we have a compentency issue here. Kleuske (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Praisekek777

The following discussion is closed. 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 appears to be not here to build an encyclopedia. Their editing history includes defamatory vandalism to BLPs, trolling legal nitpicking about the definition of "defamation" and edit-warring false statements about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Courcelles beat me to it. They have been indeffed for being not here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

You have to love it when first-year law students choose Wikipedia as the venue to display their newfound expertise and innate brilliance. Dumuzid (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked. I see Rick beat me to coming back around to finish the paperwork! Courcelles (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I love it when a plan comes together. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I mean really, look at the user name here. Just revoke talk page access and be done with it. --Tarage (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

How about Praisekek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Praisekek69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks like we need to add a filter or something. --Tarage (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Also Praise-Kek-our-lord-and-saviour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). General Ization ^Talk 19:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The Abrahamic God is the Lord of Hosts, while Kek is the lord of hoax. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Kent LTA needs another rangeblock

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

---

A long-term abuse case using IP addresses from Kent has been using IP6 addresses in the range Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:11F5:E700:0:0:0:0/64. The guy has been previously blocked as Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:11F5:E700:61E6:11B2:7CCF:EB77 and is currently blocked as 86.161.225.64, 86.163.181.72 and 94.101.156.18. I have been keeping track of this guy at User:Binksternet/Kent IPs.

Can we get a long block for the range Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:11F5:E700:0:0:0:0/64? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 3 months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Photoshopped image of Steve Jobs by blocked user on main 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.

---

See Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors - in reference to File:Steve Jobs Uppershot 2010-CROP2.jpg which is photoshopped from File:Steve Jobs Headshot 2010-CROP.jpg by the blocked User:FijiForums as is on OTD right now. Chris857 (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit - looks like it just got removed from the main page. Carry on. Chris857 (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Actually for future reference, how did an obviously doctored picture make it to the main page? I understand OTD is only looked at shortly in advance of its appearance, and that if you are unfamiliar with what Steve Jobs looks like, the nose issue would not necessarily be apparent at that time. But how did the picture get into consideration in the first place? Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

So, I cant find where the picture was proposed to be used. I cant find it was used on Steve Jobs article at all (the natural place you would expect to get a picture of Steve Jobs for the main page) the anniversaries for year 1997 actually list him 'returning' to Apple in August not February - while Apple bought Next (Jobs company at the time) in February bringing him back as an advisor to the CEO for Apple (sources indicate 7th Feb but oddly article says 9th), that wasn't a significant date whereas his interim CEO/actual CEO in July/August are (to anyone who knows anything about Apple history) when the Jobs era kicked off. And yet I cant find any discussion or anything regarding this addition for this particular day on the less-than-intuitive OTD pages, and certainly nothing regarding the picture. Which at this point looks like some sort of thinly veiled racial attack. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• The picture was added here by @Howcheng: who does a yeoman's effort keeping OTD running smoothly. I'm quite certain it was an honest mistake on his part. --Jayron32 12:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

  Sorry I may have not been clear enough, I understand how OTD is reviewed and updated prior to being posted with Howcheng doing the lion's share of the work, I am more concerned with how an OTD item gets into the position where its posted with a problematic picture (I am assuming Howcheng just picked one from commons here - and commons is at fault for not policing its pics properly as usual) with what appears to be zero discussion in advance. I cant even pin down a discussion as to why Jobs is listed in Feb when anniversaries 1997 (imo) correctly lists the notable date (for Jobs) as August when he became CEO (although it does list the Next takeover in feb) If its the case that essentially no discussion is needed for a process that puts content on the front page - that's a problem in itself as main page content should require a bit more vetting than that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

  Correct, I just picked one out of the Commons category. FYI, Jobs was not listed in OTD for Feb 7; NeXT is the article in question. No, there is no real discussion about what articles are suitable for inclusion, and there hasn't ever been one AFAIK. When I started doing it full time in November 2011, updates weren't even being done on a regular basis. It was all very haphazard and ad-hoc, so I just decided to step. If you want to propose a more formal process, please go ahead, but I am fairly certain it won't take hold due to lack of participation. Over the years, I've had offers of help, but no one has really been able to do it consistently. Honestly, it takes me about an hour a day to do this, and that's if I don't bother trying to fix up target articles, which I also do. Believe me, I would love to offload some of this if I could. —howcheng {chat} 21:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• I just want to say what an incredible job Howcheng does, essentially single-handedly. Deserves some kind of lifetime achievement award. EEng 03:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Seconded. The canonical example of a stalwart. Guy (Help!) 00:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/109.151.65.218

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

---

Contributor from Northern Ireland, UK; with long history of blocking for rape and questionable sexual questions on film and Reference desk questions has re-appeared as 31.49.30.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user has been blocked multiple times using a large number of IP's and takes no notice of any warnings - changing to another IP, almost always in the same area of Northern Ireland. With thanks, David J Johnson (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Has now decided to sock as Agent 5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). MarnetteD|Talk 21:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Both IP and account blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Serial hoaxer

The following discussion is closed. 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 on Erika Heynatz (a BLP currently in the news due to #metoo) was recently semiprotected due to an anonymous editor adding a bizarre hoax about her having died. Following this, User:Amy foster made this bizarre post on the talk page followed up by this equally strange comment on my talk page. It seems pretty obvious to me that they're the anonymous editor behind the hoax. They have no less than six prior warnings for various forms of strange/dodgy behaviour - changing facts without sources, weird, poorly-sourced conspiracy theories, amongst other things.

It seems pretty obvious they're not here in good faith and are not paying attention to any of the repeated warnings - can they please be banned? The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Given the long history of warnings about trolling on BLPs, I have indeffed them. the first year of the block is an arbitration enforcement action under the blp discretionary sanctions. GoldenRing (talk) 08:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

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

78.145.17.144

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.

---

78.145.17.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Since apparently this is a static IP, it needs a long-time block. Not sure whether it is block evasion, but in any case long-term abuse.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Current backlog at AIV

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

---

Could someone take a look? Marianna251TALK 15:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Please see the note on that page about backlogs. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• I have done, and I waited for ~4-5 hours before finally deciding to post here. Usually an admin deals with the backlog a lot faster than that; just wanted to draw some attention to it, since the backlog kept getting longer and longer without action. Marianna251TALK 15:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• That normally means the reports are bad. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• 15 blocks in 5 minutes, once admins were looking at the board, with none declined? Yeah, not the case. Marianna251TALK 15:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• That likely means they were hasty blocks. Sorry to be so blunt, but AIV backlogs are usually the result of overzealous vandal fighters and not admin inaction. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Un-closing this, since there's more discussion.

Your comment strikes me as an unfair assumption about the actions of the blocking admins. Everything you've said here reads like you didn't look at AIV, but have still made assumptions about the nature of the reports/blocks and my own knowledge/thought process before coming here. I was fully aware of all the points you've made before I came here, and I decided to post here anyway because I still genuinely felt AIV needed attention. It's not a comment against anyone if they were occupied doing other things on or off Wikipedia - we're all volunteers and I'm always grateful to the admins who put their time and effort into anti-vandalism.

Please review the AIV reports concerned here and judge for yourself. If you still believe that any or all of the non-actioned reports were bad reports/hasty blocks after looking at them, then I will take that on board for future reference. Until then, your response to this comes across to me as begging the question (in its philosophical meaning, not its everyday use). Marianna251TALK 01:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• Widr, Jauerback and RickinBaltimore have been ploughing through the reports. Many thanks! :) Marianna251TALK 15:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Pigsonthewing and COI guidelines and templates

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

---

I am requesting a topic ban for User:Pigsonthewing with regard to discussions of COI and paid editing.

This is not about whether Pigsonthewing is "correct" about issues currently being disputed but rather about their behavior.

This user is a longtime participant in Wikipedian-in-Residence/GLAM programs, which the community more-or-less blesses, and which have also caused scandal when the potential for WiR/GLAM editors to end up promoting their host, are not managed well (the dead horse example being Gibraltarpedia) So they operate within the PAID policy and COI guideline, which provides special provisions for them.

Pigsonthewing, whose wikifriend even acknowledges "can come across in discussion as somewhat difficult at times" (which is put ... mildly) has gone on a campaign with regard to COI and related tags on articles.

Pigsonthewing already had a history of directly editing the COI guideline to benefit his own activities as a WiR. This behavior is already not kosher and those edits were reverted.

The recent set of events started at Martin Saidler - a German executive who had hired (or whose company hired) three different paid editors to promote him. The last paid editor came here in part to get the COI tag removed on the article created by the 2nd paid editor. When Doc James didn't act fast enough, the paid editor asked Pigsonthewing to do it, who then edit warred to remove it, and the admin responding to the EWN board report protected the page. When protection ended, I completely rewrote the article to get around the whole "tag or not" issue (so Saidler got a great WP:BOGOF deal there). That dispute led to a sprawling argument at the article talk page, and...

diff series

(bolded dates below are article edits). Timeline: 23 April 2017, COIN thread about Lingveno's direct editing 27 July 2017 COIN thread about paid sockfarm that worked on Saidler and related articles, and many others. Saidler article created by socks then deleted in cleanup. (first paid editor) 18 September 2017 Martin Saidler page created as redirect by Lingeveno, then article posted under the name by Lingveno (second paid editor), with disclosure in edit note for article creation. same day article tagged for COI by Doc James 8 December, at talk page, Pplc (third paid editor) discloses history of paid editing on related topics and requests 3 changes], including removing COI tag, pinging Doc James at talk page, then tweaks it on Dec 13 3 January Doc James replies on talk, explains the tag 3 January, response by Pplc at talk page; trimmed 2 days later 9 January Pplc opens thread at Doc James talk page; Doc James replies, Pplc replies 18 January Pplc posts at Pigsonthewing's talk page asking for tag to be removed. This opens thread there, now in archive at their talk page 18:32 same day first talk page comment by Pigsonthewing; leads to harsh discussions at talk page section, which includes discussion of the COI template's instructions) 18:32 same day tag removed by Pigsonthewing 23:12 same day tag restored by Doc James 23:23 same day tag removed by Pigsonthewing 23:29 same day tag restored by Doc James 23:31 same day tag removed by Pigsonthewing 23:34 same day edit war warning given to Doc James by Pigsonthewing 00:16 19 January tag restored by Jytdog, "advert" tag added 00:52 same day tag removed by Pigsonthewing 1:21 same day EWN case filed by Doc James (diff of filing) 01:35 same day page protected after EWN case filed. 19:13, 19 January 2018 Doc James opens discussion at template talk page after editing template instructions (see below). which leads to the sprawl above. 21-22 January 2018 Saidler article rewritten and advert tag removed by Jytdog

