Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive977

Request for a quick edit by a sysop or a template editor

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

---

Resolved

Could someone with at least the template-editor right fix the TfD notice at Template:Distinguish2? This is a hatnote template, and so its TfD nomination is currently being advertised by making a mess of the top lines of the 7,428 articles that transclude it (see example). The fix is to wrap the TfM notice in <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags. – Uanfala (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Done, although the #invoke:noinclude was puzzling. Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! (but yeah, that bit is puzzling – I have no idea what it does). – Uanfala (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

See Template talk:Tfm#TfM in template documentation. To explain that in my own words, {{#invoke:noinclude|noinclude|text=STUFF_HERE}} has the same effect as <noinclude>STUFF_HERE</noinclude>, but is used separately because direct noinclude tags can't be nested. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Is the merge proposer going to fix the 7,428 articles that would reportedly be affected? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, such stuff is normally handled by the bot machinery behind TfD. – Uanfala (talk) 03:05, 21 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.

Editcred123

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

---

Diff

Diff

Diff

Editcred123, based on contribs and name, is a single-purpose account (which raises suspicion over conflict of interest) unwilling to refrain from disruptive edits, despite warnings. The dispute is over the addition of "Senior Narrative Designer" Ross McCall to an infobox parameter that belongs to the lead writer, namely Zak Garriss. Cognissonance (talk) 02:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indef. Swarm ♠ 20:25, 21 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:Wetneckstoday

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

---

Can someone please block this user? See most recent contributions, specifically to Susanna Innes-Ker, Duchess of Roxburghe. Thanks, Ruby2010 (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Done.V&alist (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

V&alist (talk · contribs) needs a block as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I've posted these both at WP:AIV, which is where @Ruby2010: should go for this type of thing in the future. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Both blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I wasn't sure where to go. Ruby2010 (talk) 14:18, 21 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.

Range block request - American categories vandal

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

---

• 2605:A000:1500:8064:* contribs since new year

Requesting a range block for 2605:A000:1500:8064:*. This user keeps adding categories for American tv shows to non-American shows. See example diffs ans above range Contribs. [1] [2] [3] [4]. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Anyone able to address this? EvergreenFir (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Maybe try someone here: Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make range blocks who you've seen has been active recently? Range blocks frighten and confuse me, and I'm probably not alone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Thanks. Pinging MusikAnimal KrakatoaKatie since they were active recently. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The common range is Special:Contribs/2605:a000:1500:8064::/64. It looks like there have been some attempts to contact them, so I'm comfortable with blocking. Two weeks should be long enough to get their attention. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 21:34, 21 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.

Close a discussion at Talk:Czech Republic

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

---

Can somebody please slap an archive box around Talk:Czech Republic #Czechia, everywhere?. It is off-topic, and has been going on endlessly. I'd do it, but I participated, to my chagrin. Largoplazo (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. That was not an especially hard one to read, was it? Guy (Help!) 00:30, 21 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.

CSD waiting since 16 hours

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

---

As of 10:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC); it has been 16 hours since Rohit KaduDeshmukh was nominated for speedy using G5. Yet it hasnt been processed. Also, I was wondering what is the longest surviving speedy nomination? —usernamekiran(talk) 10:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

"Speedy" does not mean we race to delete articles immediately after tagging. It just means we skip XFD/PROD. It's not unusual or even problematic that pages are tagged for days unless immediate action (G10/G12) is actually required. As well meaning as this post was, please do refrain from doing so in future. Admins are only volunteers too and we will get to it eventually. Regards SoWhy 11:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted it, but I agree with SoWhy: speedy deletions will sometimes stand for days if it is complicated (as some G5s and G12s are). No need to worry :) TonyBallioni (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

i know what a speedy is I thought it wouldnt take much of time to see if an article fits speedy, the either accept or decline the speedy. I am not complaining about the 16 hours, i am curious about the longst surviving article after getting nominated. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

If you weren't concerned about how much time it took an admin to decide if the article met the criterion for speedy deletion then why did you bring it to ANI? If your reason for posting this was to find out the longest surviving speedy deletion nomination then the place to ask that kind of question would be WT:CSD. ~ GB fan 12:22, 21 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.

Troll vandalizing 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.

---

I am dealing with a troll here and here. A block would be an excellent step with thanks.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:49, 21 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 spamming/editing pages

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/108.49.82.218 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.251.17 (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by IP user

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

---

91.227.222.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (anonymous proxy), 81.92.203.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 81.149.102.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (same user)

I was encouraged to take this here from WP:BLPN by USER:Zaereth.

The IP user above has repeatedly attempted to restore an obviously inappropriate/non-WP:BLP compliant version of the article for Darius Guppy (four times in the last month). This user's favoured version is one that includes irrelevant speculation about the subject's personality, and details about his political views. Their writing style is also wholly inappropriate for a biography (WP:BLPSTYLE). For example, the user wants the article to emphasise the subjects' "notable ancestry and his unconventional opinions and writings", and how "extremely well planned and very carefully executed" the insurance fraud was, etc. I referred the article to WP:BLPN last year, and among the editors who participated in the discussion there was an implied consensus in favour of the current, neutrally worded version. The changes also make use of low-quality/non-WP:RS sources: mainly blogs, the Daily Mail, primary sources (incl. a court transcript), and a website called "nobodylikesagrass.com"—again, wholly inappropriate for a BLP.

I have tried to explain the problems to this user, and have left links to the relevant policies and guidelines on their talk page, and on the article talk page. So far their strategy has been to ignore the advice and to spuriously question my motives, such as suggesting that I am "a journalist duffed up by Mr G". They have a history of doing this.

Having to keep returning to the page to restore the WP:BLP-consistent version is becoming very tiresome. The user is currently incapable of understanding why their changes are inappropriate, and won't pay attention to any further advice. Besides the BLP issue, there is also the edit-warring, and obvious WP:COMPETENCE issues. A block and semi-protection would be appreciated. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Page protected.. This was an easy protection candidate; I'm not sure what else we can do for the IP-hopper; long-term IP blocks are pointless, and if this article is the sole target, the protection seems like the only way to go. In the future, WP:RFPP may be the fastest way to deal with issues such as these. --Jayron32 15:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Much obliged. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:33, 21 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.

ResearchApproach

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

---

• ResearchApproach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Judicial Watch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Judicial Watch is a self-appointed transparency watchdog with an extreme conservative agenda. ResearchApproach would like our article to say much more about their success and much less about the criticism they receive. Four separate editors have reverted xyr edits. A DS notice and an edit warring warning have been placed, but xe has yet to make any appearance on the talk page. I'm involved, so can another admin look over the contribs and see if they smell as big a rat as I do please? Guy (Help!) 22:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

That article is already a giant coat rack of negative coverage. Yet Michael Moore's article is peachy clean despite ample negative coverage in the media. Some of those editors reverting have themselves been the subject of AE discussions about their own NPOV; specifically pointing at Snoo. They've made a single minor edit since the EW notice on their talk page - wait it out to see what happens with that. Not sure if you read the page history, but you jumped straight from an EW notice to an ANI with the only edit in between being a spelling correction.--v/r - TP 01:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

But they are not "brand new" editors edit warring to introduce tendentious content and failing to engage on Talk, whereas ResearchApproach is. Which is why I asked other admins to have a look. Guy (Help!) 10:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked RA for continuing to edit war, after receiving a warning, and without using the talk page (note that they did finally start using the talk page, but not to resolve the edit war). I've also warned them that should it continue they'll receive a topic ban. I see more serious editing restrictions fast approaching, but this seemed like a reasonable first step. Swarm ♠ 20:22, 21 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.

Western values improperly protected (stealth 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.

---

After discussing this on talk/usertalk in few places (including at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Western_values), I find no other recourse than to bring this here. Briefly, I think Western values has been improperly protected, in the redirected (non-article) version by User:RHaworth for no good reason - two reverts on the redirect, with edit summaries, were not an edit war that needed a prompt admin intervention, and blanking of an article is not a good way of dealing with this. Concerns have been raised that the article version submitted by User:Patnovak is too ORish. Perhaps, but I feel this should be decided by AfD. User:Staszek Lem who reverted the creator suggested he goes to AfC, then promptly declined his draft. One editor should not decide the fate of another editor's article. What this looks to me is that we, experienced editors, are unfairly picking up on a relative newbie, blanking his content. Staszek Lem AfD two other articles created by Patnovak, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relation (history of concept) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtues (number and structure). The discussion there is ongoing, the wider community will decide what to do with those articles, but I believe Patnovak's Western values article deserves a proper AfD, not a silent blank, protect, AfC, decline treatment. What I suggest is simple: unprotect Western values, restore most recent version of the article (from the draft, preferably), AfD it. Then all voices will be properly heard, and if the consensus is for delete/draftify, I don't think anyone will object. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is a clear WP:WRONGVERSION issue, and as such, you should first establish the consensus version via normal discussion then it will be returned. Wikipedia is in no rush, and if the wrong (redirected) version is the one visible for a few days it's no big deal. Since you're so sure that's the wrong version, you should have no trouble establishing a clear consensus that it is. -- Jayron32 11:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• You cannot be serious. Never mind a "proper AfD". Let the article receive a proper AfC review at draft:western values. Patnovak (talk · contribs) must be told very firmly by more people than me that Wikipedia is not a free host for publishing essays / original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@RHaworth: I am quite serious; I don't think we should unprotect the article unless consensus exists to do so, and I expressed as much. I already essentially pre-agreed with you before you wrote what you did; can you explain your incredulity? Are you really arguing that the article should be unprotected? Because your objection to my comment doesn't make sense. --Jayron32 15:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I think, regardless of indenting, he was probably talking to Piotrus, not you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Possible, I suppose, but he can answer for himself. --Jayron32 17:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• About what do you think I am incredulous? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• @RHaworth: Are you talking to me? If you are, it is unclear again. You had stated, to me (I think), "You cannot be serious". That is a standard idiom of incredulity. I was trying to assess what your problem was with what I wrote. --Jayron32 17:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Basically what I was going to say; the "article" is very clearly an essay. Try Wikiversity maybe. Good protection. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• I have now moved all Patnovak's edits on this topic to draft:western values. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Which do you think Patnovak would prefer: to have the article rejected in draftspace where it will probably live for at least six months or to have it rejected from mainspace via an AfD where it would last for a fortnight if it is lucky? And @Patnovak:, are we going to hear from you? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:02, 21 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.

Western values improperly protected (stealth 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.

---

After discussing this on talk/usertalk in few places (including at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Western_values), I find no other recourse than to bring this here. Briefly, I think Western values has been improperly protected, in the redirected (non-article) version by User:RHaworth for no good reason - two reverts on the redirect, with edit summaries, were not an edit war that needed a prompt admin intervention, and blanking of an article is not a good way of dealing with this. Concerns have been raised that the article version submitted by User:Patnovak is too ORish. Perhaps, but I feel this should be decided by AfD. User:Staszek Lem who reverted the creator suggested he goes to AfC, then promptly declined his draft. One editor should not decide the fate of another editor's article. What this looks to me is that we, experienced editors, are unfairly picking up on a relative newbie, blanking his content. Staszek Lem AfD two other articles created by Patnovak, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relation (history of concept) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtues (number and structure). The discussion there is ongoing, the wider community will decide what to do with those articles, but I believe Patnovak's Western values article deserves a proper AfD, not a silent blank, protect, AfC, decline treatment. What I suggest is simple: unprotect Western values, restore most recent version of the article (from the draft, preferably), AfD it. Then all voices will be properly heard, and if the consensus is for delete/draftify, I don't think anyone will object. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is a clear WP:WRONGVERSION issue, and as such, you should first establish the consensus version via normal discussion then it will be returned. Wikipedia is in no rush, and if the wrong (redirected) version is the one visible for a few days it's no big deal. Since you're so sure that's the wrong version, you should have no trouble establishing a clear consensus that it is. -- Jayron32 11:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• You cannot be serious. Never mind a "proper AfD". Let the article receive a proper AfC review at draft:western values. Patnovak (talk · contribs) must be told very firmly by more people than me that Wikipedia is not a free host for publishing essays / original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@RHaworth: I am quite serious; I don't think we should unprotect the article unless consensus exists to do so, and I expressed as much. I already essentially pre-agreed with you before you wrote what you did; can you explain your incredulity? Are you really arguing that the article should be unprotected? Because your objection to my comment doesn't make sense. --Jayron32 15:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I think, regardless of indenting, he was probably talking to Piotrus, not you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Possible, I suppose, but he can answer for himself. --Jayron32 17:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• About what do you think I am incredulous? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• @RHaworth: Are you talking to me? If you are, it is unclear again. You had stated, to me (I think), "You cannot be serious". That is a standard idiom of incredulity. I was trying to assess what your problem was with what I wrote. --Jayron32 17:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Basically what I was going to say; the "article" is very clearly an essay. Try Wikiversity maybe. Good protection. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• I have now moved all Patnovak's edits on this topic to draft:western values. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Which do you think Patnovak would prefer: to have the article rejected in draftspace where it will probably live for at least six months or to have it rejected from mainspace via an AfD where it would last for a fortnight if it is lucky? And @Patnovak:, are we going to hear from you? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:02, 21 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.

47.202.22.186

The following discussion is closed. 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 you please block this IP? I've asked twice for them to stop saying 'have' instead of 'had' for past events[5][6] but they're still doing it: [7][8]. Thanks. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You want someone blocked because they twice made small grammar errors? If we limit editing to people who have not made two errors, this whole effort will wither pretty quick. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Per NatGertler above, as an admin, I am not comfortable blocking a user over an honest mistake. Maybe they missed your request to discuss the matter. Have you tried hitting up their talk page again to explain the issue? --Jayron32 19:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Unless they're edit warring the errors in, I'd just just fix it and move on. Blackmane (talk) 22:47, 21 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 attack by TheOldJacobite

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

---

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

On the talk page of Armageddon, TheOldJacobite has been engaging a personal attack on 2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 because there is a feud between them and various users, including me, on that talk page and strongly indicates that he is accusing that user of being a sockpuppet, which there is no evidence of sockpuppet editing. These are the diffs that reveals it right here. Also, he's been removing warnings on his talk page, as seen on this diff here, and has been hostile towards some users, reverting their non-vandalizing edits and reverting his warnings. Links here are some of the evidence that reveals his behavior. Admin noticeboard#Armageddon, Teahouse#TheOldJacobite. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm pretty involved in this all around, although only as a third party, and I'm decidedly not on any side at all in any of the related content disputes. I don't know what the solution is, but I'm not a fan of prolific editors who think they're not required to discuss changes or make any assumption of good faith, which seems to be the running theme here. GMG^talk 19:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I've closed the section which got into the accusations with a warning about taking it to SPI or withholding personal attacks, and have collapsed it as off-topic in accordance with WP:TPO. Let us know if there are further issues. Swarm ♠ 20:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

You got it. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand completely what is going on and why it has come to this but I am under a time constraint right now and may not be able to respond completely in a number of days until then. But It is very difficult to avoid Oldjacobite when I review film plots and he seems to have a habit of reverting so many edits done to film articles. The most immediate things that I can say about his actions have been that on three film articles he reverted usually without an edit summary then moved on to block my statements in attempting to start a discussion about plot and article content. I asked for advise on the Teahouse page and from that he was admonished. I have not made any more plot edits that he seems to be concerned about in the mean time since I have not bought any new dvd's. Again, I will return to this probably in a few days. Maybe he will participate in this discussion as he has avoided so many others. And pardon if I go in and out of British spelling--a problem I sometimes encounter having lived there for a time and when you see it on page I sometimes start to think of those spellings and ways of referring to things. I am very concerned for WP being truthful and accurate without misleading people. Oh, before there go flying accusations of sock puppetry just know that I am issued by my provider IPs that can be different but they usually start with 2605 E000, and sometimes while I am on the site 104 (I believe). I have no control over the functioning of my provider Time warner and over WP and as long as IP's are endorsed by WP I will continue to use it as my identifier while editing. It is not an attempt to deceive anyone and it is not in any way a form of being uncooperative.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Before this goes much further and I have greater time to comment, That the talk page discussion was on key until the accusation was lodged about me being a suspected sock puppet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC) And the accusation came from a senior WP contributor that I assume is also an administrator that should have known better but instead acted otherwise.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I asked a question, I made no accusation, and it certainly did not rise to the level of a personal attack. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

You do need to realize that 1) IPs are people and you are expected to assume good faith in the same way with them as you do with any other user, 2) vandalism has a very particular meaning and accompanying exemptions, but for edits that do not fall under that, you are expected to engage on the talk page without someone uninvolved having to twist arms and request full protection in order to get you to do so, and 3) you should not remove the comments of others simply because you disagree with them.

This much is non-negotiable, by which I mean you either learn to abide by those expectations or you are not welcome to contribute. You are a prolific member of the community, and I welcome your continued contributions, but that does not make you exempt from these basic expectations in any way whatsoever, and never will. GMG^talk 00:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

IP's are not people, and it takes a lot of nerve to cite something clearly marked as an essay and declare it "non-negotiable". Joefromrandb (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:TPO however is not an essay. And removing the comments of an IP about including information in the plot section of the article, on the article talkpage, is not acceptable. It was not off-topic and the removal was more disruptive than keeping it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

AGF is non-negotiable. That you think it isn't, and I think it is, probably explains a lot of why your block log is a heckuva lot longer than mine. GMG^talk 00:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Facepalm. No, AGF is not "non-negotiable" either. It's a guideline, to be treated with common sense, rather than a suicide pact. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

[9] GMG^talk 00:50, 22 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.

Lugnuts

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

---

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

This user, despite being told last time I brought them to ANI to stop their disruptive behaviour, in particular, personally attacking me, has chosen to continue: [10]. I believe time for blocks has come. I am not lazy, and I do not wish to see such edit summaries. (They also entertained themselves last week by leaving editing summaries that I do not speak English, but I will not look for these now, since this summary is enough for a block given multiple previous warnings). Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

This was the last time, less than two weeks ago.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Have you posted the wrong diff? There's nothing remotely resembling a personal attack here. ‑ Iridescent 19:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

"How lazy" is a personal attack.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Even given that ANI, that edit summary is absolutely nowhere near enough for a block, so you'll have to provide evidence for the rest of your complaint... diffs please (as it says at the top of this page). Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

"How lazy" is a personal attack. I do not see why it must be tolerated, since this is not the first personal attack of this user on me.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Even if it is a personal attack, it's a very mild one, and to be fair he did point out why he said it (i.e. you removed an unsourced sentence saying the person had committed suicide, yet left the equally unsourced category in place). On the scale of personal attacks, it's right at the bottom end, and no admin is going to block for it unless you have further examples. Black Kite (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

So it is ok to personally attack me on a regular basis? Even if these are "mild personal attacks"? And your response just does not assume AGF against me. I just did not notice the category, otherwise I would have removed it.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

If someone called me lazy, I'd just fart in their general direction and call them an elderberry. I think laziness is defined by content input, and one man's lazy is another's diligent. Seriously, it's not even worth an ANI report, let alone a block. Have we all lost perspective here? I've had an admin saying "fuck you", and nothing was done, you're worried about this kind of thing? Time to move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, we had a user who insisted it is ok to call them an asshole and that calling someone an asshole is not a personal attack. I got them blocked from the fourth attempt.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

You "got them blocked"? Well done you. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Let's stay on topic, please. No one's saying that it's okay for you to be personally attacked, Ymblanter. But you're reporting a very minor offense that would never be actionable on its own, and that previous ANI report, while obviously an aggravating factor, also only included one diff, and as such it is still not sufficient to justify a block for a pattern of "disruptive behavior". Obviously it's a problem if you're being personally attacked on a regular basis, but you still need to sufficiently make your case with diffs to substantiate your allegations of a problematic behavioral pattern outside of the very limited context you've provided. Swarm ♠ 20:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  Ok guys, next time I hear complaints you lose productive contributors I am going to laugh.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  I did not ask much, but as usual I did not get any support. Sorry for wasting your time.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  Do you see the Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting at the top of this page? It means what it says. We're not going to block someone for (correctly) pointing out that you made a mistake. ‑ Iridescent 20:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  @Ymblanter: What?! I'm literally supporting you, that's why I'm trying to tell you exactly what I need from you in order to action this. I agree those are blatant offenses, and he did breach a warning, and as much as I wish that were enough, it isn't. As I'm sure you should know by now, we block for personal attacks/incivility under either severe circumstances or when it's shown to be a persistent behavioral pattern in spite of warnings. Two diffs is not enough to establish a behavioral pattern, and if said behavioral pattern is literally directed at you, then it should not be hard for you to come up with the diffs. Don't get mad at us for requesting evidence to support your claims. Swarm ♠ 20:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  Well, this particular diff was clearly directed at me since it was a response (and the next diff after) my edit. I do not have the page on my watchlist and found it by accident. I have seen other diffs earlier this week (to whom is it addressed you think?, can not find others now). Lugnuts was unhappy with the fact that I was administrator and was very open about this (see [11] (see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive293#Backlog at WP:ANRFC, search for Lugnuts), and they even send me public thanks for this edit - I am not sure how one can find a public thanks but it is there). I do not particularly care whether Lugnuts gets blocked this time or not (I am sure they will get block at this point), but I need this shit to stop. However, since in this topic I already had plenty of suggestions that it is ok and it was actually my fault, withot any slightest trace of AGF, I do not think I would continue working in this project whatever happens in this thread. You know, I have other things in my life than just enjoy getting publicly flogged for doing volunteer work taking time from my job.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what Ymblanter's problem is with me, but he was never happy after I raised the issue of his conduct in this recent Arbcom case. Earlier this month, I raised an ANI thread about BLP issues with another user, and shortly after Ymblanter weighed in with their own personal attack "...I am not really surprised that Lugnuts is not familiar with our policies..." Quite ironic they mention AGF, above. Good job he doesn't say "fuck you" to another user in his edit summaries. I can only guess as to what is causing a meltdown with this user outside of WP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Um, yup, this should be closed down quickly before it gets out of hand, Ymblanter can take a virtual trout and life goes on. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 21 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.

Edits by User:92.25.194.187

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

---

It's a shame that there's a need to bring this here, but I see no alternative. User:92.25.194.187 has been making occasional edits for about 5 weeks. They are mostly small changes to wording and presentation. Some of these are positive changes, a lot are just personal preference and make no difference, and some introduce errors into articles. A lot of the last have been reverted, which I assume appear as alerts for the IP editor. On User talk:92.25.194.187, the editor was asked on 24 Jan to provide accurate edit summaries [12] but didn't respond. On 2 Feb, I pointed out [13] the difference between "its" and "it's" (the IP was erroneously changing to the latter), and referred to the MoS for capital letters, then [14] did the same for large numbers and date ranges; there was no response. I tried again three days later [15] after the same errors had been introduced. Again a day later [16], and someone else spelled everything out [17]... no response, no change in behaviour. On 11 Feb, I listed some options [18]: change, explain why you can't, get reported here, and [19] by listing later instances, gave the person five chances to self-revert and learn. Another editor joined in [20] on 13 Feb with a warning. On 20 Feb, the IP made [21] the same error for the fifth time since the list I mentioned began. More than 24 hours have passed since then. The IP has never responded to talk page messages (which include requests to communicate) and goes on introducing the same errors as always. This may seem minor, and it should be minor, but there is no sign of the person being either willing or able to respond to feedback, or to communicate with other editors. This is wasting other editors' time and I see the IP as a net negative to Wikipedia. EddieHugh (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked until they begin to communicate. Thanks for your patience. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:24, 21 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.

extremely passionate and dedicated efforts to create a hoax BLP

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

---

This is a combination SPI / Hoax / request for WP:SALT / WP:NOTHERE and a number of other things so I wasn't sure where to put it, I hope ANI is okay.

• Jonreillythr has submitted Draft:Scott_Walterschied to AfC seven times and each time it's been rejected. On the sixth occasion I happened to be the one who rejected it, prompting him to fire off a series of bizarre accusations and other declarations against me, including that I was "sexist" [22] and that he was going to "speak to my editors at WSJ on how to file a formal complaint against your bullying sexist behavior and see where that goes." [23]. (The full exchange in an un-diff'ed format is here.)
  
• The article in question - about a BLP named "Scott Walterschied" - at this point seems undoubtedly to be a hoax that the editor is trying to insert into WP either for his personal amusement or to prove that WP's standards are lax and easily manipulated. "Scott Walterschied", though purportedly an active film producer in the 40-60 age range, can only be sourced to references that exist entirely offline. Some of the references in the article are to sources that should be online (e.g. late 2000s stories from the Hollywood Reporter and Variety) but which the editor has provided no links to and a search on the websites of those outlets is unable to find evidence of under the titles listed. A search on Google News finds only one instance of a "Scott Walterschied", in an active hate crime case in Ohio [24].
• To underscore the complexity of this hoax, an entry for "Scott Walterschied" was created at IMDB (archive version here: [25]) providing cover for the backstory of a film producer (it has since been removed from IMDB). A twitter account was also created with months upon months of tweets [26] along with 16,000 followers which, on closer examination, all appear to be spam and follower exchange accounts.
• Jonreillythr, failing to create an article for "Scott Walterschied", has now taken to inserting "Scott Walterschied" into a variety of WP articles (e.g. [27], [28], etc.).
• We previously had an article for "Scott Walterschied" that was deleted prompting a confirmed sock, User:Variety99, to request undeletion [29]. In that instance the editor claimed to be a writer at Variety [30]. Jonreillythr, as above, seems to be claiming to be an editor at the Wall Street Journal.

That's about it. I wonder if it would be possible to block Jonreillythr as a sock of Variety99, to speedy delete Draft:Scott_Walterschied, and then to salt Draft:Scott Walterschied and Draft:Scott R. Walterschied (Scott Walterschied was already salted by Malcolmxl5 in 2009 so there's no chance it can be advanced out of AfC, however, it is occupying huge amounts of time to review and critique each of these submissions)? Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd say an edit filter to block the strings "Scott Walterschied" and "Scott R. Walterschied" would be warranted too. John from Idegon (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that would be great too, if possible. I didn't even know that could be done! Chetsford (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I think an edit filter would be useful since this is a determined sock puppet. Once we have consensus here, we can file the request at WP:EFR. Let’s avoid mentioning any more filter strings less we spill the WP:BEANS. BillHPike (talk, contribs)

In special:diff/825400655 Jonreillythr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims to be notable journalist at major US newspaper. His account should be blocked per WP:IMPERSONATE. I’ll file a report at WP:UFAA in a few hours if it is still needed by then. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I've salted the page, and blocked the editor. The edits clearly show this was a WP:DUCK of a previous blocked editor (PPrice1). As for the EF, I would agree that the less said in the open the better. RickinBaltimore (talk) 02:43, 22 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.

Flag vandal returns

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

---

Put in a report at AIV, but no one seems to be there at the moment; could someone please block 121.207.73.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - the flag vandal is back again. Not notifying due to LTA. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked. Let us know if they come back. Swarm ♠ 03:19, 22 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:AIV

WP:AIV has a very large backlog (30 reports), could some admins deal with these? Thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

They were all up late watching the Curling controversy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Backlog is cleared. -- ferret (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Suspected compromise of my account

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

---

Hi all - An email was sent to me from Wikipedia stating that a password reset was requested by me - it wasn't. I have traced back the IP that was on the email and it comes back to a Sky connection which I have never used, nor has it made any edits (as an IP) on Wikipedia. For the short term I have secured my account by changing passwords but if anything comes up as unusual, can you let me know. Thanks Nightfury 10:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Nightfury: Sure thing fella. Other than changing to a really weird password, I would also suggest you to take a wikibreak for 72 hours; to see if someone does it again, or attempts to login with wrong password or something like that. Also, you would get a break :) —usernamekiran(talk) 10:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The more common your name is, the more of these you get. As my account was renamed from User:Neil, I get two or three such emails a week sometimes. It's mostly people innocently trying to create an account and they happened to choose the same username. Fish Karate 11:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Nightfury, if you have control of your email account and are certain that it is secure, then your WP account is likely secure as well. Strong, unique passwords are recommended for all accounts, of course. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Nightfury I've had this happen too many times (unusual name so it doesn't happen very often); for the most part if your password is perfectly strong when you get a password reset email and you didn't go about requesting said reset, unless they have access to your email to change the password, you can happily ignore it. If you know the IP and look up their contribs (usually if you're dealing with a vandal/sock), that will confirm who is trying to create mischief and it can be put up on AIV with this to boot. In this case though, no harm/no foul thankfully. Nate • (chatter) 23:19, 21 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.

United States presidential election, 2016

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

---

• United States presidential election, 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This may not be the right venue, but can any admin advise whether the {{American politics AE}} template should be present on this article's Talk page, and the article be subject to active arbitration remedies concerning post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people (particularly 1RR)? It certainly seems that it should. General Ization ^Talk 16:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The edit notice is there and the restriction logged and those are the only things that matter..though the talk page template should probably be there Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Added the template per the existing restrictions, notified editors involved in the current edit war. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. General Ization ^Talk 17:41, 22 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 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.

---

After a two range week block, the incremental numbers vandal is back again on 2600:1017:B024:0:0:0:0:0/40 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). See the previous ANI and SummerPhDv2.0’s writup at User:SummerPhDv2.0/Cellco vandal. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Re-blocked for 3 weeks. Swarm ♠ 18:11, 22 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.

New editor not here to contribute

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

---

I would like to draw a few admin's attention to Kekmon (talk · contribs). Aside from their divisive username, this editor has engaged in a number of highly deceptive acts, including out-and-out lying in an unblock request for their second edit warring block in less than 200 edits. On top of that, the topics edit warred over are exactly in line with what one would expect from a user with this name: namely far-right POV pushing. I'm asking that this editor be indefinitely blocked as WP:NOTHERE to improve the project.

Lying

• [31] Giving themself a "Master editor" award (for 42,000 edits and six years of editing) as their 64th edit.
• [32] Claiming to have tried to engage at talk but not having gotten any response. (see Talk:The Camp of the Saints#"Revered by white supremacists" for evidence that this is untrue: They got a response and even replied to it.)
• [33] Removing an edit pointing out the deception in the last and repeating the same deception in their second unblock request in less than half an hour. (First one was denied.)

Edit warring

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive360#User:Kekmon_reported_by_User:GreenMeansGo_(Result:_48_hours)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Volunteer_Marek_reported_by_User:Kekmon_(Result:_Reporter_blocked_after_continuing_to_edit-war)

POV pushing

• [34] Giving spurious reasons as to why the SPLC would not be reliable for a relatively uncontroversial claim.
• [35] Different spurious reasoning for the same claim as above.

Personal attacks;

• [36] Against Volunteer Marek.
• [37] Edit warring the same personal attack back in. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• Good candidate for a NOTHERE block, or alternatively, a block per WP:No fucking Nazis, given that username and their work on The Camp of the Saints and Michael Wolff (journalist). Drmies (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, that was quick. Who says nothing gets accomplished at ANI? If nobody shows up to complain about this being too quick in the next few hours, I'll archive it myself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Drmies: Quick question: it looks quite strange to have an open unblock request above an indef block notice on their talk page. Would you be considered too involved now to decline their unblock request? Of course, they'd be free to open a new one wrt the indef block, but at least this one would be closed out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I promised to copy any response from their userpage to here. Not sure what good it will do seeing as how they've already been indeffed, but I did promise to do this so here it is, right below. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Transcribed from User talk:Kekmon
1) I have no idea what is this about "divisive username" 2) I fancied that medal for its looks (could have gone grandmaster but it looked ugly), sorry about that if it's big deal 3) Bluntly replying "SPLC is a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)" is not in any way discussion 4) Revert-edit warring was in none of the cases started by me 5) Reasoning why claim of source quality is "spurious" is laughable 6) You can clearly see from Marek's edit history he pushes agenda (exclusively politics, loves to stamp things as white supremacist, has accusations on his talk page of following users...) and I don't know procedures to stop, so I wrote how I see it on his page. 7) I'm only stuck on warring two articles Marek keeps reverting without discussion. On Wolff page where proper discussion was, I ceased per consensus 8) "a block per WP:No fucking Nazis" tells of serious moderator misjudgement and heavy bias. 9) Finally, I'm not NEW USER, I've been on Wikipedia with this username for two years. Kekmon (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Good block:

• Kek- username - strike one.
• Inserting "...is Jewish" into several articles - strike two.
• Edit warring to downplay white supremacist interest in a white supremacist book soon after a previous edit warring block expired - strike three.

Perhaps "Nazi" was over the top, when "antisemite and racist" might have been more accurate, but you can understand the fatigue that sets in when we have to deal with so many antisemites and racists. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Either one of these three points would probably be innocent enough on its own, but the three of them add up to someone who is clearly just here to cause mischief. Good block. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC).

Floquenbeam, you are right, of course--but if you have those magic glasses that can see through suppression, you can maybe see an earlier block I made and the associated suppressed edit, just before this one. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 23 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.

2001:470::/32 block is way too wide

I'm trying to edit Wikipedia from home through my Hurricane Electric IPv6 tunnel. The 2001:470::/32 is way too wide, and is getting in my way. These tunnels are not anonymous. This is not a colocationwebhost. Please consider blocking at the /48 or smaller level instead, and for 2001:470:5 blocks really should be no bigger than /64, as that is the allocation which we receive.

If this can't be done, is there a way to whitelist certain /48 or /64 allocations within 2001:470::/32?

16:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.244.173 (talk)

(Non-administrator comment) Yeah, I concur that it's a bit heavy-handed to block the entire range - HE aren't a colo, and they offer transit/tunneling for a wide range of services including residential ISPs. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 17:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with anyone changing the block as need be. Rangeblocks have never been my strong suit. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Alfie: A rangeblock does not affect any users of lower-tier ISP's that happen to use HE for transit.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

68.207.244.173, which /48 or /64 ranges do you have in mind for whitelisting? This range has had quite a number of sockmasters as evidenced by the CU log. And yes, they are a colocation webhost provider.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that anyone with administrative access to their computer can setup a tunnel and thus it's like a VPN/open proxy.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Vandal from Philippines, repeatedly vandalising articles such as on groupings of countries and national flags

49.145.172.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is the latest incarnation of a long-term vandal, typically vandalising articles on groups of countries such as Asia–Europe Meeting, African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, Non-Aligned Movement, and also various national flags. I reported him (and added extra evidence when requested to do so) a couple of days ago at AIV, but no action was taken and his vandalism continues. Some of the previous incarnations have been blocked, such as 112.210.11.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 49.145.169.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and 49.147.45.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The range of articles targetted seems too wide for RFPP to be a very practicable solution. The response at AIV suggested the possibility of rangeblocks, so perhaps an admin can see how many constructive edits there are from the ISP concerned, but at the very least this latest incarnation needs to be blocked. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

David Biddulph - Two of the IPs you reported here are within the same ISP range, which is 49.145.128.0/17. Of that range, there appears to be legitimate edits by uninvolved users, as well as edits in the similar kind of pattern to articles by a couple of IPs not listed here. Given the very high rate of edits made from this range and the potential for collateral damage (especially until we determine if these similar-patterned edits from other IPs are also disruptive) - we should stick to blocking individual IPs from that range instead of blocking the range itself. The edits from the other IPs' ranges don't come back with edits from other IPs that look disruptive (definitely not enough to consider blocking the range). I would definitely go through that /17 range contributions and identify and confirm other edits to articles that are from this person and are of the same disruption... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe My Royal Young has a different liking now? —usernamekiran(talk) 11:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Massive changes to article without gaining consensus on talk page and POV pushing by user François Robere

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

---

• Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'd like to raise an incident report regarding disruptive editing by François Robere, who over the course of the last week was removing reliable reference sources (works by mainstream academics published by reputable academic presses/publishing houses) in the Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II article, Poland section, and just today despite not gaining any support on the talk page for his proposed changes, has massively altered this one section (-18,059 bytes of info.) removing newer and long standing material, pushing his particular and one-sided POV on the article. I would like to request that an Admin block the user for 48 hours to prevent an edit war form breaking out, and encourage the user to return to the talk page instead. --E-960 (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Btw, François Robere has removed the notice of this incident report form his profile talk page, which I placed there to inform him of this disscussion. --E-960 (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, users are allowed to remove notices from their talk page. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 18:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Erpert, that's correct, just a FYI to inform folks that a notice was indeed posted and was not overlooked. --E-960 (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Notified, drafting reply, no need for further notifications. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply by François Robere

The article in question is concerned with citizens of nations occupied by Axis powers, who "knowingly engaged in collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II", with one section dedicated to each of the occupied states. This issue is a rather explosive one in Poland, widely denied and only challenged by significant academic research since 2001 or so (and we're talking of events taking place during 1939-1946, give or take). It is highly politicized, and closely related to agenda promoted by right-wing parties. The article in question (or rather the section in the article dedicated to Poland) seemed to reflect that agenda more than anything else, which can be easily seen when compared with any of the other sections in the article, which are more straightforward in their tone. Among others:

• The way the term "collaboration" was used is peculiar to Poland, and contrary to the rest of the section: only "crimes against the state" (eg. spying, working for the German government) were considered "collaboration", while extraditing fleeing Jews isn't. This results in extremely low estimates of the number of collaborators, something I tried to counter with earlier changes, some of which the OP undid.
• The section goes to great lengths to qualify cases of collaboration so they appear less substantial: "some scholars estimate number of 'Polish collaborators' at around several thousand in a population of about 35 million (that number is supported by the Israeli War Crimes Commission)"; "Most of the Blue Police were forcibly drafted into service; nevertheless, a significant number acted as operatives for Polish resistance movement Armia Krajowa"; "Many individuals in the Blue Police followed German orders reluctantly" etc.
• It tries to "soften" the question of collaboration by mentioning saving of Jews by Poles, something no other section in this article mentions (there are other articles for that): "Polish citizens have the world's highest count of individuals who have been recognized as Righteous Among the Nations by Yad Vashem"; "According to the studies of historian Gunnar S. Paulsson, during the Nazi occupation of Warsaw 70,000–90,000 Polish Gentiles aided Jews, while 3,000–4,000 were szmalcowniks, or blackmailers"; "historians Richard C. Lukas and Tadeusz Piotrowski state that between 100,000 and 120,000 Polish-Jews survived the Holocaust in German-occupied Poland" etc. These it gives without context, like the fact that Poland had the largest pre-war Jewish population in Europe, giving the impression the numbers result from one potential explanation (a particular "righteousness" one behalf of the Poles) when there are alternative, equally-viable ones. That is the definition of "bias", and not even in the right article.
• The same lenience is not afforded to Jewish collaborators, who are described in much more stringent terms: "Emanuel Ringelblum described the cruelty of the ghetto police as 'at times greater than that of the Germans'; "The collaboration by some Polish Jews, who belonged to Żagiew and Group 13 inflicted considerable damage to both Jewish and Polish underground movements".
• One editor almost solely concerned with Jewish collaboration, giving little attention to anything else, is the OP ([38][39][40][41][42]), at times using questionable sources to base his claims ([43][44]).
• The whole section is messy - barely readable. This was the section before my intervention, this is after.
• Other editors have noted all of this, and my last revision won the approval of one of the previously dissenting editors, with whom I've previously had lengthy discussions on this.
• I've made serious attempts at discussion my proposed changes with both the OP and others (see this thread), as well as explaining my changes in length. Immediately after making the first of the two major changes the OP objects I made a note on the talk page saying I will explain everything, and asking for the others' patience; the OP did not wait an hour for me to finish my explanation before reverting the change.
• I've found it particularly difficult discussing all of this with the OP, who seemed both resistant to change and unwilling to discuss it. They have accused me repeatedly of "POV pushing" (see above for their concerns and sourcing), reverted my edits without explanation, and showed little care for any of my objections. For example - I found myself restating my reservations regarding two of the sources no less than five times without getting answered, only to eventually get this denigrating reply from the OP (here's the rest of the discussion).