Travelled to template:COI and its talk page, where there was yet more edit warring by Pigsonthewing as shown below.

diff series

Note, edits to the template instructions: 19:12, 19 January 2018 diff Doc James makes change with edit note "trimmed details added by paid editor" (those details were added here by KDS444) 21:25, 19 January 2018 revert by Pigsonthewing "Not appropriate for you to change this while you're involved in a dispute about the template's application" 21:31, 19 January 2018 revert by Doc James " It was not appropriate for a paid editor to add these details to this template" 19:51, 22 January 2018 diff series by Doc James with more changes 16:43, 25 January 2018 dif by WhatamIdoing following talk page discussion, includes change from "any editor may remove" to "any editor without a COI may remove" 21:31, 25 January 2018 revert by Pigsonthewing so that it is back to "any editor may remove" 21:33, 26 January 2018 COI restriction restored by Widefox so it reads "any editor without a COI may remove" 17:52, 27 January 2018 COI restriction removed by Pigsonthewing 18:22, 27 January 2018 tweak to something else by SlimVirgin 20:15, 27 January 2018 COI restriction restored by Jytdog 21:12, 27 January 2018 removed by Pigsonthewing 21:17, 27 January 2018 restored by Jytdog 00:21, 28 January 2018 removed by Littleolive oil 00:29, 28 January 2018 RfC launched by Jytdog on the COI restriction that has been edit warred over.

Which has culminated (kind of) in an RfC, here.

• at Template:Connected contributor (WiR)

See history of direct editing, especially this last one, with edit note "Don't water this down], where he removed "generally" from "a form of paid editing that the Wikimedia community generally regards as positive". Some irony there.

Other discussions:

• 19 January village pump misc discussion about COI tags opened by Pigsonthewing
• 21 January 2018 BLPN thread opened by Pigsonthewing over UPE tag
• 21 January 2018 discussion opened by Pigsonthewing at Template_talk:Connected_contributor about BLP concern

Tag stripping, which is the immediate prompt for this thread:

• Feb 6 - 7 campaign by Pigsonthewing, stripping COI tags from ~40 pages with edit notes quoting template instructions: "if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning". This is incredibly WP:POINTY, especially in light of one of their edit notes when edit-warring at the template, where they wrote: Not appropriate for you to change this while you're involved in a dispute about the template's application.

I acknowledge being very upset by Pigsonthewing's "intervention" on behalf of the commercial paid editor Pplc at the Saidler page, which I find completely beyond the pale, especially by a person who also makes money editing WP (yes as a WiR, but nonetheless...), and I have written some too harsh things and subsequently redacted them. The lack of insight into COI issues for someone who should be acutely sensitive to them, is hard for me to understand, and frustrating.

Their subsequent efforts have gone well beyond what happened at the Saidler page -- the hyper-legalistic campaign is harming our efforts to manage the products of conflicted editing and to make them "reasonably available for review" (Arbcom's language) via the COI tag.

The recent stripping campaign has left pages in WP that have been obviously hijacked unflagged. See for example the University of Ontario Institute of Technology page, which has so obviously been turned into a proxy for the school's website.

If you just scan over Template_talk:COI and look for bold or yellow-highlighted entries, you will find that it is Pigsonthewing pounding the table with repetition of legalistic argumentation. Bludgeoning.

I am suggesting that Pigsonthewing be topic banned from discussions about COI in Wikipedia, which of course would editing the guideline and template instructions, de-tagging, etc.

This is due to their lack of awareness of their own COI when it comes to issues of editing for pay, their aggression in changing or reverting relevant guidance (which they should not be editing at all, much less aggressively) and their bludgeoning of talk pages.

I am in the process of reviewing their extensive WiR/GLAM editing to try to understand how much of that has been promotional for the host institution. This thread is not about their participation in the WiR progam per se. Just about discussions of COI in WP (which does include COI for WiRs). Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not clear from the article you link, that any "WiR/GLAM editors", as you put it, were centrally involved in Gibraltarpedia. That a museum employee should respond positively to an attempt to improve coverage in an encyclopedia, is hardly surprising. MPS1992 (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The entire "Gilbratrarpedia" project was GLAM/WiR, with the host institution being Gilbratar's Tourism Board. See Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA. See also this CNET piece as the scandal was breaking, and for the unthinking celebration of the "big win" for Gibralatar's Tourism Board, see for example Gibraltarpedia: A New Way To Market The Rock.

But this thread is not about that. Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:GLAM stands for "galleries, libraries, archives, and museums". A tourism board does not fit into any of those categories. The use of the shortcut seems misguided. MPS1992 (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Do see the Meta guidance on Wikipedian in Residence, and also see Wikipedians in residence, reward board in the COI guideline, which cites the Meta guidance for WiRs and brings it into the en-WP editing community's policies and guidelines. As the Meta document says, historically the WiR program grew from the GLAM program and they are closely related. But again, this is not about that. I will not be responding further. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Right, and the GibraltarpediaA thing did not involve any WiR either, correct? MPS1992 (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I hear it that it doesn't make sense to you but it was a GLAM/WIR program. Whether it should have been is another topic. Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The reason it doesn't make sense is that it doesn't appear to be true. Re-stating that you believe it's true doesn't change that, unless you can explain properly what you mean. "a GLAM/WiR program" that does not have a WiR and whose "host institution" is not a GLAM...? well, yes you don't seem able to explain it. Certainly it had some problems in how it was set up, but those problems seem not to be what you describe here. MPS1992 (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA -- hosted in GLAM space. The CNET pieces also cites the GLAM/WiR aspect as does this Slate piece, this Forbes piece, etc. See also Category:Wikipedia GLAM in the United Kingdom where it is listed, UK REPORT: QRpedia in a pub; British Library music manuscripts; UK GLAM abroad (the latter referring to the section discussing Gibraltarpedia), etc etc. It was also discussed in the talk:DYK thread where the issues first surfaced. It was done under the rubric of GLAM. You cannot rewrite history. And in any case, again, that is the just the poster child for GLAM gone awry. The training materials for GLAM/WiRs are full of warnings against conflicted editing. See for example here and here. I am unaware of anything that reached the level of scandal of Gibraltarpedia (few things have); these programs are generally not problematic. I think the training is generally good in advising people not to edit about their host institution, but rather to use the resources to improve WP content. Which is why participants have the slack that they do with respect to paid editing and COI policies/guidelines.

Probably the most disturbing thing to me in Pigonthewing's aggressive behavior, is that it doesn't respect that slack that is given to them but assumes it as some kind of "right". This is the kind of problematic behavior that could lead the community to start rethinking the lack of restrictions on these programs. Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I haven't yet read all those items, but even from what has been said here, some of them are clearly incorrect. Separately, These programs are generally not problematic is something that probably you should have written somewhere close to the second sentence of your justification for a topic ban that you proposed when starting this thread, in which you try to frame the issue as one in which WiR/GLAM is a serious problem and (by implication) that is why Pigonthewing is a serious problem. These implications drag your argument down an unhelpful path. MPS1992 (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, Andy (Pigsonthewing) can be maddeningly persistent but he has a heart of solid gold and his commitment to Wikipedia is amazing. I can't believe that the two of you couldn't sort this out over a Wikipint. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Guy thanks for your note; I appreciate that you find him to be a great Wikipedian. Yes he does a lot of great stuff, but his behavior at the Saidler article helping the paid editor was horrible. His doubling down (quadrupling down?) on the "Position" he took there makes it all that much worse and is spreading the damage, leaving articles that need review unflagged. I can understand how someone can be wired that way. If he is your friend would you please consider talking with him? He has set himself on a very bad road here. At this point I am looking for the community to restrain him, since he won't restrain himself. Maybe his friends can help him get off this bad road and forswear what he has been doing, and if so I will be happy to withdraw this. Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I've just read through the discussions at Talk:Martin Saidler, which doesn't seem particularly problematic with regards to Pigsonthewing's behavior. Paul August ☎ 20:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Please do see the diff series that is collapsed. At the request of a commercial paid editor (who was being paid to get the tag removed) Pigsonthewing edit warred to remove the tag, on the technicality that nothing was stated on the talk page when it was placed. There was a discussion ongoing about the tag, when he removed it. The article was a horrible piece of promotional crap. Removing the tag was just the paid editor's job - there was nothing there about the content; the client was just concerned about the aesthetics of the tag being there. The content was awful. Pigsonthewing's behavior was awful. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't think Jytdog has made a good case here. Aspro (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

They certainly haven't made a good case for a topic ban, true. But really I think Pigsonthewing needs to undertake to be less aggressive in defending the rights or points of view of COI editors, and less aggressive in directly altering Wikipedia-space and Template-space pages relating to COI. MPS1992 (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

fwiw i believe it is a decent case overall, or I wouldn't have brought it. The initial stripping of the Saidler tag (the edit warring should have drawn a block) to benefit a paid editor and not WP, the direct editing of relevant templates and guidelines, the bludgeoning of talk pages, the current POINTY campaign stripping tags, citing the exactly-contested language... Thanks in any case for seeing at least somewhat of a problem. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