I'm absolutely certain my revision of the article is both clearer, more pertinent and better sourced than either the original revision or the current one, and provides the reader with what they expect from this article: An encyclopedic explanation of the nature of collaboration in occupied Poland, rather than a biased apologia with little informational value. Furthermore, I'm certain I've done what I can to both discuss and explain my suggestions in an attempt to reach consensus, a burden not met by the OP. François Robere (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Do RS call it collaboration?Slatersteven (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, both with regards to other countries and to Poland, as well as explain why the definition is so charged, and how and when Polish historiography became politicized. Again, you can see the rest of the article doesn't make that distinction. François Robere (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to point out one thing, that François Robere is very much guilty of the things that he accuses others of doing, in fact he got into heated arguments last week with other users such as GizzyCatBella and Poeticbent, both of who also questioned his edits and their objectivity. --E-960 (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The fact of the matter GizzyCatBella left a commendation on my talk page (very nice of them), and with Poeticbent I barely exchanged two messages. Again, you throw accusations without proof. François Robere (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, you make accusations that the article is too "SOFT" on Poles, but in the same breath you argue and try to sanitize long standing and referenced statements such as this one: "Emanuel Ringelblum described the cruelty of the ghetto police as at times greater than that of the Germans". That comes across as POV pushing. --E-960 (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that reference? I kept it [45]. François Robere (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Just an example from your earlier statement — a few rows up. Anyway, there are many others you removed en masse. --E-960 (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't remove anything "en masse", I explained everything on the talk page, and this example just shows you didn't give half as much attention to my edits before you undid them as I did before I made them. François Robere (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

It is unfortunate to see this happening. The area of conflict is very, and I mean VERY complicated, painful and super sensitive to many editors of Jewish and Polish descent. I appeal to evaluating administrator for understanding. In my opinion, this has to be closed and users encouraged to keep working out their disagreements on the related talk page. I’m sure the consensus can be reached without the need for sanctions. Thank you.GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but with today's massive and abrupt changes to the article, I'm concerned that user François Robere is just trying to force his POV on the article, skipping over the discussion in which he did not gain a consensus in, and in the process arguing against sources which meet Wikipedia's criteria as reliable references. --E-960 (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of discussion, how many of my points (literal points - bullet points) have you even made an attempt to answer? And more importantly: How long did you take to consider my changes before reverting them? François Robere (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I left my responses on the talk page and explained the reverts — since you initially removed reliable sources along with the statements supported by them, and sanitized text that did not fit your narrative. BTW, many of your edits stayed in place and were not reverted, so please do not accuse me or others of just blindly blanking everything you did. --E-960 (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

This is an outright lie. I've just now shown you that your claim about "sanitizing" anything is wrong, and you're repeating it? Are we going to have the same discussion again where I explain why not every reliable source is also relevant and you ignore me and continue claiming the same?

Did I say you were "blanking" content? François Robere (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

By the way, other than everything else I referred to thus far - including your unwillingness to engage on-point, throwing about accusations without proof, undoing edits without even reviewing them, and more - I find it particularly odd for you to want to "prevent an edit war form breaking out" considering I've only done two major changes in the past six days, and haven't reverted any of yours in seven. François Robere (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• This is really troubling. Since the alert posted on his talk page by Swarm about discretionary sanctions regarding Eastern Europe, François Robere (talk · contribs) only intensified his POV pushing, disruptive editing, and lying in summaries. He is oblivious to what is being said to him including by admins, and has no knowledge (nor awareness) of Wikipedia processes such as arbitration enforcement. Replying to him does not work because he does not listen. I posted a comment about his manipulations in a thread here mere 5 days ago,[46] and all he did, was to respond like a child. This is why I would seriously doubt if discretionary sanctions such as the one revert per day would ever work here. He routinely misrepresents sources quoted by him. At the same time, his knowledge of relevant facts from real history books is zero. He makes up things, and puts a reference next to his statements. Here's a good one: "Poland did not have a national government" (referenced to ten pages in a paper by John Connelly, "Why the Poles Collaborated so Little" in Slavic Review), however, there's no working link to the full paper by Connelly in the Wikipedia article. I have the PDF copy of it ... and I know that what François Robere wrote was a lie. He was referring to statement on page 774 about "administration above the level of the village" but with no ability to make sense of the whole paragraph (and no awareness of facts). – The only reason he is pounding away on his keyboard is the Polish Holocaust bill. He is angry and full of contempt. But for me, the worst part is his lying. Poeticbent talk 21:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

If anyone lied and did disruptive editing, it was you: You've distorted a well respected source [47] (as shown by another editor); you lied about another editor's citations [48]; then about convention [49] (which was shut down by another user; then you made a whole swath of inappropriate comments about me [50] (and everyone else who disagrees with you, including a world-renown researcher), but I was patient enough; then you undid my revisions in bulk with no proper explanation or discussion [51][52]; and now you're lying about the citation (which, by the way, does not require a link, working or otherwise) - and I'll let others judge who's the liar here (and here's one more, it too cited in my revision). So much to say, and all but three comments on the talk page on this subject, all in bad taste and accusing someone of something. You're treading an unremarkable road, that might just lead you back to ANI. François Robere (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

References

• This is a content dispute and doesn't belong here, but I'm fairly convinced (and ignorant of the topic area I might add) that François Robere might actually have a solid understanding and basis for their changes. I'm most definitely open to having my opinion changed, but from my novice eyes, his arguments seem reasonable. User:E-960 appears to be making an argument that because it has existed unaltered, that it's right. Although that supports an argument to seek consensus before changing it - it doesn't support the argument that it is right. And User:Poeticbent's concern that Francois responded like a child? I'd have responded poorly to that comment by Poeticbent too. It reeks of bad faith and shade. It's essentially polite incivility.--v/r - TP 00:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, this is a routine content dispute and I oppose any block of François Robere since no convincing evidence of disruption by that editor has been provided. I think that we are fortunate to have editors willing to do the hard work to ensure that our articles about collaboration with the Nazis during WWII are accurate, neutral and summarize what the highest quality reliable sources say, even if that history upsets some nationalists. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328, your final comment is so extraordinarily bias (per: Wikipedia:Assume good faith) and it need to be rebuked because the issue here is not the denial of individual Polish collaboration, but user François Robere's repeated attempts to sanitize statements related to collaboration of the few Jewish organizations which engaged in such behavior, and the comparison of numbers between how may Poles collaborated vs. how may aided Jews. But, I to accept and agree that the Admin dissuasion is now closed and should return to the talk page. --E-960 (talk) 08:37, 24 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.

I am being cyberbullied by User: John from Idegon

The following discussion is closed. 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 Wikipedia Administrators,

I was making an edit to the Broadcasting subsection of Carmel High School (Indiana) in order to add a link to WHJE, but User: John from Idegon deleted the entire broadcasting subsection. I reverted his edit once, then he reverted mine and claimed that I was edit warring. I tried to ask for a compromise on my talk page, but he did not compromise with me. I tried adding the link somewhere else, but he kept reverting my edits. I also attempted to add a link from Carmel, Indiana to Carmel Clay Schools, but he reverted that edit. However, whenever someone else would accomplish the same goals that I have, he would not revert their edit. He also threatened that I "may be blocked from editing", despite the fact, that as far as I know, he is not an administrator. I attempted to reason with him on his talk page, but he has failed to respond. because of his reversions and his threat, I can only conclude that he is reverting my edits for the sole purpose of denying my ability. All attempts on my part to assume good faith with him have failed. Denying another user the ability to edit Wikipedia is edit warring, cyberbullyng, and disruptive to Wikipedia. Therefore, I hereby request for User:John from Idegon to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I have already informed him of the existence of my post on the Administrators' noticeboard. I would include diffs, but because the incident involved multiple edits, I have decided to provide links to the edit histories [53] Caleb The Wipper [54] (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Caleb The Wipper

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

RFA oddity

The following discussion is closed. 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 page Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll used to have several shortcuts, but that has been cut down to one. I don't really care, but I'm curious: Is there some rule limiting the number of shortcuts? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:2SHORTCUTS recommends using one or two easily recognized shortcuts, but as far as I know there is no official rule or limit as long as you're not listing all of them (though {{policy shortcut}} does limit the number to 10). SkyWarrior 03:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I just found it funny that someone cut the number from five down to one, while this page here has four of them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The oddest thing to me is why this couldn't have stayed at WT:ORCP. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Because it's so funny that it needs to be shared with a broader audience. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:31, 24 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.

James Laxer, RIP

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

---

James Laxer died today as reported by his son Michael Laxer on his blog[55] An admin has reverted attempts to update Professor Laxer's Wikipedia article and has protected it claiming that a son's blog is not a reliable source to report his father's death. Nixon Now (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Nixon Now, what Admin action are you asking for here? --Malerooster (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) presumably he wants the full-protection removed. I agree with the admin action here; there absolutely must be a better source than a blog post for this. Presumably there will be in 24-48 hours. WP:NORUSH. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

An additional source is the Broadbent Institute[56] Nixon Now (talk) 01:19, 24 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.

No ANI notice? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Being called a lunatic and fascist while reverting removal of sourced content

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

---

I am dealing with a total vandal at article Chetniks. Totally biased and without any reliable sources, he keeps on attacking me and removing sourced content replacing it by his highly biased personal opinion. See two last threads of the talk-page. Probably a sock of Asdisis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please help. FkpCascais (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I am being called a lunatic and a fascist. Just for information, the lede is a result of a years-long mediation that took place. FkpCascais (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected the article for a week. If it continues after that we can look at more permanent measures. Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I blocked the IP for a week, given their approach it seemed likely to me that merely being off the article would do nothing to prevent the torrent of abuse. Regardless of whether the editor is "correct", we cannot have people wandering around making unsupported assertions that fellow editors are "lunatics" and "fascists" while engaged in content disputes. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:12, 23 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.

Someone redirect my article and then later create his/her own article

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

---

I have the case to report, I create the article Mad Love (Sean Paul & David Guetta song) first, at 18:13 16 February 2018, then, the other user, name Hayman30, redirect my article deliberately and create his own article Mad Love (Sean Paul and David Guetta song) at 14:05 21 February 2018. I can't stand at this. Please make it clear as soon as possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giangkiefer (talk • contribs) 05:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

This was already taken to the Teahouse by Giangkiefer, who has now taken to copy-and-paste moves here and here and edit warring with Hayman30 here to get their way. it was stated at the Teahouse that at the time Hayman30 redirected Giangkiefer's article, it failed WP:NSONGS. Hayman30 then later made their own article in the proper place (ampersands are not used for non-collectives, and featured artists aren't credited in song or album article titles), which has nothing in common with Giangkiefer's bare-bones article. Ss112 05:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh boy... so it looks like we have Mad Love (Sean Paul song), Mad Love (Sean Paul and David Guetta song), and Mad Love (Sean Paul, David Guetta and Becky G song) (all with different histories, copy-and-paste moving, and warring) that needs to be all sorted, merged, and fixed. Okay, give me a a few and I'll fix the problems I'm seeing now... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so I've looked through the history of all three pages and set the most complete and expansive version of the article as the latest revision. I then moved that article to Mad Love (Sean Paul song) (the simplest version of the name - you guys can discuss and move it to a different title if there's a better one) and set the other articles to redirect to Mad Love (Sean Paul song). There... now we're dealing with one place :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

From what I can tell, his 21 February article was more comprehensive. That's not to say that the work you did before him was not worth anything or that it doesn't suck to have your work kind of replaced like this when you made the first article, but it does seem like there were some other issues like the ones mentioned here about the Teahouse debate on this subject. Regardless, I think the best course of action would be to let it rest and maybe check if there's any info in your version that could be brought over to the bigger, current one, or for you to contribute to the new one in some way. Also, you have to notify people when you mention them here. I've gone ahead and left a note for Hayman30 talk page about this, but remember that in the future. Eik Corell (talk) 05:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• It's certainly bizarre for Hayman30 to claim the song isn't notable on the 20th, and to re-create the article under a different title on the 21st. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, but as another user stated at the Teahouse, an article needs to show the notability of the subject. It seems Hayman30 felt that in the form it was, Giangkiefer's article did not, and failed WP:NSONGS, and later decided to make a notable article out of it at the correct space (which was a redirect I had made). Hayman30 said at the Teahouse that they were not going to create an article at the incorrect space regardless ("Sean Paul & David Guetta" should not have an ampersand, as they are not a collective—Giangkiefer later moved the article to include the featured artist, Becky G). Ss112 06:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

No, an article doesn't need to show notability. It only needs to pass the speedy deletion criteria. After that, sources merely need to exist. @Giangkiefer: I suggest you try to let this go. It's not worth getting upset over, and it's certainly not worth getting into trouble. @Hayman30: don't edit war to redirect articles. If someone contests your bold edit to redirect an article, get consensus at WP:AFD to turn it into a redirect. And it's kind of uncool call an article non-notable, then recreate it under a different name. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The best way to have an article meet notability standards is to edit the existing one not hide/erase it. For dealing with things like ampersands there is WP:RM. I shudder to think what it is going to be like around here if this kind of thing is going to become the norm. MarnetteD|Talk 06:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @MarnetteD: I don't care, give me my credits back. Why @Hayman30:'s credits is recognized, and why my credits is don't, if this happen regularly, I won't edit on Wikipedia anymore, let Hayman30 do this, redirect someone else's article and create his own article. (talk)

Giangkiefer - Why are you making this about "credits" and whom "gets the credit" for this article? This project is about building an encyclopedia, not about who gets the credit for what. If you find any content missing from Mad Love (Sean Paul song) that you wrote in the version you made, just add it to this article and combine. Then, your time and effort won't feel like it was wasted and the article represents the effort of both of you. Easy :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Saying things like "give me my credits back" and edit warring invites this kind of response, but the reality is in between. If credit truly didn't matter, you wouldn't have a line of icons at the top of your userpage :P (I am not excluding myself from such things, either). It is definitely problematic that an editor blanked a page, edit warred to keep it redirected, and then created an article on the same subject one day later with a different page name. It is specifically because people care about what few opportunities for credit Wikipedia has that this sort of thing happens. OP started a sourced article on a subject. Someone else created what would've been a duplicate page if it weren't for that same user erasing the original page. Little warm and fuzzies matter to a project based on volunteer work that doesn't have anything like "credits," and some people find gratification in the process of creating an article. That's not a bad thing, and it doesn't seem unreasonable for such a person to request the original page remain the original page, and for the new page to be incorporated into that one, tedious as it may be. $0.02. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 07:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Rhododendrites - Oh don't get me wrong at all: I completely understand that. I've been in this situation before - yeah, it doesn't feel good. I'm simply trying to help the user to understand that it's not the end of the world, and (if done correctly) both of them would generally be "given the credit" for the article creation/expansion :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Good lord, this escalated quickly. My intention was never to "get credit", the page I created content on was already redirected by another user, I merely wrote on top of the redirect. I must confess that I have misrepresented the guidelines and should have made a better decision when restoring the redirect, but I never tried to "hide" their contributions, I just didn't think it was a conscious or sensible choice to recreate content at the bad namespace and then request a page move. @Oshwah: The article should be at Mad Love (Sean Paul and David Guetta song), Paul and Guetta are both listed as primary artists. Hayman30 (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere where you did anything wrong, Hayman30, and yes I'll be happy to move the article to Mad Love (Sean Paul and David Guetta song). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

(arguably, a history merge of the ampersand version into the "and" version should not hurt; all edits were for the same topic.) --Masem (t) 06:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Masem - I did a history merge of Mad Love (Sean Paul, David Guetta and Becky G song) to (what is now) Mad Love (Sean Paul song). I left Mad Love (Sean Paul, David Guetta and Becky G song) alone since this was a completely creation by a different user - combining the history of these two articles would result in confusion over the history and logs, as now editors won't see or understand the page moves and that two creations by separate users were performed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:55, 23 February 2018‎ (UTC)

@Oshwah: I don't see any histmerge here? You just moved Hayman30's article Mad Love (Sean Paul and David Guetta song) to Mad Love (Sean Paul song). Giangkiefer already attempted to redirect that article and copypaste the content from there onto their article, Mad Love (Sean Paul, David Guetta and Becky G song). Giangkiefer is/was complaining about not getting credit for their original article—this doesn't solve that because their history is still confined to the page crediting all three, which is a redirect. However, I don't really care whether they do or don't receive credit at this point because they've went about it the wrong way and demanded it just above like a spoilt child. "I don't care, give me my credits (sic) back" isn't going to make anybody sympathetic. Ss112 07:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Ss112 - You're right; we're getting off track here. The underlying issue is that there's disruption occurring on these articles - and it's between these users and because of a quarrel over technical data and logs and whose account they should be under. This needs to stop. Giangkiefer - unless you're adding content to the article I pointed you at, please do not make any more edits to these pages and do not make any more page moves or changes to the redirects without discussing them first on the articles' talk pages. Thank you - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

If some of the material in the older article was used in the new article then a history merge has to be done for attribution/copyright reasons. If the histories are confusing then the solution is to rev delete the old article from the point of the redirect onwards and then delete the new article - then move the old article to the new position and undelete the new article. Problem solved. To use Mr Knightley's words: "Badly done, Hayman30" Agathoclea (talk) 08:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Ha, ha. Couldn't care less. Hayman30 (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) – Ss112 has already asserted that the new article created by Hayman30 was not using material from Giangkiefer's version. Still, it looks bad for Hayman30 to have done this sequence because they were obviously aware that Giankiefer was attempting to contribute something. Hayman30's initial redirect was completely justified according to WP:NSONG. An inadequate article about a possibly notable song can be redirected to the artist, album, etc. And if someone other than Hayman30 had found some good sources to enable writing an article about the song, they would have been correct to name the new article, as Hayman30 did, without the ampersand. But for Hayman30 to create this new article, having redirected Giankiefer's version, brings up the question of whether there was a duty to provide some sort of attribution. Maybe that's not a duty Hayman30 accepts, but the result here was hard feelings and an ANI case.— jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I have done a "clean" history merge at Mad Love (Sean Paul and David Guetta song): this means that I merged the history of the two creations of this article, but then removed all confusing revisions (redirects, copy-paste moves, ...) and kept a sanitized version of the actual creation history of this article. I hope this is an acceptable compromise for everyone? All that needs to be done is for someone (probably a bot) to clean up all double, triple, ... redirects. Fram (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Nicely done. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:25, 24 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.

IP 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.

---

At the Blythe (doll) article, someone has been busy removing blythedoll.com/en (from CWC, the official license holder) as a link to the official website (despite it being still live and well), and replacing it with thisisblythe.com (one of unofficial fan shops). So I'm here to make a request on blocking an IP range which includes

• 24.244.32.214
• 24.80.96.31
• 24.244.32.139
• 24.80.96.31
• 24.80.125.130

JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 10:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I just went ahead and added that URL to Wikipedia's spam blacklist. They won't be able to add the URL to articles anymore. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

This is probably the more appropriate way to go instead of a rangeblock. It looks like shaw cycles IP's pretty fast - and this would likely have a lot of collateral damage. SQL^{Query me!} 16:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Correct. That's exactly why I chose to blacklist the URL instead. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:22, 24 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.

Block length review 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.

---

I've blocked 24.190.40.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for harassment and posting threats of harm. I've already Revdel'd the really bad post and requested suppression. There are enough harassing messages left in their contributions to get a feel for the problem. The thing is, I think a week block is not going to help in the long run but indef is contraindicated for IPs. The address seems fairly static and this user has had problems in the past. Input requested. Thanks Tiderolls 14:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Considering that they are a sock of User:Dylan Cerbone 2018, which is also blocked, and seeing how static the IP is, I would block it for one year. Fram (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Block-evasion, possibly even ban evasion from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity (nt sure if the sockmaster was tested against parties). Focus is on agecruft, which is well-known as a source of friction over quality of sourcing and people ignoring GNG, and as you say, the IP is stable - I would make it a year, if the IP is reallocated we can handle the unlock request as and when. Guy (Help!) 14:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

 Comment: The IP 24.190.40.112 has a long history of vandalism , harrassment and create sockpuppets.

I have witnessed cruel vandalism by him. I strongly recommend that blocking him over 2 years. As he invades not only en-wikipedia, but also other languages of wikipedia, if possible, please globallly blocking. I don't want to see anyone who is sorrowfulled due to 24.190.40.112 any more. Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Second/third upping to one year. Unblocking or reblocking if need be are simple enough. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Now the user is requesting unblock on the IP talk page. Shouldn't that request be made from the original registered account's user talk? Tiderolls 18:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked for a year. Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm reopening as this was archived before I could finish writing my message. A year block seems a little unusual. This is just a child who's still very immature, but from what I can tell did not actually have any ill-intent until their user page was nominated for deletion, presumably for being a self-bio about a minor, and in the ensuing drama, he vandalized two user pages and was blocked indefinitely. Seems a little harsh as AFAIK he was not actually a vandal. Anyways, being a literal child, he's frustrated now and is trying to evade the block and is "being mean" to users he feels are doing the same to him. Nothing I'm seeing rises to the level of blocking the IP for a year, and that includes the indef block itself. Here's an alternate approach. Rather than enforcing the indef with a year long IP block, which would result in further whack-a-mole socking for us to deal with, let him resume editing, either from his IP or from the original account, where we can keep an eye on him and enforce standard incremental blocks without having to worry about him socking. I think we were too hasty and impatient in dealing with this user at his original account, and as a result we're now dealing with a mess. I'm unconvinced that a year IP block would solve the problem. Regarding the inquiry here, I'd say leave it or even consider unblocking, but whatever we do, we should try talking to the user in good faith, because they've been interpreting the endless templates as bullying. Swarm ♠ 19:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• In the event there's any doubt, I disagree with unblocking under any circumstances. I'm not taking issue with Swarm's interpretation of events and possible outcomes; I'm just saying that to allow this individual to edit would be too great a drain on volunteer time and effort. Tiderolls 19:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• In any case, I've asked them to agree to a set of conditions for an unblock regarding civility, NPA, RS, BRD, socking and consensus, which I thought covered all the fundamentals. Just to see where this user is at in regards to trying to edit constructively. I understand your position and will obviously not be unblocking if no one's open to my idea, but my concern is exactly that drain on volunteer time. I'm worried that continuing to try to strong-arm an immature but well-intentioned editor off the project may actually result in more socking, vandalism, harassment, disruption, than it already has. Better to try to wrangle one account than to wage war with an LTA. Swarm ♠ 19:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Seems a little harsh as AFAIK he was not actually a vandal Revealing personal information of and making (poorly veiled) threats against children? I'm not saying the user wasn't acting out, but that activity alone is enough to justify swift action here. Surprised it isn't oversighted. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• This user is literally a child. And besides, it's not like there hasn't been swift action. But a swift decision to block an IP for a year due to petty trolling is not something I've ever seen before. Swarm ♠ 19:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• It'll be the fifth block in less than five months, though (in fact, the seventh if you count the two registered accounts). I can't see why volunteers should continue to receive messages like the recent ones that had to be revdelled because he thinks this is a playground. There comes a point where utility vs timesink shifts too far to the right. However, if you can get him to agree and edit from a single account, then perhaps it's worth a try. Black Kite (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• I'd like not to draw further attention to the edits, and I admire your willingness to offer an open hand, but just because the IP is only cursing at editors doesn't mean the original behavior of the account is just "petty trolling." A year is a long time, but the IP appears static at least five months back. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

This has gone too far already. Anything else than a continuation of the block of the IP and the user accounts for at least a year should not come into question. Hopefully he will be a bit more mature by then. --Marbe166 (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The year-long IP block was not proposed as being "necessary". It was proposed due to it being an indef-blocked editor who was evading the block. The case for an indef to begin with was questionable, and by extension so was the proposal for a year block of the IP. So I utterly reject your bizarre claim that it "should not be questioned". I'm questioning it because it's not particularly normal to block an IP for a year. And I'm still not sure where these severe offenses that are being raised are. Everything to me looks like petty disruption. Not sure what's so exceptionally disturbing to merit an ex post facto justification for what was an unrelated year block. Swarm ♠ 21:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: Did you read the revdel'd post? Tiderolls 21:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to have TonyBallioni's opinion on the matter, he was the one who initiated the block of User:Dylan Cerbone 2018. As much of the editing has been done on longevity articles, I think that DerbyCountyinNZ might have an opinion on the matter as well. --Marbe166 (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

He was posting oversightable and revdelable information to his own user page and vandalizing the user pages of other editors with information that also had to be hidden: that's vandalism plus harassment. To be blunt, he was being a crazy person, and there was no indication he was going to stop doing either, which is why I indef'd: all the factors suggested he might start again after a shorter blocked expired, so he would need to convince us to unblock him before it happened. Yes, he is a child, but that is all the more reason to have that discussion with him, which could only happen via an unblock request.

In terms of the unblock request he did make, as I said then, I'm not really sympathetic as he continued socking, but I also was concerned because it wasn't written in comprehensible English. If we were to unblock this user, he would be indef'd again simply for not having the language ability to work on a collaborative project, which would lead to more outbursts, more oversight, and more blocks. I'm normally the first to dismiss petty vandalism and the vandal fighters who think high schoolers making jokes are the greatest threat to the encyclopedia, but in this case, I don't see a reason to unblock: all the indicators are that he'd just end up indef'd again. Maybe a better block summary would have been "disrputive editing", but I think it was a needed block. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• I thank everyone for their comments and will consider them. Lest this discussion become derailed by unproductive debate over what has already occurred (an unintended waste of time unrelated to my point about avoiding potential LTA going forward), this thread can be re-closed. We can further discuss whether to conditionally unblock iff the user replies, and I will notify the relevant parties if that happens, but short of that the point is moot anyway. Swarm ♠ 22:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Is Dylan block evading? He certainly is rude on his IP talk page. He seems to be saying "I'm a minor, so treat me different from any other user." Some children act responsibly and maturely enough to (in the past) be admins and 'crats. Others, such as this user, do not demonstrate enough maturity to edit here. I see no reason to unblock. I see no reason to reduce the block duration. I see no reason to not expect him to edit by the same rules as everyone else. The only reason to avoid lenghty IP blockes is to avoid collateral damage. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:24, 23 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.

File copyright issues

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

---

Preetzaildar8 is edit warring over uploaded file without proof of permissions. I've tagged some files they have uploaded and they keep removing the tag, could an Admin get their attention. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I see they have asked on your talk page for assistance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted the obviously problematic images and explained why on their talk page. I'm unsure about the remaining ones - TinEye doesn't get any hits, and they could possibly be the user's. Black Kite (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Google image search finds the remaining images but File:Khushanpreet_Singh.jpg Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't find File:Tarsem_Jassar.jpg or File:Sunanda Sharma.jpg either, could you either let me know the original's location or tag the articles? Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

[57] and [58], i believe Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, [59] for the first, also [60] for the jagjeet sandhu image Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

And for File:Khushanpreet_Singh.jpg he conveniently linked in a prior edit to the source of the image, but it appears to be him, which is what I thought.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, all tidied up. One of the remaining articles he created is at PROD, the other one Sunanda Sharma I suspect is actually notable, though it needs a lot of work. Black Kite (talk) 19:22, 24 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 editing on ACSH page by DrFleischman

There have been multiple attempts to update the Wikipedia entry on the American Council on Science and Health. The page is extremely outdated and does not reflect the current activities of the organization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Council_on_Science_and_Health

Despite good faith efforts (and what appears to be hours of work), everything has been reverted by editor DrFleischman in one fell swoop. He has been engaging in disruptive editing on this page for years, this most recent example being the most egregious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.111.178 (talk) 03:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Something very odd is going on on this page. I stopped editing Wikipedia 7 years ago precisely because hours of work could vanish within seconds. I logged in to revert what was clearly a disruptive edit, and within seconds, the reversion was reverted. Ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biovirus04 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

What alerted you to log in again, after 7 years? In any case, this is a content dispute, or perhaps more accurately a "reliable sources" dispute. You might not like Mother Jones but calling them "fake news" is not appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Biovirus, I note that 75.172.111.178 geolocates to Seattle, the other IP active on this article (User:76.104.199.83) geolocates to Seattle, and your 34 edits in the last 10 years were exclusively to Seattle-related articles. The three of you should grab a coffee! Chetsford (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

And similarly, early edits alleging media bias. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Why do I keep thinking of the first line of "I Am the Walrus"? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Boris: WP:ANI is not the place to ask about thoughts that just popped into your mind nor for a medical opinion about those thoughts. See the standard disclaimer. If you are having intrusive thoughts about songs by the Beatles - or for that matter any other mid 1960's British Invasion bands - that is a matter for you and your health professionals. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, there are only 3 million people in Seattle. We all drink coffee and watch Frasier together on Thursdays. I wonder what brings Chetsford around, since he's never edited the ACSH article before. Maybe we should ask DrFleischman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biovirus04 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Relax. This will all be over soon. Chetsford (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Socking is against the rules, and the Biovirus is being caught in that webfoot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be mostly a content. I suggest you take a read of WP:RS, WP:Verifiability and WP:Primary sources and then try and resolve this on the talk page, as the people who reverted suggested you do. If you can't, try some method of WP:Dispute resolution none of which involve ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

But do make sure to confer with each other before you take any further steps. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• So, the IP and Biovirus04 are clearly one and the same, but Biovirus04 has some past edits (albeit from years ago) that seem uncontentious. Also he may have a point. So I have directed him to FTN, where he will find people experienced with anti-vax and the like. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

KarimKoueider and his unconstructive edit

• KarimKoueider (talk · contribs)
• matthew_hk (talk · contribs)
• MatthewS. (talk · contribs) (not related to matthew_hk)
• David J Johnson (talk · contribs)
• Jytdog (talk · contribs)
• Lordtobi (talk · contribs)
• UBI Banca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Crédit Agricole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Midea Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Orange Egypt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Vodafone Egypt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Telecom Egypt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Egyptian Exchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Visa Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ubisoft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Vivendi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• HTC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 125#KarimKoueider

The user keep on ignoring the use of infobox parameter, changing Public / private/ listed to legal form, Arabic word (on Orange Egypt), self-revert with wrong foreign grammar foreign word (French S.A.E. in Orange Egypt). I believed that he failed to properly communicate and understand MoS and infobox/doc and make constructive edit, and the edit war on Orange Egypt must be stopped. Matthew_hk tc 03:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

No edit war on Orange Egypt, MatthewS. (talk · contribs) and I reached a conclusion on my talk page about correct type formatting. This user is abusing power to try and put himself above others when it comes to knowledge KarimKoueider (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

There's no edit war, just a misunderstanding and difference of opinions about capitalization but it was resolved. French "Société anonyme égyptienne" isn't capitalized in French but should be treated as a business term in the English language and thus be capitalized in the English context. MatthewS. (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no way the edit on infobox on Crédit Agricole (Crédit Agricole Group) to Crédit Agricole S.A. (which the whole foundation of Crédit Agricole Group, and its reverse corporate structure that regional bank of Crédit Agricole Group owns Crédit Agricole S.A. was clearly written on the article) or removing UBI Banca (legal name Unione di Banche Italiane) from trading name parameter in the infobox is constructive, and the consequential "communication" on my talk page. Matthew_hk tc 03:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Why would you put another legal name if the company only has one name for trading, legality and nativity ? KarimKoueider (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I would also like to remind you that you started with the unproductive communication on your talk page even though I started my question in a very civil manner KarimKoueider (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

"Give an answer to my response you coward" doesn't seem very civil to me. Jdcomix (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

If you read my statement I stated that "I started my question in a very civil manner" on his talk page concerning Credit Agricole but was met with a very defensive response. I am sorry that I replied in a cruel manner KarimKoueider (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

it is not the case for UBI Banca for your alleged " Why would you put another legal name if the company only has one name for trading", the logo only contain "UBI Banca" not the legal name Unione di Banche Italiane . Trading name does not mean the name appear in the stock market, but the name that the company do business as. (See this article). your limited understanding in English and personal attack in your talk page, please explain to admin that they are constructive to wikipedia. Matthew_hk tc 03:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

My "limited understanding in English" got me a spot at one of America's finest educational institutions (I got an 8 on the IELTS with a perfect reading and speaking score), the correct trading name for the bank is UBI Banca Group KarimKoueider (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This all looks like a rather LAME edit war with article talk pages not being used and unconstructive user talk page discussions happening instead. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

add Midea Group, told to him in these messages which was blanked, but still remove the maintenance template from the article without dealing the problem that was specified in the tag nor leaving any word in edit summary again; he was warned again and again by other person on similar issues(User talk:KarimKoueider#Removing maintenance tags on 17 January, User talk:KarimKoueider#January 2018 regarding infobox) Matthew_hk tc 05:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I dont usually check my messages, please post on my talk page so we can discuss it KarimKoueider (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

fix the list of user in this multi-article, 1 to multi-user "conflicts". Matthew_hk tc 20:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Whilst not involved in the current dispute, I have had problems with KarinKoueider especially on the Visa Inc page with unexplained deletion of pic and logo size, also on other various articles concerning unnecessary changes to logo sizes. It does seem that this user is making a mass of minor, not required, changes to numerous company pages. It really is time for juvenile "edits" to stop. David J Johnson (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

As per your request, I did state reasons for changes and you shut it down by saying something along the lines of "it doesnt look good". That's just your opinion KarimKoueider (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

And why did you remove my warning comments from your Talk page? A further glance at this page does confirm that many editors are concerned by your actions. Your various logo changes have been not constructive and do not contribute to page design. Nor did I say "it doesn't look good", that is your invention. It does seem that you are on a mission to change many company/business pages to your own version, which is frequently incorrect. David J Johnson (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Have you even checked my talk page?, all our discussions and your warnings are still there, you are not being truthful. You said and I quote "There is no standard for logos on wikipedia, whatever fits the layout" What if my definition of fitting the "Layout" is different than yours ? KarimKoueider (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Note that per WP:OWNTALK, even if it did happen there's generally no point asking someone why they removed messages from their own talk page. Since they are allowed to do so, just take it as a sign the message was received and move on. Nil Einne (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:, for the case of KarimKoueider's own talk page, the problem is, he removed the message and did the same thing again that was specified in the message, and was warned again by another person for the same issue in another article, which keep on loop back to the cycle, especially on unnecessary change in infobox (image size parameter, wikilink (overlink) and sometimes even boldly wrong). I have no comment on other people on not replying the conversation and let the archive bot achieve the thread . Matthew_hk tc 14:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Matthew hk:, stop spreading wrong information and lies. I havent gone about adjusting images and logos ever since David J Johnson warned me about them and we had a discussion on it. You seem to be lying your way to try to make me seem like some sort of troll. Nobody has had a problem with me concerning logos and images after the warnings I received. You started this section claiming I was edit warring on Orange Egypt while the other party acknowledged it was a misunderstanding and a discussion took place. You are completely clueless at this point regarding my activity with other users. KarimKoueider (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: You're missing my point. It does no matter whether the editor removed warnings from their talk page. If they continued behaviour that they were warned about, that may be a problem, depending in whether or not the behaviour is really wrong etc. But them removing the warning is still not a problem. If the editor denies they received a warning or says they didn't read it or states they stopped as soon as they were warned; the removed warning could easily be relevant evidence. Especially since as I said, the removal is generally a sign that they did read it. But the removal itself is still not a problem.

Incidently, having looked into the details I don't understand what removals are even being referred to. From what I can tell, the only content KarimKoueider removed from their talk page was this [61]. One is a note on indenting and signing. KarimKoueider indenting and signing is not what is being discussed here and seems fine anyway. The other is notification of an orphaned NFCC image. KarimKoueider uploading NFCC images inappropriately is also not a point of contention in this discussion.

@David J Johnson:'s warnings are still there and never seem to have been removed User talk:KarimKoueider#January 2018 & User talk:KarimKoueider#February 2018. Note there are two sections with the title February 2018, User talk:KarimKoueider#February 2018 2 so you need to make sure you look at the right one.

Nil Einne (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Struck out part of my reply, see below for explanation. Nil Einne (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Thank you very much for your honesty, I am happy that there are some good editors out there in the community KarimKoueider (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I would like to say that this discussion has led to the "discovery" of minor mistakes and not a single light was shun on any of the constructive edits I have done. e.g. EFG-Hermes (I was not involved in the copyright copying), Commercial International Bank, Finansbank, Telecom Egypt and so much more. Have I made mistakes in the past ? Yes and when David J Johnson instructed me on the incorrect edits I was doing, I stopped. User:Matthew_hk could have started the conversation with a sense of peace and understanding like user User:MatthewS. where we reached a conclusion with a logical discussion. KarimKoueider (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• I was pinged here. I found KarimKoueider's editing to be problematic - it is generally commercial and is generally unsourced or badly sourced. As you can see on their talk page, I asked about COI and when they didn't reply, I asked the more direct question about paid editing, which they said they do not do. I then opened a COIN thread that got little traction.

It is still not clear to me if this user has some actual financial COI or if they are just very interested in business.

They have not acknowledged or addressed the fairly obvious COI at Melouky as far as I can see.

Per their edit count, they rarely use Talk pages and when they do it tends to be along the lines of this: ...Your replies have a disgusting tone of superiority and narcissism... and this You are wrong about (X)...Stop reverting everything I do thinking you're some sort of know it all...

If they are here in good faith to improve our articles about businesses especially in the mediterranean basin (which would be great), this is not a promising approach. Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: We have discussed this on the COIN page before, I truly am wanting to improve business articles and have not been paid by anyone or entity for any edit I do on this page. I have learned a lot from you and truly thank you. Sometimes I just get annoyed when editors who have some superiority decisions revert my edits without contacting me about it first. KarimKoueider (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

No one owes you or me or anybody the obligation to discuss reverts with them first. You have not addressed the fairly obvious COI at Melouky yet. I am not sure why you are here yet. I do know that you are alienating everyone. Jytdog (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I already have addressed it if you even bothered to go to the Melouky deletion page. This just shows how toxic this community is. I probably wont edit again KarimKoueider (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

so you did, a few minutes before you wrote that note. (diff) Yes I did miss it as I don't track WP by the minute. That is the definition of bad faith responding.Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I replied on the Melouky article at 02:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC), you posted your comment at 02:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC), 10 minutes before your comment I had replied. If you would have checked before your comment, you wouldnt have been rude with the "fairly obvious COI" statement. KarimKoueider (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

If you maintain this combative behavior your time here is going to continue to be unpleasant for you and everyone else. That is the bed you are making. Jytdog (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Here is part of the timeline of the problem, using removal of maintenance tag as example, i have no problem people remove talk page message as a sign of read, but i am concerned on read and ignore warning and keep doing the same thing:

• Posted warning by me regarding removal of maintenance tag in Midea Group (Special:Diff/820393531)
• Message got removed (Special:Diff/820401634)
• Did the same thing on removal of tag in Midea Group (Special:Diff/820680421)
• Did the same thing on removal of tag in Egyptian Exchange (Special:Diff/820995021)
• Got reverted by Jytdog and was told in edit summary "do not remove maintenance tags" (Special:Diff/820995186)
• Did again (Special:Diff/820997413)
• Received warning from Jytdog on talk (Special:Diff/820998027)

For the issues in infobox (image parameter, type of company, trading name, name) need time to isolate one by one and present in a timeline view, and more or less some are controversial but constructive edit that did go to the process of talk page discussion. Matthew_hk tc 02:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

For the |type= alone. On top of my message that società per azioni as part of the proper noun should be capped as S.p.A./Società per Azioni, in Italian language (may be in English also, as "per" just equal to the grammar of not capping "of/by/the" in English ), but no need to cap it as type of company, i already told him the usage of the |type=:

• My message (Special:Diff/820353751)
• Message got removed (see also above on Special:Diff/820401634)
• Edit war or revert undo back and forth with other user for S.A.E. in Orange Egypt, Vodafone Egypt and Telecom Egypt, with good sign of talk page discussion
• Seem realize the use of |type=, some article got the right Public/private/listed (or similar type by ownership) treatment (Special:Diff/825151800), but some controversially replaced |type= with legal form of company (Special:Diff/824801731 Special:Diff/824801194, or in good faith adding legal form to the parameter Special:Diff/821817396) and finally some with hybrid (Special:Diff/825907169). It looks likes he just want to make some minor unnecessary edit in order to spread out his edit pattern that only majority adding unsourced promotional content in Egyptian company, as stated in WP:COIN thread listed above. Personally hybrid is more practical, as Publicly traded coop, or Listed state-controlled enterprise, Publicly traded trust company existed, as well as Public/Listed S.A., private S.A., subsidiary S.A..

—Matthew_hk tc 02:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Again with the fantasy edit war on Orange Egypt, Vodafone Egypt and Telecom Egypt. If you and other editors of higher ranking come to a serious conclusion on the type field of company inboxes, I will be more than happy to fully oblige with the decision KarimKoueider (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

First I must apologise to @Matthew hk: as I didn't look far back enough. (I got confused and thought I was seeing all contribs to the talk page.) This edit [62] does show removal of a bunch of warnings I missed including from Matthew_hk. Although having looked again this time definitely seeing all edits, I still don't see the removal of any comments from David J Johnson.

Anyway I'm not really that interested in getting into the wider issue of the rights and wrongs of this dispute. I only really entered into it to point out there is rarely any reason to ask someone why they removed a warning from their talk page. Since it's allowed per OWNTALK, it's not likely to be a fruitful thing to discuss and instead risks distracting from the issue at hand. In other words, concentrate on any alleged poor behaviour, especially if that behaviour came after the editor was asked to cut it out. (And removing warnings is not normally poor behaviour.)

I would strongly suggest that each party consider their behaviour. As someone mentioned above, while quickly notifying someone on their talk page is often useful, wider discussion about any disputed edit should take place on article talk pages and it's the responsibility of everyone involved in the dispute to make that discussion happen. (If you were able to resolve the dispute on someone's talk page, that's fine but if there is still a dispute an empty talk page is never a good sign.) Also I'm seeing accusations of vandalism. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this dispute, none of it seems to fall under our definition WP:vandalism, so such accusations should not be made.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

KarimKoueider, |type= was already specified in Template:Infobox company/doc, and you have three contradict versions (by ownership, by incorporation form/legal form, and lastly hybrid) Matthew_hk tc 02:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

You are the one who introduced the hybrid on Eni, I just followed what you did because it made sense KarimKoueider (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

KarimKoueider, The concern was you had been told in talk page and you have contradict versions on the value that put in |type= at the same time (or within one week), which especially yet your edit on Ubisoft and Vivendi (Special:Diff/823001093) was reverted by Lordtobi, and you just blatantly ignoring the message in edit summary "Company type is private, Société Anon. is law type" and User talk:Lordtobi and yet re-done your edit twice (Special:Diff/824801194, Special:Diff/825154083) without resolve the dispute (or solved partially), quoting David J Johnson " It does seem that you are on a mission to change many company/business pages to your own version, which is frequently incorrect. ". Matthew_hk tc 03:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC) minor edit on by adding diff and wording, add quote Matthew_hk tc 03:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

And the contradict versions on the value that put in |type=, was last observed in Special:Diff/826393888 on 18 February 2018 (despite it rather an edit that pipe Anonim Şirket (a redirect with potential since A.S. in Turkish wiki was interwiki linked by wikidata to joint stock company instead of S.A., but the redirect was not tagged by redirect maintenance template at that time) to S.A. (corporation). However, if he really resolved with other user that |type= with primarily meant for type of company by ownership, entire edit was not really necessary except the removal of depreciated logo caption.) Matthew_hk tc 04:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Any admin looking at this discussion should also check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melouky where KarimKoueider is now advocating the deletion of a blatant advertising article which they originated! In this respect the concerns on this user's Talk page seem relevant. Regarding Nil Einne's comment on Talk page warnings, it has long been considered that warnings should not be deleted. I also concede that my statement on "warnings" wrongly gave the impression that I was referring to my own to this user.David J Johnson (talk) 10:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

regarding vandalism warning that i gave , may be selecting disruptive editing in Twinkle is a better option, but if a user just for infobox parameters, had been messaged and was try to resolve the unnecessary |type= and |image= changes, giving vandalism warning after these unsuccessful conversation, seem not in a level of misused of template canned message. Matthew_hk tc 12:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• I have been pinged here, so I will add my own two cents. Please keep in mind that this annotation are my personal opinion and feelings, to be taken into consideration by the closing administrator. I don't want it to branch out into a discussion of any kind, and will avoid replying to comments regarding it, unless utterly necessary.

I've only come in contact with the user in question due to them changing the |type= parameter and the styles of their legal appendixes on Ubisoft and Vivendi to have them fit what they felt is correct. This is not a terrible crime, just a misunderstanding which had quickly been reverted. The issue, however, then stemmed from the user insisting that their versions were correct, or at least correcter than the previous ones (in these cases, mine), and as such purposelessly forging an edit war. My talk page was consulted, wherefore I attempted to explain why they were wrong, given guidelines and the template documentation. However, the issue presisted through further edits (as outlined by Matthew_hk above) and across various pages; I had also tracked down some pages they edited to post-fix what they had incorrectly inserted or changed, given the reasoning I presented, some of which were also (partially) reverted by said user.

To me, this shows a clear lack of understanding: Despite spoon-feeding reasons and guidelines not to pursue such edits, the same edits continued, and I was told to be presenting myself as superior to them, a claim obviously taken from thin air. Not that this was the only case either, it can be observed on talk pages of other users they have interacted with, even the dicussion above shows that they believe that they have to be more intelligent due to a test they had apparently passed quite well. What if I told you I'm currently attending one of the best univiersities in Europe? Correct, I wouldn't care either. You could have a doctorate in Wikipediaing, yet you can still not place yourself over basic rules of a community as Wikipedia.

As such, I will need to say that a block or punishment of sort is not warranted for this user as long as they learn to accept that WP:BRD, WP:OTHERSTUFF and other guidelines simply exist, and are to be followed unless consensus agrees to change them, and comes to terms with the inferiority complexes he seems to claim people to have. If, however, the behavior does not change and does not show signs that it ever will, a block will ultimately be the only plausible solution, at least in a temporary sense. Lordtobi (✉) 18:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Quick reply and probably my final reply on this discussion.

1. Ill take warnings more seriously.
2. Ill discuss any possible errors or opinions on the wiki pages' talk section.
3. I will only adjust company "Logo" or "Images" on pages that are obviously disrupting the layout.
4. I will open a discussion specifically on the "troubled" type field and opinions for and against the incorporation tag (as there are a lot of other wiki users who put the type of incorporation instead of ownership type).
5. I am sorry if I personally attacked any user, that was not my intent. It was also not my intent to display a "superiority complex" but that was the sense I got from a lot of editors who I reached out to.
6. As for users Matthew_hk and David J Johnson, this isn't a witch-hunt to try and prove me wrong on every edit I do. I hope we can have a peaceful end to this discussion.
7. I was hoping the Melouky page would gain traction with other users to insert more reliable and independent information but the Egyptian Wiki community seems very small.
8. I never did, never will, ever accept any form of payment from any person or entity to edit. I do this as a hobby and to improve other readers wiki experience of a free encyclopedia.

And a small reply to Lordtobi, I only brought up my university standing as Mattew_hk mentions a 7 on his IELTS score yet insults my understanding of english by stating that I have a "Limited Understanding" of the language. Nobody has the right to question my understanding of a language that I primarily edit for. I did not talk about my university standing to "show off".

Thank You for your time KarimKoueider (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks you for your response. The points you want to resolve resemble well what has come up as significant elements for the discussion ending up here. If you stick to these points, I think you are on a good way of integrating yourself into the Wikipedia community, so it is definetly a step in the right direction. I will opt-out of the discussion at this point, as I don't think I have any more to say. If the discussion is ruled in your favor, know that I am always open for questions that might come up regarding guidelines. Lordtobi (✉) 19:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing and COI tags

I hate to do this, but Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Andy) has got another bee in his bonnet. He has decided that COI tags on articles are a BLP problem, and is removing them based on a legalistic interpretation of the tag documentation. Specifically, he removes the tag if there is no active talk page section discussing the COI - even if there is a rather obvious identification of the COI on Talk, or if the discussion was initiated but has archived out.

Example:

• Harvey Newquist II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• [Article] 00:01, February 16, 2018‎ Pigsonthewing (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (5,216 bytes) (-27)‎ . . (nothing on talk;) [63]
• [Talk] 03:53, February 16, 2018‎ Bri (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (378 bytes) ( 170)‎ . . (paid-editor relationship disclosed here) [64]
• [Talk] 03:54, February 16, 2018‎ Bri (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (428 bytes) ( 50)‎ . . (Hnewquist connected? possibly.) [65]
• 11:54, February 16, 2018‎ Pigsonthewing (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (4,776 bytes) (-27)‎ . . (still nothing on talk page) [66]
• 16:06, February 16, 2018‎ Pigsonthewing (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (4,396 bytes) (-27)‎ . . (→‎top: Still nothing on talk) [67]

So, this is an article that had a COI tag due to an admitted paid connection and a username that is very obviously a family member, but there was no identification of this on Talk. The first removal was, IMO, fair. However, the second and third removals occurred after templates had been added tot he Talk page identifying not only a paid editor but also an obvious family member and that is into WP:POINT territory.

This is not the first time. Examples:

• [68] was valid, and a tag was added to talk shortly afterwards
• [69] had a Talk template identifying an obviously conflicted editor for over two years before Andy removed the COI tag.
• [70] had a paid editor tag on Talk since January and a discussion on Talk but it was auto-archived out on Jan 9 [71].

So we have an absolutely standard Andy situation, where he is 100% sincere, completely committed, has the very best of intentions, is sometimes undoubtedly right, but, equally, sometimes unequivocally wrong, and prepared to edit-war over it. We have been here before, many times, over many years.

Backstory (Warning: may contain TL;DR)

This is not a case of giving a dog a bad name. Words like "fixated" have been a stable part of discourse about Andy since forever (e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Archive6 § Pete Townshend - "soft-ban" on fixated editors 2), and a search for his username on the archives will readily show that the examples are not cherry-picked. After a year-long ban (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing) for most of 2006, Andy was back to edit-warring over meta content within a few months (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive256 § Geni warring again), he was blocked multiple times for disruptive editing and revert warring in 2007, sanctioned at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive6 § User:Pigsonthewing and eventually subject to another 12-month ban under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2. That ban was from August 19 2007 to the same date 2008, and less than a month later he was blocked again. He is capable of sustaining a dispute for years (e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive688 § Jim Hawkins/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive233 § Off-wiki solicitation of vandalism/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive234 § Proposed topic ban of Pigsonthewing). In 2013 ArbCom indefintiely banned him from adding infoboxes, due to edit-warring (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes § Pigsonthewing and infoboxes). Edit-warring is a stable feature of Andy's contributions to Wikipedia. Once he has decided that he is right, it seems to be nigh on impossible to persuade him otherwise (e.g. Template:Article section (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), edit-warring a CSD tag, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941 § Beetstra and Twitter/ Facebook). The objective significance of the issue doesn't seem to matter (e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive182 § Urgent editprotected request).

The current problem is IMO relatively easily solved: a topic ban on removing COI templates, either entirely or where there is a {{connected contributor}} or similar template on Talk, with full permission to alert on WP:COIN or WP:BLPN if he does identify an issue. I also think that Andy should be under a 1RR restriction, given his very extensive history of edit warring. Guy (Help!) 14:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

As you know, the requirement for {{COI}} is (formatting in original, the tempalte's /Doc page):

Like the other neutrality-related tags, 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.

To emphasise, that's what is non-neutral about the article.

As you also know, a recent ANI case on the removal of the tag was closed with this finding:

Removing tags is fine, re-adding them is also fine but, per template's instructions and long-standing practice, only if... there is genuine evidence to underpin the tag, in the form of a specific post on Talk describing the issue at hand

I find it odd that you fail to mention this, given that you closed that ANI case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

There is also ongoing discussion, initiated by Guy, at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#The mess that is COI tagging. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

See above: "legalistic". See also: discussion archived out. You did not check for that. But all you've done here is prove my point, sadly. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

"discussion archived out" Talk:Harvey Newquist II was created on the eleventh of this month (six days ago); as I checked, before removing the tag; I'm curious as to how you think you would know otherwise. It has no archives. Or perhaps you refer to the Steve Vai article. Again, I checked (and again, how would you know otherwise?), saw the old discussion and noted that it discussed who had edited, but not what is non-neutral about the article. I also noted the vast amount of editing, by very many editors, in the article, between when the tag was placed, in January 2016, and when I viewed it, over two years later. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Andy, you're doing it again. You behave as if your viewpoint has unambiguous consensus, even when it plainly doesn't, even when you have numerous times been sanctioned for doing exactly the same thing. Your legalistic interpretation of the tag instructions is that a talk page discussion must have been initiated. You didn't even check to see if it ever had been, and you removed a tag despite (a) clear evidence of COI and (b) a talk page discusison actually having been initiated. You were wrong. You were also wrong about Newquist because not only is there a family member editing, there's also a paid account. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

[Ec] ...and see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive296#Please unclose close at ANI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Good grief. You've been thumping on Andy for two weeks straight. Give it a rest already. "hate to do this" my ass - one thread after another. SMH — Ched :  ?  — 14:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

No, I have not I have been looking at a long-running fight sustained on one side largely by Andy, and his history, including two twelve-month sitebans indicates that his is hardly new. If I was thumping on Andy I'd have asked for rather more than a narrow restriction to control obvious WP:POINT. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• The required talk page discussion would have sorted this muddle. That's what talk pages are for. Note the time stamps. Andy's first edit is at 00:01. COI disclosure is almost 4 hours later at 3:53. All Guy had to do was post on the talk page and this would have been dealt with. Given the last two weeks and the ongoing discussions on COI, a simple comment could have dissipated this confusion. As well, much of the discord and discussion of the last weeks has been around the template which asks for discussion on the talk page; it is a known source of contention.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC))
  • The "required talk page discussion" that was initiated and archived out, you mean? Guy (Help!) 16:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Diff, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Note: No such diff has been provided. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
        • Note: It's in the original report. Guy (Help!) 13:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
    • You entered a discussion on the 17th; this began on the 16th? Is that right or am I missing something which is possible? Why not just deal with this confusion on the talk page. I'm not going to engage in snipes with you, Guy. I am suggesting that you might have been able too deal with this on a talk page rather than posting this long notice. There's lots of confusion here given the time stamps. I assume good faith and hope you did this with the best of intentions; I just don't think this is the best way to deal with this given the last two weeks.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC))
      • While Wikipedia has long seemed to creep towards an "exhaustion of remedies"-like doctrine when it comes to filing complaints on noticeboards, that doctrine comes with an escape valve for actions that would be futile. That is, if we're going to start importing legal doctrines, we aren't gonna do it by halves. As Andy has proved (see the prior discussion links Guy provided above), there is no "discussion" with Andy unless you agree with him. So, yes, coming to ANI is proper. If anything, it's a conservative move: This nonsense should go straight to the Arbitration Committee given the community has proved to be completely impotent when it comes to dealing with Andy's disruption. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Editors who edit for pay or offer commercial services related to Wikipedia have an inherent conflict regarding the COI policies, guidelines, tagging of articles etc. Its in their personal financial interest to weaken the enforcement in general of our rules regarding paid and COI editing, so they should not be removing any COI tags, not just ones related to their own editing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

This might well be true, but it is also irrelevant to the discussion. - Bilby (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Shame templates are indeed a WP:BLP concern, in that respect I agree with Andy, they state nothing about the quality of the published content. Govindaharihari (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support ban on removing COI templates and 1 RR. Templates should not be removed without fixing the issues in question. Andy is being pointy and has already been edit warring with respect to this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Where your position falls down Doc James, re your comment, Templates should not be removed without fixing the issues in question is that in regards to COI templates the fact that there is an accusation, mostly added without any actual proof, usually a connected username that could be anyone, or someone connected to the subject having edited it or just been accused of editing it does not comfirm that there is any problem with the content and as such there is no clear content issue to correct. The primary problem here is not with Pigs but with the fact that users who dislike involved editing are adding the COI template as a mark of shame, I fully support its removal and any content concerns being identified and corrected, if no actual and specific content concerns have been identified then on a WP:BLP the template should be removed on sight, immediately. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
    • It is not a BLP violation to have a maintenence template on an article notifying that it has been the subject of COI editing. Nor is it a 'mark of shame'. Its a neccessary warning that the content of the article may not be neutral and impartially written. For reference, the relevant part of the policy is WP:BLPCAT which applies to templates. The COI template/s do not violate that in any fashion being neutrally written. If your argument is that merely having a COI template indicates that "a person has a poor reputation" then you are going to have a hard time arguing that one without running into a wall of 'Yes, we dont like COI editing, that is why we have to identify it'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I am concerned that the issue here is that a precedent could be set that anyone who is a Wikipedian in Residence could somehow be called a "paid editor" and slapped with a COI accusation. Govindaharihari makes a good point too. The effect of a COI "scarlet letter" is chilling, particularly when it interferes with the GLAM work being done by the foundation and many editathon efforts to improve content of Wikipedia. I am unclear what other "COI" that Andy has here, and rather than going after one person, I think the bigger issue needs to be addressed. Montanabw^(talk) 02:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

COI accusations are frequently used for their chilling effect. It's the Wikipedia equivalent of McCarthyism. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning. On a BLP then the template should be removed on sight, immediately. This applies to any drive-by template, which can be removed if there is no discussion on the talk page, but WP:BLP requires immediate removal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentsAndy's is removing these templates from articles written by paid editors (who are NOT WiR). These issues are separate from his work as a WiR. IMO these templates should not typically be used on articles by WiR. He is also removing them from articles were there is a talk page discussion regarding the concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

If they are better removed, have been placed without good reason, especially on WP:BLP articles, that is a good thing. Adding a COI template on a living persons life story is an attack and should be removed on sight, correct the content if there is a concern, don't add a shame tag that is nothing to do with them.Govindaharihari (talk) 05:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

"He is also removing them from articles were there is a talk page discussion regarding the concerns." The last time you made that false allegation, I asked you to provide a diff of me removing the tag, when there was already a discussion on the talk page that met the requirement to "explain what is non-neutral about the article". This you failed to do, offering only a single case where all that had happened was an editor had been alleged to have a COI. Even before that, I said to you "Feel free to point out any cases where I removed the tag, despite there being a post meeting that requirement on the talk page, and I'll accept that it was disruptive, and revert myself. Otherwise, your continued disregard of this point is what is disruptive" and you provided no such examples. Can you provide them now? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hawkeye, WP:BLPCAT is the only part of the BLP policy that applies to maintenence templates. It does not require 'immediate' removal any more than any other article requires it for templates as the template is not overly negative. You would need to make a credible argument that a COI template reflects negatively on the living person. And that's a non-starter since (leaving aside WIR/GLAM etc) articles that have been paid for or have been identified as having been written by someone with a close connection are required to be identified. RE WIR/GLAM, anyone involved in any sort of editing with a COI have little weight in a discussion as to the appropriateness of COI tags in general, as they would of course prefer to not have their articles be marked as being written by someone with a potential conflict. You might as well allow paid editors to dictate what is classed as paid editing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLPCAT does not apply to maintenance templates, it only applies to navigation templates. But BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, persondata, article titles and drafts and Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. If there is no discussion on the talk page, then the COI template is unsourced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

That is frankly a ridiculous argument and essentially would prevent any COI/connected contributor template being applied to a living person's biography. As none of them have 'sources' as required by our policies. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

And frankly, if anyone thinks Andy is doing this out of some concern for living people who have biographies, pull the other one. His history includes harrassing someone through their biography, he is and has been for quite a while, heavily involved in making sure Wikidata badly sourced BLP infringing material is shoehorned into wikipedia articles, while simultaneously on wikidata contributing to it not having any sort of policy regarding living people. So no, I find it highly suspicious he suddenly has a concern for living people. As opposed to just wanting to be able to edit articles with a COI under the radar. (To be fair, its not just BLP issues with wikidata that he wants wedged into wikipedia articles, its that entire database clusterfuck of unverified unsourced factoids) Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me one of the problems here is people are assuming that the COI tag means the subject of the article has done something wrong. But it doesn't or at least shouldn't. If someone hires people to edit an article on a rival or someone they don't like, there will likely be COI problems on that article. It doesn't mean that the subject did anything wrong. I mean even if a spouse or adult family member on their own volition edits an article on someone or pays someone to do, it's highly questionable if the subject shares any responsibility for it. Heck even in cases of a PR agent or lawyer, it may not always make much sense to place much 'blame' on the subject for it, if they had no idea this person was going to do this, had no desire for them to do it and put a stop on it as soon as they found out. Nil Einne (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Multi-user edit war at Somalis

There appears to be a multi-user edit war unfolding at Somalis. I have tried to help resolve the issue on the article talk page, but I have to admit that I am struggling to fully understand the dispute. Note that this discussion resulted in a verdict that it might be necessary to adopt a 1RR policy on Somalia-related articles. I think the issue would benefit from the eyes of some administrators at this point. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• I protected it fully for three days. Yes, the wrong version, of course! Drmies (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks. Should the latest edit be reverted? I've kind of lost track of what the consensus version was! Cordless Larry (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm just a little birdie who blocks on instinct... Drmies (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

As a wp:Rouge admin he is obliged to protect wrong version. It's in our membership agreements. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Kudos to anyone who can work out what the wrong version is! Cordless Larry (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I am unsure what to do here, should I explain the situation or wait for admins' contribution? The protected version was not the consensus version (obviously!). --Kzl55 (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Kzl55: Could you link to that version. If it's the last stable, pre-edit war version, an admin could restore. The purpose of PP though is to induce stakeholders to discuss competing versions as consensus can change. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Could I also request that the editors involved in the dispute try to agree on a brief talk-page summary of the two different versions of the article that are being advocated? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• I reverted the latest edit but only because the user was a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: If you take into account the agreement we have in the talk page (Cordless Larry, Koodbuur, Sandman25 and myself) that the article and section should be representative of all Somalis, as broadly as possible, as opposed to having two Sultans in the section belonging to the same group and the same sub-group (as supported by Soupforone and Cabuwaaqwanaag a confirmed sock of serial disruptive editor), then it is this version [72] though it is neither stable (due primarily to opposition by editor Soupforone who states that "...there is no actual Wikipedia policy indicating that clan representation must be followed. This is just a courtesy rather than a necessity" [73]). It has been restored now due to editor Cabuwaaqwanaag being confirmed as a sock. I would like to add that following a request to take the matter to the talk page by Cordless Larry [74], everyone was discussing the issue exclusively in the talk page until Soupforone's unilateral decision to go back to editing the page [75], which they continued despite requests to continue the discussion in the talk page [76], [77]. @Cordless Larry: I can do that no problem. Best wishes --Kzl55 (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify the above: I agreed in principle that the images should be broadly representative, but haven't really been able to grasp exactly what the different proposals are. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I've summarized the file stuff on the talkpage. Soupforone (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• I have also placed (a somewhat long, but necessary) summary in the talk page.

@Dlohcierekim, Cordless Larry, and Drmies: May I also add that editor Soupforone has a history of unhelpful edits of the Sultan Abdillahi's file in Commons? They attempted to get the file deleted, [78]. This was unsuccessful and the a decision of keep was reached. They then employed the same combative style of editing even after a decision of keep was reached, which forced a moderator to protect the file due to ("continued unsuccessful attempts to get the file deleted by one editor") [79]. Which started this discussion on their talk page [80]. On another file I have uploaded they have made a name change request stating that the file source does not specify ethnicity or clan the skull owner belonged to [81]. This is despite the the source clearly stating both [82]. What was particularly problematic about that edit was their removal of relevant categories from file and replacement with 'fossils' [83]. This resulted in this Common's Administrator's Noticeboard discussion [84] where a number of editors agreed the behaviour was disruptive. They only managed to escape sanctions after acknowledgement of their mistake and promising to cease that behaviour. Yet they are employing the same contentious, pov pushing, style of editing across a number of pages. One example of that being the current discussion at Somalis, another example of current disruptive editing on the Mahmoud Ali Shire page includes addition of unsourced content and content from self-published and user-generated sources (as well as travel guides) despite multiple requests to only add content from reliable sources [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91]. On both occasions they were supported by long term vandal and confirmed sock Cabuwaaqwanaag. Can anything be done about them? --Kzl55 (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the matter at hand; discussion is for Commons, at best. Desysoped editor was only the nominator. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Commons situation is unfortunately not nearly as cut and dry as presented above since the administrator who nominated the sultan file for deletion (and later protected the file description page in their preferred version, despite being an involved editor) has since been desysoped and indefinitely blocked for socking [92]. As for the sultan files on the Wikipedia page, I've summarized the actual situation on the talkpage, as Cordless Larry requested above [93]. Soupforone (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC) The subsequent history of the moderator is not relevant to this discussion. Your behaviour was disruptive as deemed by other uninvolved editors on Commons. You have only escaped sanctions after acknowledgement of your mistake and promising to cease that behaviour. Yet you continue the same pattern of disruptive behaviour as seen in the edits above. This in turn is causing issues on multiple pages within the project and is an issue that needs addressing. --Kzl55 (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC) That administrator was desysoped for general disruption, so of course it's relevant. But I don't expect you to agree. Soupforone (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC) It is not relevant. Their subsequent actions have no relation to the topic at hand. You have not commented on their actions during the incident referenced above, but rather on some unrelated actions that happened after that situation. And they were not the only party to deem your behaviour disruptive. Other uninvolved editors did as well. --Kzl55 (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC) Actually, the desysop did not just pertain to their subsequent edits. It pertained to their entire log list. Soupforone (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC) Still not relevant. Unless you are saying they were desysoped because of their dealing with you, which we know is not the case. That moderator protected the file due to your disruptive behaviour. Other uninvolved editors also deemed your behaviour disruptive. You only managed to escape sanctions because you accepted that judgment and promised to cease that behaviour. --Kzl55 (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC) That desysoped administrator protected the file page in their preferred version, which (at least on Wikipedia) is a clear violation of WP:INVOLVED. I don't expect you to think this matters, but it does. Soupforone (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Whatever you think about their actions, the desysoping is not relevant to this discussion, unless you are saying they were desysoped because of their actions in that incident. I repeat, other editors also found your behaviour to be disruptive, and you only managed to avoid sanctions because you have accepted that judgment with an understanding that you will cease that disruptive behaviour.--Kzl55 (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC) The url above is actually website policy. Soupforone (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC) You are avoiding the central point: unless you are saying they were desysoped because of their actions in that incident, the desysoping is not at all relevant to this discussion. Furthermore, they were not the only party to find your behaviour problematic, other editors also found your behaviour to be disruptive, and you only managed to avoid sanctions because you have accepted that judgment with an understanding that you will cease that disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour was disruptive, the subsequent actions of that moderator does not change that fact. --Kzl55 (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC) That former administrator claimed that their 80,000 logs under the Daphne Lantier account were legitimate (not just their subsequent edits). However, this this was rejected and they were desysoped. Their 200 sock accounts might have had something to do with that. Soupforone (talk) 05:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC) You are still avoiding a very clear point, the desysoping and subsequent actions of that admin is not at all relevant to this discussion, it happened after the incident in question here took place, unless you are saying they were desysoped because of their actions in that incident, which you are not. They were also not the only party to find your behaviour problematic, other editors also found your behaviour to be disruptive, and you only managed to escape sanctions because you have accepted that judgment with an understanding that you will cease that disruptive behaviour. That admin was one of several editors who all came to the same conclusion, i.e. your behaviour was disruptive.--Kzl55 (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

War Zone Comment

Another dispute about the Horn of Africa!!?! Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The Horn of Africa, including Somalia, is the locus of battleground editing because it is an area of the world that is a real battleground. The English Wikipedia has dealt with battleground editing of battleground areas, such as Israel and Palestine and India and Pakistan, and areas that have been battlegrounds in the past and where memories are long, such as the Balkans (where World War One started) and Eastern Europe (where World War Two and the Cold War started), in the past. The battleground editing of these battleground areas has been dealt with by ArbCom discretionary sanctions, which are sometimes draconian and so work well at suppressing the battles.

There have been too many disputes about editing involving Somalia, and Ethiopia and Eritrea. It is time either to ask the ArbCom to impose ArbCom discretionary sanctions, or to craft some version of Community General Sanctions that works as well as ArbCom discretionary sanctions, for the Horn of Africa. Otherwise these disputes will keep on coming back here. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I indicated to the moderator Doug Weller on the talkpage that I was okay with the Deria file remaining [94]. He thanked me for that post as well. Ergo, the dispute is essentially over. Soupforone (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see my thanks as relevant to the bigger issue. Doug Weller talk 07:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. The issue is not over, mainly due to Soupforone's refusal to accept input from other editors involved in the discussion, who all agree that the article should be inclusive of as broad a base of Somalis as possible, not highlighting any particular group. @Robert McClenon and Doug Weller: I have addressed a pattern of behavioural issues by editor Soupforone that is contributing to to battleground editing in the project here, would really appreciate any input on how to take this further. Best wishes --Kzl55 (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller didn't indicate anything about the issue not being over, nor did he write that the article should be inclusive of as broad a base of individuals as possible. Nor for that matter did I indicate that the page should not feature as broad a base of individuals as possible. Those are straw man fallacies. Soupforone (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I did not say Doug made comment on inclusivity. You attempted to suggest the issue was over because Doug thanked your post. You were corrected. This is exemplary of the kind of problematic behaviour I described earlier. The issue is not over just because you decided it is over. There is an agreement in the talk page that the article and section should be inclusive of all Somali groups (Koodbuur, Cordless Larry, Sandman and myself all agree to this, though Cordless Larry did not make a statement on the edits yet). Your edits attempted to highlight two Sultans from the same clan (Darod), the same sub-clan (Kablalah) and same sub-sub-clan (Harti). So far you were only supported by long term disruptive editor of the project and confirmed sock Cabuwaaqwanaag. --Kzl55 (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I only restored the original Sultan Shire file. My editing rationale for this was that he "belongs to completely separate sultanate from other rulers" [95]. I also never claimed that this file choice had anything to do with "clan" since of course it did not. Further, what I actually wrote above is that Doug Weller "thanked me for that post as well", not that "the issue was over because Doug thanked my post". The latter causal phrasing is yours. The point was to show that Doug Weller was aware that I had agreed to the Deria file, which is what the OP is about. Also, Cordless Larry did not indicate that "the article and section should be inclusive of all Somali groups". What he actually wrote is that "the article featuring a diverse range of images intended to represent the population as broadly as possible, I agree that that is a good aim". That "a diverse range of images" automatically means "all Somali groups" is a leap, for that diversity could just as easily apply to gender, vocation, age group or birthplace as to clan/subclan. Also, you wrote above that "all agree that the article should be inclusive of as broad a base of Somalis as possible", which would include Doug Weller. However, Doug Weller did not indicate this either. Soupforone (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes. And the argument goes on and on, and will perhaps go on until the Great Rift Valley splits the Horn of Africa off from the rest of Africa. We need draconian remedies for dealing with disruptive editing about the Horn of Africa. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

An edit confirmation filter might be useful to better track socks and meatpuppeting and to vet ip and single purpose account edits. Soupforone (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is what you had in mind Robert McClenon but when Middayexpress was topic banned, TomStar81 included in the closing statement that "in order to effect a timely halt to any alleged sock or meat puppets that may be editing the pages, administrators may at their discretion adopt a WP:1RR policy on all Somalia-related topics to enforce this ban". Sockpuppetry isn't the only issue affecting Horn of Africa topics, but perhaps a 1RR policy is necessary. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Cordless Larry - Yes. That case is a good example of why special restrictions are needed on the Horn of Africa. Any sort of editing restriction would probably be a good idea, and is consistent with my view. If the proposed restriction seems draconian, then it is probably a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Soupforone, you did not just restore the original file, you also removed the addition of Sultan Deria. You also restored the file of Sultan Shire complete with unsourced description [96] despite clear edit summary indicating it was unsourced [97]. You stated that Doug Weller thanked you, and made a comment about the dispute being "essentially over", this comment made little sense as even Doug replied to you saying how he does not see his thanks as relevant to the bigger issue. As for Cordless Larry, you are incorrect. My post specifically stated "With regards to your stance on representation, I am in agreement with Koodbuur. The section relates to the history of Somalis, it is important for an encyclopaedic article to be inclusive of all Somalis and not only highlight members of any one group" and at the end of that post I asked the opinions of Koodbuur and Cordless Larry on a number of issues including representation [98] to which Cordless Larry replied: "...but on the point about the article featuring a diverse range of images intended to represent the population as broadly as possible, I agree that that is a good aim" [99]. I have specifically stated inclusivity of all Somalis, and for the section to not be highlighting any one group. Thus it is not a leap. Please stop misrepresenting editors.

As for my statement you are quoting, it is clear "The issue is not over, mainly due to Soupforone's refusal to accept input from other editors involved in the discussion, who all agree that the article should be inclusive of as broad a base of Somalis as possible", I do not understand why you are involving Doug when he explicitly stated he'd rather not get involved [100]. All involved editors (Koodbuur, Cordless Larry, Sandman and myself) agree that the article should be inclusive of as broad a base of Somalis as possible.--Kzl55 (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Your comment above specifically pertained to the files of the sultans Shire and Kenadid, not to that of Deria ("your edits attempted to highlight two Sultans from the same clan (Darod), the same sub-clan (Kablalah) and same sub-sub-clan (Harti)"). Hence, that is what I addressed. That interpretation of what Cordless Larry wrote is also clearly incorrect since you similarly suggested above that "if you take into account the agreement we have in the talk page (Cordless Larry, Koodbuur, Sandman25 and myself) that the article and section should be representative of all Somalis, as broadly as possible, as opposed to having two Sultans in the section belonging to the same group and the same sub-group", to which Cordless Larry clarified that he actually wasn't even sure what the file issue was about ("Just to clarify the above: I agreed in principle that the images should be broadly representative, but haven't really been able to grasp exactly what the different proposals are."). I also never indicated whether the article should or should not include as broad a base of Somalis as possible (which could mean anything from gender to vocation, age group, clan/subclan, or birthplace), so that was not even the issue. Likewise, by "ergo, the dispute is essentially over", I was referring to the prefacing phrase, where I pointed out that I had let Doug Weller know that I was okay with the Deria file ("I indicated to the moderator Doug Weller on the talkpage that I was okay with the Deria file"). The following phrase "he thanked me for that post as well" was to show that Doug Weller was aware that I had agreed to the Deria file. Perhaps this could've been worded better, but that is all I indicated. One can only address what is actually written. Soupforone (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm replying to the ping, but I've still got a wicked inner ear infection, a very bad cough, and I'm on enough prescriptions medications to knock a bull elephant out for a month. That being said, having looked through this I'm not seeing that Soupforone has been accused or even suspected of being a sockpuppet/meatpuppet of Middayexpress. Remember, the 1RR condition referenced above applies specifically to Middayexpress's perceived editing interference with the topic, if you want to adopt general sanctions for the page or for articles constantly effected by regional conflict you'll need to open a discussion specifically for that in order to avoid dragging Middayexpress's now dormant account or Soupforone's contributions through the gauntlet of a public trial, otherwise whatever you work out is going to be perceived as applying specifically to the editor(s) for this specific case as opposed to everyone broadly construed as editing the page. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Soupforone, the fact remains you have restored Sultan Shire's file complete with unsourced description [101] despite explicit indication of description having no source [102]. Cordless Larry clarified he was not able to grasp exactly what the different proposals are, but stated he agrees with the principle that the images should be broadly representative. As stated above, in my post I specifically stated my agreement with Koodbuur on inclusivity, and I asked Cordless Larry and Koodbuur their opinions on a number of issues including representation [103], at which point Cordless Larry made his comment "...but on the point about the article featuring a diverse range of images intended to represent the population as broadly as possible, I agree that that is a good aim" [104]. It is clear there is an agreement among editors involved (Koodbuur, Cordless Larry, Sandman and myself) on the issue of broad representation and inclusivity, even if Cordless Larry did not state an opinion on the proposals yet. You stated above "...for that diversity could just as easily apply to gender, vocation, age group or birthplace as to clan/subclan", which is incorrect given the context explained above of Cordless Larry's reply to the specific point I have raised: "it is important for an encyclopaedic article to be inclusive of all Somalis and not only highlight members of any one group", I think that much is clear.--Kzl55 (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the 26th Sultan title was already sourced at that time mark to the sultanate's official website [105]. Also, "inclusivity" is a nebulous term. If by that "clan/subclan" specifically was/is meant, this is not clear from foregoing since the word "clan" is not even used. What is certain is that I never indicated whether the page should or should not include as broad a population base as possible. I wrote instead that there is no actual Wikipedia policy indicating that clan representation must be followed, which is a different thing. Soupforone (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The 26th Sultan title was not sourced [106], and you were explicitly alerted to the fact it was not sourced prior to your restoration [107], yet you did so anyway. As it stands, you have restored unsourced content to the page without providing adequate WP:RS sourcing. The word clan does not need to be explicitly used, I used the word 'group' instead just like I did in other comments like ("There is also the issue of representation and neutrality, the section already includes a photograph of Ali Kenadid, him and the Warsangali Sultan belong to the same group") [108]. We were discussing the fact that both Sultans you attempted to insert belonged to the same group. My original sentence which Cordless Larry responded to explicitly stated ("it is important for an encyclopaedic article to be inclusive of all Somalis and not only highlight members of any one group"), 'group' here is used in referring to a problematic aspect of the section being Kenadid and Shire belonging to the same group, thus the discussion on inclusivity of a broad base of Somalis. I think the point is very clear. As I said above it is clear there is an agreement among editors involved (Koodbuur, Cordless Larry, Sandman and myself) on the issue of broad representation and inclusivity, even if Cordless Larry did not state an opinion on the proposals yet.--Kzl55 (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:OI stipulates that "original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article." The 26th Sultan title was not an unpublished idea or argument; it was already sourced on the linked Shire wikibio [109]. On the other hand, the Deria file's caption was sourced in neither its caption nor in a wikipage link-through, but instead only later on the talkpage [110]. That is therefore a moot point. As to "inclusivity", you suggested above that Cordless Larry preferred broad-based population files instead of the two Sultan files, to which he indicated that he wasn't sure what the file choices were. Ergo, what "inclusivity" is understood to mean is not clear at all. Soupforone (talk) 05:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

We are discussing your restoration of unsourced material to an article [111], despite clear warning that it was unsourced [112]. That is problematic behaviour, and I do not see how WP:OI is relevant to your restoration of unsourced content. You're incorrect to confuse Cordless Larry "good aim" comment with the issue of proposals. I have requested their opinion on a number of issues including representation [113], to which he replied (""...but on the point about the article featuring a diverse range of images intended to represent the population as broadly as possible, I agree that that is a good aim"") [114], his position on representation, as it pertains to my comment in which I asked for his opinion, is clear. He has not stated an opinion on the proposals yet, but it is clear there is an agreement among editors involved (Koodbuur, Cordless Larry, Sandman and myself) on the issue of broad representation and inclusivity. --Kzl55 (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Another Middayexpress-related issue

I've been grinding through Category:Somalia geography stubs because I discovered that a lot of them are dumps from a Geonames-derived directory and that accuracy was poor. Most of these were created by User:Middayexpress, who I knew was no longer around. I was not, however, aware of their history.

I've been nominating these one at a time, but at this rate I may end up with fifty or more AfDs. Is there some way expedite this? I'm not keen on doing a group nom because (a) in practice it's more work anyway, and (b) someone is sure to come in and try to bollox it by insisting that they all have to be considered separately. Mangoe (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

[non-administrator comment] - The only thing I have seen in the past, is to merge a few; then wait a while and AfD the merged articles, to reduce the number. In most cases I would not like this and oppose such actions, but if they truly are as bad as you say, it would be a blessing in this case. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The above post by Mangoe is a great example of the fanatic and almost religious deletionism that is prevalent on wikipedia. Editors such as him are also one of the reasons Africa-related articles are under-represented on Wikipedia. 92.9.152.17 (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Look, the point isn't article count, not that I haven't created plenty, every one of them typed in and checked against sources beyond dumping lists in from websites or who knows where else. But people sitting back in London have already created too many spurious places over the years by misreading texts and taking traveller's reports and maps for granted. My standards aren't that high, but Geonames is far from error-free, and when you start actually checking these things against aerial photography, it becomes apparent how bad the information an get. And yes, transliteration is an issue, which I've already tried to take into account. Look, find me a census, news reports, anything that is better than just lists out of Geonames, and we'll be on a much better footing. Mangoe (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Alternative hypothesis: it's a great example of some poor bugger sweeping up the mess left by people who didn't think something through. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to adopt general sanctions for all articles on or related to the Horn of Africa (broadly construed)

@Dlohcierekim, Kzl55, Bbb23, Soupforone, Robert McClenon, Doug Weller, Mangoe, C. W. Gilmore, Cordless Larry, and Drmies: In lew of the above discussion, and in light of the allegations leveled at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Middayexpress, I would propose that at this point it may be in the community's best interest to adopt general sanctions for all articles on or related to the Horn of Africa (broadly construed). In putting forth this proposal I note for the record the contentious editing history of several pages in the area, the accusations of sockpuppetry, and McClenon's outsanding summary above:

The Horn of Africa, including Somalia, is the locus of battleground editing because it is an area of the world that is a real battleground. The English Wikipedia has dealt with battleground editing of battleground areas, such as Israel and Palestine and India and Pakistan, and areas that have been battlegrounds in the past and where memories are long, such as the Balkans (where World War One started) and Eastern Europe (where World War Two and the Cold War started), in the past. The battleground editing of these battleground areas has been dealt with by ArbCom discretionary sanctions, which are sometimes draconian and so work well at suppressing the battles. There have been too many disputes about editing involving Somalia, and Ethiopia and Eritrea. It is time either to ask the ArbCom to impose ArbCom discretionary sanctions, or to craft some version of Community General Sanctions that works as well as ArbCom discretionary sanctions, for the Horn of Africa. Otherwise these disputes will keep on coming back here.

Accordingly then, in order to effect a timely halt to deteriorating conditions, I propose the following be indefinitely adopted for all Horn of Africa related articles until such time as community consensus or ARBCOM rule otherwise:

All Horn of Africa related pages shall be indefinitely extend-confirmed protected

In order to edit any page on or related to the Horn of Africa an editor must register an account so that the community can see whose been editing the articles and to prevent troublesome editors from sneaking content into or out of the articles. Additionally, this will allow editors and administrators to more accurately assemble names for the purpose of opening Sockpuppet investigations or for imposing topic bans, should either of those options become necessary.

A 1RR sanction is unilaterally applied to all articles on or related to the Horn of Africa

All editors must not make more than 1 revert in a period of 24 hours to any Horn of Africa article save but for reverting clear and obvious vandalism. Per the precedent set forth at Talk:Donald Trump, in the event a list of consensus approved material should appear on the talk page of an article within the Horn of Africa region then reverts to consensus as listed on the talk page of that article will not count against the 1RR limit, however all editors will be required to link to the list in their edit summaries when reverting in order to infer protection for their revert.