POINTy campaigns are very unwise and need to stop. Edit warring is often best reported at WP:ANEW, especially if it seems to have gone unnoticed because it's on something in template space. Although, you were edit-warring too, so you would not be going there with clean hands. MPS1992 (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

We'll see what others say. Thanks again for your input. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment The multiple claims by Andy that tagging an article in need of clean up is a BLP violation raises concerns for me regarding ability to work in this area. Mass removal of COI tags without clean up is not only pointy but disruptive and they should be limited from continuing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - no real view at this point on most the above, but thanks for bringing the atrociously-promotional University of Ontario Institute of Technology page to my attention, which I have had a stab at cleaning up (before and after - [378]). Removing the COI and update tags was not appropriate - the article was raddled with COI and promotional issues, and it definitely hadn't been updated - it was still saying, for example, "(as of) 2012 there are 9203 students". Hiding behind 'it's not been discussed on the talk page so I can remove it' is extremely disingenuous. Fish Karate 09:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Jytdog complaining about aggressive behaviour is clearly a case of WP:POT. Where there is a dispute, the best remedy is to get more editors involved, not less, so that a strong consensus can be formed. Andrew D. (talk) 10:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment the discussions surrounding this have been impressively tedious, but I echo Doc James in saying that the removal of COI tags simply because there is no discussion is pointy. Andy should know better than to blindly follow "rules" (does template documention even count as a "rule"?) rather than taking the time to see whether there are problems with an article. Now we have Mikhail Fridman written entirely by Earflaps without any mention of this. Yes, Doc James should/could have left a note on the talk page when he added the tag, but when we are dealing with large cases and facing a constant stream of crud, often tagging is the only thing which we have time to do. SmartSE (talk) 12:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• No, scattering tags around is not helpful because banner blindness means that they tend to stay there for years without any effect. Per WP:NPOVD, "Drive-by tagging is discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." Andrew D. (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Even if the COI is obvious? Does WP:DEADLINE apply to tags? I don't think this lawyering is helpful because we have that many contradictions in our policies and guidelines, not to mention IAR. - Sitush (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• In an ideal world yes, maybe, but in practice it is often either unneccessary (it's completely obvious from a glance at the article/history) or it's impractical (due to tagging 10 articles by COI editors confirmed to create problematic content). If a tag has been placed there is good faith by an editor then someone removing it should at least look through the history or ask the tagger them why they placed it. Unlike other tags, it is also more speculative in terms of there being problems since it can take considerable time to establish whether or not there are problems as it is based more on the contributor rather than the content per se. SmartSE (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• User:Robert McClenon thanks for your comment here. Would you (or would you mind if I) refactor that to pull it out of the midst of mine? thx Jytdog (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Jytdog - Go ahead and refactor if it is still clear after being moved. I think that the community and the WMF need to look more seriously at the risks of "good" paid editing being used to hide bad corrupt paid editing. (Notice that I didn't put 'bad' or 'corrupt' in quotes.) Robert McClenon (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

thx. I have moved it to just below. Note to readers that Robert McClenon's comment was placed directly below the bullet point describing Pigsonthewing's edit to Template:Connected contributor (WiR) and the specific edit that removed "generally" from "a form of paid editing that the Wikimedia community generally regards as positive". Jytdog (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• comment I ask whether maybe the community needs to rethink the idea that this form of paid editing is generally considered positive. I think that it has a great deal of dangerous potential to be used to hide dirtier forms of paid editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Another Bambifan sock

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

---

Check out User:Tingtangtong. Same edit pattern, same edit summaries as the last sock, Bambi. No alerts being sent per WP:LTA/BF101. --McDoobAU93 18:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• There is a range we can consider blocking, but it's huge. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I ran the mass-rollback tool on all their edits. In looking over the LTA case, is there a traceable pattern that an edit filter could detect? Home Lander (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: or someone, can you delete User talk:Tingtangtong, I blundered with Twinkle while tagging one of the pages. Home Lander (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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

User Bandar1998 - persistent disruptive editing

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

---

SPA Bandar1998 (talk · contribs) continues to ignore verifiability requirements, despite warnings. Batternut (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The user has been notified of this discussion. Batternut (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Only yesterday an IP was blocked for pretty much the same problem. Here, the most recent warnings are from December, and the problem continues: edits are unexplained and unverified, and there is no response from User:Bandar1998. I will block; if they are interested in editing Wikipedia, they can explain on their talk page what they intend to do about it. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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

---

See [379]. About all there is to it. Home Lander (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 week. (It's an IP so indeff is not an option.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Possibly socking as 118.208.166.23 (talk · contribs). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Constant IP vandalism on that article. Maybe it should be semi'd for a good stretch? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

3 separate IPs in the last 10 minutes adding Islamophobic remarks, etc. Report made at PP but don't think anyone is monitoring new requests right now. Heiro 03:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, handled. Heiro 03:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've just visited the article. I've never heard of this chap, don't really care what you do with his article, but using blogs on a BLP to accuse somebody of being in cahoots with neo-Nazis is unacceptable. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Is this guy even notable (I live in Australia and certainly haven't heard of this guy either)? Yes there are lots of sources, generally reliable one, but it seems to go off notoriety rather than notability...Blackmane (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

AFD it. If deleted would solve the sourcing problem, the problems referred to by Mr rnddude, and stop the "subject" from sending the hordes from facebook to attack it. Heiro 03:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't find a PROD in the history, so have done so. Home Lander (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Oops. @Home Lander: I've just created an AFD for it. Blackmane (talk) 03:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, we conflicted there. Fair enough. Probably better off for a full discussion anyway. Home Lander (talk) 03:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I suspect that a PROD would have been contested straight away by meats or socks anyway, which means it'll end up going to AFD anyway. Blackmane (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Get ready to break out Template:Spa on that AFD. Home Lander (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The AfD is here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• All, I have done a bit of tidying up at the AfD as most of it was copied and pasted to make it look bigger, I suspect there may be some socking going on? Nightfury 09:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Meatpuppets and SPA's at the very least are appearing. I don't expect the AFD to be anything but a delete. Still, it's at least one of the less noisy AFD's about one of many YouTube/Facebook/Instagram political/social/cultural activist. I had a look Yemini's Facebook and rather than blowing the trumpets for people to vote, he's asked for people to submit ACCURATE edits. Blackmane (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Request for admin-eyes

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

---

Wanted to request someone to keep a short-term watch on User talk:Lalat14, who has inserted copyvio stuff across multiple articles. I've warned them, but they've not acknowledged any of the warnings, despite editing post my first few warning messages. I don't know if a block is feasible to ensure further disruption doesn't happen till the editor acknowledges they won't continue the copyvio; but I'll leave it to the discretion of the reviewing admin. (This is probably the same user as User:LalatSwain, who also edited some of the same pages a few months ago, and whose edits also contain copyvio). Thanks, Lourdes 12:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I came across Aali, Odisha that had tons of text copied from at least three different sources and tagged it, and at least twice they removed a little bit of it and claimed it was all removed when it wasn't. No attempt to fix any of their other articles, and doesn't seem inclined to do so without someone looking over their shoulder making damn sure they've done it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I've given them a final warning and will monitor their contribs. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I have gone through their contribs and removed all extant copyvio I could find and visited the Commons too to check out their photo uploads. Thanks again — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt action.​ Lourdes 19:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Slightly dodgy 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.

---

Hi all. I was going through the block list (I had been linked there via an old RFC, but that's irrelevant) and I saw this block: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/LmaololXD. The user made one edit (for which he was already warned by two users) and was then given an indefinite block for the one edit (which did not seem like pure trolling anyway). Perhaps it should just be a 24 hour block at most. Branchofpine, Have a chat, My edits 10:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Their edit was to Stephen, and an IP had just been blocked for making the exact same edits. Add to it the clearly NOTHERE username, looks like a good block to me--Jac16888 ^Talk 12:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, good block. We do block vandalism-only accounts indefinitely after just a few edits, Branchofpine. Or, as in this case, after just one, which was an attempt to publish something about a real person, which is always serious. (I really don't understand how you can think it's not pure trolling. It's the bad kind of trolling.) The idea, at least the way I've always taken it, is that it's better for the user (the person), after maturing or whatever — after finding that trolling/vandalism isn't the way to go — to create a new Wikipedia account and start afresh with a clean block log. That way they're discouraged from trailing the record of their childish vandalism with them for ever, in the form of a 24-hour block in the block log. This was typically childish vandalism, and I'd be surprised if the user isn't in fact a schoolchild talking about a couple of classmates. A very common thing, and yes, they're blocked. Bishonen | talk 13:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC).

@Branchofpine: I find it very odd that you would be "going through the block list", but, putting that aside, you should have notified the blocking administrator, Oshwah, of this thread. I have done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Context. GMG^talk 13:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I messed up. Please can you close this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Branchofpine (talk • contribs) 14:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I know this is closed now, but yes - I blocked the account after their singular edit because of the clear pattern of vandalism from the IP address just minutes prior... it was the same person and they were clearly making that account just so they could continue with their shenanigans. With this in mind, that account was just going to be used as a VOA throwaway, so yeah - I blocked it. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Fatih Arda İpcioğlu

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

---

I made a mistake moving Fatih Arda İpcioğlu, which is correct, to Fatih Arda İpçioğlu, which is wrong, because I thought the correct surname should have a "ç" instead of a "c", which is grammatically the correct way in Turkish language. However, I learned that he writes his name with "c" instead of "ç". I kindly ask someone to restore it by deleting "Fatih Arda Ipcioğlu" to make way for moving "Fatih Arda İpçioğlu" to "Fatih Arda İpcioğlu", and finally deleting 1Fatih Arda İpçioğlu". Sorry for the trouble.. Thanks in advance. CeeGee 15:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi CeeGee! No apologies are needed - we all make mistakes and they're completely expected; it's no big deal at all :-). You should be all set - let me know if you need anything else and I'll be happy to help. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• A giant "Thank you". CeeGee 17:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

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

user:JWthaMajestic

Please take a look at the "vanity fair" of a "writer, artist and animator" Jordann William Edwards. I have an impression this nonnotable turned Wikipedia into hosting service for his personal website. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Some excellent examples of things made up in school one day, now resting in the bitbucket. Next steps depend on whether he re-creates them I guess. Guy (Help!) 00:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

NauticalMiles manually converting units, not reading talk page, no email

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

User appears to have made an account specifically for the purpose of doing unit conversions[380] but as in that diff seems to be prone to making errors (should be 7.5 miles not 7). I have tried to communicate on their talk page[381] about the {{convert}} template but they do not seem to be reading the talk page, and have no email registered, and have proceeded to do even more extensive conversions[382] which, as with the others, I have tried to clean up[383]. It is a bit tedious to have to go in behind them and do this correctly, and I am almost inclined to revert until they notice their talk page, but I'm not sure that is appropriate. What can be done about this? —DIYeditor (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

DIYeditor - I've added a message to NauticalMiles' user talk page asking him to use the template and to message me if he has trouble or needs help. I'm hoping that this is all that is needed in order to resolve your concerns. If you need anything else or if things escalate, don't hesitate to message me and let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Gagibgd vs Csknowitall and No such user at Serbia men's national water polo team

Serbia men's national water polo team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Water polo at the Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) have been subject of a slow-motion (and not so slow recently) edit war, chiefly by Gagibgd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), since at least 2013. Here is his edit history on the article. Gagibgd persistently tries to include the records of Yugoslavia men's national water polo team, established in 1936, as an achievement of the Serbian team, without offering a single reference (the Serbian article is completely unreferenced). I tried to engage him at Talk:Serbia men's national water polo team#SFR Yugoslavian results, and Csknowitall at Talk:Water polo at the Summer Olympics to little avail. Only today he said anything on any talk page (mine is hardly the right place), citing the same document that I used to refute his claims. Anyway: this is admittedly a content dispute, but it can hardly be solved if he practically refuses to discuss the issue (or perhaps his English is insufficient to communicate): he has 0 (zero) contributions to Talk: namespace, and the only ones to User talk are in Serbian [384]. I'm at loss what to suggest... No such user (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Gagibgd turning up to revert this section is not a promising sign. @Gagibgd: Don't do that again. GoldenRing (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, @Gagibgd: blanked his own talk page now as well, in hopes that admins won't see the discussions. Csknowitall (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Csknowitall: or we assume that they blanked it because WP:BLANKING says...they can? Be mindful: They may well have blanked this because of inexperience. It was, after all, their first edit to WP space ever, in five years  :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Although I agree that immediately filing a clearly retributory ANI isn't the best tactic either. (Now merged with this thread) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Yes of course he can, no problem, but seeing his very recent edit wars and also deleting this post about him once, made me think he blanked his own talk page for the same reasons, that he don't want to get into trouble. Csknowitall (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Csknowitall: Sorry, didn't know that my page is relevant to this issue. There is nothing to hide, No such user left me a note where he disagrees with my edits, and that's it. Gagibgd (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Serial Number 54129 - lets give others the benefit of the doubt and not jump to conclusions thinking that someone's edits are an attempt to hide information or cover anything up. It's not relevant and even if this were the intent, such information is never truly gone :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

No such user and Csknowitall constantly keep reverting edits about Serbia men's national water polo team and their results and medal tables based on no evidence. Serbia as a country, is widely considered as inheritor of Yugoslavia. This also counts for sports results. When Yugoslavia was breaking apart in 1992, all countries except Serbia and Montenegro requested to exit, and start from the beginning. Serbia and Montenegro (at that time known as FR Yugoslavia) was kept in SFR Yugoslavia, and was eventually renamed to FR Yugoslavia. FR Yugoslavia got legal continuity of SFR Yugoslavia, and that is a known fact. Even FINA, which is a main water polo organization in the world agrees with this, and here is evidence for that claim https://www.fina.org/sites/default/files/final_histofina_wp_2016_0.pdf. In football for example. FIFA considers Serbia as Yugoslavia inheritor, you can see that on the page Serbia national football team. So, how can one country be a successor of the other in some sports, or some competitions, and in some other not? That is just absurd.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gagibgd (talk • contribs)

@Gagibgd: Again, you drag different federations into this. FIFA has nothing to do with water polo, so what they do with their own sport is up to them, and what FINA does is also up to them. You ask why one country can be successor in some sports, and in others not, well it's simple, it's up to the individual governing body on how they officially count medals and results. Some might give the medals to Serbia, and some don't, that's just the way it is. I also don't see why you drag UN into this, what exactly do they have to do with how sport federations count medals? Csknowitall (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gagibgd: All I'm asking is that you start discussing, preferably at Talk:Serbia men's national water polo team. This page is not the place for debating the water polo issues, but for getting administrators' attention; feel free to copy the above text there and I will be happy to address it. When there is a dispute, we're supposed to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, which boldly includes "Discuss with the other party" as a step. We might not reach an agreement, but then there are other steps. (And plase sign using four tildes, ~~~~) No such user (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm seconding No such user's comment here to Gagibgd. This needs to be discussed on the article's talk page. Discuss and resolve the dispute properly, and please keep in mind that there is no such thing as "fast" or "slow" edit warring of any kind - if you're making repeated reverts to an article in a back-and-fourth manner with another user and in-place of proper dispute resolution protocol, you're engaging in edit warring. The "three-revert rule" is just a blight-line rule to help "define a line" where, if violated, will almost always be interpreted as edit warring and where action is justified in order to stop it. It is a definition of what "a classic case of edit warring" is - it does not define the line between what is and is not edit warring. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Indonesian IP editing Indonesian badminton bios

User:Stvbastian made me aware of an IP editor geolocating to Jacarta (typically from the 114.124.*.* range), who edits biographies of Indonesian badminton players. Their connection is dynamic, and today they returned on 114.124.238.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but remains unresponsive when approached. One hallmark of their edits, among others, is to remove the tournament category color codes used by WP:BADMINTON. Articles edited today include:

• Kevin Sanjaya Sukamuljo
• Marcus Fernaldi Gideon
• Anggia Shitta Awanda
• Ni Ketut Mahadewi Istirani
• Melati Daeva Oktavianti
• Hanna Ramadini
• Fitriani

What is the best way to reduce the workload in this case? Semi-protection? Sam Sailor 13:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

User returned on the same IP, continues the same editing pattern, and has been reported to AIV. Sam Sailor 14:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Sam Sailor - The IP distribution for this network is a /16, and it appears that there are edits from this range that aren't just made to people that are current badminton players. It does make me lift a brow (albeit slightly) to see that most of the edits from this range have been made to BLPs in that region, but that's normal given the geo-location. The fact that the edits are mostly made to BLP articles is definitely not enough for me to suspect or connect anything nor justify that the entire range should be blocked - it's much much too wide and the potential for collateral damage is higher than I want to typically see. I think that you're doing the right things: reporting users to AIV that repeatedly disrupt these articles, and requesting the articles that are the subject of frequent and repeated vandalism to RFPP to be protected. Until I see more evidence and diffs from more IPs so that I can try and find a sub-range to block that isn't as large or at risk of causing collateral damage, I think that what we're doing now is plenty good. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

​Thank you, I appreciate your response. Sam Sailor 09:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Sam Sailor - You bet; always happy to lend a hand ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

User:MehrdadFR

Hello, check Special:Contributions/MehrdadFR and Special:Contributions/2.179.46.234 this user keeps adding false information and reverting other editors edits, see the history of Girl of Enghelab Street, My Stealthy Freedom, 2017–18 Iranian protests, White Wednesdays, sound like pro Iranian regime user. Mjbmr (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Mine information are not false, yours are. I sent you warning and you removed it two times from your talk page. Beside false accusations, you also engaged in name calling. --MehrdadFR (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Admin note FWIW, I just protected Girl of Enghelab Street. Both of them are way past WP:3RR. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Persepolis1400, User:Pincrete, User:Dr.K., User:Icewhiz, User:GTVM92, User:Chrissymad, User:Elph, User:SlowManifesto, User:Iranianson, User:Iranianson, please check ^. Mjbmr (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

He has changed 49.8% people are against compulsory to 2.2%, what a jerk, huh? it's still on the page, fully protected. Mjbmr (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Enough with the name-calling, Mjbmr. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 20:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Mjbmr, MehrdadFR: Okay... both of you... the repeated back-and-fourth reverts and edit warring performed on Girl of Enghelab Street is definitely what I (nor any administrator) do not want to see on the edit history of an article - especially between editors who have been here for more than two years and are extended confirmed. That's absolutely against policy and you two know better than that :-). Dlohcierekim was extremely generous for protecting the article instead of blocking each of you for edit warring. I normally try to do the same and make sure each user is warned first and has continued with the disruption before blocking, but not all administrators here are that forgiving. MehrdadFR says that his content isn't false and that Mjbmr's content is, Mjbmr says the opposite... The article's talk page is that way; please go there and discuss the dispute in the manner that you should be and come to a peaceful resolution between the two of you... please? :-)

And Mjbmr, no more of that name-calling, please... That's against Wikipedia's policies on making personal attacks, and it's really not needed... like, come on, what's the point of doing that? It's not contributing anything positive or constructive here... Thanks :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I encourage you to review his edits. Mjbmr (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Mjbmr - What in particular concerns you outside the article that you two were edit warring over? Can you provide diffs of exact changes? This will help me to understand what you're referring to exactly. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah Can't you see the "history" of the article?, he has been editing out the "Background" section of the article which created by the user Persepolis1400, see this "diff":

he was changing:

"during the reign of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi the hijab was non-compulsory and a personal decision", ref: "El Guindi, Fadwa (1999). Veil: Modesty, Privacy and Resistance. Oxford; New York: Berg Publishers; Bloomsbury Academic. p. 3, 13-16, 130, 174-176. ISBN 9781859739242."

to:

"the Western dress code has been violently imposed by Reza Shah during his Kashf-e hijab campaign, and under his son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi wearing of veil was no longer an offence, but for his regime it became a significant hindrance to climbing the social ladder as it was considered a badge of backwardness"

which is not from the ref, also he was changing:

"Some Iranian women in that time period wore some sort of headscarf or chador.", ref: "Abrahamian, Ervand (2008). A History of Modern Iran. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 84, 94-95. ISBN 9780521528917."

to:

"Despite all legal pressures and obstacles, the largest proportion of Iranian women continued to wear headscarves or chadors"

which also is not from the reference, and the most important he was changing:

"In 2018, a government run survey dating back to 2014, was released by President Hassan Rouhani which showed that 49.8% of Iranians are against compulsory or mandatory hijab.", ref: nytimes.com and post-gazette.com

to:

"In 2018, a government run survey dating back to 2014, was released by President Hassan Rouhani which showed that 2.2% of Iranians are against wearing of headscarf.", ref: css.ir

as you can see he has changed "49.8%" to "2.2%", I read his reference, basically it shows the number of people against compulsory hijab raises each year and it has "49.2%" in table 1 and I don't see any "2.2%" which he is lying about the ref.