Any material removed from an article in good faith may not be re-added without community consensus

If any editor removed any content in good faith then the material may not be re-added to the article body in question without community consensus to do so. Consensus must be obtained on the talk page of the article in question, and all relevant wikiprojects must be informed of the discussion to obtain consensus for the questioned material. Material that has been removed as a result of consensus may not be re-added to the article without first obtaining consensus to do so, and editors whose material has been removed or reinserted may not reopen any discussion on the matter for a minimum of six months. Editors who repeatedly abuse this privilege (ie: attempt to circumvent consensus by filing notices to ANI, editors re-adding the material to the body before consensus has been reached on the talk page, or editors who supported or opposed the consensus reopening the discussion so the original opener won't have to wait 6 six months, etc) may be topic banned at the community's request or blocked for disruptive editing at any administrator's discretion.

Editors to all Horn of Africa related articles are expected to adhere to Wikipedia's Conduct Policies

Editors to Horn of Africa related articles are reminded to remain civil, honor current consensus in Horn of Africa related articles, and to follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes when editing Horn of Africa related articles. Editors who repeatedly ignore these conduct policies when editing Horn of Africa related articles may be topic banned from the subject at the community's request or blocked for disruptive editing at any administrator's discretion.

If adopted, all actions must be logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Horn of Africa

Per Wikipedia:General Sanctions, Administrators employing these sanctions must issue appropriate notifications, and log all sanctions imposed, as specified in each case. The issuing of notifications is an informal process whereby an editor that edits a topic area that is subject to general sanctions is made aware that the general sanctions exist. Administrators may not impose sanctions unless an editor has previously been made aware of the existence of these sanctions. Any editor may make another editor aware of the sanctions, and then log the notification, as specified in each case. This notification is not a warning about editor behaviour, and may not be revoked. It is purely informational. Full procedures for issuing notifications mirror those of Arbitration Committee sanctions, as described here. Editors or administrators that wish to overturn an action carried out under the auspices of community-established sanctions must either appeal to the imposing administrator, or gain consensus for an overturning at the administrators' noticeboard. If general sanctions are no longer needed in a topic area, they may be revoked through discussion at the administrators' noticeboard. Likewise, editors wishing to report possible violations of community sanctions should do so at the administrators' noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to note that I didn't get a notification of your mention above, TomStar81, as you forgot to sign your post. I am re-pinging the others. @Dlohcierekim, Kzl55, Bbb23, Soupforone, Robert McClenon, Doug Weller, Mangoe, C. W. Gilmore, and Drmies: see above. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment This is quite draconian, especially the extended confirmed protection and content removal. I would think the starting point should be the Syrian GS. Why do you think this area needs significantly more restrictions than the Syrian conflict? Also, 'broadly construed' is, from what I have seen, a can of drama in its own right. Is there a specific, core, group of articles where sanctions would cut significant drama? Jbh ^Talk 15:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure what I will support and am awaiting comments, but I won't support consensus required and I'd have to see a lot of support for ECP before I'd agree to it here. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Doug Weller: As an observation, you may have noticed that each section above has a star in the editing window below the paragraph so folks can support just what they want to for exactly this reason; I wanted to get a feel as to what sanctions if any people were in favor of and which ones they disliked. On that note, if you want to lead by example you are certainly welcome to, most folks will only follow what others have done so if they see individuals supporting/opposing/abstaining on the individual sections its likely to inspire them to do the same, which over the coming days should clear up what people do and don't want here. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support the proposed general sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• All Horn of Africa related pages shall be indefinitely extend-confirmed protected No. No. Also God no. No opinion on any of the rest of it. But WikiProject Africa has more than a hundred thousand articles within it's scope, presumably at least a few tens of thousands of which would somehow fall under this. Just because ArbCom may have once made a wildly dumb decision to authorize ECP for dozens of thousands of articles related to Israel/Palestine doesn't mean it wasn't terrible, and should ever be emulated. GMG^talk 18:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose anything more than "standard discretionary sanctions" and the ability for admins to place pages under 1RR is too much based on what is presented here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Refusal to add sources to article

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

---

User:ItsTime1995 has shown a repeated refusal to add sources to multiple articles, including McLaren MCL33, Red Bull Racing RB14, Williams FW41 and Mercedes AMG F1 W09 EQ Power : [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124].

This is despite multiple messages informing him of the need for reliable and verifiable sources, including on his talk page and in article talk pages. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I left this user an ANI notice for you ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

No edits have been made by the user since this ANI discussion has started - I'm going to wait and see what the editor does before I decide what we should do. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah — that's fine by me. I've done everything within my power to impress upon him the importance of RS and VER and he has ignored me at every turn. There's nothing more that I can do. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm hoping that this ANI is enough to turn his head and get him to respond. Either way, we'll see. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I could be way-off, but I wouldn't be surprised if this is a sock of User:Jvm21. Jvm21 was blocked in September 2017. ItsTime1995 became more active shortly afterwards. Both accounts edit motorsport and film articles (check the earlier contributions from IT1995). IT1995 is not adding sources and refuses to discuss this. This was the initital issue with Jvm21, which among with other factors, lead to them being blocked. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah, @Lugnuts — whoever he is, it looks like he has backed off completely. I'll keep an eye out just in case but it's a little tricky to juggle ten articles at once. I was mostly concerned that this would be another GeoJoe1000 sock; I've had a lot of problems with abuse from him in the past to the point where I had to have additional restrictions as to who can edit placed on my talk page. Those restrictions have nearly expired, so I'm anticipating more trouble from him soon. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:22, 25 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.

Chloe Boreham

The following discussion is closed. 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 edits by PlayPonyoForMe should probably be redacted as a gross WP:BLP violation. He is on a final warning. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The user just added this person to a category - and one I'd say makes a controversial implication, yes. But I don't think this is serious enough to qualify the edits for RD2. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, requests for revision deletion (especially for edits you believe to be serious BLP violations) shouldn't be requested in public like this - you should instead contact an admin or follow the instructions here ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) That user added links to articles about mental disorders/negative things to articles about people, and then removed them. [125][126]This is a BLB issue[127][128][129][130]

No source and [131] to name some.  Anchorvale ^{T@lk | Contributions}  09:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll err on the side of caution and redact (at least for now), but I want to keep this discussion open so that other administrators can review and comment. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Hard to tell if this is willful vandalism, but it appears more likely than not. We should probably wait and see if it continues because it looks like a potentially good faith user. Swarm ♠ 20:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
• Systematic BLP violations by a user whose name is strongly suggestive of a grudge against a named admin. I have blocked at this point, mainly due to the violations, which I think defy a good-faith explanation. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 24 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.

Possible attempt to compromise an account

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

---

Please see User talk:Darrencdm1988. When I checked the account they say is inaccessible User: Darren1988cdm, that account had edited as recently as February 1, 2018. Might not be important, but just in case ... — Maile (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This warrants the attention of a Checkuser, who can check if they're accessing from the same IP. I've opened a "quick" CU case over at WP:SPI, we'll see how that turns out. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 22:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

A CU has confirmed - Looks like Darrencdm198 is Darren1988cdm! -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 22:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Can't the user just redirect their old talk page to their new one and just start using the new one from there? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:01, 23 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 threats from NannetteKnowsMen

The following discussion is closed. 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, NannetteKnowsMen is a new editor who had edited only two content pages, a draft which appears to be an autobiography, and a draft which is of a new therapeutic technique by same person. I declined the technique page at Draft:The Agony Element™.

Said user responded to me with some inappropriately hostile posts on my Talk, and allegations of CoI. I've responded civilly, asked them to specify the CoI, asked them to post links to the "help desk" and other page when I've apparently "been reported" (I do not see such in user's Contributions). Honestly, the overall tone of the writing is rather disturbing which combined with the refusal to give details makes this a rather uncomfortable situation.

Please see this entry wherein Nannette issues a legal threat to me: User_talk:MatthewVanitas#You_are_a_COI_to_Wikipedia:

Wiki's Legal Department will be asked to review YOU in this matter. Doubtless, I am far from the first person to complain about your tactics, but I will be the last.

I will post said user a link to this ANI for their notification. MatthewVanitas (talk) 09:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

If I seem brusque in the AFC, it's because I already wrote said editor a very clear explanation at the AFC Help Desk, including explaining why it was not ready to be submitted, only to have them immediately submit it with no changes. So I was brief because I'd already gave them a full explanation five minutes prior. MatthewVanitas (talk) 09:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Can someone just block and get it over with? 207.38.146.86 (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note on my Talk, hostile posts from same editor both above and below the linked section. MatthewVanitas (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

This user also came into the help IRC channel before all of this and refused to declare her COI as she is writing articles on herself and her "groundbreaking discovery". No legal threats were made there, but I did want to point out the antagonistic behavior from this user. Also see ticket:2018022510002155. Nihlus 10:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I was going to nom her user page for deletion, but somebody beat me to it. -Roxy, knows women. barcus 10:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

At long last, I am somebody! --bonadea, knows people. Well, some people.
On a less frivolous note, I would have liked to tag the drafts as blatant spam because they are clearly only there to promote herself and her own personal pet theory, but I'm not sure the language is promotional enough. --bonadea contributions talk 10:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Nihlus, I take it one can't see the OTRS ticket without a login? Am I allowed to ask if I'm actually being threatened with legal action via WikiMedia by an author in Australia? I'm not necessarily alarmed since I really, really doubt I've done anything actionable, but it does seem inappropriate. MatthewVanitas (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@MatthewVanitas:--Nothing to be even slightly bothered about:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

G11'd both drafts and warned the user to stop using Wikipedia to promote themselves. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• I was inclined to block per WP:IDHT, but considering the legal threat is still there, I blocked per that instead.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 21:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Since she was good enough to provide her real-world identity, I checked out some details about her books. They are self- published via Kindle Direct (see [132]). A quick Google indicates that this is someone who is utterly convinced of her own brilliance and profound insight. Her LinkedIn profile describes her as an "international best-selling authoress", but oddly I cannot find any trace of a credible source for this claim. More worryingly, despite the lack of any postgraduate training or professional memberships, she treats female partners of men with PTSD - an area fraught with risk, not to say physical danger. She states that she is the first declared expert in this in the world. That may be true, but if so it is self-declared and without the benefit of any obvious support within the field, no professional publications, no evidence of training beyond a bachelor's degree at a private Seventh Day Adventist university, and no evidence of board certification. Though she has written for some woo-infested webshites. I find it hard to believe that this person is here to build an encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 25 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.

IP user 73.62.146.11

The following discussion is closed. 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 concerned that the contributions of User:73.62.146.11 evince that they are not here to build an encyclopedia. They include vile insults in edit summaries, introducing outright Nazi apologia and adding Star of David flags to a list of murdered German revolutionaries. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked the IP a month, the person currently assigned the IP indefinitely. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

They're back at User:73.94.200.16. Might have to investigate some rangeblocking. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

This charming talk page comment shows the editor's sweet personality: "The bugs hiding under the log get mad when you remind them of the light of day." They are fond of comparing people to animals. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I blocked the second IP and will leave rangeblocking to another administrator who is more technically proficient. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The range is way too wide. NorthBySouthBaranof, if they hop again then we'll look at article protection. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I semiprotected German Revolution of 1918–19 and am watching their other favorites. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not too sure whether this is related to User:EchoUSA or not, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EchoUSA/Archive. SA 13 Bro (talk) 05:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I remember a neo-Nazi a few months ago who was interested in the elaborate logos of the various contemporary fascist factions. This one wants to plaster red Stars of David on all mentions of Jewish Communists. Whether it is one person or two, the disruption is clear. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:26, 25 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.

Concerning image changes on animal 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.

---

Esagurton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) registered in February 2017 and became active in October, taking an interest in altering the lead image on animal articles. I have attempted to have discussions with them about various things, posting on their talk page three times starting in November when I noticed their many image changes. They have learned to use the minor edit function appropriately and now somewhat successfully use edit summaries, but have not really engaged with me in a conversation. Some of their image changes are helpful, such as this edit just hours ago at Ring-tailed cat, but they have a very strong determination to unnecessarily make the lead images feature the subject's full body (e.g. on Hairy-fronted muntjac, replacing this closer image). And also feature a mature individual, unless they've exhausted other options (see Diamondback terrapin, reverted twice… really enjoy the first attempt's reasoning). In the case of Ring-tailed cat the "full body" philosophy worked, but in many cases it hasn't… see Sea otter (four times: Nov 4, Dec 2, Jan 13, Jan 27) and North American river otter (replacing a FP five times: Nov 4, Nov 14 which I didn't see until 3 weeks later, Jan 13, Jan 27, Feb 24—why I'm posting here). Although the last attempt on Sea otter did miraculously lead to a crop and a better choice, this pattern is quite tiresome. After Esagurton's attempt here to "fix" the lead image of the GA Cuvier's dwarf caiman it took me a whole week to get a good quality image back, which I was only able to do after contacting the author of 6.5-year-old image on Commons.

After I wrote an essay a month ago recapping what had been said to Esagurton and attempting to give some clear examples, they satisfyingly asked me about talk pages. I gave some related advice and they just recently did exactly what I suggested not to do. (But maybe they never even saw my response. I may never know.) Changes for the worse on a GA or FA (especially if it's a prominent species) will be noticed, but I'm troubled by changes to articles that likely have hardly any watchers and may go unnoticed (this one at Knight anole almost 4 months ago instead of this way better image, for example). Esagurton has learned a couple of things, but without the ability to collaborate and understand how the project works I don't see how they'll be a productive editor and have an overall positive impact. Rhinopias (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Rhinopias, what action are you asking administrators to take? This editor is using edit summaries and in some cases, discussing their changes on talk pages. It is obvious that they have a preference for full body images, and I understand that you disagree. But there is inherent subjectivity in selecting images. You have not presented evidence that this editor is being so disruptive that a block or a topic ban is warranted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I've seen this preference for full-body images of animals several times now, and I've seen several people argue against using it as an absolute rule. Since I haven't seen it codified in any guideline/MOS page, this would work like jsut about any other content dispute -- coming to a consensus regarding which best illustrates the subject. Or, to quote MOS:IMAGES: "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see." While full-body shots might be the best thing to satisfy that guidance in many cases, if there's a higher-quality, more engaging way to illustrate the subject, I think that would also work (with the full-body shot going further down the page). Regardless, since this isn't the place for content disputes but for behavioral issues, it seems like the best advice would be for Esagurton to read and appreciate WP:BRD. When it becomes clear that changing the image on a page will be contentious, it would be good practice to simply propose images on the talk page instead of continually adding them to the article. Rhinopias, you would probably need to make a stronger case that this is disruptive to bring about admin action, as Cullen said. If there's no clear guidance (or even something that says there's no clear guidance :) ), it may be worth an RfC at, say, WikiProject Animals. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked this user indefinitely, and specified that the only unblock condition is to actually communicate going forward. The image swaps seem fairly minor at face value, but any time an editor is engaging in large-scale editing and refuses to communicate and engage in consensus-building when that behavior comes into question, a line needs to be drawn. This kind of editing is overwhelming and difficult to manage. Cooperation of the editor is essential. Swarm ♠ 21:59, 25 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.

Range block request for 2600:1700:C9F0:76D0:*

The following discussion is closed. 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 contribs for 2600:1700:C9F0:76D0:*

Widespread vandalism on The Amazing World of Gumball pages over the past few weeks. Example edits: [133] [134] [135][136] [137] [138] [139]. I believe the range is 2600:1700:C9F0:76D0::/64 EvergreenFir (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The edits might not be blatant vandalism (just the removal of people and items from episode credits) - but I don't know much about this article, so I could be wrong. Either way, the edits are concerning - they're not explained in edit summaries, large in quantity, and with intentions being questionable. Hence, I've blocked the IP range for disruptive editing. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: thank you for blocking. I should have clarified that I did check the credits for some of the episodes being edited. The people being removed were indeed credited for those episodes, so the user was removing correct information. To me that constitutes at least disruptive editing. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

EvergreenFir - Cool, sounds good to me! Thanks man - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:54, 25 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.

Does this look familiar to anyone?

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

---

Retro72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new user making multiple sequential small edits to articles. This is a known tactic for [elided due to WP:BEANS]. Does the user look familiar to anyone? Guy (Help!) 22:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

It should be added that many of the edits are weirdly incompetent. I had this same thought - it seemed familiar somehow - but can’t quite recall the bell that it rings. JohnInDC (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks like making edits just for the sake of making them. The net effect seems close to zero. Weird. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

But the net effect isn’t zero. A significant percent of his edits are just wrong, and introduce errors that have to be cleaned up. I’ve noted several on his talk page. JohnInDC (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Hasn't this kind of behavior come up in one of the arbcom-related venues such as WP:AE or WP:ARCA? It might be worth adding a sentence or so to the relevant section of Wikipedia:Protection policy (and maybe WP:GAME). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

If they're aiming for that status, it's easy enough for any admin to remove it under discretionary sanctions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

This reminds me of several other tendentious users, but appears to be unrelated. Apparently this just happened, which if it's not deliberate trolling, probably should just be CIR blocked. Alex Shih (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Well Alex, you're an admin now. Let's see your mop-fu. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: The mop manual says no edit after final warning means wait and see. Alex Shih (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I thought this was after a final warning. My bad. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

He hasn’t quit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=next&oldid=827577010 JohnInDC (talk) 15:08, 25 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:Ivan P. Clarin

The following discussion is closed. 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 4 times over the last month and a bit, with no response although they have continued editing: see User talk:Ivan P. Clarin#Sources. I have been contacting them about creating unreferenced articles, but they won't discuss it or amend it. They seem to have not responded to any messages over the six months they've been editing. There have also been concerns that this is the same user as Jhoven Sulla, please see User talk:Ivan P. Clarin#Please do not move pages. and User talk:Ivan P. Clarin#Editing other users’ user pages. I have directed them towards WP:Communication is required, WP:V and WP:BURDEN, but they have just ignored it. Boleyn (talk) 19:40, 24 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 loss of rollback privilege for Cyrus noto3at bulaga

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

---

Cyrus noto3at bulaga (talk · contribs) isn't competent or proficient enough in English to be so entrusted. I see that this issue has come up several times at their talk page, and this evening they restored vandalism edits at AIV [140]; [141], [142]; and warned me twice erroneously [143]; [144]. I'm sure the editor intends well, but at least in this instance made things a bit worse, and doesn't appear to understand, let alone acknowledge, their actions. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• But I am trying so good, I am good using it for this, but the IP user was wrong but I am get by intends. --Cyrus noto3at bulaga (Talk to me) 01:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I think that response establishes all my points. My question is, how was the user ever given rollback to begin with? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Policing is my hobby, said by 103.48.58.226. --Cyrus noto3at bulaga (Talk to me) 01:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Rollback rights were granted by Oshwah, and I encourage that administrator to recognize that this editor clearly lacks the English language proficiency to use this right properly. I am only about 50% sure of the meaning of anything substantive that this editor writes. Competence is required. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Okay, User:Cullen328, I must use rollback properly. --Cyrus noto3at bulaga (Talk to me) 01:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• No, Cyrus noto3at bulaga, I think that rollback should be taken away from you until your English language proficiency is much improved. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, User:Cullen328, I am read English language properly, so I must stop reverting. --Cyrus noto3at bulaga (Talk to me) 01:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Cullen328, I've revoked rollback from Cyrus noto3at bulaga because I agree with you that he does not have the competency with the English-language to be able to tell the difference between constructive edits and vandalism. I'll also leave Oshwah a note about this, but he's typically around less on weekends (understandably), and I didn't want the drama at ANI to drag on longer than it needed to. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I just user-rights conflicted with you, Tony. I left a very strongly worded warning for you, Cyrus, just a few days ago, so I fully endorse this action. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • You beat me to it as well; I actually already notified them on their talk page. For the record, I've revoked the PCR permission as well. Swarm ♠ 01:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Swarm, yes, I was typing my message to them at the same time, and we seemed to have crossed paths. Sorry about that. Closing this thread now, as we seem to have a rough consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:55, 26 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:Hitesh Kapil

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

---

Since December, I have sent seven messages to this editor about creating unreferenced articles and failing to communicate. All have been ignored, although the editor continues to edit.

Other editors have also raised concerns, and HK has ignored all messages from editors in the eight months they have been editing. Articles which have been tagged with concerns include: Oakover, Jubbal-Kotkhai, Bagsiad, Thunag and Chachiot. Some are completely unreferenced, others have had different concerns raised, and the unreferenced ones have been raised with them more than once. They have been repeatedly advised to look at WP:Communication is required, WP:BURDEN and WP:V. I'm hoping he will communicate here, but I think he is likely to only respond if blocked. Boleyn (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I looked at some of his edits, going back to December. Pretty innocuous stuff. But yeah, he probably deserves a block for completely ignoring all communication. Perhaps he does not understand how talk pages work?104.163.148.25 (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I've notified him of the AN/I discussion. However, it doesn't look like they know how to use a talk page - or it could be a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:55, 24 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.

Basketball results of Serbia

The following discussion is closed. 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 currently we have edit wars going with Serbia men's national basketball team participation in

• EuroBasket
• FIBA Basketball World Cup (talk page discussion)

Some Serbian editors, especially Bozalegenda (talk · contribs) and Gagibgd (talk · contribs), claim that Yugoslavian ( Serbian and Montenegrin) achievents are inherited to Serbia, while FIBA clearly doesn't support this idea. Besides discussions at those talk pages, we had discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball#Yugoslavia,_Serbia and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball/Archive_12#Yugoslavia_/_Serbia - where someone actually wrote to FIBA, getting answered:

"Titles and medals won by teams previously cannot be "assigned" to a certain new country - unless this new country is a result of direct renaming of the exact same country.

Hopes this answers your question.

You can find all medallists with the name they participated in EuroBasket here:

http://www.fiba.basketball/eurobasket/2017/all-time-medalists"

And here are FIBA sources by team

• Yugoslavia 1965–2002
• Serbia and Montenegro 2003–2006
• Serbia 2007–present

We clearly need a admin point of view, because those editors won't stop the disruptive edits with ridiculous explanations. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've fully protected the articles for 4 days, but this is a content dispute. Administrators do not have higher authority in determining what content should be used on an article.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• How does one editor's personal opinion outweigh authoritative sources? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • You make your case on the talk pages of the articles. if they keep putting "personal opinion" ahead of reliable sources, then follow the guidance at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE to settle the dispute. Iffy★Chat -- 16:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

FIBA ARCHIVE OFICIAL [[145]] the current edition is frontally wrong in Eurobasket 115.72.12.24 and Bozalegenda FIBA Basketball World Cup User:74Account —Preceding undated comment added 16:34, 25 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.

Mustafa Pasha Mosque

The following discussion is closed. 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 page Mustafa Pasha Mosque has become the victim of a bad WP:USURPTITLE incident. User:Mftanet has (in good faith) moved the original page to the new title Mustafa Pasha Mosque-old and then re-written the article (with identical pictures, infobox, lead para, nav boxes, etc) at the original page title. User:Mftanet appears to be a fairly new editor, who has usurped the page title, rather than simply editing the original page. As a result we have lost some content, and all of the extensive page history. Some of his new article will be very useful, although it requires serious copy editing (for spacing, syntax, content, and other issues). I am very happy to copy edit, but my main concern is the loss of the original page history, as well as the creation of the random article Mustafa Pasha Mosque-old. Can someone assist in sorting out this small mess? Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 18:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for acting so quickly. I have left a message on the talk page of User:Mftanet inviting him to collaborate in editing the article, but requesting that he does not try again to replace the page. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 19:34, 25 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.

Unsourced infomation

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

---

Paulo Ferrari Jr. (talk · contribs · logs) A user named Paulo Ferrari Jr. has added unsourced infomation into "Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney" article.

Diffs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_acquisition_of_21st_Century_Fox_by_Disney&type=revision&diff=827554677&oldid=827536179

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_acquisition_of_21st_Century_Fox_by_Disney&diff=next&oldid=827574773

Due to unsourced infomation that he added 2 times, this user might get a block. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:F0E4:E7FB:6914:F2A8 (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I see no effort to communicate with this user. Please start there.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 21:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

This user has adding unsourced infomation so, anyone block without adding anything with talk page. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:F0E4:E7FB:6914:F2A8 (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

RBI applies to sockpuppets and I don't a claim or link to any puppetmaster, so it wouldn't apply at this point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Repeated unsourced infomation is a grounds for a block. This user may needs to be blocked due to 2 times unsourced infomation in "Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney" article. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:F0E4:E7FB:6914:F2A8 (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

No it is not, especially for new users unfamiliar with policy, now drop the stick.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 21:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:WHYBLOCK: persistent posts of unreferenced, poorly or incorrectly referenced, or potentially defamatory information about living persons:, Wikipedia users can be blocked if they put persistent unsourced or poorly sourced infomation. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:F0E4:E7FB:6914:F2A8 (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

See also: WP:Editing policy. Adding unsourced information is not a violation of policy, unless it is contentious (and they edit war), or a BLP violation or they are intentionally being disruptive or putting in false information. But putting in unsourced information in good faith is not a violation of any policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Adding on to Dennis Brown's comment, this user was not engaged, is probably unaware of policy and you should have made efforts to explain to the user what they're doing wrong. No one is going to block unless the user has demonstrated that they are doing this intentionally. Now go talk to the user.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 21:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Key word: "persistent". As in, after 3 or 4 warnings. Swarm ♠ 00:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, twice without either a warning or good advice is not "persistent". Far from it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:35, 26 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.

Basketball results of Serbia

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

---

As we have edit wars going with Serbia men's national basketball team participation in EuroBasket and FIBA Basketball World Cup, there are some stuff that need to clarified. Currently, in the medals section, results of Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia are merged with the results of FR Yugoslavia, while the results that Serbia are separated from FR Yugoslavia's. Although we know that it is also like this on FIBA's website, which is being used as a source for this article section, that data is completely and absolutely WRONG. SFR Yugoslavia and FR Yugoslavia are two completely different countries. The first one consisted of 6 countries (Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina , Slovenia and Macedonia), and it broke apart in 1992. The new country, FR Yugoslavia, consisted of Serbia and Montenegro only. In 2003, FR Yugoslavia was renamed to "Serbia and Montenegro". In 2006 Montenegro decided to separate, leaving Serbia as an independent country. Serbia is a successor of FR Yugoslavia (not SFR Yugoslavia) in all aspects, not just in sports, but in all others. If you open the page Serbia men's national basketball team, you'll see that results that this team has accomplished, are also the ones accomplished during the existence of FR Yugoslavia. So, all in all, the stuff on FIBA's website is either a mistake, or is just a result of poor knowledge of history and countries heritage. Users Pelmeen10 (talk · contribs) and Cyberpower678 (talk · contribs) keep trying to disprove this, keep pushing false data into this article, using source that doesn't have the correct data.

It is in all our's interest to have the right data displayed to all wikipedia visitors, and in this case, many people will keep being confused about this, and we will never have peace on this article. -- Gagibgd (talk) 10:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be a classic case of a WP:Content dispute that doesn't belong here since we don't rule on content disputes so most of what you said is irrelevant to us at ANI. Try talking on the article talk pages. I'd note the talk page of Serbia men's national basketball team was last edited 17:55, 3 February 2018‎, EuroBasket was edited recently, but your name is absent and FIBA Basketball World Cup was last edited 17:44, 15 September 2017‎. If these disputes all concern the same thing, it may be worthwhile centralising them somewhere, but you need to leave the appropriate notifications in each talk page etc. If you cannot resolve it amongst yourselfs, try some form of dispute resolution none of which should involve ANI. Also you don't seem to have followed the big boxes and notified either editor of this discussion as required when you initiated it. I will do so for you. Nil Einne (talk) 10:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Also this seems to have already been raised above by one of the editors you are complaining about and closed for similar reasons in a discussion with the exact same title Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Basketball results of Serbia. All of you need to stop thinking ANI is going to resolve this for you since we're not, that's not how wikipedia works. Well unless it involves blocking all of you for edit warring or some other form of disruptive behaviour but you can avoid that by talking in the appropriate places not continually making ANI threads or edit warring. Don't just think the other party is at fault, since there is a very good chance you equally are. Nil Einne (talk) 11:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I see there is also discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball#Yugoslavia, Serbia but your name is still absent. Bringing a content dispute to ANI is never a good look, but it's even worse when your name is absent from any discussion attempts. Nil Einne (talk) 11:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

If an authoritative website has incorrect information, don't come here to complain - send a note to that website's owner. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gagibgd: "Serbia is a successor of FR Yugoslavia (not SFR Yugoslavia)" – Then why in another article you are edit warring: Serbia men's national water polo team, you claim Serbia inherits also SFR Yugoslavia achievents (by mispresenting a source)? And with this sentence: "Serbia's national team is widely considered to be the best team in the history of the game", it's pretty clear what's your agenda. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Because FINA recognizes Serbian water polo team as direct successor of both SFR Yugoslavia and FR Yugoslavia (also does FIFA). That is not the case with FIBA, which is also a mistake. When people from Serbia see these articles, where Yugoslav medals are separated from Serbia's, everybody is in a disbelief and they don't take wikipedia seriously, since they all know that Serbia is a direct successor of both of those 2 countries. -- Gagibgd (talk) 12:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

When are you going to write to FIBA and tell them they've got it wrong? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:25, 26 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:ChieftanTartarus - WP:NOTHERE 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.

---

Saw this user at ANi recently [146] then watched them at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Wang (cadet) and on my talkpage User_talk:Legacypac#Personal_Attacks_@_AfD_Peter_Wang. They are making wild accusations against various editors and acting very troll like. I've come to the conclusion that this user is not at Wikipedia to contribute constructively. Rather than present an exhaustive list of diffs, I suggest you look down their last 100 plus contributions [147] to see very few have been constructive. The edit summaries highlight some of the problems. Pinging involved editors User:Ivanvector (just hatted some nonsense); User:GB fan (just templated [148]), User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (reverted today [149], templated [150]), User:Premeditated Chaos (told user they were off base) and User:Swarm (templated) [151]. He's already been blocked by User:Only in December for personal attacks and harassment. He keeps threatening to take me to ANi and/or get me blocked, so... let's discuss Legacypac (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

(responding to ping) I think it's too early to be bringing this here, really. The user's getting into some trouble at a contentious AfD where there's been a lot of suboptimal behaviour. Sometimes the best way to deal with these things is to ignore them, and I think this is one of those. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think a block is needed, but I do think a friendly admin should drop them a note on their talk page about behavior and participation expectations. Note I also participated in that AFD, and I saw the exchange on Legacypac's talk page, which did not paint the Chieftan in a good light. Those methods may have worked with the Brutes in Halo, but are not the best way to act on Wikipedia. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

He trash talked me on his talk page, accused me of being incompetent, accused me of not being a native English speaker and accused me of canvassing then takes me to ANI because I asked him to clarify his comments (and warned him that I'd treat him as he treated me) if anything, the user who brought up this ANI needs to learn to stop being so hot-headed and acknowledge AfDs get heated, otherwise they should avoid AfDs lest they get a less understanding editor. He's lucky I didn't take him to ANI as I said I would do. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The complainant also notified me about this ANI in a rather menacing manner and failed to use the template to do so. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

ChieftanTartarus, I see you have removed Legacypac's notification of this thread with the edit summary of "Notify me properly". You were notified correctly. All that is required is that you are directly told that you are being discussed at ANI. The notification did that, there was nothing menacing about the notification and a template is not required. ~ GB fan 17:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I have made nearly 900 contributions to the encyclopedia and am a member of two wiki projects, that's not exactly what an unconstructive account does, (which is another thing you've accused me of). As for the previous block, it was for the phrase "how dare you", which you have used against me. It's against guidelines for you to use previous blocks as evidence in your argument. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: knows I templated them, it was part of the humour (hence the barnstar) once again you've failed to read in context and have grabbed everything you can to attempt to discredit me. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: will be able to back me up in saying that I never said they were 'off base' (whatever that means) at all, in fact to the contrary, we got on well and they tried to assist me in understanding where you were coming from. We never argued or had any conflict. So out of your witnesses, most of them are either invalid or to the contrary while, one of them is already in a bad place with administrators, this whole discussion is a waste of time for the Administrators in my opinion. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

What is this 'hatted nonsense' that was to have supposedly happened between me and User:Ivanvector? I'm looking through the edit logs and see no such conflict (perhaps why you've failed to link it?) Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

[152] Legacypac (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I think six comments in a row is sufficient. Please give others time to weigh in. And please don't say things like this. Lepricavark (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Apologies to you but I feel that it is my right to defend myself against such baseless accusations. Just a reminder that you should not include the 'https:' in your diffs and start from the '//' Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, this is why I suggested sometimes it's better to just ignore it. @ChieftanTartarus: it's clear you don't understand some of the jargon we regularly use (like "hatted comments") and that's fine, but please don't assume everything you don't understand is an attack. Legacypac is referring to this; we call the "extended content" box a "hat". Him calling it "nonsense" was a bit uncivil, I prefer "off-topic". Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, what you wrote about dropping the https: in diffs is not correct. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

No one should be blocked here. Both sides need to back off some. What started this whole thing was ChieftanTartarus removing this edit as a personal attack and subsequent templating of Legacypac. I do not see any personal attacks. Things escalated from there with both editors conduct. ~ GB fan 16:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

And that was not the first time in that AfD that Chieftan demonstrated a lack of understanding of what constitutes a personal attack. See this. Lepricavark (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I have disabled Twinkle to prevent myself unwittingly templating regulars again (evidently I cannot help myself but use Twinkle to save myself time) Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I missed that one. What ChieftanTartarus seems to be referring to is definitely not a personal attack. ~ GB fan 17:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes that wasn't a personal attack, it was me telling the user to watch their words as to not escalate a conflict with a separate user. While their comment wasn't a personal attack, it could have led to conflict with another user. That's why it was an informal warning Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

But GB fan this was [153] Legacypac (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia not the playground. This is like a childish argument. I've read back on it and it's just you saying 'he did this' and me replying 'well he did that'. Your as much at fault here as I am. It would make more sense to drop this and move on rather than for both of us to continue getting hot-headed about it. As the phrase goes, it takes two to tango Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Also you shouldn't be trying to avoid linking with pages [154] to cover your tracks especially since the issue with that user was separate and agreed that we should not communicate with eachother. You're intentionally conspiring to escalate the situation. If anything you should be blocked for hounding me and distracting me from matters which actually warrant my attention. Regardless, I'd settle for the administrators rejecting this petty issue. As I can see from this edit, [155] you're consistently hot-headed about anything related to this Florida shooting. You should not let emotions cloud your judgement. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything hot-headed in that diff. Lepricavark (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@ChieftanTartarus: Wikipedia is not a playground. Neither is it a battlefield. You've disabled Twinkle which is a good first step. The next step is for you to learn what a personal attack is and leave other editors' comments alone. If a comment is that problematic, a more experienced editor will deal with it. The phrase, "running before you can walk" comes to mind here. More inappropriate removals or warnings may result in a block for disruptive editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:02, 26 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.

Talk:Heat-not-burn tobacco product#RfC about rolling back before socks edited the 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.

---

Please could another admin step in to address this - I closed a fairly innocuous and stale RFC here, with a clear unanimous consensus to roll the article back to its pre-socked state, and to protect it for 6 months. As full protection is never usually necessary to stop sock puppets, I put extended confirmed protection on the article. The originator of the initial RFC, User:QuackGuru has undone the edit I made the the article (implementing the consensus), and started a second RFC asking the exact same question but reiterating that full protection is the only acceptable outcome. This seems a strange thing to do to me, but I would like a second opinion on what to do and how to proceed. Cheers, Fish Karate 15:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and when I queried it with the user, it got removed ([156]), with no response. Fish Karate 15:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Good close - full protection is not justified at all for sockpuppetry. We don't protect because of user demands, we protect to prevent disruption, and ECP is well within admin discretion. I would have gone with semi until there was evidence that ECP was required. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

  The socks in question, such as User:Weidong_Sanquian and User:Augustina_von_Meyszner, wouldn't have been stopped by semi-protection. Fish Karate 15:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

  Well then that's good justification for ECP. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

  Yep. Thanks for closing the second RFC. I'll mark this as closed. Appreciate your help. Fish Karate 15:20, 26 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.

accusing other users of vandalism and spreading propaganda without any basis

The following discussion is closed. 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 LittleOx keep on accusing other users of vandalism and spreading propaganda without any basis. With these actions LittleOx damages other users' reputation. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Attarte (talk • contribs) 18:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Notified. GMG^talk 18:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Considering LittleOx is reverting changes so that they agree with the cited source, "without any basis" is definitely incorrect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I've checkuser blocked the OP as a sock of Krikskraks and blocked the master for 1 week for WP:SOCK violations.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:49, 26 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.

Troublesome IPv6 editor

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

---

These last days tens, if not hundreds, of Judaism and Israel-related articles have suffered from a IPv6 editor who has made inferior changes to See also and External link sections. This editor uses no edit summaries. What can be done? I mean e.g. this editor, or this one. Debresser (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This is the same network or person. These two IP addresses are both under the same /64 range, which is normal to have happen on IPv6 networks. I've blocked the IP range for 36 hours for vandalism. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:21, 26 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.

Possible copyright violation and refusal to discuss by Broadmoor

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

---

Can an administrator please look into the edits by Broadmoor at Texas Southern University? The article previously included the lyrics of the institution's alma mater. I removed those lyrics, in part because posting them wholesale with no critical commentary or context could be a copyright violation if the material is still protected by copyright. Broadmoor has refused to engage in any discussion of this serious issue except to repeatedly revert my edits. ElKevbo (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

ElKevbo - I don't think that the text being added is copyrighted material, but it's certainly possible. I used the tool, as well as checked myself, and I don't see any place that claims to hold that as a copyright. On top of this, I see many different sites that have this "chant" from the university and don't have text stating that the used it with permission from anyone - but that doesn't mean that it isn't copyrighted. I'll investigate the reverting and possible disruption issues. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I reverted it because ElKevbo has never added anything of substance to the page, he has only deleted things off the page that I and others editors worked hard on and find the weakest reasons for doing so. If he cared about the integrity of the page, you would think he would replace at least some of the things he deletes but he doesn't. Also he keeps deleting the athletics logo from the page which can be found on 90% of university pages. He's being unfair and biased. Also the alma mater has been up for nearly 10 years with no problem. Broadmoor (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Update: I took another look into this, and this may be considered likely a copyright problem. Depending on the year of its publication, it can be claimed to be under copyright depending on the lifetime of the author, and other factors. This text is best kept off of the article. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Broadmoor, if the user cites a good faith reason for removing the text, you need to discuss it with him on the article's talk page instead of reverting it repeatedly... I'm glad you stopped at the third time because if it had gone further than that, it would have been considered edit warring - a blockable offense. Since this appears to be a content dispute, you and ElKevbo just need to take your discussion to the article's talk page and sort it out properly. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:43, 27 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.

POV editor Special:Contributions/2600:1700:EC50:B070:2C2:C6FF:FE3E:571A

The following discussion is closed. 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 POV editor just changed all redirects having to do with Stalinism from appropriate sections of the Stalinism article to Marxism-Leninism - for instance: "‎(←Changed redirect target from Stalinism#Stalinist policies to Marxism–Leninism)". I reverted, and he's reverting back. He also removed the lede image of Stalin from Cult of personality, replacing it with an image connected with George Washington. I reverted with an edit summary pointing out that while a case could be made for Washington being the subject of a cult of personality, he was far from the epitome of the subject matter -- whereas Stalin, of course, is the person for whom the phrase "cult of personality" was invented.

This IP needs to be blocked and their edits reverted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

They also vandalized my talk page: [157]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Now they've moved to straight-up vandalism with this edit, in which they "(←Changed redirect target from Feminist views on transgender topics#The term "TERF" to Cockroach)".

• Thanks to Acroterion for a 31-hour block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm extending it to 72 hours, since this appears to have been brewing for some time. Blocked before I saw it here. Acroterion (talk) 03:14, 27 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:Sipos111 for WP:NOTHERE and WP:OUTING myself and Niteshift36

Sipos111 (talk · contribs) recently joined to push content related to the recent shooting in Florida. While I understand the wish to add recent content that doesn't excuse outing Wiki editors, myself and @Niteshift36: on an external website. [[158]] Here is where Sipos111 tells another editor that he is involved in the external posting. [[159]] Springee (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

That article is from April 2017 (10 months ago), doesn't appear to engage in WP:OUTING, and doesn't appear to be by Sipos111. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

No outing here, and the majority of Sipos111's contributions have been constructive. - TNT^❤ 22:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I missed the date. The new editor posted The link today and based on the accompanying statements I assumed it was recent. I would still be suspicious that a new editor would post such an article their first day here. Springee (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps - best if we just let them get on with contributing and see where that leads, at least for now? - TNT^❤ 22:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the outing, I didn't read the full article in the external link. However, based on Sipos111's behavior, I have to agree they are WP:NOT HERE to build an encyclopaedia. Rather, their only goal here seems to be pushing an anti-gun agenda. I've tried to advise them that WP is not a WP:SOAPBOX, but there may also be a WP:CIR competency issue. They don't appear interested (by their own comments) in learning WP P&G or contributing effectively. If all they want to do push an agenda and disrupt articles of sporting good manufacturers in pursuit of that agenda, then that makes them an SPA and we really consider the value of keeping their account active against the stability of the project. (my 0.02¢) - ^theWOLFchild 23:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• It's not outing. However, it is a personal attack. I also wonder how the user found the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• I suppose you were not able to answer your own question, Bbb. FYI, one of the things that the Lightbreather case taught me is that there is a TON of off-wiki collusion (NO COLLUSION NO COLLUSION HERE FOLKS NOTHING TO SEE), so I'm not surprised to see LB's musings pop up here. Also, well, a whole bunch of people got killed, and some are upset, including me. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed (mostly). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I must be missing the personal attack then - could someone point me to it? - TNT^❤ 00:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I call it more "uncivil" in my opinion. Their messages here, here, and here make unfounded accusations of one's "agenda" and are indeed absolutely unnecessary and un-collaborative in nature. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with that - TNT^❤ 00:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Sipos, make up your mind. If you want to get blocked and brag about it, just continue to do what you're doing. If you want to edit Wikipedia, get serious. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Drmies - Regardless, I'm pretty much prepared to impose an indefinite topic ban on Sipos111 from anything related to firearm ownership on this project. This user's edits on this topic clearly show personal bias and POV-pushing, and it would benefit this topic area if this user were prohibited from participating there. This user has been alerted, and as far as I'm concerned - he's fair game to have editing restrictions imposed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• I believe that an indefinite block is warranted. It's clear that he was recruited by Lightbreather, to come to Wiki for the soul purpose of causing disruption and adding a political agenda. Please see https://twitter.com/Lightbreather?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author for more information.--RAF910 (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I see Lighbreather retweeted Feinstein--good, Feinstein deserves a medal. I don't take the "recruiting" part very seriously, not until we have proof of collusion (I know how that sounds, haha). It's entirely possible that Sipos came here because of that, but that doesn't invalidate Sipos as an editor; we all came here one way or another. This is not leading to a block right now, but let's see how they continue. If they're fine, fine. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

These responses left by the user here and here might be a sign that this user is reading the concerns expressed (either here or expressed to them directly) and might be taking it to heart and wising up. While this is nice to see, I would very much like to see Sipos111 respond here as well... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi all - this has been an education. I honestly learned a lot about how this whole wikipedia thing works, which is fascinating. And ugly. I now understand a bit about why things areset up the way they are, and I can't say I could design better conventions, internal politics and power trips and ways to game the system included.

I'll freely admit I came here pissed off. I have two young kids, and when they start school they'll soon be going through active shooter drills. I can only hope that's the most my family ever feels as a result of this epidemic of mass shootings. And imagining what kids all over this country go through is a nightmare. This is going to happen again soon. Maybe today. Maybe next week. Nothing is happening to stop it. Gun manufacturers have an incredible amount of power in this situation. They could help. Instead, they give huge sums to the NRA, which is very effective at preventing any sensible gun legislation from getting through. And why would they help when gun sales jump after every mass shooting? I'd argue that if you're not pissed then something is wrong with you. It isn't right, and I don't think it has to be this way.

Personally, I think the standard set by the firearms group sets the bar for mention on the corporation's page way too high. If a corporation's product is used (to kill 17 human beings) in an event that is a national news story, then that seems worth mentioning on the corporation's page. If the event warrants its own wikipedia page, then connecting the corporation to the event seems appropriate. Mass shootings and other prominent usage (illegal or otherwise) of a coporation's products clearly have an impact on that corporation (e.g., negative publicity around illegal usage played a role in S&W rebranding itself), and understanding this can help wikipedia readers to understand the corporation and it's place in history. And mass shootings are an important fact of our modern history. As I've said, I don't have the time or the mental energy to be active on wikipedia. I'll leave it to you all to debate this, if anyone here cares to.

As most or all have figured out, I didn't write that lightbringer article, nor did anyone send me. I just googled the user who undid my changes, and I saw laid out in that article what appeared to be a clear pattern of biased edits in favor of gun manufacturers. I think there may very well be good faith intentions behind that activity (who knows? or maybe half of you are paid shills for corporations. Or maybe we're all just Russian trolls.) But I saw in this thread the suggestion that someone with a strong bias shouldn't be allowed to edit within a topic. Well, if the community actually cares about that, then I think the lightbringer article warrants more attention. Personally, I think you'll have a hard time finding anyone who doesn't have strong feelings about many of the articles they choose to edit, especially if the articles have any overlap with a political topic.

Thanks to all who offered me advice. And thank you all for your work on this project that is wikipedia.

Take care! Sipos111 (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Based on Bbb's comments, the diffs above, and Sipos111's own comments, it's very clear that Sipos has a strong agenda. Clearly not NPOV and should be no where near these articles. Regardless of whether they are truly leaving, or disbanding this account for a sock, a ban should be established.--v/r - TP 01:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

TParis - Well, since this topic is currently under discretionary sanctions, applying an article or topic ban only requires the action of an uninvolved administrator... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Although I am not involved in this matter or the participants - many people would describe me as having a point of view that is incompatible with acting as an uninvolved administrator. While I disagree and believe that I have the objectivity to act fairly, there are plenty of available admins that it isn't justified for me to cause the drama that it would if I were to act.--v/r - TP 20:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Since no one seems to have mentioned just a reminder that if the external link really did contain outing, you should not have been publicly linking to it here without asking Niteshift36 first. (It's generally suggested you don't link pages which out you either since that effectively means discussing any info contained there here on wikipedia is no longer outing, but that's ultimately your choice.) Also as said the blog appears to belong to another editor, currently banned as result of an arbcom case. Note that you also need to take care not to out other editors, regardless of whether they may have outed you or others, by linking to their work elsewhere. It often doesn't matter even if they disclose who they are here on the other site or it's fairly obvious due to the same name, what matters is what they disclose here. However in this case it seems the blog is linked on meta Meta:User:Lightbreather (not sure about here), so that's probably not really a concern. Nil Einne (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'll say little here except that I wouldn't exactly call this outing, although LB has a history of that with others. I've been aware of it since last year. While it may target me, it falls short of outing. As for the collusion, who recruited whom or how editors feel about the topic.... I'll leave that up to the rest of you. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Born2cycle

Born2cycle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (B2C) clearly feels very passionately that the title of the article Sarah Jane Brown is incorrect, but I think he needs to be removed from the RM debate.

• [160] edit summary "Why is this so hard to understand?" is one of several asserting with varying degrees of stridency that Sarah Jane Brown is "NOT HER NAME" (it literally is)
• [161] edit summary "There is zero basis for using Sarah Jane Brown' as the title of this article" hypothesises "Sarah Jane Brown is not obviously her name. The reference from SnowFire shows that her name prior to marrying GB was Sarah Jane Macaulay - that is what is not in dispute, but this does not mean her name after marrying GB became Sarah Jane Brown. By ALL accounts, without exception, her name since her marriage has been and remains, simply Sarah Brown." This is a bizarre attempt to assert that, without any reliable source noting it, she dropped her middle name on marriage, which is not I believe permitted by Scottish law (or as B2C puts it, "British law", which of course does not exist as such).
• [162] edit summary "And the opinion expressed by reliable sources is the only one that matters here, not yours or mine." asserts that because most sources discussing Ms. Brown do nto feel the need to use her full name, thus it is misleading (explicitly and repeatedly stated as a theory by B2C throughout the debate) for us to do so, on the admittedly novel premise that it somehow falsely implies that this is how she is usually known. As if anybody is usually known by the disambiguated title we give them on Wikipedia. A newspaper can use a name that is unambiguous in context, even if globally ambiguous, we clearly can't, which is literally the entire point of the entire never-ending farrago.

Anyway, I think B2C is by now on a path to burnout and undoubtedly shedding way more heat than light on this.Others on the page are equally passionate without the same recourse to hyperbole, and the same need to reply to huge numbers of people. His point is made by now I'd say (including at least one point which is objectively false despite repetition and failure to strike) and does not require further reinforcement. This is very close to WP:CIR territory. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Normally, an article is titled by the best known name of an individual. That's why we have an article on Jack Benny rather than on Benny Kubelsky. Still, it seems a strange thing for an editor to get so worked up about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. Sarah Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is taken. So this is about disambiguation, and has been going on for years. Guy (Help!) 17:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• I see his sig "В²C" 79 times on that talk page (not counting hats). I see yours 47 times, although yours is in a lot of different places, for different reasons. Lots of talking "at" going on. If memory serves me right, renaming this article is a perennial topic. He does seem to be WP:Bludgeoning the discussion a bit, and catching some grief for it from all sides. I don't see enough that a single admin can block him and the article isn't under WP:DS so anything that went down would have to be a community decision. My preferred solution is for В²C to agree to avoid the RFC altogether until someone closes it. Seriously, by now, I think everyone already knows how he feels so continuing to beat the same horse seems pointless and begs for the community to topic ban him for a few months. One thing we WON'T do is discuss which name is best here at ANI... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Most of my comments on that talk page are !votes in the RfC. No fewer than 22 titles have been listed, most of which have been soundly rejected in multiple prior RMs. That's half of all my comments there. About half the others are responses to direct or indirect questions (e.g. clarifying that, yes, Companies House is a reliable source, and the fact that there are two potential legal frameworks, which have subtly different methods for changing a name. And only one of us is asserting falsely that someone's legal name is not their name, or engaging in bizarre speculation about possible changes of name, with absolutely no actual evidence. That's the issue. There are plenty of argumentative types on that page, as expected given years of failed RMs, but one of them, B2C, is inserting bizarre conterfactuals. Guy (Help!) 17:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• I suppose that, after this showed up at WP:CENT and User talk:Jimbo Wales, it was inevitable it would show up here as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm hearing the whirring of boomerangs. It seems to me that both of them could back away and let someone else fight this battle rather than bringing it here. Mangoe (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

That's strange: are you used to cheap knock-off boomerangs, the kind that fly in a straight line? Because, really, that's the only way your analogy really makes much sense. --Calton | Talk 17:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Holy shit, this again? I swear, the Sarah Jane Brown RM debate is like the zombie apocalypse of all RM debates. You cannot kill it; it just keeps coming back. 14 move discussions in 11 years; it's getting silly. --Jayron32 17:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Getting silly? I'd say we're well past getting. EEng 17:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Let's just change her name to Zarajanovic Braunislav and be done with it. Seriously, though, has anyone thought to contact the subject and ask what her preference is? Her response (if any) would need to be certified by OTRS, but maybe it would break the logjam. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

So do your duty! Grit your teeth, go to the current requested move and sprinkle brief support/oppose comments to taste. Uninvolved people are needed. (BMK: See "I wrote to Sarah, care of Gordon Brown, in June 2013. I received no response" at the link.) Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not current on this person - is she still a principal in a PR firm? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Frankly, B2C's comments there are approaching WP:CIR status. Are you ready for this? "Sarah Jane Brown is not obviously her name. The reference from SnowFire shows that her name prior to marrying GB was Sarah Jane Macaulay - that is what is not in dispute, but this does not mean her name after marrying GB became Sarah Jane Brown". Yes, that's seriously what he wrote. Black Kite (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Ha - I see that's been quoted above, but frankly it bears repeating as so utterly fucking ludicrous that a topic ban is the least of what we should be considering. Black Kite (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing what's ludicrous about it. Many women when they marry, keep their maiden names (as both of my wives did). Many women, when they marry, drop their middle name, but keep their maiden name as their middle name. Many women take their husband's name but also keep their maiden name becaause they are known by it professionally. My mother, when she married, dropped her first name (which she hated), and started using her middle name as her first name, and her Roman Catholic confirmation name as her middle name. There are many options available, at least here in the US, so unless there is something in English law that requires that a woman keep her middle name and drop her maiden name when she marries, I don't see where B2C's statement is incorrect. Would someone care to educate me? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: It's actually Scottish law (not English) that is relevant, and while I'm not very familiar with the latter I'm not aware of any prohibition on changing names in any of the ways you describe. However, culturally in the whole of Great Britain it is very unusual for anyone to change anything other than their surname at marriage so the burden of proof is on the person who is claiming that she did something other than that. This is also far, far from the first time that Born to Cycle has exhibited obsessive behaviour about page titles - see the history of Yogurt for just one example. Thryduulf (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually as far as I can see Scottish Law only allows for a change of surname on marriage. To change given names requires a separate process. Regardless, B2C's theory was pretty bizarre. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

While you're at that, see User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: from beta.companieshouse.gov.uk: Sarah Jane Brown. That is her name. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Then why do the three charities the article says she's intimately connected with all use "Sarah Brown"? [163]. (Honest question.) You'd think they would know what she wants to be called. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Because that's her name. Her full name is Sarah Jane Brown. B2C is trying, ridiculously, to claim that when she married Brown her middle name mysteriously vanished. Black Kite (talk) 08:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • To be clear, it did disappear, in reliable secondary sources. Until the last few days, nobody in ten years of discussion on that talk page even produced a single primary source that used her middle name. In any case, her middle name is not widely (if at all) used in reliable secondary sources. Isn't that what our titles are supposed to reflect? In any case, is that such an unreasonable position for many (not just me) to take? --В²C ☎ 21:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

No, her middle name rarely, if ever, appeared in sources at all. That i the nature of middle names in the UK. They are used only in official records or where it is necessary to publicly disambiguate. In the same way, sources don't parenthetically reference the souse's name, the father's name, the year of birth or whatever, unless it is necessary in order to disambiguate. Exactly the same reason you use for rejecting her full legal name, applies to all the suggested alternatives. This has been pointed out to you, and yet you carry on. Which is why we are here: you are obsessive and you don't seem to care overmuch how you get the result you want. Guy (Help!) 19:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I've not seen it mentioned above (apologies if I've missed it) but B2C was a party to the 2012 Article titles and capitalisation arbitration case, where he was the subject of a finding of fact "Born2cycle's editing on the disputed pages and related subjects has hampered efforts at resolution, specifically by excessive responses and not following the spirit of WP:BRD." and a remedy "Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors." If there really has been no significant improvement in the intervening 6 years then I think it's time for a topic ban from the request moves process (indeed I have a feeling this has been proposed on more than one previous occasion but I can't immediately find where). Thryduulf (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware of B2C's background, and, believe me, I'm not taking a position on this based on B2C - if anything, I'd be inclined to disagree with anything he says. As I said on the talk page, I don't know Sarah Brown from Adam's Off Ox, and I have no dog in this race, but I'm getting at least a whiff of an impression that some people are fighting "Sarah Brown" not because of any particular evidence, but because B2C supports it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

It occurs to me that I really don't want to get any deeper into a dispute that has lasted over a decade, which I really don't care about, and in which there are obviously extremely entrenched positions, so I'm bowing out. Have fun! Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• It's all explained. Preferring Sarah Jane Brown (the subject's full name) for the article title instead of Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) is "political correctness overriding usage in reliable sources"—see WT:Article titles#WP:COMMONNAME vs Political correctness. The conflict is due to the fact that several notable people are named Sarah Brown so that title is a DAB page. Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• @Johnuniq and Beyond My Ken: I really don't care what the article is called, and this is not the venue to discuss it. What matters is whether B2C's behaviour is such that sanctions are required. The more I look at the behaviour and previous instances of the less justification I'm seeing for not topic banning him from all discussions about page titles. Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• I've long felt that B2C's way of approaching article naming issues (doggedly insistent, dogmatic about his interpretation of guidelines, bordering on fanatic) often does more harm than good, and I'm sure I've said I'd support a topic ban on earlier occasions. And I'm saying this as somebody who has probably agreed with B2C as often as I've disagreed with him on on any particular issue we've crossed paths on, and as somebody who generally respects B2C's knowledge and command of policy in these questions. Unfortunately, a topic ban from naming discussions would pretty much mean a complete ban for this editor, since that seems to be the only thing he's interested in. Have we tried a quantitative restriction before? Like for instance: being restricted to one or two comments (of a given maximum length) per naming issue; banned from re-initiating new move requests on articles that have had RMs before...? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions. B2C has put a lot of effort into a complex issue, and deserves credit for it. It's a tough question (disambiguation of the article title from "Sarah Brown" is necessary; the obvious one used by reliable sources seems sexist, while the other ones are rarely used) so some discussion is needed. While B2C may be getting a little heated, they haven't reached the level of needing to be sanctioned for it; they have made no personal attacks on the page, or even close to it, and neither are they monopolizing discussion, all voices are being heard. Note the original poster is the only to bold Vehemently in their opinions on the page, 8 times, and yet is complaining about B2Cs passionate feelings. I personally still think the best option is to write to the article subject and ask her politely to change her first name to Seraphina, to settle the issue ... once and for all! --GRuban (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• disambiguation of the article title from "Sarah Brown" is necessary - I would think that absolute statements like this are the heart of the problem, particularly as many have opined that the current name, being her actual name, is just fine. ValarianB (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Er ... yes. You'll notice the current name is not "Sarah Brown"? --GRuban (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Did you have something resembling a point? --Calton | Talk 06:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• I don't really know the background of this particular naming issue, although I'm aware of having seen it on this page before. I squared off with B2C a couple years back at Kim Davis (see all the RMs and MRs noted on that talk page) in which I described his approach as "drag[ging] it through as many venues as possible until enough people get tired of it that it looks like support for [his] position." At the time he maintained a list in his userspace of past move discussions where the right (in his opinion) thing was done only after discussions were re-hashed over and over again, essentially frustrating all of the opposition into conceding just so he would go away. While I do respect B2C's familiarity with the naming guidelines and have sought his opinion on unrelated matters even since the Kim Davis discussions (which I still describe as a clusterfuck) his approach to controversial discussions is quite poor. I also wouldn't want to see him banned from those discussions entirely, so if I were going to suggest a restriction it would be on posting move requests which have already been discussed say in the past two years, i.e. if there has been a move discussion on Sarah Jane Brown in the past two years, B2C may not start a new discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

  I'd go with a topic ban that says he may not:

  • Start a requested move for any page that has had any move discussion in the past two years; and
  • Comment on a requested move discussion initiated within 3 months of a requested move discussion for the same page (at any title) in which he commented. This excludes relisted discussions and discussions reopened or restarted after a move review discussion.
  • Make more than three short comments in any single requested move discussion; after these they may make a maximum of 1 short reply per direct request for clarification or similar direct request.

  "Short" means not longer than approximately 150 words (excluding links that directly support the comment). Comments made on other pages and transcluded or linked to in a requested move discussion count towards this word limit.

  Relisting or reopening a discussion does not change the comment or word limits (i.e. it's 3 comments of up to ~150 words per discussion, not per listing).

  Violations would result in a complete topic ban from all requested move discussions, starting at say two weeks with a say 5th violation being indefinite. Violations of a complete topic ban will result in a block of up to the same duration as the ban violated (e.g. a violation of 3-week topic ban would mean a block of up to 3 weeks).

I don't claim these to be perfect, only a starter for discussion. An obvious question is should these limits also apply to move review discussions? Thryduulf (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Good question. I just took a read of his userpage based on comments above. He had noted the expiry date of the RM moratorium for this article: clearly it was a case of keep asking until you get the answer you want. He is proud of persisting for years with requests until they are "correct". His examples of great RM closes include moving Chelsea Manning back to Bradley Manning, and moving Westminster clock tower to Big Ben, which is categorically incorrect, as not ony has Big Ben has only ever been the bell, it's now officially the Elizabeth Tower. I think the fixation on moves, the America-centred worldview of some of his hit list, and absolutely never accepting the "wrong" answer, is a defining characteristic. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

If anyone feels I'm in violation of any policies or guidelines in anything I do, please bring them up on my talk page. If we can't work them out, then we come here. Right? Isn't that how it's supposed to work? I don't understand why you're starting here. It doesn't feel nice, civil or welcoming to me. Yes, I have opinions. Yes, I'm open about how I think WP can be improved, especially in the area of titles. I explain in great length why I hold the opinions I do. I understand not everyone agrees. Of course. I'm also very open to criticism and suggestions for improvement. But I find this approach to go straight to AN/I to be very confrontational and feels like you're seeing and treating WP, or at least your approach with dealing with me, as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I suggest that you review WP:DR for ideas on how better to deal with this situation, however you perceive it. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 00:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of word limits, unless we're about to nominate a team of clerks to follow him around. I prefer that he may make one unrestricted comment in any requested move (including the nomination if he is the nominator) or move review, and reply to any question directly asked of him. And while he may not start a new move discussion within two years, he is free to comment if someone else does (under the same one-comment restriction). This allows B2C to give his input (which I think we all more or less agree is valuable) without bludgeoning the process (which is not valuable), and allows for cases where other editors besides B2C perceive a titling issue needing discussion, rather than discussions being repeated over and over again just because B2C didn't get the answer he liked the last time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The reason I stressed that the word limits were approximate was that I had no intention of them being applied strictly. The aim is to encourage concsision, with the requirement that they be "short", with 150 words being a very rough guide to what that means. There would be penalty for 153 words nor for 190 words but 300 would attract one. If others prefer 1 longer comment though then OK, but I don't support unrestricted without some way of avoiding gaming that by continually adding material to the single comment. 14:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs)

By "one unrestricted comment" I meant for that to be whatever he could say in a single edit, maybe excepting very basic copyediting or repairing obvious errors in his single comment or reply. Adding material to that single comment would violate the restriction. At any rate there doesn't seem to be any overwhelming desire for any action here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Folks, short of notification about this discussion on AN/I, my user talk page is devoid of anyone approaching me about any issues with my behavior on Sarah Jane Brown, and I've been trying to help get a community consensus solution there for weeks. I started with a simple RM, was convinced by others that a multi-choice approach would work better, so I closed the first RM (per obvious consensus) and started the current multi-choice one, the format of which was altered by another editor, and which looked promising in terms of finally identify a consensus-supported title there. That said, I recognized I was no longer helping and backed off days ago, before this AN/I was even filed, as the history on that page shows. My specialty is title policy and especially resolving controversial RMs, all of which is explained on my user page and linked FAQ, which unfortunately leads to me being involved in many disagreements. I see a lot of familiar user names above - people who have disagreed with me in the past - not sure how fair it is to have them judge my behavior here, especially with nobody first trying to reach out to me on my user talk page. I understand people are frustrated about this, but the fact remains that there are large numbers of editors who are strongly opposed to the current title - it's clearly not a stable title supported by community consensus. If 10 years of controversy doesn't make that clear, I don't know what can. But right now what we need is ideally a panel of three unininvolved editors to review the lengthy discussion there and decide what title would work best. Thank you. --В²C ☎ 20:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• В²C, for starters, you could read WP:BLUDGEON. Next, you could make a pledge to avoid that talk page completely until the RFC has completed. I think it is safe to say that everyone already knows your opinion on, well, everything, so a lack of participation on your part is not likely to prevent your opinions from being noted. If you made that pledge and lived up to it, sanctions would be moot. I've been debating stepping in unilaterally, so now is a good time to make that pledge. Finally, Guy, I wasn't trying to pick on you, just saying it was hard to tell by count of edits alone. You have been busy, but even I noticed it was all over the place. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Again, I had already chosen to stay away days before this AN/I was initiated, and have done so. That said, I still feel there is room for me to clarify my (updated) position about the dearth of reliable sources using her middle name since her marriage to GB (it turns out it's not zero after all but the first (AFAIK) source was brought to that talk page after 10 years of controversy just in the last few days), which is key to the opposition of the current title. Some people feel there is a big difference between zero vs one or two primary sources (still no usage of this name in reliable secondary sources as far as I know). However, if a pledge to avoid the talk page is really felt necessary I'm fine with it. It's not that important. So pledged. And I'll review BLUDGEON; thanks. --В²C ☎ 01:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
    • From the 2012 Article titles and capitalisation arbitration case: Born2cycle's editing on the disputed pages and related subjects has hampered efforts at resolution, specifically by excessive responses and not following the spirit of WP:BRD. You mean that wasn't a clue? --Calton | Talk 06:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• I would support the kind of limited ban suggested by User:Thryduulf. If nothing else it's easier and less disruptive than having to repeatedly slog through pages of discussion and periodically place RM moratoriums on the affected pages. ~Awilley (talk) 04:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Question: Is there even such a thing as a "middle name" in Scottish law? Or English law, for that matter? Aren't we simply dealing with the rather common case of somebody making false assumption because of American cultural bias? As far as I can see, "Sarah" and "Jane" are both given names. Neither is a "middle name", a concept the Americans seem to have invented as late as the 19th century. --Hegvald (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

In the UK, most people have more than one given name, but they usually (tough by no means always) go by only the first of them. Full names are used on official documents, sometimes on bank cards, and rarely in informal speech. There are notable exceptions, such as John Mark Ainsley (top bloke), but for the most part only one given name is in everyday use. And, needless to say, parenthetical references to careers, years of birth, maiden names or spouses, not at all. B2C is demanding that because the real world does not solve Wikipedia's problem the exact way Wikipedia does, so Wikipedia must fix it in a different way that the real world doesn't. Guy (Help!) 19:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• I am WP:INVOLVED in the debate over at that page, and there has been rather a lot said, but I don't think B2C has been at all unreasonable. They have made a case that the current name is not optimal, and been open to structuring the debate along lines most likely to see a good compromise. If anything, it's JzG who's come piling in with "vehement opposes" to reasonable positions, shouting on Jimbo's talk page about how exasperated they are about it all, and generally telling everyone around that we shouldn't be having the discussion. Now they've filed an ANI against B2C for having the temerity to start a move request on a subject which clearly divides opinion, to see if a broad consensus can be reached on a better title. I oppose any restriction, and WP:TROUT JzG for filing this, because it is a content dispute, not a behaviour issue. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

B2C does very little on Wikipedia other than obsessively pursue article renaming often over numerous requests spanning a decade or more. That's the issue. Guy (Help!) 19:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

So what? What you call "obsessively pursue article renaming" I see as "bravely pursue consensus-supported titles". As my user page declares, we all choose our roles on WP and I choose as my primary task the area of title stability. So I'm drawn to long-unresolved cases, and I try to figure how best to resolve them. In this case I started a few weeks ago by proposing what I thought was a neutral title that I thought had a good chance of being approved. Within a few days it was clear I was wrong, so I withdrew the RM, but the responses indicated that that "wife of" had more support than I had expected it would have, and support for the current title was limited to only one or two participants. So then I started the new multi-choice RM based on a table, another user proposed another format, and so it went. Regardless of the outcome, please be assured my only goal is to facilitate finding a title that is most agreeable to the community. If that turns out to be SJB, so be it. All I seek is a clear finding of consensus, or as much as is reasonably possible, for some title. Anyway, because of my focus I tend to get into content disputes, and a considerable numbers that disagree with me. You know, if you take a stand on an issue that initially has about half the community support and half the community opposing, you're likely to piss off a few. Hence the bravely part of what I do. Almost everyone commenting here is involved and in disagreement with me on this title, and really should recuse themselves for this AN/I. Anyway, regardless of whether Sarah and Jane are first and middle names, or two given names, she's virtually never referred to as Sarah Jane in reliable secondary sources. Perhaps never. She's essentially unknown and unrecognizable as "Sarah Jane". Using this in the title makes no sense and is misleading. This is why there is such strong opposition to the current title; surely this is understandable. As to the "wife of" disambiguation, this is how almost all reliable sources refer to her. It is a violation of WP:NPOV, a WP:PILLAR last I checked, to judge the title inappropriate without objective basis found in policy, guidelines or usage in sources. And I don't see any such basis in any of the objections to this title - I hope the closer takes this into account. --В²C ☎ 01:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I think this makes sense. This is a volunteer project, and everyone is entitle to spend as much or as little time in any one area as they like. Some people do nothing but vandal fighting, others are WikiGnomes, and evidently B2C likes to spend his time in the WP:AT space. So do I, as it happens, alongside content creation and a few other things. Consistency and stability of titles is a worthwhile thing to pursue, and although B2C is much mocked for his "Yogurt principle", the actual thing it says about yogurt is totally true. After repeated move requests over many years, the article hit a stable title and nobody has ever proposed moving it again since. As a Brit, I would probably spell it yoghurt myself, but I can see the vailidity of its current place. We had the same thing over at New York (state), I don't see that ever going back to the primary topic again, even though it was there for 15 years before the move. I think a stable title probably does exist for Sarah Brown too. I don't think it's the current one, which is why it comes up again and again, so its legitimate to work hard to try to find one that works for everyone. Something like Sarah Brown (born 1963) or Sarah Brown (nee Macaulay) may be such a stable title. If/when the current discussion closes as no consensus, it just means we'll all be back again in a year or two to resume the argument once again, as happened so often with yogurt and New York. Anyway, all that aside, I still do'nt see anything out of line in B2C's behaviour... we get that you don't want the RM at Sarah Brown to take place, but please do that by discussing the issue, not the person. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Continued personal attacks by new member

Harshrathod50 (talk · contribs) seems to have multiple issues with making personal comments about editors — both in reference to myself, and to administrators on this Wikipedia. Despite this message — just days ago by Let There Be Sunshine, user has continued to make personal comments — including this (stating that they "hate me") and this. While this user may be new, it is becoming quite clear that they might not be here to edit constructively at the encyclopedia, and their continued use of first-person uses (a.k.a. "my text," "my words," etc.) shows signs of potential issues for future consideration. livelikemusic talk! 16:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I wrote the alt text for the visually impaired readers keeping in mind that how they would make an image of it in their minds. But user User:livelikemusic modified entire text to his likelyhood. Using slang words of no classic English use like 'photoshopped', etc. But when I questioned him, he just deleted the section on his talk page, which too is not good for future of Wikipedia. I need explanation from him. I wasn't attacking him but just asking my queries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshrathod50 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Photoshopped is considered to be a word in common English usage by the folks at Oxford.104.163.148.25 (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Hey Harshrathod50: I sincerely appreciate your efforts to improve Wikipedia's accessibility; Alt text is often forgotten by a lot of editors, myself included! However, I think your attitude does need some adjustment: Comments like I hat eyou for reformatting ^(Sic) are incivil, and will not lead to people wanting to work with you. In the case of this specific disagreement, I think "photoshop" is term understood to mean "digitally altered in some way" (see the dictionary definition), but I also agree a description of the alterations is important for an accessible caption. In short, Work with people, not against them. We're all here to build an Encyclopaedia, after all.

livelikemusic: I don't agree that the user is WP:NOTHERE. Whilst I agree their attitude is abrasive, and they need to reconsider the way they approach the project, the underlying spirit of their edits is good, and I geninely, sincerely appreciate users who care about an oft-neglected accessibility tool. I don't think bringing this to ANI was the right decision: Perhaps you should both swing by the Dispute resolution noticeboard, which is more suited to this sort of dispute? -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 17:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

(1) Users are allowed to delete stuff from their talk pages. (2) "Likelyhood"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

(3) Is I hat eyou anything like I ♥ Huckabees? EEng 22:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Or huckleberries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• As a general aside @Harshrathod50, alt-text like this is spectacularly non-compliant with Wikipedia's rules for alt-text. As a general rule, if the alt-text for any given image is more than eight words it's inappropriately long, and if it's more than fifteen words it's actively disruptive; remember, someone using a screen reader has to listen to all this guff being read out word-for-word. The purpose of alt-text is to say what the image is, not to describe the image; "album cover" would be quite sufficient in the case of this specific example. ‑ Iridescent 19:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• As another general aside, a great idea for a Wikiproject would be Wikiproject Alt Text, which would just be people going around adding alt text where it's missing (which is almost everywhere). Now there's an unfilled need! EEng 22:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I've been looking for something productive to do around WP recently whilst I drum up the motivation to stretch my content muscles: Something like this would be perfect to scratch that itch! 22:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfie (talk • contribs)

Bringing it here wasn't the right choice made by USER:livelikemusic. All he did was just get other editors into this trivial matter.

@Alfie: I obediently accept everything you said. Henceforth, i will keep my personal feelings aside before writing anything here. @EEng#s and Baseball Bugs: Please don't turn this into a hoax. Is not this behaviour incivil? Your idea for Wikiproject Alt Text is awesome. I'm gonna join it too. @Iridescent: All your statements are contradicting with the example given in infobox film page. The alt text for the movie poster "PLAN 9" described there is long and disruptive. Please make corrections on this page. It is from here that I learnt how to write alt text. Harsh Rathod 03:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done. The idea that alt-text is supposed to describe the image is a common misconception. ‑ Iridescent 08:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

What did you do? This page is still as it is? Harsh Rathod 09:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshrathod50 (talk • contribs)

✓ Done he only fixed the alt-text in the example, not the displayed markup of the example. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

But when I questioned him, he just deleted the section on his talk page, which too is not good for future of Wikipedia. I need explanation from him. I wasn't attacking him but just asking my queries. Unfortunately, this is not true. I did respond, twice, on my talk page — as evident here and here — and the conversation was removed because they wanted it removed, as per their edit summary, so while I don't normally delete discussions like that, I did so. And, unfortunately, this user is still making this a personal environment at other pages, including here and here, despite being told not to make things personal multiple times. livelikemusic talk! 19:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Historical vindictiveness against SvG

@JzG: used G5 to delete at least 4 articles:

• Aisha Praught-Leer · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
• Alejandra Ortega · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
• Alex Rose (athlete) · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
• Cisiane Lopes · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

These were created by User:Sander.v.Ginkel. I don't know how many others have suffered the same fate. Over a year ago, User talk:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Guidelines thousands of articles were slated for destruction. We were given only a few months to check and restore articles. I was one of several users involved in the checking process. In my specialty area, Athletics, our checklist was 100% checked or so we thought. That was a year ago. Obviously I am an involved editor, but there have been additional revelations to which I have not been a party of. With no notice, articles were deleted. From the story, truthful or not, a couple of the editors checking the articles were socks. But rather than turning the problem over to legitimate involved editors like @SFB: and myself, the content just disappeared. I've been trying to get it back for a week. JzG has evaded and hidden and done just about everything possible to avoid solving the problem he caused. No other administrator has been willing to step in to fix the problem. This is the oligarchy run amok. You will notice, two of these articles have been restored, by me. Those articles had been archived by the Wayback machine. You will notice that with the core starting information, those are now better than they started. In the process of restoring Cisiane Lopes, I discovered that in addition to the destruction of her article, almost all of her internal wikilinks had been manually deleted by JzG.[164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] This goes beyond deleting the article, this is deliberate sabotage to expunge this subject. It took a lot of work on JzG's part to do this sabotage. It made it considerably more difficult to relink this subject back into the wiki mainstream. In the process, it had to be apparent to any wiki editor with the intelligence of a rock that this subject would pass WP:NSPORTS whether it was created by SvG or another editor in the future. What was the goal here? Nothing JzG did was positive or helpful. Instead, it was deliberately harmful.

The two articles that have not been restored do not have an archive available. The only source for a jumping off point for those subjects exists in the content that JzG and all other administrators who work the Undeletion board are overtly refusing to take action on. I've been away for two days, nobody has lifted a finger in that time. Userfy. I will take it from there.

So I know I am fighting a losing battle by opposing one of the untouchable leadership, but I am doing what is right here. G5 should not have been used. JzG should not have done the sabotage. JzG should have responded to the requests to usurfy this content long ago. Whatever minor offense SvG committed, I have seen no evidence of it and I have looked at hundreds of his articles. But the decision to ban him has taken on a life of its own. JzG and other users should be prevented from using G5 or any other speedy functions to delete the content. Any content they deleted should be restored, at least to draft. If there is a problem with the content, we have a process to fix it, AfD. And even though you disagree with an idea, stop doing things in secrecy. You can see who are legitimate involved editors on a subject. Try notifying us. It takes a lot less work to find users like us than it does to find a coherent list of what has actually been deleted. I don't know how many other editors are involved in this content removal. Speaking for myself, if I know about a problem in my area of expertise, I will fix it. I don't really appreciate being used like a trained monkey to fix things, but my goal is to have good content. This secrecy, backroom conversations and speedy deletions are used strategically to evade people like me. The goal is to vindictively remove SvG content and the public be damned. Those users need to take a time out. Take a chill pill or whatever is a good retort. You have to remember what wikipedia is about. All this backroom crap is not it. We have a public face. Look there. Trackinfo (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

As the result of a community discussion, SvG was indeffed, so you're claiming that the community is vindicative concerning SvG? I'd rather say that its patience had been depleted. And what's with "cabal", "sabotage", "untouchable leadership", the demand for userfication, and so on? When you use language like that, I'm almost automatically inclined to reject your complaint as being extremely biased. I'm not sure if you haven't crossed the boundary of WP:NPA concerning JzG. Admins are answerable for their actions, but they are not required to put up with abuse such as you've just laid on him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

No comment on the G5's but your statement "Whatever minor offense SvG committed, I have seen no evidence of it and I have looked at hundreds of his articles" makes me question your thoroughness. I looked at one SvG article (another editor brought up the deletion) and found an obvious BLP violation in the four sentence version SvG put into article space. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Not done in secret but in a discussion further up the page [171] Legacypac (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I reviewed a bunch of SvG pages left in Draft and found them sourced extremely poorly and containing exactly the types of errors that lead to draftifying en mass. Better to start over - or for those obscure country handball players from 30 years ago no one knows anything meaningful about - don't recreate even if they were in some Olympic event. Legacypac (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

"Whatever minor offense SvG committed" Uh oh, check #Sander.v.Ginkel above and the block log. Is the OP suggesting that the indefinite block was for some minor offense, and now JzG is being vindictive? That is absurd so please reword to account for reality. Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The "minor offense" is in fact getting caught for sockpuppetry at two different Wikipedias. The Banner talk 11:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think I've ever heard of WP:ANI as being a backroom before. Blackmane (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Just think how much smoke would be generated by 7,328 people puffing on cigars as they make their deals! Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Quite the speakeasy! Blackmane (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Simply put, Delete is the LAST answer to a problem, not the first. All of SvG's athletics articles were checked by other editors, including SFB and myself. Some of those other editors turned out to be socks. Turn the articles back to draft and let legitimate editors have another shot at fixing a problem. I'm not hard to find. Delete, G5 without allowing usurfy, is effectively salting THE SUBJECT. SvG's work was sloppy, but it was the starting legwork to give other editors a place to hang additional information. I know Aisha Praught-Leer has been updated since SvG went away, so erasing that subject because SvG made the first edit is justified how? I believe I added to Alex Rose as well. So why is SvG's originating the article relevant now? Why punish us? Why punish the subject? Why punish the public by censoring legitimate content? The only explanation is your cumulative vindictiveness against what should be a historical wiki account who hasn't made a legitimate edit in well over a year. Trackinfo (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC) −

• We've had the mass deletions before, whether for sockpuppettry, suspected copyvio, or inaccurate translations. In each case a large number of articles were deleted which should not have been, despite efforts to save them. Certainly in such cases if an editor without involvement in the original situation and with a good record here has been willing to speak for or work on the articles, we have at least tried not to delete them, or at the very least have undeleted them on request. To insist on keeping them deleted by using speedy deletion over the objections of a respected editor is in my opinion not correct. (I have lists of a few dozen myself from such sweeps to restore that I have never been able to get to). Using G5 in a disputed situation is incorrect just as using any speedy in a disputed situation is incorrect.

The view that some of these articles are trivial and should therefore not be restored is an opinion--indeed, I personally would not work on restoring Olympic athletes with no other information. Preventing someone who does want to do the work from doing it , when the articles pass the currently accepted notability standard for athlete is an overuse of authority. (I personally think there's a good argument for changing our guideline here, but any admin action must follow the accepted guideline in place, whether or not we individually like it). In fact, looking at the examples of Aisha Praught-Leer and Rose listed above, they are not in the least in this category, and would I think pass any reasonable notability standard.

Nobody can think I am in favor of tolerating editing such as that by SVG, but there is still in dealing with them a certain necessary level of respect for each other, and no one admin should be permitted to act unilaterally in this situation. This is not a matter for joking about. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

DGG: what we have here is a very specific set of circumstances. The articles were moved to Draft, by consensus. Most of these were deleted under CSD#G13 (SvG has something like 22,000 deleted article starts in his log). Some - not a few, either - were moved back into mainspace by one of two sockpuppets. The more egregious was MFriedman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a sock of SvG himself, which used edit summaries like "no SvG issues" or "checked", playing the role of an independent editor reviewing articles that had been deemed not to meed standards. The less egregious (and simpler) was Beatley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a ban-evading sock of Slowking4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). So after discussion I deleted those articles meeting the following criteria:

• Created by SvG and passed through the process of rejection and move to Draft
• Moved out of Draft by one of the two socks
• No substantive edits, so that if they had remained in draft they would have been eligible for G13 - by no substantive edits I mean nothing other than removing deprecated infobox parameters and adding cats, the kind of semi-automated or automated edit that is only done by virtue of being in mainspace.