He also tried to add this mockery Mjbmr (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch

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

---

SPI-case

Lorstaking opened an SPI - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ApostleVonColorado - alleging that Ms Sarah Welch (MSW) and others were socks of the long-silent ApostleVonColorado (AVC). AVC was topic banned in 2012; MSW commenced editing in 2013 after that ban had expired. A great deal of evidence has been presented at this investigation. As a patrolling admin, having assessed this situation as best I could I eventually concluded that:

• Ms Sarah Welch, Lisa.davis and Mark.muesse are all the same person and as a result Lisa.davis and Mark.muesse were indef blocked and tagged as socks of Ms Sarah Welch (both have long since ceased editing.)
• Ms Sarah Welch was then blocked for one week “pending further investigation of the relationship between that account and AVC".

Having reached that conclusion various other editors weighed in and as a result the issue is posted here for wider community input. Why? In a nutshell:

• "There's no way AVC would be entitled to a clean start."
• MSW is not without her critics but is also an editor who has made a significant contribution, including a claimed 59 DYKs and 12 GAs.
• The behavioural evidence of AVC and MSW being the same person is considerable (although not perhaps 100% certain).
• Assuming them to be one and the same, to quote Lorstaking: "It's a deliberate violation of policy... MSW has abused multiple accounts to make significant edits on same articles for years. MSW had to stick to AVC. MSW was aware that editing as AVC would take no time to face another topic ban or indef block on AVC account. That's why MSW used new accounts to avoid scrutiny and engage in same disruption as AVC." In other words, policy suggests that MSW should receive an indef block and the individual be allowed to start editing again as AVC.
• Without wishing to trivialise the problem in any way, such an outcome may be considered harsh by some, even taking a dim view of some of MSW’s more controversial actions e.g. continuing to edit war with one or more editors that AVC also disagreed with.
• Some contributing editors at SPI suggested that, given the unusual nature of the case, that a discussion be opened here for wider input.

I will unblock Ms Sarah Welch to allow further comment to be made here by that editor. Ben MacDui 18:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Just to address the clean start bit first: Clean Starts are able to be utilized by editors who have been problematic as long as they have recognized the issues and are not going to repeat them, and as long as the original account is not used. So I disagree with some of the comments that AVC was not entitled to a clean start. Everyone is entitled to a clean start when sanctions expire. Permission is not required. With the expectation under any new username that previous behavior is not repeated. As the other user's were created after the ban expired, and AVC never edited again, utilizing a clean start - ok, continuing to edit problematically in areas they were previously topic banned from - not ok. Is there evidence they have been problematic in the same topic area as their previous username? Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment I don't think that ANI is a good venue to discuss this. It could be village pump where we could ask changes to sock puppetry policy but right now as per WP:SOCK, the indef block is only solution to this problem. Topic banned editors are not allowed to WP:CLEANSTART unless they have declared the account or they are editing the totally different article, but Ms Sarah Welch was violating this clean start since their first edit. As evidenced on SPI, a few things are clear here:-

1. Ms Sarah Welch (MSW) created multiple accounts and was topic banned from all Caste articles for 6 months on ApostleVonColorado account on WP:ANI after filing a spurious complaint against Fowler&Fowler,[385] and it was obvious that the user would be subject to heavy scrutiny and the account would be topic banned again or indefinitely blocked given the continued problems with editing on same subject and continued WP:BATTLE mentality with same users (Fowler&Fowler in particular).
2. WP:SOCK: creating new account "to avoid detection" is a violation of sock puppetry.
3. MSW filed a spurious retaliatory SPI against me,[386] same thing that socks usually do when they realize that they are going to get blocked.[387][388] And also wikihounded my edits.
4. Given the many problems with the editing (edit warring, bludgeoning, misrepresentation of sources, etc.) of MSW as detailed by other editor[389], the indef block for sock puppetry seems clearly alright even though sock puppetry is not about good or bad edits, but only the abuse of multiple accounts which is highly evident here.

I am sure that we are not going to change policy on sock puppetry and unblock many accounts that have engaged in similar sock puppetry. Lorstaking (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef block or site ban. Making my formal vote after enough discussion with Ms Sarah Welch, who was previously finding loopholes in WP:SOCK for justifying their sock puppetry,[390] has now completely rejected any wrongdoing and alleged Ben MacDui and I of making bad judgement.[391] Such deception is unexpected from someone who is walking on a thin ice. Lorstaking (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef block I believe this is a violation of WP:CLEANSTART- over at the SPI, Lorstaking has presented evidence showing how MSW has continued AVC's feud against User:Fowler&fowler. The intent of WP:CLEANSTART is basically that "editors who change accounts under the terms of fresh start are seeking exactly that, a fresh start...avoids association with disputes or poor behaviors that you might have been involved with under your former account". Given that MSW is editing in exactly the same area their old account got topic banned from and are targeting the same editors, this isn't a clean start. We're also forgetting the two other socks here- Lisa.davis and Mark.muesse who were editing at the same time as MSW. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Now MSW has denied that link altogether, which is simply a barefaced lie, I now support an indef block. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: what exactly is the purpose of this discussion? I see here a proposal to block them, with the following rationale:

"Given the many problems with the editing (edit warring, bludgeoning, misrepresentation of sources, etc.) of MSW as detailed by other editor [392], the indef block for sock puppetry seems clearly alright even though sock puppetry is not about good or bad edits, but only the abuse of multiple accounts which is highly evident here."

With other words: 'block the account for sock-puppetry, because there are "many problems with the editing (edit warring, bludgeoning, misrepresentation of sources, etc.)". That's two different things: either you block someone because of sock-puppetry, or beacuse of problematic editing. But you don't block soemeone for sock-puppetry, because you are of the opinion that their editing is problematic. If you want to block someone for problematic editing (apart from sock-puppetry), then you have to discuss this alleged problematic editing, and make clear why you think their editing is problematic. And regarding this allegation of problematic editing: MSW has made significant and valuable contributions to the project. If they've been topic-banned one time before, with another account, but never been blocked with their present account, then it seems to me that they've learned, and improved their behavior. Don't mix up arfguments, and provide sound arguments for the allegation of problematic editing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

PS: regarding "Lorstaking has presented evidence showing how MSW has continued AVC's feud against User:Fowler&fowler", such an allegation needs more than the selected examples given by Lorstaking. Don't forget that there are more experienced editors on India-related articles, some of whom think highly of her, and didn't have the kind of problems with her Lorstaking is referring to. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Um, no, it doesn't matter who presents the diffs, but rather the content of the diffs, which I judge, as a completely involved editor in the India caste article sphere to show MSW continuing with AVC's agenda against Fowler&fowler, against the spirit of WP:CLEANSTART. More diffs are available on the SPI, but this isn't a point to be disputed. However, the point of whether MSW is a constructive editor, constructive enough that the past SOCKING can be ignored is, hence why I suggested taking this to AN. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Ben MacDui's suggestion seems to be that "policy suggests that MSW should receive an indef block and the individual be allowed to start editing again as AVC." That's different from blocking AVC/MSW altogether indef. There have been cases of abuse which were much more serious, and where nevertheless the editor in question did get a second chance. MSW is a valuable editor, I think; and I think I can speak with some authority, given my contributions to the project and the topic-area. So, openness about the accounts, block of all of them but one, and a severe warning should suffice. Though, personally, an explanation would also be welcome, and help to restore faith and trust. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Now that MSW's response has been already seen and it is highly problematic. Still, MSW will get another chance too just like everyone else, after getting indeffed for socking and spending some time off-Wikipedia realizing what they did wrong. Imposition of a topic ban upon return will make the request better, just like it happened with all those who got "second chance". Lorstaking (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment This is a tricky case. I suggest a bit of WP:IAR might be needed. You're dealing with a long term, and overall valuable, albeit controversial, contributor. Policy probably demands indef, although you express (minor) doubt about the AVC connection. Perhaps a long block, but not indef, with it being quite clear that any further violation of policy would result in indef? That way you may keep a valuable contributor around, with no more policy violation. If you're right about the SPI thing, an indef block would probably just result in another account. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef block Noone actually doublechecks MSW's extensive edits. MSW doesn't even understand that Brahman can be an alternative spelling of Brahmin. See here. When her own sources talk about "brahmans", brahmans refers to human beings. She doesn't understand any of this. I really question her WP:COMPETENCE. And with all due respect to my good friend Joshua Jonathan, English is not his first language and he doesn't doublecheck MSW's edits.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• This is actually a good point. I've tried to check some in the past and found it virtually impossible to come to the same paraphrase etc but I've mostly assumed that MSW has a better grasp of the technical terms than me (even when I have been very dubious, so perhaps AGF'ing too far). Plus I really could do without getting into a really long wrangling match of the type that Fowler&fowler has routinely had to suffer. - Sitush (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Just to say that that I have inter-acted with MSW a fair deal in recent months, on Indian art and architecture articles - Hindu temples mostly - I think she has only fairly recently moved to edit in that area. She is certainly a useful editor there, partly because she is good at clearing the thickets of dubious unreferenced or poorly referenced material that has accumulated on many temple articles. We have had our differences for sure, but she is a net positive. Without having often directly checked her use of sources (I usually have sources covering the same ground, but not always the same ones), I'd say her use of them is generally good, and neutral. She is certainly very insistent on referencing. If there are consistent problems here, it should be possible to produce examples. Johnbod (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for admitting you don't doublecheck her edits. In addition to the example I already provided, here is an example of her confusing a fictional discourse of the Buddha with actual history. Here is a rare admission that she confused a statement of a scholar with being a quote from the Bhagavad Gita. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I checked the link you gave; MSW made a propsal there for a textual change, including a reference. This was in response to your previous response, which said "You state that "dwells in all things and in whom all things dwell" is a direct quote of Krishna. This is false." What kind of wrongdoing do you see there, except for disagreeing with you? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

In her article edit, she said "dwells in all things and in whom all things dwell" was a quote from the Bhagavad Gita. The source didn't say anything like this. This is about WP:COMPETENCE.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 07:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm the administrator who imposed the topic ban in 2012. I'm not hugely familiar with the history since then, but it seems the editing patterns which led to said topic ban haven't recurred. The block is reasonable, and should be allowed to run its course. After that there are no active sanctions, which is the, but any future sanction discussions should be properly cognizant of both this episode and what happened in 2012. There's enough potential upside and scrutiny that it'll be easy to reblock/reban as necessary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, scrutiny doesn't work with this editor. As documented by others, she doesn't listen to anyone. And again, noone actually checks the extensive edits she makes.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm thinking in relative terms to 2012. If those more familiar with current history disagree, I wouldn't stand in the way of anything. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• My (limited) experience with Ms Sarah Welch is similar to that of Sitush. I'm not aware of the technicalities of wikipolicy here, but I agree with the principle that the meting out of sanctions on prolific contributors should be exercised with lenience. In this case however, I don't think that such favour should be extended without first undertaking a very careful and detailed examination of a sample of their content contributions. – Uanfala (talk) 04:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I did check some of her sources at Advaita Vedanta; although I think she has a certain pro-AV bias, the sources were accessible, and we could argue about various matters, and reach greements. As I said before, a block for disruptive editing needs a more thorough argumentation than a limited couple of examples from a total of 28.000 or so edits. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Assuming that AVC has opened all these accounts after the expiration of their topic ban, the issues are whether AVC was entitled to a WP:CLEANSTART and whether MSW has continued the same kind of disruptive behaviour as AVC. Neither of these is clear to me. Bbb23 has stated that AVC was not entitled to a clean start. However, WP:CLEANSTART states, Any user in good standing who has no unexpired sanctions, and who is not being or about to be formally discussed for their conduct, may have a clean start. This seems to suggest that a CLEANSTART was permitted under the timeframe we are dealing with. Regarding the continuation of disruptive behaviour, I don't see that either. MSW has done considerable good work, winning the admiration of many of us, and has accumulated plenty of successful GA nominations. Granted that she clashed with Fowler&fowler, particularly at the cow-protection and cow-slaughter articles. That clash was quite unavoidable given their respective positions. I didn't see any of them particularly "picking a fight" for no reason. Vanamonde93 has mediated that discussion and I participated for part of it. None of us thought that there was disruptive behaviour from either side. So, frankly, I don't see a case for any action. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a misrepresentation of WP:CLEANSTART which says, "However, if an editor uses their new account to resume editing articles or topics in the same manner that resulted in a negative reputation in the first place (becoming involved in disputes, edit warring or other forms of disruptive editing), the editor will probably be recognized and connected to the old account. Changing accounts to avoid the consequences of past bad behaviors is usually seen as evading scrutiny and may lead to additional sanctions." And "it is best to completely avoid old topic areas after a clean start. If you have a favorite topic that you wish to edit, it may be better to continue using the old account, clean up your behavior, and rebuild your reputation the hard way." Policy on clean start is completely opposite to what you think. Lorstaking (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

She seems to have managed quite ok until now without being recognized. Then she ran into you, who has had so much interaction with AVC that you instantly said, "aha, there he is!" In any case, nothing says that if she has been recognized, she should be blocked. We block people for abusing multiple accounts, typically by using them simultaneously, or for block evasion. AVC had a time-limited topic ban, which they sat out. At the end of that they were free to come back with full privileges. If they chose to come back with a new account with vastly improved behaviour, though that is not the choice I myself would make, I would regard it as passable. Not even Fowler&fowler, who has had major battles with both the parties, connected them to each other. His assessment was, as reported by Ben MacDui, AVC was "confrontational" whereas MSW was "coldly polite". That is the clearest demonstration that there was marked improvement of behaviour. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Your comment has only made my policy-based argument stronger. I can understand that anyone would lack any rational basis when they are making arguments against the policy that has been violated big time. You should better provide examples where the sock was exonerated because the person socked with multiple accounts after abandoning main account due to sanctions. People are always blocked after they are caught switching to a new account for editing same articles as the previous account. MSW created Lisa.davis in 2012 and never declared the account and edited same articles as these socks and AVC until this month. MSW is still not revealing the list of all accounts and claiming to be truly flawless and rid of socking which shows a massive amount of incompetence and deception. Fowler apparently regards MSW to be worse than AVC by saying, "I have not met such editors in a very long time, probably not since 2007".[393] MSW made Fowler recall the happenings of Caste article where AVC was most disruptive.[394] You are misrepresenting both Ben MacDui and Fowler, because according to Fowler, AVC was "overtly polite".[395] MSW continued same senseless battles by evading scrutiny. Then we also have other spurious reports made by MSW worse than the one that led topic ban on AVC. According to every bit of evidence, there has been no improvement, only deterioration in behavior. Lorstaking (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding "According to every bit of evidence, there has been no improvement, only deterioration in behavior", you seem to be ignoring a lot of commentaries here, by longtime-editors who regard MSW a productive editor with valuable contributions to the project. Nevertheless, policies are clear (emphasis mine):

WP:INDEF: "An indefinite block is a block that does not have a definite (or fixed) duration. Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy. In such cases an open-ended block may be appropriate to prevent further problems until the matter can be resolved by discussion. As with all blocks, it is not a punishment. It is designed to prevent further disruption, and the desired outcome is a commitment to observe Wikipedia's policies and to stop problematic conduct in future. Indefinite does not mean infinite: an indefinitely blocked user may later be unblocked in appropriate circumstances."

The logical course here seems to be that MSW is being blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Lisa.davis. The accusations of disruptive editing are irrelevant for that decision, and only obscure the discussion. After being blocked, a request to be unblocked can be made, and eventually a request to continue editing as MSW (it may be wise to check if the password of this Lisa.davis account is still available?) In that discussion, arguments about alleged "disruptive editing" can be discussed. As I said before, I will support an unblock-request. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

MSW disagrees with you per own comments here, that Ben MacDui made false connection with Lisa.davis and "not provided evidence", that's why there is really no doubt that the behavior has only worsened and it continues. AVC is the actual sockmaster here, who used the same images that had been uploaded with his account Lisa.davis on same day, back in 2012 (see SPI). Second choice is Lisa.davis. All accounts are accessible, one has to log in into a Wikimedia project where they never logged in before and the account will be accessible in Wikipedia again. See Help talk:Logging in. Lorstaking (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support Block Per the evidence presented in SPI and comments here. I do believe they pick a fight and often takes a confrontational stand. We have in the past blocked socks, who have made very good articles, which we have deleted. We cannot and have not given SP a pass because they make good articles.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

If making good articles is not relevant for being blocked as a sock, then "pick a fight and often takes a confrontational stand" also isn't relevant for being blocked as a sock-puppeteer (it's only relevant when socks are being used for these fights). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, JJ. I respectfully disagree. If you re-read Ben MacDui's referral at the top, it is clear that MacDui is asking for community's input on whether MSW is a sock of AVC and whether it is a violation of cleanstart. So taking a confrontational stances similar to those of AVC would constitute both evidence of socking as well as violation of cleanstart. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Since I've been pinged, I feel duty-bound to comment here, but I haven't the time to evaluate the behavioral evidence. So I will proceed under the assumption that AVC and MSW are the same person, and if time proves me wrong, well and good.

  I've had significant interactions with MSW, including, as has been mentioned above, my trying to mediate a conflict between MSW and F&F. In this conflict, their behavior was not perfect, by any means; their attitude towards F&F, in particular, leaves something to be desired. Nonetheless, I do believe that the account MSW is fundamentally here to build an encyclopedia. Indeed, their behavior is far less of a problem than that of several other participants here, who really do require further community scrutiny.

  As to what to do now: to reiterate, MSW's current behavior may not be ideal, but isn't blockable. They are not, at the moment, abusing multiple accounts, and have clearly not done so for a while. I'm inclined to think that they were not entitled to a clean start; but blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive. Is there any evidence that re-blocking would prevent any disruptive behavior? None that I can see. The most productive way out of this mess, therefore, is to clarify the rule around clean starts to MSW, formally warn them that this new account was a problem, and make it clear that any future miss-steps in this direction will be met harshly, as they've received plenty of warning. Vanamonde (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comments and proposal: I apologize for the tardy reply. To avoid creating a text wall, I will leave many of the comments above unanswered, just try to address some of the issues raised as I understand them, and propose possible solutions along the lines of some suggestions proposed above. My goal is to propose a way forward, a way that is constructive and in line with the aims of the project of building a free encyclopedia. I will then make some closing statements.