I don't think Trackinfo was happy with the original removal of these articles to Draft, and he's sure as hell not happy with this cleanup, but I feel I shuold point out that at no point did he actually fix the issues of poor sourcing and WP:NOTDIR that led to the original move to Draft. There may be a few errors, for which I would of course apologise and correct, but I do not recall seeing Trackinfo's name against a single edit after the move back from Draft to mainspace by socks.

Trackinfo has now taken this to multiple venues including Facebook. He does not seem to like the answer he gets, each time. I'm not surprised: he's a victim of SvG's deceit, probably more than the rest of us. But this is abusive editing and a cleanup activity discussed in the relevant venues. Many of these articles had sources that did not even contain the information they were purported to contain, there is a reason they were rejected from mainspace. I don't think there's much resistance to providing the deleted text for a clean-start for any article Trackinfo identifies, unfortunately his reaction tot hat has been to demand wholesale restoration of the entire bunch because cabal, which doesn't really help anyone who wants to help him. Guy (Help!) 08:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Watch the accusations, JzG. I do not have a Facebook account. I'm an obstinate old man, I do not do social media. My entire discussion of this issue has been here, escalating as your administrator buddies continue to back your egregious deletions through their lack of action. During the period of checking SvG articles I did not roll back a single one and found no cause to. Rather than assuming and accusing, show me one where I was wrong. In my contact, SvG created stub articles about lesser known Olympic athletes. When I found they matched the source, usually sports-reference, for the presentation of the basic facts, there was no reason to delete or send them back. I added to most of them as I checked them, a slow, laborious process. On Project Athletics, we have a pretty good layout of blue links in all of our recent Olympic and World Championship results. Those SvG stubs are a big part of that, positive contributions, but there are a bunch of good people following up on those start up stubs, adding little links or entire subjects that help lead others to follow up information. Each deletion wipes out all that cumulative information from a lot of minds. Knowledge. Idiot deletionists do not seem to understand, when you destroy content, you are erasing knowledge. It might be able to be found again, but the communal information is lost, possibly never to return, because a roaming contributor thinks their addition is already saved on the article. Praught was such a stub article at first, except she was involved in a heroic act with a fallen athlete and made the final in the Olympics with a lot of coverage. Since then she was also in the final of the World Championships, has the Jamaican and probably Caribbean records and got married to a notable athlete causing her hyphenated name. And I almost forgot, she found her dad. Her article went from SvG's stub to at least three paragraphs. I'm doing this off the top of my head, so she's not exactly off the radar as was a lot of SvG's work. Rose I believe qualified for the World Championships legitimately, rather than being his domestic token, also multiple paragraphs now. Your blind destruction is inappropriate to the current state of those articles, or what they were before this week. With YOUR record of blind destruction, YOUR obvious irresponsibility, how can we mere mortal editors check the damage YOU have done to other articles, without the ability to see them? If you think you are doing such a good job, try a little daylight and prove it. I'll bet I'll find other articles that could and should be saved. I don't think you'll find any, but certainly a whole lot more than any bad piece of SvG information I let onto mainspace. Trackinfo (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Again and again. I see this tactic again and again. Reyk _YO! 10:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Trackinfo, I apologise for misidentifying you as the person complaining in the Wikipedia Weekly facebook group. Anyone here who looks at that group may understand the reason for the mistake, but I accept your assurance. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think it would be controversial if these articles were restored on an individual basis. Lada Kozlíková was created in 2013 for example, and has plenty of edits from other users; it shouldn't ever be retroactively deleted as G5. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, most of those are bot and semi-automated edits. I moved it back to Draft:Lada Kozlíková. yes, it was created in 2013, but it was created by SvG, and apart from maintenance edits it is unchanged since he left it. Neither source is a WP:RS, both are directories and both look user-edited. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not criticising the decision to delete them, I just don't think it would be controversial if I decide to fish an article out of SvG's deleted contributions. Provided I check it myself for unsourced statements. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Especially if they go back to Draft for cleanup or if you fix them yourself. If I deleted them, please feel free, or if you're uncomfortable due to WP:WHEEL concerns, leave a list on my Talk and I'll do it. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Guy, the path is simple, if you choose to be cooperative instead of resistive. MFriedman, the sock, moved a bunch of articles from draft to mainspace. As a sock he didn't have the right to do that. So put the stuff back in draft. Its like hitting the undo button. Us mere mortal editors can see what is there and deal with it, AS WE DID OTHER SIMILAR ARTICLES. G5 deletion destroys the content from our perspective. Did you notice how quickly the above article was restored to mainspace? Trackinfo (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Except that they have mainly been G13d. As in: deleted. Over 20,000 of them. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm with DGG and don't really understand what the problem is. If editors have expressed a willingness to work on the articles, I don't see why we can't give them resonable time, e.g. 6 months or 1 year to do so. If these articles were only re-draftified a few days ago, I don't see how they can already be classified as abandoned. The fact that they were draftified longer ago, then incorrectly moved back by socks is largely irrelevant to whether or not they are abandoned. You can't fault others for not working on articles which were not drafts at the time. Or to put it a different way how can a draft have been abandoned if it was not actually a draft for most of that time? For any articles which were still drafts after last time and never moved back, it's probably fair if these are deleted since 4? years or more suggests no one is going to get to these. To be fair, I don't think Trackinfo has helped their case by downplaying what SvG did or by suggesting that these articles were largely fine, but the fact that Trackinfo hasn't approached this well is no excuse for classifying stuff as abandoned drafts when we have no evidence they have been abandoned since they were only re-draftified a few days ago and editors have expressed a willingness to work on them. If evidence emerges that editors are not properly checking these articles, e.g. leaving in BLPvios or copyright problems, then this should be dealt with when it happens. Nil Einne (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

There isnt a problem, Trackinfo knows where DRV is. We are not going to re-litigate the SvG articles being deleted for the nth time. If Trackinfo wants a copy of any of the deleted articles, it has been offered to them. If they want to contest the deletion, they know where DRV is. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

If Trackinfo wants a copy of any of the deleted articles, it has been offered to them I don't seen an offer. I don't have access to even the two specified articles at the top of this "incident" report. Offer accepted. Where are they? There are about 2,000 athletics articles I cannot determine their fate en masse because the linkage was, to steal the phraseology from above "nuked." I have been criticized recently for calling deletion with terms related to destruction. Obviously the perpetrators of this destruction understand what they are doing. They shouldn't be unlinked was said above. The list I gave JzG on his talk page over a week ago, the only organized list of these problem articles related to athletics, showed all red links. They were unlinked. @Sillyfolkboy: showed a later, partial list where the majority those were in fact in mainspace. My goal is to have all legitimate articles in mainspace. I don't care who created them, I care about providing content for the public. We have the World Championships starting in a week, I care about future editors having a place to hang additional content without having to go through the additional research and effort to create each article anew. With the randomization of the attack done by JzG, I have no idea what articles got "nuked" and which were left. Frankly, I don't know which of these articles were checked by the sock MFriedman and which were checked by legitimate editors including myself. If MFriedman was bad, revert his actions, take the stuff back to draft and let the rest of us legitimate editors check the work. That does not equate with "nuke."

The reason I brought this forward as an incident is because JzG went beyond any mandate by 1) failing to restore an article he deleted on the request of a legitimate editor and 2) he consciously took his time to deliberately remove any linkage to these articles he "nuked." That is sabotage against the subject of these articles. The reason I charged Cabal is because I have made this issue quite present before administrators on several different pages. JzG is a self admitted rogue administrator but the other administrators are backing one of their own through their inaction. That is the "good old boys network" at play. Trackinfo (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: Please read Wikipedia:Rouge admin. Tiderolls 19:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

As of the time I wrote that, JzG has a user box announcing that fact on his user page. I just went with it.Trackinfo (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm simply attempting to illustrate the complex relationship between perception and understanding. Tiderolls 20:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Some incorrect assumptions underpin this complaint. The pages removed were not something future editors could handlg their hat on. They were poorly sourced guesswork. The most recent numing were creations of an admitted sock puppet in violation of his block. We can't encourage that behavior by saying "oh well" There was plenty of time before thousands of pages were G13'd. WP:TNT applies. Any editor is free to just start the topics they think need covering. We are talking about stuff like East German handball players after all, not some incredibly highly searched topic that really needs a page on Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Certainly some incorrect assumptions are being made, by you. You are talking about the articles as they have been presented by SvG and his sock MFriedman. They might be in such condition. They have not been checked by legitimate editors. The ones which were checked should not have been tampered with. The first two, I mentioned at the top of this section, have definitely been improved upon since SvG left. They were on my watch list. They have no business being deleted, but all of you have been preventing them from getting restored since my initial request a week ago. And the ones that were checked by MFriedman should be made into drafts so they can be checked. If I check them, they will get improved. I assume the same will be done by other members of Project Athletics. Of course, you've heard it; when you assume you make an ass out of you and me. There are a lot of asses right now. Trackinfo (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I got sidetracked by restoring thousands of redirects. Upon looking at the two articles in question, the bulk of the content has indeed been added by other editors, so I had no issue with restoring them to the main space as they are. —Xezbeth (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Reaction

Thank you Xezbeth for finally, rightfully restoring those two articles.

What this also provides is evidence. Over this entire week, not one of you administrators have considered my argument. Any one of you could have looked at the article to see the legitimacy of my claims, that the articles had been previously checked and improved by other editors. Any one of you, who commented above or who just passed by, could have verified that fact and restored this content. But none of you did. For a week, not one of you did. This screams "good old boys." You need to look at your behavior as a group, as individuals. Why didn't you respect the word of a non-administrator enough to even look? This goes to the credibility of you as a group. No wonder so many editors act and feel like you don't give them any respect. You certainly didn't give me any respect and I have been right on every count. Cabal does exist. My claim is justified.

I suggest you create some new procedures to ensure you don't behave this way toward non-administrators in the future. Now we have an open question. Will you do anything? Or will you attempt to cover this up? Or will you just ignore it again, because a "good old boy" can't be wrong.

At the forefront of this is the accused administrative editor, JzG. How vehemently has he argued. I do not recall seeing Trackinfo's name against a single edit after the move back from Draft to mainspace by socks. These articles clearly show how superficially and thoughtlessly he deleted content. I believe you would phrase that "misused tools." Many of these articles had sources that did not even contain the information they were purported to contain, there is a reason they were rejected from mainspace. Maybe for other articles. Clearly not these. He argued, with the support of others for a week, and didn't even look at the damage he caused. And the sabotage? The sabotage had nothing to do with SvG. That was just an act of vengeance against the subject of a stub article created by SvG. Additional salt against any editor who might try to revive that subject. And the clearly false accusations of my taking to Facebook. None of this is behavior becoming of an administrator. If administrators were behaving in an admirable fashion, they would have taken disciplinary action. Instead, you just supported his claims.

I bring into question the quality of this entire mass deletion, nuclear option. I call it thoughtless and have suggested for over a year that "thought" is what is needed. We had the articles temporarily identified in draft space. For the articles related to my area of expertise, our Project Athletics checked the 2,000 plus articles first. Unfortunately, MFriedman was one of the editors. The logical reaction would be to undo the bad work of the sock, take it back to draft space. Instead it got wholesale "nuked." You have wholesale prevented them from getting rescued. With a little bit of credibility wind in my sail, I will repeat my claim more specifically; I have not seen any fraudulent content or misrepresentation by SvG. Sloppy, yes. Wrong, no. His massive labor provided the necessary starting point for thousands of subjects. I have not seen an article he created that cannot be salvaged. Why are you so forcefully going out of your way to deny us the chance? Back to the original claim. It only looks like irrational vindictiveness against any article SvG created. I want that content back where responsible editors can see it, rescue it, source it and move it to mainspace where it belongs. What does it hurt to put it back to draft?

I can't speak for other projects, perhaps with less forceful voices. Does that make 20,000 articles disappearing justifiable? I certainly don't think so. I think the first thing that needs to be deleted is the concept of "delete" from your list of options. We delete incorrect information; fraud, deceit. We add sources and improve legitimate content. Let editors do what we do. What is the damage caused by leaving all of this in draft space? All I have seen is artificial impatience. Like the first four articles, do you fear we prove this stuff is legit? Trackinfo (talk) 06:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• "I have not seen any fraudulent content or misrepresentation by SvG. Sloppy, yes. Wrong, no. " Plenty of evidence of such content was given at the original discussion that led to the draftifying of all these articles in the first place. If you haven't seen it, I suggest you look again. This included very serious BLP violations, but also using one source for a BLP where that source (not the actual link, but the complete website it pointed at) didn't include the person involved. We now know that he also uploaded photographs as "own work" which weren't his own work, which I would call "fraudulent work" and "misrepresentation". Of course, using a sock to approve your own work could also be seen as "misrepresentation" and "fraudulent work"... Instead of instantly deleting is work, people were given many months to check the work. While some people did this conscientiously, the majority of these checks were done by himself as a sock, by a sock of banned user Slowking4 who also didn't care about the problems, and by a series of other editors who simply moved all problems back into the mainspace. That your complaints here were not acted upon to your liking has a lot to do with your head-in-the-sand attitude in your opening statement, like "Whatever minor offense SvG committed, I have seen no evidence of it", which indicates that you totally ignored looking at the origin of this whole sorry episode.
• I just took a look at one of his creations during his brief return, and these should be moved to draft space as well. Rianne de Vries: "She won the gold medal in the 1500m event at the 2016 World Junior Championships in Sofia". This seems highly unlikely on the fae of it, as she was 25 years old at the time, a bit old for a junior world champiosnhips. Sure enough, none of the sources nor the 2016 World Junior Short Track Speed Skating Championships article mention her. It's not as if the article is massively long and one error sneaked in. It is a typical short article, with some very close paraphrasing in the few real sentences, and even so he couldn't get it right. Fram (talk) 09:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

My sample size is small relative to the number of articles, maybe a couple hundred athletics articles. Every one I looked at could be and was cleaned. Maybe he was better at athletics. Speaking of small sample size, what percentage of active editors were involved in your great decision to nuke all the content? We have a problem with socks. Maybe we need to validate the users who are checking the content in draft space. I've only been editing wikipedia for just short of 11 years. You think I'd qualify? Trackinfo (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

If you have any non-rhetorical questions, feel free to pose them. Any article (as long as the subject exists and is notable) can be cleaned, that doesn't mean that this is the best solution. The consensus then was that in many, many cases, the articles contained so little information and so relatively many errors (for stubs) that starting over was easier and safer than cleaning them up. Fram (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• • Ugh. So apparently flooding the mainspace with tens of thousands of inaccurate articles on living people, lying about the source of uploaded photographs, and using a sock account to stuff the crap articles back in mainspace without being checked or corrected are all just "minor offenses". I'd ask what Trackinfo would consider to be a major offense, but in this case we already know: cleaning up the mess. Hence all the ranting and shrieking about secret cabals and "deliberate sabotage". The reason Trackinfo is being opposed on this is not because there's a sinister "untouchable leadership"- a cabal of evil scary kitten-eating deletionists- but because his views are not grounded in reality. Reyk _YO! 11:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

You missed the point entirely. You are making me re-detail this and are lengthening my replies as a consequence. I started this incident around four articles deleted by JzG, isolated by SFB on User talk:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Guidelines#Sockpuppets. JzG had the ability to look at what he was deleting at the time, in person, and as an administrator he continued to have the ability to actually look at the deleted articles in question. Other admins who commented; NeilN, DGG, Tiderolls had the same ability. I don't know how many other admins passed by. You all assumed Jzg was right and I was venting about something insignificant; SvG garbage. Discussion continued for a full week about two articles Aisha Praught-Leer and Alex Rose (athlete). While I could not see the deleted articles, I was certain that these articles were significantly improved upon since SvG. Now restored, the history of those articles proves ME right, and that I was part of that history. Beyond My Ken said Admins are answerable for their actions, but they are not required to put up with abuse such as you've just laid on him. So who was abusing who? I was being abused by the Administrator and all of you articulately backed him and had through each of the earlier escalations of this case. THAT IS THE CABAL. You take the word from an Admin who is not telling the truth. You pile on with evidence that is not the truth. I could wait for apologies but that is not the real point. I just want to change your pattern of behavior for the future. Stop assuming non-administrators are crackpots. Stop assuming administrators are always right. Stop protecting the "good old boys" when they are wrong. You have the ability to fix problems. Open your eyes and do some fixing.

I rescued two of the simpler articles from Wayback. I didn't change a word of SvG's original content, I simply supplemented. That demonstrated the condition I have found the SvG content I have dealt with. On that page, SFB volunteered to check and thus rescue any SvG created content related to athletics, which I have continually volunteered to do as well. This is a job the two of us thought had already been done a year ago, [172] a status we wish to return to.

So our stated goal got confused by disingenuous contributions by socks. We simply want that content back. I produced lists created at the time of the articles I wanted back. [173] for example. And notice, the draft of articles I recreated Alejandra Ortega and Cisiane Lopes are not linked to the existing articles by the same name. This deliberate unlinking prevents us from producing a coherent list of exactly what needs to be made available for our project. [174] shows a lot that have been rescued. How many have been rescued, how many have not. I can't tell you because the linkage is missing. A little over 200 out of over 2,000 for certain [175] [176] [177] some by me, subsequently improved upon by others. Exactly what I keep saying has happened and should happen. I use that process as evidence of what could become of the other 20,000, given the kind of input we get at Project Athletics. I can't guarantee other projects have that kind of support. It does take support to bring the initial contribution of SvG into clearer focus. He provided the starting point. But certainly all this stuff related to athletics is not junk. The assumptions are proven wrong.

And since this incident was focused on the four articles, lets go back to Cisiane Lopes. I identified seven locations where her name was deliberately unlinked by JzG. [178] [179] [180] [181] [182] [183] [184] In most cases, out of lists of results with many red links, her's was the ONLY name that did not have a link. All of that removal was the deliberate, meticulous work of JzG. What possible use could all that have, except to sabotage? How could someone go through that much work and not notice the significance of this subject? The only answer is vindictiveness. Trackinfo (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The tool most admins use to delete articles is Twinkle. When you delete an article, you get the option to also remove backlinks. I did that on the first few articles but others said that the athletics fans would be happier leaving redlinks, so I switched to leaving backlinks intact. So the "seven locations" where I "deliberately unlinked" the article are actually a single standard action. Guy (Help!) 17:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Having just read through this whole thread, it occurs to me that Trackinfo needs to smarten up. His contribution here seems to consist primarily of massive TLDR walls of text filled with personal attacks and IDHT rants. If this continues, I suspect a boomerang might be in order. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• But I hope you didn't miss that the walls of text are Reyk's fault, not Trackinfo's. GoldenRing (talk) 10:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Well, I certainly missed the part where Reyk was holding Trackinfo at gunpoint and forcing him to type. Could you point that out? --Calton | Talk 10:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm puzzled by that claim too, since only one of Trackinfo's rambling walls of text is in response to my comment. Reyk _YO! 11:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• ...wait, I think I missed some sarcasm there. Reyk _YO! 11:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Calton and Reyk: Sorry, yes, communication fail on my part there. You are making me re-detail this and are lengthening my replies as a consequence. GoldenRing (talk) 12:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Kill the messenger. Threaten WP:BOOMERANG. When I started this at User talk:JzG/Archive 152#Alex Rose (athlete) it was about a single article that had been thoughtlessly deleted. The history: SvG created it here, during the "Clean up" a year ago, it was sent to draft. The sock MFriedman checked it off here, left with three sources. 19 hours later, after I had edited the article, here it had 6 sources. Why is MFriedman or SvG's content relevant any more? That was more than a year ago. Here is what the article looked like when JzG (otherwise known as Guy) deleted it. Show of hands, does anybody think I am not justified in asking for it to be restored? (break for votes) Trackinfo (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Instead of restoring the content as a responsible administrator should do, WP:UND If you feel an administrator has erred in closing a deletion discussion or in applying a speedy deletion criterion, please contact them directly., JzG resisted. And resisted.

Further research revealed this was part of a mass deletion by JzG. At User talk:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Guidelines#Sockpuppets SFB helped isolate these four named articles. Two were tiny stubs I was able to rescue from Wayback and improve; Alejandra Ortega and Cisiane Lopes. Those were articles started by SvG. Look at them now. Were they worthy of being deleted?

A more important athlete Aisha Praught-Leer had just been updated to include her marriage and name change days earlier. This is what it looked like after SvG started it, but this is what it looked like when it was deleted. Was SvG's start of the article meritorious of trashing all the subsequent content? Again. Show of hands, does anybody think I am not justified in asking for it to be restored? (break for votes) Trackinfo (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

They are also a symptom of a much broader deletion effort, the size and scope of which I cannot identify. Failing to get a positive response from the administrator, two days later, I brought the request to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Residual SvG articles, where other administrators could review the decision and fix the problem. No action. In the meantime, I discovered what I regarded as sabotage, apparently something an administrator can cause at the click of a mouse. My apology for the accusation, though I question making such thoughtless, destructive tools readily available. After four days of this, I thought this was a disciplinary problem. Clearly the administrator was not restoring the content as they should, no other administrator would restore the content as they would if they were being responsible (meaning they were taking the word of the administrator, not me thus WP:CABAL), and the administrator was heaping all sorts of unrelated accusations against the content and then myself, based on assumptions rather than taking 5 seconds to see what he had actually deleted. And it languished for two more days until Xezbeth restored them.

Now you all can see what was done and the resistance. When I articulate that, when I suggest you correct for your pattern of behavior and fix the problem, suddenly I am the problem? I don't get it. Is it that you don't want to hear the truth?

And this happens on the same day an article I helped rescue from the dead at AfD shows up on the WP homepage. Trackinfo (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Trackinfo - any "high-value" pages (medal winners, etc) can easily be restored, if needed. If you know of any of these that have been deleted, then just ask (I think WP:REFUND is the place) and make the necessary changes to make it BLP sound. Alternatively, I'm happy to recreate any articles for Olympians (and some other sports) that have been nuked. Drop me a note if you want them re-stubbed. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Lugnuts, thank you. I will certainly request restoration of any article I detect is missing, as I did above. I hope your offer will shortcut needing to spend a week through the obviously failed, conventional process. And you have made many valuable additions to the content on SvG articles yourself, made easier because it already existed for you to hang your contributions onto. Since my words are not getting through to the crowd, perhaps you could help explain it to them. I expect you have had your content wiped out too. The problem will come in identifying the damage done by mass deletion. We have to click on, for example, a results page and then on each red link to determine if it was deleted or just has been omitted from our efforts. It will be one article at a time, slowly restoring damage nuked by the thousands in just a few thoughtless clicks. I may not live long enough. Trackinfo (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The Wallace Collection

The editor, Diannaa, has unilaterally decided to remove all the edits that I have recently performed on The Wallace Collection wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Collection), citing copyright violations for all of them. The editor has failed to consider that my content does not wholly match, in very many places, the content that is mentioned on a website they have also cited. In fact, they have applied a cursory look and choose to discriminate based on a glance.

There are two issues:- 1) Copyright Violations 2) General article layout improvements

Moreover, I did not take content from that website, but as I mentioned in my e-mail to them that it is based on Gallery Labels and museum publications. Alas, in some places there is clear overlap where I have not edited the content yet.

Many of the edits were nothing to do with the content that they are disputing but to improve the articles layout following examples set in featured articles, and neither have I introduced further pictures other than a single image, the remaining are those already within the article.

They, Diannaa, have removed all my edits citing copyright violations, which is incorrect as it doesn't apply to all my edits and separately, they have stated they 'won't be restoring the removed images, as the English Wikipedia is not intended as an image repository.', again they didn't bother to even look at my edits closely when most of them where improvements.

Looking at the layout they have decided to revert too, verses the improvements, this is a clear backward step that hardly is in keeping with one of wikipedia's aims for the community, at large, to provide continual improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.chohan (talk • contribs)

The deleted edits included infringing content. The tools available to us as admins don't allow us to pick things apart like you seem to think we should, all we can do is remove all revisions that contain infringing content. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

M.chohan, our normal practice when an editor has added copyvio material in a series of edits is to presumptively revert to the last revision before that series of edits began (an editor who adds one copyvio often adds others too, which may not immediately be so easy to identify). That's not quite what happened in this particular case: Diannaa did not remove the content you added with this edit, which to me has every appearance of having been copied from somewhere (or do you say stuff like "This exuberant, animated style explores asymmetrical natural shapes with fountain imagery, foliage and flowers, swirling scrolls and sea animals" while you're eating your corn-flakes?). So forgive me if I ask: did you write that stuff yourself? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: We do have some options. You can edit out the offending content during a restore and add attribution for the remaining content, with deleted history, in the edit comment.--v/r - TP 01:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Isn't that something the original poster should do? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Could be. There's no reason to have a "rule" about who should do it.--v/r - TP 02:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure. On the other hand, can a copyright violator be trusted to get it right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

So, I'm feeling like we're in agreement?--v/r - TP 03:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Not really, no. The revisions that contain the infringing text still have to be deleted. That's the only admin action that's taken place here. If the OP then wants to replay the non-copyvio edits, nobody's stopping that, but the admin tools don't allow us to selectively delete sections, say. Guy (Help!) 10:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I am committed to revising, substantially, the text that is infringing, I do not seek to violate wikipedia rules. Can I suggest that if you can revert the edits back and permit me ten days to make the necessary amendments, I will remove the text that may be infringing as well as re-write the remaining text to as original research. Should thereafter editors feel that substantive revision has occurred then the article can be accepted as revised, if not, then the editors can make their decision without dispute. Thanks ←M.chohan

Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot host such content for legal reasons. That is the reason it was not only removed, but deleted from the history. If you asked for an hour or two with the content so that you could completely rewrite it, then maybe we'd consider it, but 10 days is out of the question. Swarm ♠ 02:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• What is left out in this discussion is how amazing, knowledgeable and professional the User:Diannaa is about copyright issues. Is she ever wrong? Not very often. Is she awesome? Yes. I'd be willing to say that she is one of the top ten most level-headed, professional and and rational Wikipedians.104.163.148.25 (talk) 10:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

What on earth is that got to do with this discussion? So far the comments made on this discussion by knowledgeable professionals has been nothing short of exemplary moreover its been informative and I appreciate the diligence attached, but I am sure the good wikipedians on here aren't so tied up with providing each other with platitudes and superlatives!

Please read WP:SIGN and also WP:AGF. It's perfectly fair commentary to point out that an editor accused of improper editing is actually one of the best editors out there. Maybe read WP:boomerang too. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Salemleo89

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

---

Salemleo89 (talk · contribs) is an obvious sockpuppet of Jack Gaines (talk · contribs)/SuperPassword (talk · contribs), as seen by use of "#AlanJacksonKilledCountry" and "Look at the lyrics" in edit summaries when changing song genres to "Bro-country" despite no valid sources. Please block and tag. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I have provided many sources, including setlist.fm. Also, many songs that I have changed to bro-country, including Night Train and Move, have been sourced. Thanks. --Salemleo89 (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

They have not been sourced reliably. Setlist.fm is not a reliable source. I know who you are because you've created a dozen accounts in the past to spread your misinformation. There is literally no other proof that Alan Jackson sang those songs. Nor are you providing sources that any of his music is "bro country". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Sock blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:00, 26 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:Jackz05 repeatedly submitting crud to AFC

The following discussion is closed. 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:Jackz05 is repeatedly submitting his sandbox, which contains a test string, to AFC for review, after being requested to stop submitting it, and after having been warned, and after it has been nominated for deletion. I think that a block is in order, possibly for vandalism-only account or not here to contribute or for competence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jackz05

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jackz05/sandbox&action=history

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

As annoying and childish as their edits are, I have just final warned them. Looks like someone playing around w/o any attempt to edit constructively. May have just talked myself into applying a block. Jackz05 care to explain yourself.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, the person continually submitting it to AFC was User:Kubiś z Liceum. I've blocked them indef. No opinion on Jackz05, although it's conceivable they're just an innocent newbie bystander. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Oops. Yes. The vandal was playing with another user's user ID. Thanks. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:47, 26 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.

Map creator refuses to engage in discussion despite evidence showing contrary. Also being subjected to racist 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.

---

The map creators for a false map used on Indo-Aryan languages and Indo-Aryan peoples,@Filpro:, refuses to engage in discussion on multiple talk pages regarding a false map that is being posted that delegates the Maithili language to being a mere dialect despite the governments of India and Nepal recognising as a separate language. We cannot resolve the dispute if he can't enagage.

He is being backed up by users who have Anti-Bihari sentiment and despise the Maithili language and the culture of Bihar. These are @AshLin: and @Orientls:. They also refuse to engage with the subject matter on the various relevant talk pages. Pleas force these users to engage in discussion or remove the map. ThanksAxomika (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Eh, don't write edit summaries like this. And could you be more precise? I suppose you are talking about the map you removed, a map I will restore so that we can actually look at it? Drmies (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• If you have problems with the map, why is File talk:Major Indo-Aryan languages.png a redlink? Where is that discussion? Drmies (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

the Discussion is on the talk page of the article. See here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indo-Aryan_languages  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axomika (talk • contribs) 16:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC) 

• You said they have used racist attacks against you. Can you provide diffs to back up that accusation? --Jayron32 16:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Um, Filpro has barely edited for the last year and doesn't appear to have been anywhere near those pages. Please provide diffs showing what you're claiming, especially these accusations of racism. Canterbury Tail talk 16:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Filpro has been active on his Wikimedia commons talk page where I originally contacted him, see here: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Filpro As you can see, he ignored my original query despite the fact that I provided evidence. That is extremely rude and indicates to me that he may have some sort of agenda.Axomika (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• That's Commons; that's not here. So there is some discussion on Talk:Indo-Aryan_languages#Map_removed_by_ethnic_activist and the section under it. Cullen328, you've warned this editor too. Axomika, you are uncivil and you are edit warring; you're making false accusations of racism, and it is you who are not engaging in discussion--you're just making some comments that really miss the mark. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree with that assertion. Not a single source has been provided for that map. I on the other hand have provided sources for my assertion. Last I checked, Wikipedia required sources. Axomika (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

You're totally missing the point. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• I haven't looked into the merits (or otherwise) in this case, but Filpro is topic banned (WP:ARBIPA) from this area and therefore can not participate in any discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 16:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• So here's what I see, Axomika: you disagree with a map, you asked the creator, they didn't respond, so you think they're a racist and remove the otherwise very useful map, edit warring along the way. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

"Useful"? I'm sorry to say but that's your own bias coming to play perhaps. That map is unsourced and also delegates specific languages with national status to mere dialect status. That is a major error. Wikipedia is meant to be factual. The map creator has also been topic banned which should provide some context to his edits.Axomika (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan languages, languages not dialects. The map does not reduce the language to a lesser status. The very first sentence of Maithili language says Maithili (/ˈmaɪtɪli/; Maithilī) is an Indo-Aryan language spoken in the northern and eastern Bihar of India. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Maithili is a separate language and that is the entire point because it's now listed on the map and has the word "Hindi" underneath it.Axomika (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't you just edit the map to remove the word Hindi from underneath Bihari and then reupload it. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Would seem a simple solution. Canterbury Tail talk 16:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually spoke too soon. The appropriate article adds confusion to this Bihari languages and states that Hindi is the primary language in Bihar.Canterbury Tail talk 16:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

You tell me this too late. I've already updated the image. That said, Hindi being the main language in Bihar, isn't the same as Bihari being a Hindi language or subset of Hindi languages. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, edits like this really don't help. Seems you're the one making racist accusations. I would block you for that comment right there. Can anyone hear the whistling of an incoming hunting weapon? Canterbury Tail talk 16:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I hear the lovely but ominous sound of the didjeridu, sure. OK, let's not joke around too much: yes, this user needs to either retract a bunch of the stuff they said, or they'll get blocked. They are welcome to start a discussion on the map and its qualities and flaws, and I would advise them to look for a mapmaker who can look at this, maybe with some consensus from the Indo-Aryan talk page. What's the link for the mapmakers, those wonderful people that have superskills and make us all look better? Drmies (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop GMG^talk 16:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Filpro is topic banned from India and even if he was allowed to edit still his map would remain because this editor is clearly aware of the comments from multiple editors to bring a new map[185][186] before unilaterally removing the existing one. Also check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Burbak, filed by D4iNa4 and the evidence of sock puppetry is strong. Capitals00 (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

it may shock you but that sock puppet accusation is based on the mere fact that some users from the same region could have the same opinion. Wow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axomika (talk • contribs) 16:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Axomika If you cannot provide diffs to prove racism, you need to stop making that accusation immediately or you will be blocked. If you can't prove the allegation and you have a shred of decency, you should also apologise. Profusely. Go discuss the map. Politely. And on Wikipedia. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

What am I meant to think if multiple users refuse to engage in discussion? I am being accused of various things including sock puppetry (which is false) and despite providing sources disproving a map, I am being attacked. Ban me, I stand by everything I said however I don't have the time to engage with people who refuse to engage in discussion and throw around libellous allegations of sock puppetry while showing obvious disdain for a particular ethnic group. So like I said, please ban me. You all can revel in your pseudo-intellectual space here on Wikipedia which is tainted by BIGOTRY. This is my last post on this website.Axomika (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• To the OP's point, I don't think there's any argument against their main point, even the article we have on Maithili language supports with references what they are asking. So I believe the map is incorrect and as such may well need to be removed if it can't be corrected. Canterbury Tail talk 16:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I request that User:Axiomata be checked out as I suspect him of being a sock-puppet. Normally, users with just [then 40 edits] aren't able to edit war in this way. At first I thought he was a newbie and gave him a belated welcome etc. He had been edit-warring a month before. He is clearly aware about sources, the term sock puppet, where to complain etc. Doesn't sound like a newbie at all. AshLin (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• As for the content discussion, there is no academic consensus on whether the Bihari languages (including Maithili) are separate languages or Hindi dialects. There is good academic support for both points of view. There is no 'racism' or 'vandalism' or 'bad faith' in supporting either view. So the actual content dispute is very small, and not to be dealt with here. Much more concerning is the disruptive behavior of the OP and the many personal attacks. Despite explicit instructions to retract the attacks, they remain. Deciding how to deal with Axiomata is probably the only concern for ANI in all of this. Jeppiz (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

OP Blocked

• Given that the OP has doubled down on their accusations of bigotry after being requested to stop several times, I have blocked them indefinitely pending their agreement to behave in a civil manner and cease making such accusations. My block is always open for review, and anyone may unblock them once a clear statement of retraction is made. --Jayron32 17:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Complete non-issue which has been pursued in bad faith till he got himself blocked. This was an issue which would have most likely got the map amended as per the user's observation. Instead, he got himself a block. Sad. AshLin (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The shameful part is that I amended the map per their request. They had dug a hole deep enough and left fast enough that they didn't get to see it fixed. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for doing so. It's good to see that you were able to still improve Wikipedia through all of the noise. --Jayron32 17:35, 27 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 talk:MonarchyLover

The following discussion is closed. 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 have a look at the history of this page, now blanked by the user! It looks like the user is spinning out of control, after having uploaded 4 copyrighted images to Commons and then trying to get them into WP articles. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

"By removing the comment, the user has verified that they have read it." - there is nothing to show that "read it" means cared at all, in this case. The user has been warned and blocked for headstrong addditions of inappropriate content, but has not improved. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak to the copyright issues, which are on Commons. The user was recently blocked for 72 hours after a discussion here due to their page-moves against consensus; there's no reason to block them again at this point. And as I noted when reverting you, WP:BLANKING only prohibits removing Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm very sorry I didn't read enough to see that I should not have reverted the blanking, sincerely.

The user has intentionally uploaded copyrighted images to Commons and then added them to articles on English Wikipedia here and here, after the previous warning. Just to be clear. It is not possible to upload random images found on Google to Commons without willfully disregarding licensing and permission requirements. I just don't want anyone to think I'm griping about anything not serious, done by an innocent new user with good faith being able to be reasonably assumed. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Editors can blank their talkpage and as noted above it confirms they've read and understood what they've just deleted, As for Commons - What happens on another project has nothing to do with us as such .... If they're uploading copyvio images over there then tag as such ....

FWIW it's only due to their previous blocks that I've not closed this but I don't really see anything actionable although if an admin did want to block I'd have no objections. –Davey2010^Talk 23:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

And indef blocked by Bbb23 for sock-puppetry. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) MonarchyLover is a sock of FabianCarpena (talk · contribs · count); I have blocked both. Considering the crosswiki abuse, not just at Commons but also at es.wiki and other projects, I think global locks are in order. Ajraddatz?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

  Done. @Bbb23: if you have a second, mind sending your CU results to the list or wiki? Data is too old for me to check on Meta or login. Thanks, -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering how long it would be tolerated that a user was willfully adding copyvio images to articles here, and I'm glad there was pretty quick action. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Do y'all see now why we should put Bbb on payroll? Drmies (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• At at least triple the salary he's getting now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Now, I'm going to start humming that song again. Happens svery time I see your user name & can go on for days. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Well done. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 28 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:BLP issues at WP:ITN/C

The following discussion is closed. 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 uninvolved step in to explain to User:Stemoc that he cannot refer to someone recently deceased as a "pathological liar" per the BDP clause of WP:BLP? I'm no fan of Billy Graham, but this is getting disruptive and even though I'm aware that reverting per BLP is exempt from 3RR, I get the impression he's not listening to me or User:Stephen. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• And ... no, he's definitely not [187]. Black Kite (talk) 11:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Calling a cow a bovine is now a crime? look up the description of pathological liar and look at the work done by the person in question. The comment was added to make a justifiable point. people who do NOT know about certain people should NOT be making nominations on their behalf. This is NOT the first time Wikipedia decided to ignore the death of a known international actors by stating bullshit reasoning for it...and it definitely won't be the last. There was no option given by TRM for a blurb when it was obvious to most that that article should have received a blurb nomination. Manish tried to bring that up and Stephen abused his admin rights and blocked him.Why are only "american-known" celebrities treated better than the rest of the world, Is this wikipedia, Ameripedia or Christianpedia, please explain...in detail.--Stemoc 11:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

If you look back, it is quite a regular thing for people to be nominated at RD and then get a blurb when there is a significant support for it. Indeed, if you look at Billy Graham's nomination, it was originally posted as an RD [188] (by The Rambling Man, no less) before being converted to a blurb when sufficiently supported. So the discussion at Sridevi is nothing unusual - a number have people have already suggested a blurb so consensus will just form in the usual manner. Manish was just being disruptive trying to open a second nomination, removing other people's comments, canvassing and restoring those same BLP violations despite being warned not to multiple times. And no, you don't get to describe Graham in that way, so please don't do it again, you can compare the two nominations without resorting to that. Black Kite (talk) 11:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes but ppl were supporting RD cause no one knew that you can "support blurb", people who voted there are not the same people who vote regularly on ITN/C so if you are going to make a nomination, makes sure you make one which is the better option which in this case was a blurb, i'm pretty sure if the 8 or so people who supported RD were aware that they could support a blurb, they would have done so....--Stemoc 12:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem with that is that if people think it doesn't deserve a blurb, they vote "Oppose" and so it ends up not even getting an RD. That's why it usually works the other way round. Black Kite (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Stemoc seems to be rather POINTy when it comes to religion. I can funnily recall the last time I came across this editor, which was during a 2014 discussion concerning the nomination of the new patriarch of the Syriac Orthodox Church, which he kept describing as a "cult" despite reservations from other editors. A strong reminder that BLP applies to recently deceased individuals and that it involves talk pages as well should be issued. Fitzcarmalan (talk)
  • I'm not the one that keeps pushing religious propaganda and giving it priority to it so if i have to be POINTy to fight that injustice, so be it. My comments there stands true 3 years on, we are prioritizing religious nonsense over real news....That pastor died 4 days ago, its very much "stale news" now, lets have something more far reaching and interesting on the main page instead of the same old same old ..don't you think?--Stemoc 12:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Okay, we get it. You're an anti-religion bigot. You're also not going to get your way, so stop spouting nonsense. Nobody is pushing religious propaganda; you're just throwing a temper tantrum because you can't get your precious way. Lepricavark (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Stemoc, I very much disapprove of your tone and your direct personal attack here. Before you ever ping me again, you should know that anyone can nominate anything including RD and/or blurbs, and RD noms are regularly converted to blurb nominations. Personally attacking me and then hounding me here is completely unacceptable. I'll be keen to see you never make any such mistakes again, and if that means you are prevented from editing Wikipedia again, that would be a reasonable outcome. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Just so that Stemoc is clear, since I saw this in one of their recent edit summaries: while BLP is meant to protect living persons, it also extends to those recently deceased like Graham; the moment someone dies, we do not start throwing accusations and other factors into their articles or on talk pages, we still treat that with some decorum. How long after a person dies that BLP still applies varies, but it generally from around 6 months to a year or more if the person was highly controversial. --Masem (t) 13:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Nice to get threatened by a serial sock puppeteer and an infamous former (multiple times because our rfa process is a huge failure) admin who the arbcom does not have the balls to ban...and that is what's wrong with wikipedia today, whats that old saying? ahh yes, the inmates are running the asylum....please continue, its not like this project will have a long shelf life..--Stemoc 14:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Who's the serial sock puppeteer? Who's the "multiple time" former admin? I guess we should allow you enough rope right now because the continuation of personal attacks will only lead to one result, and that will be well deserved. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Regardless of the BDP matter, the merest review of Stemoc's behavior discloses a history of this sort of slap-happy tossing of insults: I note this AN/I discussion from a year back. Personally my reaction is to ignore them as somewhere between deliberately provocative and simply adolescent, rather like the speech of the man who so prominently figures on his user page, but it would improve discourse here if he were to stop. Mangoe (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

  No, I think it's gone beyond him just "stopping" now, further action is required. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Stemoc is not qualified to diagnose Graham, Trump, nor anyone else as "pathological liars". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) I guess most would agree with that. Question is: is Stemoc qualified to contribute to Wikipedia? Kleuske (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Indeed, the answer appears to be no, so it's time to continue on that theme. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: They just got blocked for 31 hours but that might be worth reconsidering given the fact that they outed themselves as a white supremacist neo-Nazi with this edit summary. (If you don't know what that means, you're in the minority so Google it.) 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:F15A:C440:7077:A088 (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Kek != kkk. I fail to see how kek is outing himself as anything other than possibly a World of Warcraft gamer.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Some context for the association between kek and white supremacists is available at Pepe the Frog entry. nwatra (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, no-one was saying kek=kkk, the link provided above is clear for all. A 31-hour block is welcome to avoid the personal attacks, but this has really become sickening and problematic. 20:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

With this confirmation of the "kek" problem I'd suggest this user is blocked indefinitely. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I was trying to assume good faith with the use of kek, but continuing to assert false accusations, and using the word again, I've now blocked indefinitely. Any admin is free to review my block.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 23:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Good block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I thought it, you did it. Support this. Nazis, we do not need. Guy (Help!) 00:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

1 Swarm ♠ 00:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• I would like remind everyone here that PAs are unacceptable, even against problematic users. Please remain civil.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Cyberpower678: And now Stemoc is unblocked? Where did this come from? What I see here is a consensus the user should be blocked, not a consensus to unblock him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I discussed with the user on IRC, and I'm no longer convinced the block was appropriate to begin with. The consensus here is also a bunch of people personally attacking one another, and one user getting blocked for it. Consequently I unblocked after also briefly discussing it on the admins IRC channel.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 03:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

      • As someone who has not participated yet, and rarely hangs out at ITN/C, personally I can't say an unblock is a wise choice unless Stemoc agrees to cut out the random insults and attacks of LPs or RDs.

        Sure it may not be the worst BLP problem, but there's really no reason why an editor should be insulting LPs and RDs. I'm particularly concerned if an editor calls a subject covered by BLP a pathological liar and then tries to keep it up when challenged. I'm not so concerned about the history linked above since it looks like in that case Stemoc wasn't calling the LP 'retarded' etc but saying the picture makes them look that way. While I think that's language that should be avoided for multiple reasons, it doesn't quite rise to the same level of concern.

        I am concerned that their talk page suggests they were calling another LP 'dumbo'. While these sort of personal attacks or insults are not the worst thing possible (e.g. calling someone a rapist, paedophile, murderer) they still aren't something that is acceptable especially if an editor keeps making them and insists they should stay up. The fact that these people are probably often called these and worse not just in forums but in opinions pieces etc is still no excuse for them.

        I'm actually not so worried about the kek issue, since I'm not seeing any other evidence of white supremacist leanings from the editor. There is always going to be the question of how you handle stuff that has become associated with some horrible movement or person but also has some other meaning for other people. Should these people completely abandon something just because of the association or do they keep using it? To give an example, given my Chinese heritage, I do often use the number 8 for fun, including 88 particularly when it comes to money (e.g. 88 cents). I didn't even know of the other association for this until a few years ago and that was long after I even started using wikipedia. Of course if someone likes to hang out at the race and intelligence, Black Lives Matter, The Holocaust and other such pages and use kek or has 88 on their username, there is going to be major concern.

        In this case, the lack of any other evidence suggests to me at worse it may be some lame form of trolling than any real white supremacist leanings.

        Nil Einne (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

        • Looking again at their talk page again, I see another concern. They seem to have unnecessarily insulted someone who appears to be the husband of a subject by outright rejecting the claim with a silly "I'm Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie's ex husband, nice to meet you" comment. Sure we always have to take care and ask for verification where necessary with someone's self identification. However there is no need for random insults, and in this particular case it was fairly silly. From what I can see, while the editor could have been lying, it was also easily possible they were telling the truth. (It was very important that the copyright issues were resolved, but again that could have happened without the silly insult.) Stemoc really sounds like an editor who has no clue how to deal with BLPs. Nil Einne (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
          • So just to be clear the block was made on personal authority for attacking other editors. However having talked to the user, and reflected, Stemoc wasn't the only one attacking yet he was the only one blocked. I unblocked after thinking it through and discussing it with the other admins. With that being said whether or not Stemoc should be blocked for BLP issues, I won't comment, and will defer judgement to other admins.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 05:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
          • (EC) I'm reminded in particular of this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive961#BLPVIO and Stephen Miller (political advisor) discussion concerning another editor. Sure the attacks there were more serious, still we really need to cut down on editors thinking it's okay to toss out random attacks on LPs (or RDs). At least the editor here didn't start making the attacks in this thread, still it seemed clear they werein no way willing to accept what they did was wrong, or more importantly that they needed to stop. Nil Einne (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a very poor unblock decision. Personal attacks and BLP attacks and continual white supremecy usage should not be tolerated. Having a "chat on IRC" is completely inappropriate and should be strongly discouraged as subversive and completely non-transparent. This sets a very disturbing precedent. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Is reinstating a self-reverted action wheel-warring? GoldenRing (talk) 10:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Technically it isn't. Otherwise it would set the door wide open for admins to prevent someone else taking action by doing some action and then reverting their own action. Plus, there is clear consensus here that the user should be blocked, and some nebulous IRC discussion between the (un-blocking) admin and the blocked user doesn't overrule that. Fram (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man and Fram: My block was strictly for making personal attacks, and it's not like others haven't attacked him in the process, yet he was the only one blocked for making them. So with that being said, I considered my block unfair and undid it. After which I pulled back, and left the decision to block based on the BLP issues to another admin. I'm not getting involved in this issue anymore.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Probably for the best. Conducting these kinds of activities via IRC is definitely not appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Well that kind of just happened. He approached me on IRC and we had a civil and pleasant discussion about the block, after which I felt my block was premature. I should have let the thread continue to play out instead. Lessons learned, and experience gained.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Y'all need to understand something here. By referring to Graham as a "pathological liar" for espousing Christian faith and belief, simply because he does not share that belief is bigoted beyond words and not only a personal attack on Graham , but on every Christian in the world. If it weren't so repugnant, it would almost be humorously ironic that his block was made indefinite when it appeared he made an obscure reference to the KKK, but it's just fine to insult every Christian in the world. Indeffd is the appropriate result here, just as much as if he'd made a blatant racist or antisemitic attack. John from Idegon (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeff has been reinstated per the obvious consensus here by John. Bravo. 18:10, 26 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.

Old account inaccessible

My old account and email (Darren1988cdm) are inaccessible. Could an administrator move the talk page over to this new account? How do I go about proving I am the owner of the old account? Darrencdm1988 (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Darrencdm1988:, because I was concerned this might be a compromised account, I posted about this on this page above. Alfie ran a check user and has verified both accounts as you. Also above, Oshwah has made the rather practical suggestion that you simply redirect your old talk page to the one you're using now. — Maile (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Maile66:, Important distinction: I didn't run a checkuser, I put in a request for a checkuser to run a checkuser. There'sNoTime ran the actual checksuer, IIRC. Other than that, you're correct! -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 20:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Alfie Thank you. I was close, but no lollipop. — Maile (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've merged the old talk page history with your new talk page, so it's officially the same talk page under a different name (the old page still redirects to the new one). As for proving you're the same person, as indicated above, it's already been proven by a checkuser, and that's it. You won't have to worry about it coming up again. Swarm ♠ 02:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Could this also be done with the user contributions page as well? Just curious. Darrencdm1988 (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Darrencdm1988: Sorry, the user contributions are fixed to the account in question and cannot be moved to another user (well, a developer probably could but won't). You can always link to your old account's contributions on your user page and your signature. Regards SoWhy 11:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Can an IP range be banned from certain articles?

IP using range 175.45.116 keeps bring disruptive on 2017-18 A-League changing soccer to football, normally not a problem but with Australian articles, football is known as soccer there as per WP:NCFA. See IP 175.45.116.69, 175.45.116.70 and 175.45.116.74 all recently did this edit. They don't normally do it enough to end up banned, but as per 175.45.116.69 even after getting banned, they are back doing it again. Just wondering if there is a way to restrict them from editing the article or do we just have to keep managing by reverting them. NZFC^(talk) 06:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

175.45.116.64/28 is the range, but it doesn't seem like enough to warrant a rangeblock. You should perhaps request protection at WP:RFPP. Nihlus 06:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thought I'd check. Don't really think it needs page protection because there is legitimate IPs that edit it and approval would be more troublesome than just reverting this IP. NZFC^(talk) 06:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Persistent changing of apostrophes and quotation marks: straight to curly

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

---

Hgrosser (talk | contribs) has changed straight apostrophes and quotation marks to curly several times (e.g., [[189]], [[190]], [[191]], [[192]]), in violation of MOS:STRAIGHT; has been warned more than once (e.g., [[193]], [[194]]); and has removed such warnings from his/her talk page more than once (e.g., [[195]], [[196]]). Would it be appropriate for an administrator to intervene?—Anita5192 (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

In looking at their userpage, they state they edit using a script called wikEd. In looking at your diffs provided, and some other of their contibs, it looks like they do mainly copy editing and the curly changes appear as secondary changes. In looking at the talk page diffs provided, one was from Sept 2017 and the other from Nov 2013 -- can't judge maliciousness by those. In the 2017 diff, an editor expressed concern that this was a script glitch, which I suspected as well. Pinging @Cacycle: who maintains the script to see if they know if this is a known bug. HTH, Rgrds. --64.85.216.76 (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've warned the user. If they do it again, let me know.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 21:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • This is not a problem or bug of wikEd as far as I can see. Cacycle (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
    • @Cyberpower678: This user has done this again today with this edit: [[197]].—Anita5192 (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
      • I've blocked the user indefinitely as they've breached the final warning given. Obviously they can return whenever they start communicating and are able to explain themselves. Swarm ♠ 01:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Repetead WP:WIKIHOUNDING accusations at Talk:Battle of Szina

The following discussion is closed. 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 a classical dispute regarding the language of place-names on Talk:Battle of Szina. Furthermore, an accusation of WP:WIKIHOUNDING was launched 13 times in the discussion thread. Maybe an administrator is needed for a mediation, to break the infinite looking loop. 123Steller (talk) 12:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• That dispute is a bit too stale and a bit too minor for action, as it just appears to be an overly heated content dispute between two editors. Looks like some outside opinions are starting to pop up though, so hopefully that stalemate won't continue further. If it does, editors are advised to seek dispute resolution. Swarm ♠ 02:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Tea1212

The following discussion is closed. 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 over two months, please see User talk:Tea1212#Sources about creating many unreferenced articles. They won't respond or address the issue. I have directed them to WP:Communication is required, WP:BURDEN and WP:V, but no change. Boleyn (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Paul Thomas explained this phenomenon. Fans want to write the narratives of their fandom, NPOV and sources be damned. If it were me, I'd block Tea1212 per NOTHERE. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I would be careful about making that accusation, Chris - see WP:NOTNOTHERE. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:59, 26 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:Sanajeh

The following discussion is closed. 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 several messages over nearly a month about creating unreferenced articles, see User talk:Sanajeh#Sources, but Sanajeh won't respond, but continues editing and continues creating unreferenced articles like Kiangyousteus.

I have directed them towards WP:Communication is required, WP:V and WP:BURDEN. They have also been contacted by other editors about this issue, see User talk:Sanajeh#About sources and reversions. Boleyn (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This is somewhat annoying because the editor is clearly capable of producing useful stubs that could be readily sourced (as in Kiangyousteus, which I just did) but they frequently don't seem to want to bother. They are also completely uncommunicative. Can someone break out that nifty "Oy! Pay attention!" script so that they are at least obliged to drop in here and start talking? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:06, 27 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:Tamas0103

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

---

Tamas has been receiving warnings about creating poor articles for some time, see User talk:Tamas0103#Please take a little time to look at the suggestions Wikipedia editors are giving you from 16 months ago. They have never edited their talk page, so may be unsure how to do so, but it's really easy and they've been editing quite a while. I'm also assuming a language barrier may be an issue here, but if it means the editor can't work out these issues, then they would be better, as has been suggested to them before, editing only in languages they are fluent in.

I have left several messages at User talk:Tamas0103#Sources, over the last month, but Tamas has continued to edit but not to reply. I have directed them towards WP:Communication is required, WP:V and WP:BURDEN, but they just continue. Boleyn (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Boleyn, the user hasn't been on since the 19th, as I'm sure you saw. Their additions are indeed problematic, and combined with a total lack of communication, that's indeed troubling. If they come back and continue in the same vein, we should consider blocking. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

He has had a few days' off but he has continued with the lack of communication and not addressing the issues after my first four messages - I don't think the fifth message will make any difference unless we ensure we have their attention by an indefinite block, which means they will have to communicate, and when they do, they can edit again. I think four warnings over a month is enough, Drmies. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:04, 28 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:Garam

The following discussion is closed. 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 the article Bareun Future Party, User:Garam has, within the past two to three weeks, attempted to change the name of the party, via edits and page moves, numerous times without community consensus and in blatant violation of conventions. The conventions have been made clear to him numerous times, and evidence presented of the current article name being more prevalent than the version he is pushing. The user has refused all overtures for a resolution to the issue, insisting that the party be called by its Korean name, even on English Wikipedia. The issue is leading to a degredation of quality in Korean-related materials, and after exhausting all options, I am hereby asking for action to be taken. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 02:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a routine content dispute, Kiteinthewind, and this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. What action do you propose that we take? I do not see any behavior from Garam that requires action from an administrator. That editor is discussing the matter on the article's talk page and bringing forward examples of use of the name you do not like in reliable English language sources. I advise against taking a combative stance on this issue, and instead work toward a consensus solution where all the names used by reliable English language sources are included in the lead section of the article. This is a newly founded political party, after all, and it may take some time for the English language usage to shake out. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Looks like there's no stable version so it's hard to claim either side is equivocally in the right. I've protected the page for the duration of the RM discussion, as the names should not be changed either way while a formal DR discussion is open. Swarm ♠ 02:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Niyaz ibrahim

The following discussion is closed. 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 five times now over more than a month about creating unreferenced articles. They have not responded although they have edited their talk page several times, so although quite new, they do know how to do this.

I have directed them to WP:Communication is required, WP:V and WP:BURDEN, they've ignored this. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 12:41, 27 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:Διοτιμα

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

---

Διοτιμα is disruptively editing the article Introduction to Metaphysics (Heidegger). He or she has repeated many versions of this edit, which I consider objectionable, among other reasons, because it removes all mention of the fact that in Introduction to Metaphysics Heidegger referred to the "inner truth and greatness" of National Socialism from the lead of the article, along with mention of the fact that the book "has been widely regarded as fascist in character". In my opinion this amounts to outright censorship and distortion and is utterly unacceptable. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is obliged to mention "the most important points, including any prominent controversies" - the pro-Nazi references in Introduction to Metaphysics are an obvious example of this. The most recent revert by Διοτιμα can be seen here. It was done without any edit summary, indicating the user's lack of interest in discussion or compromise. I am posting here because I honestly cannot see another way of dealing with this user, and an ANI discussion seems better than interminable edit warring over the issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

What other methods of dispute resolution have you tried before asking admins for help? If you can show us the results of those, it would let us know that all avenues of fixing the problem have been exhausted. --Jayron32 13:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• yeah I don't know about admin intervention, but I threw in some old-fashioned editor intervention. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Hmm. Some further digging reveals a pattern, maybe: "Expectedly to a vainglorious simpleton, it is poor writing without even asking for clarificaion" (from September 2017, the "simpleton" being FKC), proving both the quality of writing produced by this editor (one of the reasons for my revert to FKC's version) and the personal attacks, which does indeed make it difficult to deal with the editor. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

  If that's the case, I'd like to see more of that evidence; the OP only presented this as a basic content dispute, and not as a behavioral issue. We aren't really here (at this board) to decide between versions of an article, and whose version is better. This board is to handle behavioral issues, and the OP's initial description of the problem focuses only on content issues; for example the OP asserts that the user in question has a "lack of interest in discussion or compromise", but presented no situations where discussion or compromise was attempted. It may have been. But I'm not going to go dig through pages of diffs to find it. It's the OPs responsibility to provide us with the evidence that an admin needs to step in to block someone or protect an article or something. If it hasn't gotten to that point, then there doesn't need to be a discussion here. Maybe someone does need a block; but if so, help us do that by gathering the evidence. --Jayron32 19:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

  • It would be my "responsibility to provide us with the evidence that an admin needs to step in to block someone or protect an article or something" if I were calling for Διοτιμα to be blocked or the article to be protected. I was not. I agree that neither of those things would be appropriate at this stage. I was simply hoping that someone would do something helpful, and fortunately someone did. Thank you, Drmies. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Ha, FKC, that's the ANI equivalent of "AfD is not for article improvement"--a clever ruse! You now ANI is for blocks and other administrative action. But I can't help but wonder if this digging wouldn't be worth your time if you run into more problems with this editor. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 28 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.

Vios of DE, BATTLEGROUND, AGF

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

---

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

Repeated and ongoing violation of WP:DE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:AGF at Sutherland Springs church shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), re-reverting against both me and Ianmacm. Has ignored multiple requests to take the issue to article talk. See their UTP and mine. Requesting a short block. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It appears that Stephen Willeford is a NRA member [198] but this isn't obviously relevant to the shooting itself.-♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Me right now. ...Wait, shit, the only reason I've been watching is because I'm an admin who has Mandruss's talk page on his watchlist.

(Puts on admin pants) I haven't blocked yet because ASM is at 3 reverts and a newbie. Hence, handing him rope and seeing what he does with it. I'm not taking action just yet, but sure ain't gonna stop anyone else from doing so and will even back up whatever action some other admin takes. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

This is AllSidesMatter. I'm not a coder so I won't be able to post links and such like you have. Your main grievance against me is that I named Stephen Willeford the first time he was referenced by the article. Standard writing practice dictates that if you're referring to someone -- especially if you identify them at some point -- you identify their name the first time they are referred to. By changing "a male civilian" to "Stephen Willeford, a local resident," I am adding information and value to the article. Not only am I identifying the person that was previously left a mystery for several paragraphs but I also revealed that he was a local resident. Both of these facts serve to more fully inform interested readers about the details of this shooting. This aligns with Wiki's BOLD, revert, discuss style. Furthermore, Besides the shooter himself, Stephen is the most critical player in this event yet you're pushing to have his name removed until further down in the article. That just doesn't make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs) 20:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

You made a bold edit, it was reverted, you failed to discuss it. "Bold, revert, discuss" is more than one word for a reason. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a behavior complaint, not a content discussion. You could have had the latter on the article talk page as suggested multiple times. Instead, you chose to re-revert yet again because our arguments didn't make sense to you. You had your chance to resolve the content dispute in the manner described in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you declined it, and now we're here. We are not going to discuss the merit of your edit here. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Personally I think that naming Stephen Willeford is a WP:BLPNAME issue. Wikipedia articles are not written in news style and do not include phrases like "21-year-old John Doe from Oshkosh" unless this is necessary for a full understanding of what happened. We should also be discussing this at Talk:Sutherland Springs church shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Since this is about behavior more than content, I'll say here that I was ignorant of proper editing etiquette and will adhere more closely to proper etiquette from now on. I did actually open dialogue with Mandruss -- I posted on my own talk page and his own as well. I didn't refuse to discuss, I just did things in the wrong order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs) 20:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Give sufficient reason as to why you're choosing to delete pertinent facts from the page I've edited or you will be reported to Admins for disruptive editing. is not "opening dialogue", especially while still re-reverting at the article. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, Stephen is one of two critical players in the shooting. Common sense as well as standard writing practices demands that Stephen be identified as early as he is referenced. Kelley, the shooter, is referenced and identified by name in the second sentence. It stands to reason that since Stephen -- the man who stopped the shooter, the local hero -- is also referred to in the first paragraph, he should also be identified by name. I don't understand why someone would fight to keep Stephen's identity hidden from anyone casually glancing at the first paragraph before moving on from their research into the matter. Mandruss says IDing Stephen in the first paragraph is excessive -- that is patently false. The shooter is named, so should the hero who stopped the shooter be named. The man who stopped the shooter is one of the top key details of this event. The man's name should absolutely be included in the overview. This is not politics, this is common sense and journalistic integrity — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs) 20:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Since this is about behavior more than content (proceeds to go on about content). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Ian, show me the rule that says editors can't identify key figures to an event in the first paragraph. Your decision to uphold Mandruss' edit needs to be backed by a rule. Unless Wiki allows and encourages Admin to act with prejudice. If I broke a rule in the way I added content, I'm fine with the decision. But if I broke no rule, and instead added value to the article, then I stand firmly against your decision to defend Mandruss' edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs) 20:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Show me where I've said anything about what shape the article should take. The closest I've come to commenting is saying that there needs to be high-quality sources for any claims about living people. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Ian: "Since this is about behavior more than content, I'll say here that I was ignorant of proper editing etiquette and will adhere more closely to proper etiquette from now on. I did actually open dialogue with Mandruss -- I posted on my own talk page and his own as well. I didn't refuse to discuss, I just did things in the wrong order." — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs) 20:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Again: you finally got that this discussion is about behavior instead of content, and yet you keep bringing up content. Drop the content issue, it only gives weight to Mandruss's complain regarding your bad attitude. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Give sufficient reason as to why you're choosing to delete pertinent facts from the page I've edited or you will be reported to Admins for disruptive editing. is not "opening dialogue", especially while still re-reverting at the article. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I have already admitted I did things out of order and didn't closely adhere to proper Wiki editing etiquette as per the BOLD, Revert, Discuss page. Mandruss's complaint is now resolved.

This content discussion is MY complaint against Mandruss. If this needs to be started in a new thread it can be, but I think it can just as easily be handled right here.

Ian, your reference to WP:BLPNAME as a reason for why Stephen should not be named doesn't actually apply. There is nothing in WP:BLPNAME to support your claim, I've looked it over now.

The possible relevant clauses in WP:BLPNAME are as follows:

1) Subjects notable only for one event 2) People who are relatively unknown 3) Privacy of names

however none of those clauses actually address this issue. Stephen is already a well-known name; he has been named in every major news publication from USA Today, to WaPo, to CBS, to CNN, to FOX, and so on and so forth. He is not relatively unknown anymore thus privacy is not a concern. All three conditions under the clause "Subjects notable only for one event" must be met and naming Stephen earlier in the article is not an issue that meets criteria 2 or 3.

Furthermore, the article does identify Stephen in the main body so identifying him earlier in the article is a non-issue entirely. If he wasn't named at all in the article, then we should be having this discussion, but he is already identified in the wiki article.

There is absolutely no reason why Stephen's name should not appear when he is referenced in the opening paragraph, especially considering he played the 2nd biggest role in this event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs) 20:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

":Give sufficient reason as to why you're choosing to delete pertinent facts from the page I've edited or you will be reported to Admins for disruptive editing. is not "opening dialogue", especially while still re-reverting at the article. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)". Technically it is, Ian. I'm engaging him in dialogue. I'm conveying to him that I need his reasons as to why he is reverting my edits. That is part of the "Discuss" portion of editing etiquette. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs) 20:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

You still fail to get it. There is no "right order" for edit warring and battleground behavior. And the reason for the original BRD revert of your edit was given in that edit summary, so why would you need to come to my talk page and request the reason? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

And this noticeboard really isn't for content disputes. That's what the article's talk page is for. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

My complaint is that Mandruss started an edit war with me without just cause. That is something to be posted on the admin complaint board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs) 20:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC) And there is a right order to BOLD, Revert, Discuss. The order is: BOLD, Revert Discuss. I skipped the first round of Discuss and did a few Reverts before the first Discuss. That was the wrong order. If you want to talk Edit Wars, speak to Mandruss who started it. Without just cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs) 20:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC) In fact, Ian, that's what I'm asking you to do here. Speak with Mandruss about his unjustified edit war with me. I am not the one on trial here for improper content and the issue of improperly following editing etiquette has been resolved.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs)

As has been explained before, no, you reverted multiple editors without discussing matters.

@AllSidesMatter: Are you really not gonna drop this until someone gets blocked? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you asking me to drop my own complaint, Ian, before it gets resolved or I face a ban? I didn't know who I was reverting, to be honest. I didn't know how to read the edit history in full so I assumed it was Mandruss the whole time. This issue is resolved: I've admitted that I didn't Discuss before Reverting because I was unaware of procedure and now that I'm aware of it, I will be sure to adhere to proper procedure from here on out regarding BOLD, revert, discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs) 20:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC) My complaint, however, is not resolved. Are you impartial here or do you just want me to shut up and stuff my legitimate complaint?— Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs)

I'm asking you what outcome you want from this. Do you really believe this needs to end with someone being blocked, that this is a zero-sum issue, with one side completely right and one side completely wrong?

I didn't know who I was reverting - That indicates that you're the one who was edit warring.

And how many times do I have to explain that you made a bold edit, it was reverted, and you failed to discuss it...? It is not "bold, revert, revert, discuss," or "bold, revert, revert, revert, revert, discuss." Ian.thomson (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

By AllSidesMatter: I never suggested anyone be banned so I don't know why you put it like I did. I don't think a ban is needed here.

I hardly even have a complaint, to be honest. I believe Stephen should be IDed in the initial paragraph of the article. I've given more than sufficient evidence as to why naming Stephen in the first paragraph makes sense. When asked for your reasons as to why he shouldn't, you pointed to broad wiki articles without specifying how the clauses within applied. I've displayed how your cited justifications don't apply. So this entire issue will be resolved and forgotten once Stephen's name is listen in the first paragraph of the article. That is the outcome I want from this and it is a very reasonable one.

":I didn't know who I was reverting - That indicates that you're the one who was edit warring." No, it just means that I didn't know who I was reverting. THAT I was reverting without discussing is the edit war indicator BUT there has to be two participants or more for there to be an edit war. I was not the only one edit warring yet you are acting like it. Mandruss continuously reverted my changes as well.

":And how many times do I have to explain that you made a bold edit, it was reverted, and you failed to discuss it...? It is not "bold, revert, revert, discuss," or "bold, revert, revert, revert, revert, discuss." Ian.thomson (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)"

Ian I've admitted to this like 4 times now. I said I didn't follow the proper order of things. In fact I already said this: "I skipped the first round of Discuss and did a few Reverts before the first Discuss. That was the wrong order." There is no argument to be had here. I've already agreed with you, a few times, in the past now. By AllSides Matter— Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs)

Again, this is not the place for a content dispute. What you think belongs or doesn't belong in the article doesn't matter on this noticeboard, quit wasting time and space about that.

If you aren't going to drop your complaint about Mandruss, what is it you expect to happen, exactly?

And you have no room to complain about anyone (supposedly) not following BRD when you were the one who threw out the cycle to begin with. Pull the plank from your own eye before pointing out the mote in the eye of another. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Ian when did I complain about someone else not following BRD? Please cite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs) 22:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Suggest close: (Non-administrator comment) This is clearly generating more heat than light. AllSidesMatter seems to be committed to BRD and reading the page history for edit summaries; they also admit that they "hardly even have a complaint." If everyone is willing to drop their complaints and discuss the content on the talk page (which AllSidesMatter has begun doing), please close. (FYI, AllSidesMatter, you can't edit in a ping after the fact; that won't work. You need to make a new message with a proper signature, for example, Ping {{u|Example}} ~~~~. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah I didn't know that. Man, there's an extraordinarily high learning curve to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs) 22:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I think this should be closed as well. It got entirely out of hand -- it should be possible to resolve this on the page talk thingy unless it has to be elevated to admin review again. AllSidesMatter (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

FTR: The user has started the article talk thread. I have commented there, providing my rationale and stating that I will probably not be involved in a long debate about it. I expect there will be other participation including Ianmacm. The user has advised that they will reinstate their edit if I fail to WP:SATISFY them and I have advised them against that. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss, you did not provide sufficient reason to have your revert upheld. It is not about satisfying my personal desire -- it is about pointing to an actual rule or guideline I broke by making the edit I chose to make. You've failed to do so. Your participation in the article talk thread amounted to you restating previous rationales that don't hold to scrutiny and then saying you were leaving the discussion. AllSidesMatter (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

If you leave the DISCUSSion, you are causing a breakdown in the BOLD, Revert, Discuss cycle. If you refuse to Discuss, you no longer have a dog in this race and should have no complaint if I choose to reinstate my previous edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs) 23:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC) AllSidesMatter (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but that simply isn't how it works. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm doing everything possible here to hold to the BOLD, Revert, Discuss guideline. I don't see a ban happening if I reinstate my edit when you were the one who reverted and when you are the one now leaving the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs) 00:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I guess we'll see, then. We'll see if an editor who is adhering to the BOLD, Revert, Discuss guideline gets banned because you chose to leave the discussion. Or, of course, you could choose to actually cite ONE way in which I violated any kind of rule, guideline, or common practice regarding the content of my edit. You still haven't done that. You do not have any ground to stand on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs) 00:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

[closed at this point by Mpants at work]

I encourage anyone interested in weighing in to do so here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sutherland_Springs_church_shooting#Identifying_the_second_most_important_individual_in_this_event_by_name_in_the_opening_paragraph

As I've stated on the article talk page, I'm reinstating my edit to change "a male civilian" in the first paragraph to: "local resident Stephen Willeford" — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs) 00:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work: I don't know whether this was ready for close, considering that the user is still making up his own "rules of engagement", contrary to the widely accepted WP:SATISFY, and threatening to continue the disruption if I don't discuss this with them until they are convinced. I see little point in requiring the opening of a continuation complaint tomorrow. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: If you revert me, I won't edit war over it. I got the impression from reading this that the thread was just encouraging the newb to dig their own grave by getting worked up over it (newbs are a lot less comfortable with ANI threads about us than us old farts). But if you're sure there are behavioral problems severe enough to require further discussion, be my guest. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

[reopened at this point by Mandruss]

Thanks, reopened. I don't think we're done by any means. If the user modifies the article without talk page consensus, it seems to me that's a crystal clear block situation. I've stated my rationale, they have said nothing to change my mind, and I am not required to discuss until they say I've discussed enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

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

urgent 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.

---

Would the first admin to see this email ping me. I need to send someone an email.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Yes? Alex Shih (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Thanks. email sent.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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

223.104.107.207

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

---

Would someone be willing to take a look into 223.104.107.207's conduct? In a span of 17 minutes this morning, this brand new editor made 15 reverts across various articles. Some of these reverts may be reasonable but others definitely are not (example). Something fishy is going on here. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think we've hit on some Chinese sensibilities. Some of the stuff was (to my estimation) disruptive, so I've reverted a bunch and issued a level one warning for disruption. Kleuske (talk) 17:58, 28 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.

"Math vandal"

Not too long ago, no more than a few weeks, we had someone vandalizing math articles, inserting formulae and stuff like that--but I can't remember a name. Please see the work of User:Qazxswdfghjkvy6euevdttcvcw5vy, who can hardly be a new editor. Drmies (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

That looks to me like someone experimenting with Wikipedia's math editing features (WP:MATH). As a user of those features I can confirm that it takes some practice. I don't see any edits of Qazxswdfghjkvy6euevdttcvcw5vy other than in their user sandbox, which is a good place for such experiments. Of course it's possible that they are connected with some past vandalism that I didn't see or don't remember, but nothing like that is obvious from looking at their current contribs. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 05:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict

This has to do with the protection of Kashmir conflict in the wrong version. I just got a friend request on Facebook from someone claiming to be the real life name of Kautilya3. Seeing as they seemed to be an editor I recognised I added them. So a few minutes later I get a message from them telling me that I'm a bastard (I know that already) I need to revert this or they will join forces with Sitush and Vanamonde (I think they mean Vanamonde93 and have me "desypopped" (which sounds quite painful). Now I suspect that neither Sitush or Vanamonde93 know anything about this and I'm leaning towards the FB account being fake and not really Kautilya3 but whoever is behind the IP, 27.107.82.190. Oh, apparently they haven't heard of screenshots as part of the message said "you won't have any proof of this message when I deactivate". CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Fake indeed. If not, then best wishes for you CambridgeBayWeather, you will be desysoped soon ;) — MapSGV (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

This is serious off-wiki harassment if he's truly attempting to create social media accounts in order to impersonate another editor (severely if it contains his personal information). This needs to be taken care of privately. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment: This is concerning. The IP 27.107.82.190 is based in Bangalore from a look at the geolocation. Some months ago there was an IP from the same city Bangalore trying to frame KA$HMIR for sockpuppetry.[199] Around the same time a very similar Indian IP, familiar with Kautilya3, turned up and tried to frame both KA$HMIR and Owais Khursheed.[200] Owais then took this to WP:SPI[201]. The administrator then did not think it worth their while to run a CU. CambridgeBayWeather you should take a read of the case. I think its time CUs are run and relevant action. It is getting too much. These IPs show coordination and are clearly not new editors. The bullies are IP socking to escape the consequences of WP:HARASSMENT.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

NadirAli It seems to me that you are stretching this a bit too far and connecting other IP's to this incident with scant evidence and to a SPI which was more POV motivated against Kautilya3 and MBlaze Lightning. Yes this particular incident is definitely concerning since they are trying to impersonate Kautilya3 and a serious off wiki harassment and should be dealt with accordingly. The IP 27.107.82.190 (talk · contribs) seems to be connected to this incident but I don't see a connection with others. The other IPs 223.31.156.6 (talk · contribs), 42.109.194.95 (talk · contribs) you mention are all from different ISP's and not necessarily from the same city (different geo-locations state different locations). Let's try to focus at the situation at hand rather than random theories. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment': I agree with NadirAli. I think all these IPs are connected. They all share the interests and motives of Kautilya3. Whether it be the grudges against other editors or the page versions they want. If two IPs in two different cities, Bangalore and Delhi, were in coordination with the same purpose its likely there's a deeper collaboration which we need to uncover and this new Bangalore IP is part of it. We know that the Bangalore IP has admitted by their word ″we″ to being not alone. The recent Bangalore IP is likely one or more of them. I would recommend that CambridgeBayWeather run a CU on all those who were supporting the block proposal for Xinjao. "vandalism". We might find the troublemaker. DarSahab (talk) 06:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I've been notified of this thread as per the standard ANI m.o. but I know absolutely nothing about the matter being reported., it is extremely rare that I get involved in Kashmir-related stuff and I have never been active on Facebook. If anyone gets targeted by someone using my name or similar in this way then it'll be fake. - Sitush (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Right after I posted this I went back to FB and linked to this section and asking if they knew what a screenshot was. Within minutes the FB user deactivated their account and removed the reply. I don't believe that Kautilya3 has ever posted anything indicating their real name. However, I'm even more sure now than I was earlier that the FB person is not Kautilya3. I also don't the FB has any real clue as to Kautilya3's identity. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

DarSahab are you seriously suggesting that I go to WP:SPI (because I'm not a checkuser) and ask that all the editors that posted oppose at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive976#WP:CIR, editor frequently calling constructive edits a "vandalism" be checkusered? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes that made no sense. I think that either NadirAli or Darsahab or anyone close to these two users is behind this disruption given how these two users are taking it "too far". Pretend to be Kautilya3 since he is clearly their major opponent in these content disputes and then seek some action against him and or at least get his account checked by a CU. Pathetic. — MapSGV (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Can't a CU check be performed? The IP threatened Mar4d ″we will get you blocked like we got Xinjao.″ ″We″ is more than one peron. I feel there is collaboration going on. And this person or persons don't seem very smart. They have left a clue by saying Xinjao. I also think the behaviour of the similar but separate pro-Kautilya3 IPs in Delhi and Bangalore match this IP. The demands and actions are almost identical. DarSahab (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I think this impersonation hypothesis is tremulous. How is it possible that someone here can find out a user's real-life identity? Is security on Wikipedia so fragile we can't trust Wikipedia the secret of our identities when we sign up here?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

DarSahab if you think a checkuser is required then you ask for one. And I never said the FB user had the correct real life identity. Some users give theirs out but I don't think Kautilya3 ever did. CambridgeBayWeather (mobile) (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

You have no real way of knowing if the personal details provided are actually those of the user. @CambridgeBayWeather: - this is probably all a discussion better done via an email from you to [email protected] as per the guidance in Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment. Fish Karate 08:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• I don't know anything about this IP, but I have a feeling he/she has been around the Wikispace for a while. They probably had an account sometime, got blocked and now hover around, watching. So far, that amounts to little. But I know the big picture, which is that the thousands of accounts that we have blocked over the years, now form communities or gangs, for whom Wikipedia is a drama, and we are all its characters. These characters have fans as well as enemies, and engage in gang warfare. The gangs stray into the drama itself, every now and then, and bring their gang warfare here. The proliferation of WP:NOTBORNYESTERDAY accounts, against which we seem to have no defence, are coming from these gangs. I found the Xinjao block affair quite fishy, which is why I didn't vote on it. But I voted on the unblock request, against my better judgement, and unwittingly became part of the drama. If we want to fight these gangs, we need more defences against the NOTBORNYESTERDAY accounts. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

AfD troubles

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

---

Neutral messages to wikiprojects are already bad enough in influencing the outcomes of AfDs (see the difference between Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Virgin Islands men's junior national softball team and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore women's junior national softball team for a striking example), but when they also start to blatantly canvass people, it may be time to bring in the cavalery some neutral editors to get this back on the rails.

The AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irlam (1813 ship), the canvasser is User:Acad Ronin (the article creator), with messages like this and this. Yes, we normally need to discuss problems first with the editor involved, but once the canvassing has been done, the damage is done and getting a fair AfD with uninvolved opinions is a lot harder than it already was. The people at the AfD so far have not been directly canvassed (only by the neutral project message), but even so the thing is an example of what makes Wikipedia discussions so tedious and disheartening. Fram (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Neutral messages to wikiprojects are allowed, and even encouraged by policy. If you see someone canvassing inappropriately, yes, you are expected to discuss the issue with them before opening an ANI. Long time editors and administrators are not exempt from the expectation to not use ANI as the first step in the dispute resolution process. If you like, you may note on the AfD that certain editors were notified contrary to policy, if those editors choose to participate, and this should be duly considered by the closer. Neutral messages to relevant noticeboards are also allowed and encouraged by policy. ANI is not a particularly relevant noticeboard, and asking to call in the cavalry to get your AfD back on track is not a neutral message.

Acad Ronin, this type of notification is not appropriate. Please stop. GMG^talk 15:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

In what way is "asking to call in the cavalry to get your AfD back on track is not a neutral message. ", certainly after there has been canvassing. When you are already on opposing sides, like in an AfD, it rarely helps if you complain about canvassing and so on. Bringing in an uninvolved editor to restore some semblance of normalcy and to indicate to everyone involved what is acceptable and what isn't may get a better effect. Noting the canvassing only at the AfD and at the editor's talk page sounds very nice, but the end result is that the canvasser gets the message out to whoever they choose, and the opposing opinion gets to drop a measley note at the AfD. Raising the issue here (or at another noticeboard, if you have a better suggestion) brings the AfD to the attention of a wider group of uninvolved editors of all opinions, not just a selected group of editors with a one-sided point of view (at least, that's what the canvasser / notifier hopes, it doesn't always work out that way). Fram (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Well that was easy. GMG^talk 16:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment - This should not have been brough here. As an apparent first offence, it is something that can easily be handled by some words of advice on a one to one basis. I will attend to this in a minute. IMvHO, this thread should be closed as "no further action needed". I'm sure Acad Ronin will have learnt his lesson. Fram may well fall foul of the Streisand effect by raising this here, as more editors may well join the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Serbian national teams, again

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

---

A few weeks ago I reported Gagibgd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for revert-warring at 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), and, more importantly, a complete failure to engage. I dropped the issue after he sort of wrote a reluctant talk page post, but we're back to square one with revert-warring. I tried to engage him at Talk:Serbia men's national water polo team but with no futher response. Having waited a while, I reverted the article to the stable version, only to be reverted again [202] by 89.216.96.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I have little doubt as to the IP's identity, as it also continued Gagibgd's old battles at Volleyball and Basketball pages. Having seen Gagibgd trying to hide last time by deleting messages from his talk, and now by editing logged-out, I'm having hard time to AGF now. Adding to the equation his serial copyvio at Commons from yesterday [203], I also suspect some CIR issues; I'd guess he's a pretty young person.