[1] There is a question about whether my contributions to Africa-space articles and Caste systems in Africa, during the Africa Destubathon Initiative, escaped scrutiny. That is not the case. Please review the talk and talk-archive pages of Oromo people with participation from Doug Weller (see archive 2 etc as well), Amhara people, Somali (see sections 7-10 and archives), and the nearly 80-100 articles I edited in the Africa-space. The scrutiny was intense, sources were checked, admins intervened, and one case ended up with the ARB-committee. The content I added to caste systems of Africa was predominantly copied from those articles, with a note in the edit summaries stating that the content is copied from Africa space articles ([396], [397] (an admin and I discussed this article, fwiw), [398], [399], etc). That is scrutinized content.

[2] I welcome further scrutiny. I propose Lorstaking or anyone interested to identify a list of articles that they believe may not have received scrutiny. I promise to collaborate with them, line by line, one scholarly source after another, in order to address any concerns and further improve those articles (but please do see the talk pages of the articles where that content was scrutinized and copied from; you may also wish to see my comments/cited sources on few other talk pages in 2016 and 2017, such as this, comments made before the SPI case was filed).

[3] There have been vague allegations made by Lorstaking on the SPI page about "disruption" by me. I request that Lorstaking should stop casting aspersions. If they believe disruption has occurred, they should be able to identify the article, specific edit diffs and explain the disruption caused. If they were to make such good faith effort, I promise I will work with them to review the scholarly sources in order to improve the articles.

[4] I attest that I do not have a sock or alternate account. I have only edited wikipedia from password protected networks in 2016, 2017 and 2018. I have never shared my wikipedia password with anyone, nor attempted to abuse wikipedia with sock accounts. Ben MacDui has spent a "long time" on this by his own statement. I do not want to spend my time or energy on this, nor of Ben or anyone else. That is not why I participate in wikipedia. My predominant interest remains in collaboratively contributing to the project, and contributing content that relies on peer-reviewed mainstream scholarly publications and equivalent reliable sources to the best of my abilities.

[5] I promise to continue using password protected networks in future, never create alt accounts. If I ever do create an alt account for reasons explicitly allowed by wikipedia policies, I promise to inform an admin first.

I am open to any additional constructive suggestions that will allow us to focus on the future and redirect our energies towards building an encyclopedia.

I thank Ben for temporarily lifting the ban so I could submit this reply. Now that I have done so, I accept one week, one month, one year or indefinite block if the community feels that wikipedia project and its aims would be best served by such an action. I promise to respect the decision, without contest, with love and compassionate respect. Thank you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Please identify all previous accounts operated by you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Ms Sarah Welch: Your response has not addressed any of the issues or mistakes, it is only speaking of more problems. Do you know that this thread is not about what you contributed to African ethnicity articles? You had to reply to the concerns raised by editors regarding your edits on Indian articles. I don't think these editors have checked your edits to African ethnicity articles, however I should mention the link provided by Capitals00 on SPI, that you had filed a spurious ANI report[400] against Soupforone who participated in these African articles with you. Though your report was TLDR, there was no evidence of any misconduct, and same was the case with your report against Fowler&Fowler that you filed with ApostleVonColorado account.[401] Although this time you went far ahead with this spurious report by proposing sanctions against Soupforone and proposed siteban("indef-ban") for GabiloveAdol, but your proposal received no support.[402] Clearly there has been no improvement in your behavior, but deterioration.
• We have already observed how you "collaborate with them, line by line", given the mass bludgeoning on talk pages and bragging that other editor lack enough credibility because they don't have as many "edits" and/or they are "new" to Wikipedia[403][404] even after editing for months. Your proposal is exactly what standard practice are supposed to be, and you have failed to abide by them during your multiple innings. That's why your proposal is troublesome.
• Are you actually sure that I am "casting aspersions"? I had already provided diff to the problems that I have mentioned above, and the linked diff in turn links to dozens of assessment of your behavior. Do you really want an argument over that? You seem to be claiming that everyone is wrong and they need a specific argument with you to actually prove that you are causing disruption.
• I am not finding any reason for believing your claims that you never used any other accounts during 2016-2018. It seems that you have plans to create "alt account" and you "promise to inform an admin first". Seems like you still don't understand the policy on multiple accounts, or you are deliberately misleading. I am also not getting that why you are saying that you have been editing with "password protected networks" since 2016. It is suspicious and it indicates there's much more to know about your sock puppetry. No one has claimed that you used or may have used insecure networks during these 7 years. It is rather obvious that you have used more socks.
• Since your behavior has only worsened in these many years, it would be ignorant to think that you would improve overnight. Take some time off Wikipedia. I have routinely stopped editing Wikipedia after I felt that it is getting too much. I am also aware of the fact that you criticize inactivity and finds it suspicious, but that's an incorrect approach and you have to change it. Lorstaking (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23: None. The CU team is welcome to run a checkuser on me. If sockpuppetry is confirmed, please indef block me immediately. Of course, this is not a permission to anyone to disclose my personal identifying information and I request that my privacy be safeguarded per wikipedia policies. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Ben MacDui: In early January, when I last responded to the SPI case, there was only one accused. More accusations were added later. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: The case opened against you was difficult from the beginning. I had never heard of Lorstaking, and my limited interaction with you was administrative and was positive. However, some of your responses at the SPI were odd, more like a person who had socked and was trying to find loopholes in the policy or in other policies, e.g., CLEANSTART. Then Lorstaking added two more accounts, both of which, like AVC, had not edited for years, and MacDui made a finding that you operated those two accounts. At that point, MacDui had different options as to what to do. The course he chose was not what I would have picked. I would have blocked you indefinitely as a sock of Lisa.davis, the oldest account (MacDui never made a finding that you were a sock of AVC). It would have then become your burden, as it normally is in other cases, to request an unblock. Nonetheless, a couple of days after MacDui's one-week block, you posted your comments here. My interpretation of them was that you were implicitly acknowledging that you had other accounts in the past, but, again as in most cases, for you to continue editing here I asked you for an explicit admission and for a list of the previous accounts. Now, surprisingly, at least to me, you deny any socking. Usually, in these circumstances, one of two things can occur: a clerk or other administrator can do their own analysis of your and the other accounts' behavior, and either agree or disagree with MacDui. If they disagree, they should of course explain why. If that either doesn't happen or doesn't result in an unblock, you can then take the request to ArbCom. Unfortunately, at least from my perspective, this is playing out at ANI instead of your Talk page. Although some of the editors in this thread have touched on the socking issue, it's as much a review of whether your edits as MSW have been constructive or not, which, again, in my view, is only partly what this is all about. There's very little I can do about this any more. Until you posted your comments, I had intentionally not commented here, although I did point out some of the oddities to MacDui on his Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Please do the checkuser on me, please. Clear me or indef block me based on technical findings. I am clueless about checkuser, networks, IPs, etc. If the SPI team is not going to do a checkuser on me because of some wikipedia policy, please state so and confirm that technical evidence on this case will not be available. I will then respond to the rest. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: You are not in a position to dictate what should or shouldn't be done. If you have more to say in response "to the rest", do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23: In that case, I submit the following,

• I have answered your question above.
• In December 2017, when Lorstaking filed this SPI case, they had just around 500 edits, mostly minor in my view. Just like you, I had never heard of Lorstaking. I thought we were dealing with a newbie who did not understand the SPI process. I made mistakes in my initial assumptions and reply. My last response on the case was on January 8 2018 when the case was less complex than the one Ben MacDui finally reviewed in late January.
• A scan of Ben MacDui review efforts suggest that Ben prepared his initial case review notes in his sandbox and then transferred them. I will only comment on my account, not the rest of Ben's analysis. According to Ben, he took a long look and while he found evidence, he found no unequivocal link between AVC and me. I have read Ben's analysis of MM and I, LD and I. Ben has not provided evidence of "unequivocal link" for either.
• Ben may have, I believe, relied on misleading edit diffs, presented by Lorstaking to push the sock-POV. For example, [405] and [406] were alleged evidence. The truth is that there was a systematic attempt to plug POV such as "Hinduism is the eternal right way of life, the sanataria [sic] Dharma" and the Woodhead book across many wikipedia articles, over many weeks. Other editors and I undid these several times. This has nothing to do with socking. Every link that Lorstaking alleges as evidence of socking has a similar innocent explanation. Please look at my edits not in isolation, but across articles and over time. Please look at what content was removed, revised or restored by me, and whether it was reasonable under wikipedia's content policies and what the cited source states. We gather here to build an encyclopedia. Measure my edits and my actions based on that standard. (For comments on Capitals00's views, see my reply at 08:58 today on this ANI page.)
• I have suggested a proposal above to move forward and move on. I hope the reviewing admins will study the evidence, ask if the evidence is unequivocal, if there is an innocent explanation, and whether I have disrupted and abused wikipedia in any way. Then take action. If I can be of assistance in this process, please contact me by wikipedia email. I thank you and all who have commented above, on all sides of this matter. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Ms Sarah Welch: You either don't get it or you're being obtuse. MacDui found that you operated two accounts previously, Lisa.davis and Mark.muesse. MacDui never found that you operated AVC. You're wearing me out with your evasive comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Bbb23 has seen me before and before this SPI I had pinged Bbb23 for help on Tyler Durden SPI,[407] given that he is a busy CheckUser, I can understand that he has not recalled me, but you are being deceptive as usual with this baseless claim you are making today that you never heard of me, regardless of the fact that you participated in same disputes as me, much before this SPI.[408][409] With 500 edits I could expose your sockpuppetry but how come you (having over 28,000 edits and over 7 years of sock puppetry experience) still lack any WP:COMPETENCE? "I thought we were dealing with a newbie who did not understand the SPI process"? I think you mean me and Bbb23 were dealing with a deceptive sock like you who attempted to fabricate the evidence by claiming that you have no overlap with AVC, sock puppetry is not disruption, AVC was allowed clean start and many other misleading claims that you made.[410][411]
What this Dharma[412], Sikhism[413] diffs got anything to do with the concerns raised about your disruptive editing here?
You have made no proposal but barely highlighted what every editor is supposed to do, and that you can't be trusted at all with your deceptive behavior which is further evidenced by your fabrication below where you tried to hijack an ANI report made by a different user and before your spurious ANI report that did nothing. Don't you think that you are only giving us more reasons to get rid of you? Lorstaking (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: If you're denying that you operated Lisa.davis and Mark.muesse, which were judged by an admin at SPI to have been operated by you, then quite frankly given this bare faced lie, and the attempt to derail the discussion below, I now support an indef block. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Checkuser is not going to find any socks that you have abused more than more than 3 months ago. You will have to disclose all those accounts that you have abused for more than 7 years. You have been already told, but it is really hard to make you understand. Lorstaking (talk) 10:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Lorstaking: Once again you post a wall of text with distorted claims. Lets take just two of your edit diffs. This you allege is my "issue and mistake". The User:Trankhalya added to wikipedia's high traffic main article on Buddhism this forum-y nonsense / vandalism, along with unsourced content such as "In buddhism, can be seen as a way to fulfill others by spreading a good greed to our society". I reverted this and then posted a message on their talk page that this is inappropriate. You give this as an example of "my issue and mistake" on ANI board?!!! Now consider the second example. You agree with Capitals00 about the GabiloveAdol-EthiopianHabesha case related to Horn of Africa space articles. You allege this as an example of frivolous complaint by me. The case actually was supported by others, progressed further, ultimately led to a topic ban, the ban was appealed, and the admins denied the appeal. If Capitals00 and you are criticizing multiple editors and multiple admins for that topic ban, this is not the right thread to do so. Your other edit diffs are similarly misleading and misinformed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you still not done of falsely labeling other's comments as wall of text?[414] Per WP:WALLOFTEXT, there should be "with a mass of irrelevant kilobytes". Can you find any in my comment? You are making irrelevant comments on the conduct of Trankhalya, and ignoring the point that he was not a new editor, but an autoconfirmed user editing for months and already well aware of the policies. What about other examples? I am talking about the complaint that you had filed against GabiloveAdol and Soupforone,[415] not about the complaint that was filed by a different user regarding EthiopianHabesha, days before your frivolous one.[416][417] How much your "case was actually supported by others"? Was Soupforone sanctioned? Was GabiloveAdol sitebanned? Because that is what you expected and demanded but others found no misconduct and no one was sanctioned. Don't you think that people would be at least asking for a topic ban against you from filing any more complaints on ANI if you had filed it from ApostleVonColorado, or they would be seeking a topic ban on you from African articles just like the topic ban you had from caste after you had filed a complaint against Fowler on ANI? I am astonished that you are still defending such a "frivolous complaint". Lorstaking (talk) 10:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef block - problematic editor who doesn't seem to get it, can't trust her. GiantSnowman 09:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef block - I have inter-acted MSW in several articles and my experience was negative. MSW hates to admit any faults, contributes without having knowledge of the subject and frequently resorts to deliberate obfuscation. Alleged good contributions are not a free pass for socking and breaching trust. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• I see contributions in MSW's history that clearly improve the project. Per NOTBURO I have no problems with their participation. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Would you like to also share that how carefully have you checked those contributions? Because MSW can't even understand very basic policies, let alone understanding philosophical texts where MSW ends up misrepresenting the subject as discussed above. Lorstaking (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Site ban proposal

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

---

It was already noted here and also on the filer's talk page[418] that ANI is not a good venue for deciding the outcome of an SPI and we should abide by the standard practice and policies.

In this report, different opinions have been offered, most have supported indef block while some have suggested different measures for dealing with this disruption. Situation has changed since the comments from the concerning editor, Ms Sarah Welch (sock of ApostleVonColorado), claiming that they are truly flawless. This incident has rather confirmed the validity of the policy, that why multiple account abusers of this kind are indeffed.

We are here talking about an editor who is socking for over 7 years and had faced a topic ban after an extensive discussion on ANI in 2012.[419] Regardless of the fact that not even one editor doubted evidence of the sock puppetry, MSW is making efforts to claim that they have never socked. The outright rejection of sock puppetry has led some editors to support something harsher.[420][421] But it is clear now that nothing is going to change the behavior of MSW. MSW has made outrageous claims that I provided "misleading edit diffs", to "push the sock-POV", as the evidence of sock puppetry and the blocking admin "may have, I believe, relied on misleading edit diffs", and the admin "has not provided evidence of "unequivocal link" for either" WP:DUCK account.[422]
Bbb23 has said "you either don't get it or you're being obtuse",[423] above. But MSW has chosen to stand alone, claiming the opposite that no evidence of sock puppetry exists, not only here but also recently on their own talk page.

Such a deceptive approach has made me sure that a site ban is more suitable measure for this problem than wasting any more time. Hence, I am proposing site ban. Socks of ApostleVonColorado that are listed on the SPI would remain indeffed per standard practice and policies. The user can request unban from ApostleVonColorado after some time has elapsed, which is generally no less than 1 year.

• Support as proposer. Lorstaking (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• There is a lot of material above to digest, and I have not taken it all in, but I am slightly concerned about the statement "The behavioural evidence of AVC and MSW being the same person is considerable (although not perhaps 100% certain)" (emphasis added) as a basis for a site ban.

I should say that my past interactions with MSW have been good, and mostly in the Horn of Africa topic area, which is notoriously difficult, so perhaps I don't come to this with neutral eyes. However, I see the GabiloveAdol case mentioned above as evidence against MSW, but my recollection of that case was that GabiloveAdol started a frivolous SPI case against MSW (admins might want to look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ms Sarah Welch - I don't remember the precise details). See also User talk:GabiloveAdol#Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ms Sarah Welch. I don't know much about MSW's editing in other areas, but I have long suspected that there is something fishy going on when it comes to Horn of Africa articles, and MSW has been a victim, not a guilty party, of that in the past. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• Please stick to the correct facts: MS is not "an editor who is socking for over 7 years"; as far as this SPI is concerned, she's been using three accounts for a couple of months a couple of years ago for a limitd number of edits, after which she sticked to one account. MSW denies the correctness of these findings; I think that Bbb23 has painted the right course in a situation like this. I'll support an unblock-request, given her contributions to the project. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - As mentioned in previous discussions, I don't see any abuse of multiple accounts, which is what we call "Sockpuppetry". I also believe that AVC was entitled to a WP:CLEANSTART after the expiry of their topic ban. I do not find it troubling that MSW has not admitted to her previous accounts because that is what CLEANSTART is all about. Given her high level of contributions in quality and quantity, MSW is a net positive to Wikipedia. I would wish her to remain. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose--Nah...We have tolerated much worse.~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - grossly excessive, we should be focused on the content, not the contributor. Fish Karate 09:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Extremely excessive, even if the short-term socking is provable. Ms Sarah Welch convincingly, in my opinion, fulfills the forgiving spirit, and quite possibly the letter of the law, of WP:Clean Start. While our interaction has been minimal or zero, I frequently see her edits on articles I watch relating to Indian religion. These are very difficult articles to keep free from drive-by editors adding unreferenced bias, opinion, local beliefs, or worse. Losing MSW would be a great loss to the quality of many articles. First Light (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Re-analysis proposal

@Bbb23: if I understand you correctly, you are saying that:

• you would have blocked MSW as a sock of Lisa.davies;
• you would also have blocked Lisa.davies, for being a sock-puppeteer;
• now that the case has been taken to ANI, and MSW denies any connection to Lisa.davies and other accounts, they should nevertheless be blocked (but you're not the one who's going to do that now?);
• being blocked, another clerk or administrator can analyse the case again:

• if they disagree with MacDui, they explain why, and MSW might be unblocked;
• if they agree, MSW will still be blocked, and then MSW can take it to ArbCom with an unblock-request.

• alternately, being blocked, no clerk or administrator may be willing to make a second analysis, MSW remains blocked, and she can take it to ArbCom to request to be unblocked.

So, who's to judge now about the actions to be taken? Any administrator who comes along, and thinks this discussion has been going on long enough? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

PS: I'd like to suggest that this thread be closed; that another clerk or admin, with due experience with SPI-cases, re-evaluate the SPI-case in question; and that the standard-procedures for dealing with sock-puppetry are being followed. Any discussion about the quality of MSW's editing can be postponed until after such a re-evaluation. I'd also like to suggest that Lorstaking stops complaining on behalf of Fowler&fowler about the interactions between MSW and Fowler&fowler, and about hypothetical blocks for disruptive editing which have not happened so far on MSW's account. It's up to Fowler&fowler to make complaints about that; I'm sure he's perfectly capable to do so, if necessary. Let's keep the discussion focussed in due order on the relevant points. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to all for this input, which I have found helpful. I am now going to return to the SPI where I will communicate the conclusions I have reached. In other words, in answer to the above question I agree that the discussion has gone on long enough and I believe the onus is on me to conclude the case. If anyone finds the outcome unsatisfactory (and given the diverse opinions expressed it would be surprising if everyone was happy) then of course opprtunities exist for a re-evaluation. Ben MacDui 10:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Even though people are allowed to file report in behalf of others on here or other noticeboards, I have just mentioned disputes with Fowler as part of strong similarities with MSW and AVC, and MSW didn't used AVC anymore for obvious reasons. Talking about problems with the edits or importance as an editor was always irrelevant, but MSW still claims that problematic editing, not socking, should be the foundation of SPI. As for this discussion, it has run it's course. Lorstaking (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

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