There's a wider-scale dispute concerning SFR Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro/Serbia national team results, which resulted in several ANI excursions and full protection of FIBA Basketball World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) until March 1, but nobody is discussing that issue anymore and I predict continuation of the edit war. Apart from Gagibgd (who mostly just reverts), the involved are Asturkian, Anaxagoras13, Bozalegenda, Pelmeen10, and myself, as well as a couple of "helpful" IPs. Nobody seems willing to start an RfC on the issue, and I'm certainly not without blame.

In closing, I'd like to propose a topic ban for Gagibgd from all Serbian national teams articles, broadly construed, and, perhaps, some guidance (arm wrenching?) how to resolve the broader dispute. I will happily accept any WP:BOOMERANGs and WP:TROUTs coming my way. No such user (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't really see why you need to ask use how to resolve the broader dispute. You seem to already know, start an RFC. (Well or use some other form of WP:Dispute resolution but an RFC is really looking best given how things are going.) It may be a bit more difficult getting the wording right, but you could at least propose one and see if you get any feedback and then do your best from there and open one. I'm not involved and haven't looked into the dispute, but I would recommend restricting it two one sport since from what I've read there may be issues unique to each sport so it may get complicated if you try to cover them all. I'm not suggesting you open one for each sport, after one has closed, wait a few weeks or more assess the situation and device how to proceed. While nominally if you've left some comments on the talk page and no one is responding you may feel this justifies continually reverting when whoever is reverting isn't joining the discussion (at least after reverting), it gets complicated. If there has been some discussion, then they may feel they have said all there is to say and you haven't raised anything new and there's no point the two "sides" going back and forth at each other. Of course in that case they should try some form of dispute resolution like an RFC to resolve the dispute rather than just shutting up and reverting, but then so should you. I understand it may be frustrating and time consuming to start an RFC, but anyone who wants to be involved in the dispute has the responsibility to try and resolve it. The alternative of course is to wash your hands of it and let them fight amongst themselves until someone makes the effort, or they end up getting all blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Gagibgd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) needs to be banned for failing to engage in resolving disputes on talk pages and continuous edit-warring, currently at Water polo at the Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --Marbe166 (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I know you all hate success that Serbia made throughout it's history, and that you are trying to take away from us what's rightfully ours, and reduce the success our teams are making, and show to the people that we achieved less than we really did. All you are accomplishing with this is just making wikipedia look ridiculous to everybody in Serbia, nobody will take these results that you are publishing seriously, so you are degrading wikipedias reputation. You keep separating results of Serbia from results of Serbia and Montenegro, although Serbia is it's direct successor. And you have articles with contrary data, somewhere those results are joined, somewhere they aren't. This all looks idiotic. You should be taking the page Serbia national football team as an example of how to handle Serbia's sports results. Gagibgd (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

• Support the proposed topic ban on Gagibgd from all Serbian national teams articles, broadly construed. Their response above is enough to make it clear this is this is the minimum required. They're clearly here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. (Sadly what they don't understand is that most of us don't give a damn about either hurt or improving Serbia's image. We just want this silliness to stop, preferably by some sort of consensus being reached via discussion in an appropriate place rather than this continued edit warring and random minor discussions all over the place. If they actually presented a compelling case based on sources and evidence in an appropriate place, maybe we've even be supporting.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I suggest topic ban on Nil Einne on all topics, because he is encouraging spreading false data on the web. Gagibgd (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Except I didn't. I haven't edited this dispute at all and I said it's possible I may have even agreed with you if you had bothered to actual start a discussion in an appropriate place with the appropriate sources an evidence. (Well most likely I still wouldn't have bothered to !vote since I find this dispute fairly lame, but you never know.) Nil Einne (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support, Gagibgd continues to shoot himself in the foot. --Marbe166 (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support Something has to be done about his childlike behaviour. Csknowitall (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support, to make it stop. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support as second choice. That childish response to Nil Einne above says more about the user. I'd be more inclined for an indef since we'll probably be back here before long. Blackmane (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Continual violations

The following discussion is closed. 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:4TheWynne has been notified multiple time to stop interjecting opinion into articles, mainly surrounding Metallica's main page, and many of their album pages. Changes have been made to each page with references directly from the band's website, in order to correct misinformation that was give originally. Discussions have been conducted regarding these issues as well, and this user continues to revert all the corrections that are being made. He is not following the rules in regards to associated acts, and in regards to allowing the pages to show what the reference says. An example would be, on the page Death Magnetic, under the "band members" section, the change has been made to show exactly what the album liner notes state as far as band member duties on the album. This user continually reverts that change to show what he thinks it should say. As opposed to leaving in it's correct state. Our discussions have been plenty, and he has ignored my, and many other users' pleas to stop reverting corrective changes. JesusFreak78 (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you include some diffs for evidence for your claims above? It would really help us in evaluating your claims. --Jayron32 15:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Certainly. Since 1996, Metallica has printed in the album liner notes that James Hetfield and Kirk Hammett simply play "guitar" on the albums. The user is changing this to differentiate between rhythm and lead guitar. Adding these to the albums pages is taking away from what one band member does, and limiting what the other does. Since 1993, in concert, the two guitar players have frequently switched guitar parts on stage. And with the album "Load" in 1996, the started doing in the studio as well. Saying that one member only plays rhythm and one only plays lead, is simply not correct anymore. I am making these changes to honestly show what the liner notes show, since they are referenced in the albums pages, as where the info came from.

Also, we've had many discussions revolving around the "associated acts" section on the Metallica page as well. That seems to have finally cooled down, but it went for quite some time, where he was insisting on adding a band that had no common members, and a few other bands that only had one. The main issue of course, is the album pages right now. Where I am adding the correct info, just as it reads in the liner notes, and then adding a reference from the band's website to support the corrections, he is reverting my changes with no reference. I would like to do my part to keep correct info on Wikipedia. The pages where this has happened recently are Hardwired... to Self-Destruct, Death Magnetic, St. Anger, Reload, Load, Garage Inc., and S&M. JesusFreak78 (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

No, no, I mean like link to the actual problematic edits and/or talk page comments (see WP:DIFF) so we can see the problems clearly; you're not going to find a lot of people want to wade through pages and pages of editing history trying to extract diffs to see if what you are claiming has merit. If you can do that work for us, we can actually assess the problem. Help us help you. --Jayron32 15:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The "reporting" editor is wasting both his and your time – most of these accusations are false. We had a rather constructive discussion about the associated acts at Metallica's talk page a fair while back, which is irrelevant. I only reverted each change once, as a primary source was given (it was unreliable anyway, as it gave the same band credits for each release, which is false) – what I don't understand is why the user keeps using the word "continual(ly)", when it was someone else who reverted each one a second time. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

What do the liner notes say, and can anyone prove it? Because that's sufficient to source something like this. Sergecross73 msg me 16:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I just started a discussion at Talk:Metallica#Lead and rhythm guitar roles in which I point out that Wikipedia prefers WP:SECONDARY sources to primary ones. Since the consensus of third party reviewers is that one guitarist is mainly rhythm (Hetfield) while the other is mainly lead, then that's the final word on the general band roles. There may be specific songs where the guitarists share or switch roles, but Hetfield is generally described as the rhythm guitarist.

I don't think this is a behavior problem. It's just two engaged editors defending their positions. Wikipedia is large enough to handle this without penalizing anyone. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Binksternet - Yes, its generally good to go by third party accounts, but per WP:PRIMARY, basic objective facts are completely fine. We don't need to go out of our way to find an unrelated party to source something basic performance credits on recorded music. I'm strictly speaking on the song/album level though, displaying it overall at the band page isn't quite as cut and dry. Sergecross73 msg me 17:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

There's room in song articles for both. The liner notes can be represented faithfully in the credits section, while the prose about the making of the song can identify guitar roles per third party sources. Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, in the examples given at the discussion you've started, I see what you're getting at, and agree, then can be used together. I'm going to close this discussion to discourage these 2 concurrent discussions going on here. This is just a content dispute, nothing that needs administrative action. Sergecross73 msg me 17:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Unhelpful and threatening admin user:jimbleak

The following discussion is closed. 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 am new to wikipedia trying to enter a new page for a company that I work for.

I keep receiving notification that my page RootsFinder.com is up for deletion because I have not edited my page in 6 months.

I have replied to the various moderators of why I haven't edited my page and my intentions to make changes.

This morning I have received a rather unpleasant email notification from user:jimmbleak threatening to block me because my page is considered spam.

I'm new to creating Wikipedia pages and so far my experience has gone from not good to even worse.

I have created one page. I didn't do it correctly. I'm working to fix the problem as I've followed the advice of every admin thus far. But now I'm being threatened to be blocked from Wikipedia.

Yes, my original attempt may have been too commercialized. My second attempt was adjusted to be more in align with the recommendations given but now I can't edit my page or apparently respond with the correct answers to me trying to work through the issues as the threats are escalating.

I also reviewed user:jimbleak's page and he seems to block a number of people. I'm concerned that he isn't helpful to us trying to learn this system and I'm going to be removed the system for intentions I'm not purposely doing. I need help, not scolding.

I'm very discouraged to the point I almost want to just let the page get deleted and never use Wikipedia as a user or contributor ever again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erinweck (talk • contribs) 15:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Jimfbleak was kind. I would have blocked you without warning, Erinweck. Now you need to go and read WP:PAID, WP:COI, and WP:NOTSPAM TonyBallioni (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Echoing the comments here, that was as clear as advertising gets on Wikipedia. It is not harassment to remove pages that violate our terms of use. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It appears to me that Erin took the comments and criticism on board, and was going to make further changes to the page after it was REFUNDed, but it was promptly deleted again before she had a chance to make those edits, and then she was warned for spamming when she actually hadn't made further edits. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why I'm being treated this way. I can't make edits to the page. I can't get to the page to make edits. I need help. No one is helping me just scolding me. PLEASE SOMEONE HELP ME! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erinweck (talk • contribs) 15:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Adding a view as an Afc reviewer who supported the deletion. This was about as blatant an advertising draft by a paid contributor as one could hope not to see on here. To be blunt, if that is the kind of draft Erinweck intends to submit, I'm certain we would be better off without their contribution. KJP1 (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism at ScoopWhoop

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

---

This has been reported at page protection, but the vandalism by a multitude of accounts has lasted over three hours thus far, and I'm not inclined to sit and play whack-a-mole all morning. Help appreciated. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi'd for 3 days. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Violation of edit rate by Ser Amantio di Nicolao

Greetings, I just wanted to report that it appears Ser Amantio di Nicolao is again violating AWB's terms of use edit rate rule. He is currently editing at a rate of 25-30 edits a minute without an apparent bot flag. Far above what is normally allowed. 2601:5CC:100:697A:F55F:44A4:194F:D883 (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Notified. GMG^talk 15:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry - I didn't realize I was getting quite so out of hand this morning. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

1000 edits in the last 1/2 hour alone, all to add yet another box at the bottom of articles (these things are proliferating at a quite alarming rate, considering the limited use most of these links have), which has the peculiarity of starting of with our favourite unreliable database, wikidata. As that is not intended for reading, and is unreliable, and more reliable links are given in that box anyway, I fail to se why it is included (never mind as the first link), but in any case ading thousands of boxes in such a fashion should be done by bot if there is consensus for it, or not at all if there is no consensus for it. Fram (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The more reliable links are stored in Wikidata, and Taxonbar pulls the links from there. Plantdrew (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Which is not what I asking, but thanks anyway. Take Triprismatoolithus: the taxonbar shows the Wikidata ID, and the Fossilworks ID. The Wikidata item has no information at all apart from that Fossilworks ID. So why do we have the Wikidata item (which is already shown in the left sidebar anyway) here, as it is an unreliable site anyway and offers no extra information? Note that in the code, an editor is now adding the Wikidata ID inside the template as well to get rid of some unnecessary maintenance parameter[204], making this even more an example of the overkill this is generating everywhere. Any reason why reliable links are not stored in enwiki, and why unreliable links without extra information are given such prominence? Fram (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The template that stored reliable links to six databases on enwiki was deleted in favor of taxonbar. Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_14#Template:TaxonIds. Plantdrew (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

...And the "wd" link then added as the first link after that TfD had concluded: [205]. Fram (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

So, is this a discussion about Taxonbar and Wikidata, or an ANI? If the former, I believe the best venue is either WT:TREE or Template talk:Taxonbar. Ser Amantio di Nicolao's edits are desirable by WP:TREE via discussions at Template talk:Taxonbar. If strictly ANI, where is the evidence that IP tried to resolve this issue with Ser Amantio? Isn't ANI the last resort, not the first?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the IP should have taken this up with Amantio. No, whether the edits are desirable by one project or not, they are not acceptable in this way (making thousands of rapid-fire "test" edits from a non-bot account). Furthermore, Amantio adds them without the "from" parameter, which adds them to a maintenance category, which you then clean by adding the from parameter (which doesn't change anything on the eventual page but removes the maintenance cat, hurrah). If this parameter is needed, it should be added in the same run as the taxonbar, not in a second run across the same articles. Which is yet another reason why this is better as a bot task, approved and tested to see whether the changes are needed and complete. As for taking this to WT:TREE or even worse the template talk page, I'm rather tired of insular projects or template editors deciding the addition of thousands (sometimes hundreds of thousands) templates or wikidata links without actual consideration of more general consensus, standards (e.g. authority control doesn't add the Wikidata link, but the taxonbar, which does the same thing, adds it as the first link?), ... We already had multiple RfCs and discussions about specific cases where WD was linked from articles or used to automate tasks, which mostly ended either in "no consensus" with a lot of opposition, or in "remove it from the mainspace" completely. It is, to put it in biological terms, a pest, an unwanted invader which is popular with small groups but has a lot of resistance elsewhere. Fram (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, to the former point, I'll admit that I got carried away. I do sometimes...especially if my internet connection appears to be working better than usual. Apologies for that; usually I respond fairly well to a newspaper smack about the nose, though today my brain was elsewhere for a variety of reasons.

To the latter point...it seems to me that such things as the Taxonbar do have their uses, especially as it relates to collection of external links. Similar to Authority Control, near as I can tell.

I have no feelings as to whether or not this is better done by a bot. If it is, I'm happy to hand over the task. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I can easily roll this into WP:BRFA#Tom.Bot 2 (which has been very slowly making its way through BRFA). It might have to go through re-trial, and another several week's wait, or possibly faster given the added attention this had garnered.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Just let me know, please. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the real problem here is flooding of watchlists and recent changes to do a task like bulk adding of a template. This is really what bot flags are for, bulk adding of repetitive positive minor changes (in this case literally just appending {{Taxonbar}}) and should not have to bother human reviewers. At the very least I think these should have been flagged as minor edits to give reviews a means to filter these edits. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

But adding links to Wikidata is not a minor edit. In this case, Ser Amantio's botlike editing brought it to people's attention, which is what the watchlist is for: to enable editors to be aware of potentially contentious edits. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

2018 in South Korean music page

MeIN (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC) I'm a new editor for this page. I felt this page is lacking information,therefore I thought of adding 2 new columns titled 'Title Track' and 'Label' with related information.

But multiple times my edit was removed by these users Alexanderlee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Kpopfangirl2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Abdotorg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Administrators please check this issue ,send them required notices and let me improve this page. Please...

This is the wrong venue. You need to discuss your contentious edits over at Talk:2018 in South Korean music. The fact that multiple editors are disagreeing with you should give you pause. You need to obtain consensus for your edits on the article's discussion page before introducing them again. That also means if you can't obtain consensus for your edits, you shouldn't make them. --Yamla (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for administrators attention

I ask admins for an indefinite block of my account thanks.

Piaren (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Done as sock/block evasion in response to a message on my talk page, which led me here. See this diff. @NinjaPirateRobot and Ajraddatz: As info. -- ferret (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I've locked the account. NPR, there might be a case for an expanded rangeblock here. It isn't feasible at the global level due to collateral damage. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: fix ping. Robots before pirates, yo. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Well that's just embarrassing. -- ferret (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

This one was on a webhost, which means we might see more of him later. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Cause of Death Vandal has resurfaced

Please see the contributions of this IP here - geolocates to the same area as other IPS on the vandal's page. Note that I chose not to alert the IP, as is appears to be the custom here for LTA vandals. Scr★pIron^IV 18:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I've soft-blocked 86.174.164.0/24 for three months; they're the only one using it.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response - Happy Editing! Scr★pIron^IV 18:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Interference with editing Sukhoi Su-25

Four years after the discussion was started on the technical performance of the Georgian Su-25 airplane, editors User:Acroterion and User:Ahunt have expressed their intention to suppress any discussion of the performance of the Su-25. Such discussion is warranted because there is a wide range of valid performance possibilities, and an informed understanding of the performance and limitations is not possible if the issue is being WP:OWNED and controlled by a small group of editors.

At issue is that the WP article states that the "Ceiling" of the Su-25 is 7,000 meters, but the designer/manufacturer says the ceiling is either 10,000 meters or 14,000 meters, and these editors are trying to block any discussion of why there's a difference in the published numbers. The facts are available from reliable sources, and the discussion of the facts would be useful to readers.

User:Ahunt posts:

"There is plenty of proof that Russian trolls are working here on Wikipedia and your edits may result in you being blocked if an admin judges that you are here to disrupt Wikipedia for national reasons. Take it at that and as per the cited Arbitration Committee decision refrain from pursuing this any further."

User:Acroterion says:

" I have tried to warn you that, as per the ArbCom decision you are risking a block,"

NOTE: I have not edited any specs on this page, I'm only requesting a discussion on the issue of the performance numbers. For simply proposing to discuss this topic, User:Ahunt says I should "refrain from pursuing this any further"; User:Acroterion appears to be threatening to block me from discussing this topic. This seems to me to be an extremely uncivil approach to discussion.

I'd like to request that these two editors be advised to stop interfering with a legitimate discussion by using innuendo and threats of Wikipedia blocks, and that if they continue this behaviour that they be blocked from any further discussion on the Sukhoi Su-25 page or the Talk:Sukhoi Su-25 page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Santamoly (talk • contribs)

@Santamoly: Did you notify them of this post?--Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes although without signing there either [206] [207]. Santamoly, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages (including noticeboards) using four tildes ~~~~. See WP:Signing for more info. Nil Einne (talk) 09:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

As has been widely reported outside Wikipedia [208] [209], the Russian performance data for the Sukhoi Su-25 has been manipulated to support theories that a Ukrainian Su-25 shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. This is noted at the top of the article talkpage. After the issue was extensively discussed on the talkpage in 2014, Santamoly has recently been urging the use of the falsified data [210], [211], and has entirely ignored advice that the data is not usable because it was altered with the intent of manipulating Wikipedia and has been specifically noticed as such by outside sources. Santamoly has had a severe case of IDHT [212], [213]. I placed a DS notice concerning Eastern Europe on Santamoly's talkpage [214] [215] which got this [216] bizarre response.

Both Ahunt and I have advised Santamoly that continued advocacy of using dubious or outright falsified sources is a non-starter, and that they may be subject to AE sanctions if they persist. Since Santamoly found that advice threatening I advised them to come here if they wanted to pursue it farther. Per standard procedure I would not take AE action myself, but would make a request of other admins, but here we are. Acroterion (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I cannot add much to what User:Acroterion has written above, that summarizes things well. Perhaps a checkuser would be appropriate? - Ahunt (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ahunt: CheckUser is not for fishing expeditions nor is it magic pixie dust. If you have suspicions of socking, you should open a WP:SPI. Blackmane (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• In the end, it doesn't matter. You only have to look at the entire history of the Su25 article, and then what happened after July 2014, to see exactly what the problem is. If Santamoly continues with their antics, they should simply be blocked as a net negative. In fact, they're approaching that point now. Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Just for the record I wasn't referring to any sock allegations, as there are none that I am aware of, just point-of-origin connections to the third party media stories cited above. - Ahunt (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that the above editors are continuing with threats and innuendo that have no place in a simple technical discussion. There are good, reliable, technical sources to support a wider explanation of the numbers, but I'm reluctant to engage these editors who have an obviously menacing, political agenda as can be seen clearly in their ad hominem comments above. User:Black_Kite now appears to be joining in this discussion with indirect threats above. Santamoly (talk) 04:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• And I notice that you persist in making false allegations of threats, political agenda, etc. As far as I'm concerned this is your last such edit: persist and you should be blocked. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing any evidence that Santamoly plans to start listening anytime soon [[217]]. Acroterion (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Haha hilarious--wait, that's not his own talk page. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Blocked two weeks. We're supposed to escalate, and their last block was two weeks also, but that was two years ago, so via a very complicated differentially perpendicularized multiline equation array I arrived at two weeks. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Based on their bad-faith behavior here and their POV edits [218] at Abiogenic petroleum origin (another Russian propaganda favorite), they should consider themselves lucky they didn't get an INDEF. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Kohoutek1138

User:Kohoutek1138 reverted edits of mine on 3 different articles (Farther Along (The Byrds album), The Notorious Byrd Brothers, and History of The Byrds) within the past day or so. One reversion ([219]) was simply ridiculous, and another one ([220]) wasn't as bad but still restored POV material. Two ([221], [222]) revolve around word choice – a single word, actually – and the last one ([223]) is about the inclusion of two words in the article. He's additionally opened a very petty discussion at one of the articles' talk pages, and although I admit I was wrong about "pinnacle" being non-neutral, I don't see why he had to revert it in the first place (I don't care one way or another at this point). His views (ha ha) on what exactly constitutes POV material seem to be a little skewed ([224]) and he seems to be pretty revert-happy about stuff like this (see [225] and go through the histories of some of the other Byrds-related pages if you want), so I'd say this is a combination of ownership and driving away productive editors. Someone please do something about it. Esszet (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• I think this ANI report is premature; I do not yet see behavioral or other issues that require an administrator's attention. If these two keep it up, the matter should be discussed at ANEW since the edit warring is the most disruptive part. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't you think he's exercising borderline ownership or something? I wouldn't say pettiness is exactly civil either. Esszet (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

And don't you think he's unambiguously violating Wikipedia's POV policy in any event? Esszet (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment - Esszet could you please use edit summaries, it's hard to tell what your intentions are or the point of most of your edits without any summaries. A quick look would make it look like you're edit warring and just making random changes to articles without them. Canterbury Tail talk 18:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I have opened up discussions on two of these article's talk pages and urged Esszet to discuss these changes, which I personally think are unnecessary. I am an experienced Wikipedia editor, as can be seen from my user page and edit history, and not given to reverting edits for no reason. I really don't know why this has even been brought before the administrator's board? That seems like overkill to me. The place for this discussion is on the relevant article's talk pages, which is why I have initiated discussions in an attempt to reach a consensus with Esszet. That seems like proper Wikipedia etiquette to me when disagreements over an edit arise. I also don't think there's any need for Esszet's brusque tone and little personal digs, like referring to my "views (ha ha)" or calling me "ridiculous". That's hardly in the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. -- Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The first thing was a pun (views – point of view), and I wasn't calling you ridiculous personally - I was referring to your reinstatement of clear POV material that you yourself did not subsequently reinstate. That seems like WP:SANCTIONGAME (mischaracterizing my actions), as does the discussion at The Notorious Byrd Brothers (saying I've provided no rationale when I clearly did). Esszet (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

And I do use edit summaries for major edits that require explanation ([226]) – most of my edits seem too minor (or straightforward) to need them. Esszet (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

wp:edit summary reads in part It is good practice to fill in the edit summary field, or add to it in the case of section editing, as this helps others to understand the intention of your edit. Edit summaries are displayed in lists of changes (such as page histories and watchlists), and at the top of diff pages and this is repeated later on the page at wp:edit summary#Always provide an edit summary. Can't be much clearer IMO. It's just being polite, really. Andrewa (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Alright – the discussion at the Notorious Byrd Brothers isn't that bad (he was right after all, and it probably would have been easier to just leave a message on my talk page), but he still mischaracterized my actions. Esszet (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Although I still don't see why he had such an issue with it in the first place. Esszet (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

This seems a content dispute rather than anything ANI can solve. I think both editors can and should lift their games a little in the interests of teamwork, including but not only by seeking consensus on talk pages on the changes concerned and as I noted above, but I don't think admin intervention is indicated at this stage.

And I think it worth adding, a most significant band (its article is rated high importance on the WikiProject Rock music scale) and therefore these are quite important articles, so it's good that we have editors who are so concerned about them. Andrewa (talk) 09:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit reversion

Please note that user User:IdreamofJeanie has breached the 3 edit revert rule and keeos reverting my work and asking for consensus even though all of my content is FULLY referenced. She has no consensus for reversion either, and has ignored my request to discuss on the article talk page. I believe this user should be blocked as possible conflict of interest leading to vandalism. 176.24.31.102 (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

OP blocked. IdreamofJeanie has not breached 3RR. IP has. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, it's Thepoliticsexpert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I EC'ed the two articles in question, which should discourage socking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Article on Julianne Binard, AfD'd and recreated

The following discussion is closed. 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 AfD discussion recently closed to delete this article. In that AfD, I noted that on the French Wikipedia, this article had repeatedly been recreated and is now creation protected due to this [227]. I noted in the AfD that this article needed to be watched, post close of the AfD if it was deleted. My suspicions have proven correct. ~24 hours after the article is deleted per the AfD, it's back again, if slightly different. The current article features imdb, primary, and dead links as references for the most part. This is a non-notable actress with bit parts here and there, and one or more people are desperate to get an article about her to stick on some language Wikipedia somewhere. They failed at the French one. It's time to salt the one here. Requesting speedy deletion and salting of this article. Also see Draft:Julianne Binard. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Article G4'd and EC-create protected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, this turns out to be a CU-confirmed sock farm. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 page on Digital Transcripts and Digital Degrees with QR Codes to hold the data?

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

---

Recently I came across several articles on Transcripts and Degrees having QR code to hold data about the students. The use of QR codes in these transcripts and Degrees are mainly for verification and authentication of student’s grades or degree acquired. But I couldn’t find a page on these kind of technology on Wikipedia. Isn’t it worth having a page on this topic? Can someone create a page for future reference? It would be really helpful for research and general knowledge purposes as well.

Example: https://m.hindustantimes.com/mumbai-news/university-of-mumbai-degrees-will-now-come-with-qr-codes/story-z2YXnXi1UN2Z1OdWpn3QlJ_amp.html https://m.timesofindia.com/city/lucknow/QR-code-to-make-tech-univ-degree-tamper-proof/amp_articleshow/50274906.cms http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Thiruvananthapuram/new-system-mooted-for-certificate-verification/article8521892.ece/amp/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:42AE:72A:4081:320A:A2F1:9960 (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Hi 2405:204:42AE:72A:4081:320A:A2F1:9960 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - This technology is already widely used to link to Wikipedia, It is called QRpedia. More information can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject QRpedia. Wikipedia has a page about the codes themselves at QR Code, which you may want to read, and this new use of QR codes may be suitable for a new section in QR_code#Uses. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Should an RfC be "closed" by the person who started it?

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

---

RfC here. It has now been closed by the person who started it, less than three days after it was started. I've tried to suggest that it should be left for an uninvolved editor. I have not participated in the RfC myself; instead I've suggested that it's not a well-formed question (so, I've refrained from taking a view). Why should we be compelled to choose between two options given by the person who started it? In any event, I'm concerned about the way the close is being rammed through, despite objections. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Generally, no, but there are times when when WP:Ignore all rules applies, as well as WP:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Under all circumstances, it should only be situations where the consensus is overwhelmingly obvious and closing it themselves quickly has benefit to the encyclopedia, or if they withdraw the RFC for cause (bad wording, bad idea, etc.). If there is even a hint that the close requires reading consensus (ie: it isn't blindingly obvious) then they shouldn't ever close an RFC they started. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• WP:COMMONSENSE applies. In the survey after three days, we have twenty-four editors in favour of version A, one in favour of version B, one in favour of neither (but who later stated that he preferred version A), two general comments, and one irrelevant comment by someone confused about the RfC question. I have therefore applied WP:SNOWBALL, and closed it myself per WP:RFCEND: "The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly). In this situation, the editor who started the RfC should normally be the person who removes the {{rfc}} template."

In future, you should notify a user you report to AN/I. This should also probably have been posted to WP:AN. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Dennis Brown: Someone has replaced the RfC template based on what you have written here. Would you mind closing it for me so that no one has to waste a second more of their time on this? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Someone else can, but honestly, I don't see a compelling reason to close it early. Nothing is hurt by waiting a few more days. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I still think we should address the weird way the question is posed. Why should we be given two choices, where the version the OP doesn't want dates back to mid-January?? We should start with the existing text and consider a proposed change. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Rather than picking two versions from the edit history and posting them as the only choices in RfC, The author of the RfC should have continued discussing the content of the article and attempted to arrive at a consensus. I was strongly inclined to support something close to his version over the version I myself had written, and was trying to discuss this (meanwhile leaving his version in the article while we discussed it) when he started insulting me and accusing me of violating various policies. He has taken what should have been a calm, reasoned discussion about how best to explain to the reader why The Daily Mail is not generally not allowed as a source and turned it into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Plus, he has repeatedly demonstrated a total inability to understand multiple Wikipedia policies and has a nasty habit of lecturing veteran editors who do understand Wikipedia policies. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

A: If you were initially "strongly inclined" to support something close to my version, but changed your mind for reasons not related to the content of the article—especially if due to some perceived slight on my part, that would strongly imply WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour on your part.

B: You can stop accusing me of insulting you—this is categorically untrue. The strongest words I used in the comment that apparently upset you were absurd and confused—a comment for which I even apologised (an apology to which you responded in a manifestly unreasonable way). When I wrote this comment, note that I was exasperated that you were still justifying your use of primary sources—even though nobody was disagreeing with you—rather than responding to the substantive concerns being raised.

Worth noting are the WP:PAs you posted in the threaded discussion, in this edit summary, and in the survey itself. In the latter, you do precisely the thing that you incorrectly allege that I have done, and completely miss the irony, too.

C: I have never accused you of "policy violations". When I alerted you to WP:CANVAS here, I explicitly did not accuse you of canvassing. I suggested that if you wanted to "avoid being accused" of WP:CANVASSING, it would be better to "allow people to find the page through neutral channels, such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, the arts, and architecture, or notification through the Wikipedia:Feedback request service". It wasn't clear what you were doing at the time. It later turned out that you were alerting participants in the WP:DAILYMAIL RfC.

D: The fact remains that you don't understand the WP:SYNTHESIS policy, as I explained here. Even though I've been contradicted below, I still maintain that I applied a reasonable interpretation of the relevant policies on the RfC issue. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• @L.R. Wormwood: In theory, policy allows for anything. But in this context, this closure was highly inappropriate. Pretty much the only prerequisite specified by WP:CLOSE is that the closer be uninvolved. So, to be clear, it's not appropriate to close an RfC you started and are involved in, period. Maybe if there's an overwhelming and non-debatable consensus after a full month and nobody would object to you closing it that way...but per SNOW?! It's definitely inappropriate to perform such a closure that early. WP:SNOW is not an excuse to perform an early/involved close for your desired result; on the contrary, doing so is doubly inappropriate. SNOW is an extraordinary measure to completely eliminate normal process when said process is wholly unnecessary, and is purely being followed for the sake of procedure. WP:SNOW makes it clear that its purpose is to eliminate disruption and bureaucracy, not to end discussions early simply because there is a pile-on. RfCs usually run for a month. You need to allow at least a couple of weeks before you even consider requesting an early closure, and at that point it will be for an uninvolved editor to decide whether or not such an act would be appropriate. You should have nothing to do with the closure of that RfC. Nothing. Don't try to close it, don't try to delist it, don't try to solicit someone else to close it early. Leave it for a genuinely uninvolved user to judge—uninvolved≠a user you canvassed. And yes, I'm declining the request for closure as premature, you can try again in a week or two if the consensus remains that overwhelming. Swarm ♠ 17:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll have to defer to you even though that's explicitly not what WP:RFCEND says. This is exactly the kind of procedure-fetishism that WP:NOTBUREAU/WP:SNOW etc is intended to avoid. The consensus obviously won't change, but the non-consensus version will have to remain on the article for the next month regardless (WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA). L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Please quote the exact wording of the policy or guideline that says or implies that"the non-consensus version will have to remain on the article for the next month". As far as I can tell, the best guidance we have on this is the essay at WP:STATUSQUO.

This is a clear pattern of behavior with you. You recently claimed that a WP:SYNTHESIS violation exists where there was no synthesis, then you claimed that a WP:CANVAS violation exists where there was no canvasing. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

You've misunderstood me. I meant that despite a clear consensus in favour of one version, you and the administrator are insisting that we retain the current, non-consensus version until the RfC has been closed (a month), even though you are currently the only person out of nearly thirty in favour of the current version (and this consensus very unlikely to change in the meanwhile). I can't think of a clearer instance of where WP:NOTBUREAU applies. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Urgent block needed for returning Alvi Z. socks

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

---

• AlviZaman930 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• AlviZaman93Good (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• AlviZaman930Mobile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)

Alvi Z. back at it again. Can an admin quickly block these users? I'm on mobile right now so I can't notify the socks. Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

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

ScratchMarshall promoting conspiracy theories

The following discussion is closed. 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 seeking discretionary sanctions against ScratchMarshall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) under WP:ARBAPDS, or other appropriate admin action to prevent further disruption and WP:BLP violations.

ScratchMarshall has largely spent his time on Wikipedia subtly pushing far-right propaganda and conspiracy theories in the style of a concern troll. This takes the form of him finding obscure, usually unreliable sources to use as a foundation for discussing various fringe material, conspiracy theories, and excessive detail apparently intended to undermine WP:NPOV. This violates the purpose of Wikipedia as documented in the relevant Arbcom case. It wastes editors time, and recently, it causes BLP violating content to appear on article talk pages.

This was previously brought to WP:AE by K.e.coffman on December 2, 2017. The request was declined because scratchMarshall did not violate editing restrictions and because ScratchMarshall was not subject to discretionary sanctions at the time. GoldenRing closed the request with a warning: "No action. ScratchMarshall is warned that his views on how much detail is appropriate in an article are out of step with community expectations. Continuing to push excessive detail over a long period becomes disruptive and may lead to sanctions in the future."

Examples

• Promotes a fringe theory that the car ramming that killed Heather Heyer at Unite the Right rally was an accident, not murder [228][229][230][231][232]

• Promotes the alt-right fringe theory that Heather Heyer died of a heart attack [233][234][235][236][237][238]. When the fringe theory itself is rejected, he goes meta, suggesting that we include detailed material debunking the fringe theory.[239].

• Suggesting that the 19 injured people were at fault[240][241][242][243].

• The fringe edit proposals are (nearly unanimously) rejected, so he changes tack, repeatedly suggesting that trivial detail be added to the article[244][245][246][247][248][249][250][251][252][253] against the protest of most other editors involved.[254][255][256]

• Here, he suggests that deaths and injuries at the Unite the Right rally were cause by the vehicle moving in reverse, again proposing excruciatingly trivial detail.[257][258][259]

After getting no traction for his POV pushing at Unite the Right rally, he moved on to a new topic: Stoneman Douglas High School shooting

• First he tries to push the theory that the killer was Jewish.[260][261][262]

• Then he starts promoting far-right conspiracy theories about David Hogg, a survivor of the shooting.[263][264][265]. This last edit was pretty egregious so I reverted it as a BLP violation and gave ScratchMarshall a final warning. He then reposted a slightly less egregious version [266][267]. I replied, asking what his edit proposal was. He posted more BLP violating content, which I reverted again. He reverted me, restoring the BLP violating material, at which point he was blocked by Acroterion.

• Here he promotes a conspiracy theory at Justin Trudeau.[268][269]

His edit proposals are frequently backed by unreliable sources [270][271][272]

His approach to editing, in his own words: "Something being mentioned on conspiracy/nazi forums is not grounds to include content, but it isn't grounds to exclude it either."

It's possible that he has some association[273][274] with the Proud Boys and 4chan[275] that are inspiring his conduct. If I am wrong, and this editor is not a long-game troll intent on disruption and POV pushing, then there is very strong case for a failure of WP:CIR and WP:IDHT.- MrX 🖋 18:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• My name is MjolnirPants and I approved this message.
  In all seriousness, I agree 100% with everything said here. Even when SM has hit upon what appears to be a clear improvement to the article, they seem paranoid about working with others. Just trying to get them to find a source to support some extremely probably conjecture* on their own part results in nothing but defensiveness. Their constant posts to the talk page are discouraging to others (I've edit conflicted with SM countless times just on the small handful of edits I've made there), and the contents of their comments are clearly part of an ideological push.
  
  ^*

  If you check the page, you will see what I mean: it's the section about the 19 injured. They make a good point by pointing out that the current wording claims all 19 were injured prior to the car reversing, but when asked for references, merely complains about being asked for references and tries to argue to support it, rather than simply finding a reference and being done with it.

  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Breitbart, Infowars, Daily Mail, online chat, Free Beacon, Conservative Tribune. Articles under DS are difficult enough to deal with without wading through the nonsense on conspiracy sites. I don’t know the editors motives; but this quickly becomes disruptive. O3000 (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• I gave up on trying to respond to him long ago. I agree with MrX and MjolnirPants Doug Weller talk 19:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with this report. Also, this is not a new editor, folks. MrX knows this as well. When ScratchMarshall was being disruptive at the Child sexual abuse article and by creating a WP:POVFORK on the topic and other POVFORKs, I called him out as a sock. He didn't respond, which further confirmed my suspicion. I contacted a WP:CheckUser about him. The CheckUser was also concerned and ran a check, but it turned out that ScratchMarshall had recently been checked by a different CheckUser, which I think is because I'd identified ScratchMarshall as a sock. There are a few admins/CheckUsers, such as Berean Hunter, who are very much aware of the usual child sexual abuse POV-pushers who return as socks. These POV-pushing editors have other interests as well. So they don't simply focus on child sexual abuse topics. Anyway, ScratchMarshall was not tied to a previous account, but suspicion about him being a past problematic account remains. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

And just to be clear, at the time I became aware of ScratchMarshall, I did examine his edit history, from his very first sock-like edit (meaning his "I need to turn this user page blue with whatever to blend in" edit) to his latest edit. Not a newbie. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Agree; I've seen several of their edits and they are WP:NOTHERE.--Jorm (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Agree - To be charitable, this user simply declines to understand basic Wikipedia policies and thus fails WP:CIR. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm doing the paperwork for a topic ban. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Done --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks NeilN. That's definitely a huge improvement to the situation. I will leave it to others to comment on whether it's sufficient.- MrX 🖋 19:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I endorse this topic ban, and any blocks for violations should be lengthy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Yea, this was a long time coming, having been subject to this weird fixation on the most trivial of details in an article, like colors of a car and such. They do a lot of work in anime it looks like, so maybe this zeal can be roped in and pointed at that arena. TheValeyard (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 topic ban for 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.

---

This insistence on posting a personal attack [276][277][278] by Nagualdesign (talk · contribs) has got to be stopped. He doesn't like my the formatting of a table I posted on a talk page, and he is offended that I rejected his refactoring of my post. I explained I formatted it the way I chose for a reason, and he dosen't respect that.

This Talk:Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster talk page has been a dumpster fire for some time, and bombast about UNDUE WEIGHT have been shot back and forth for days. I took the time to collate the available sources to provide an objective measure of what content should get the most weight. I was really hoping to have a substantive discussion about content. If Nagualdesign can be sent elsewhere, maybe that is possible. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Insertcleverphrasehere (talk · contribs) has decided that posting someone else's personal attacks on a talk page is also a productive use of talk pages. I'm requesting an admin intervene and make it possible to discuss article content without derailing every discussion. A topic ban is a minimal step to restore some order. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A topic ban is a minimal step? Interesting opinion. As I clearly stated the second time I reverted your removal of his comment, if you want the sentence that (arguably) constitutes a personal attack gone, then remove it, but don't remove the rest of the comment where Nagualdesign (talk · contribs) is trying to discuss things (you will note that I didn't restore that particular sentence the second time). My view of the situation is that Dennis has a particular view of what the article focus should be, and has relentlessly pursued it, despite pretty much nobody sharing his view. Nagual has gotten altogether too worked up having to deal with this continuous strife that Dennis has brought to the article. Both of them would be wise to take a step back and cool off, and starting a section here with more accusations is not going to solve anything. WP:BOOMERANG does apply. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 07:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nagual has gotten altogether too worked up having to deal with this continuous strife that Dennis has brought to the article. I can see why you might think that, but I was actually just trying to help with this edit. As you can see, I simply made the page and in particular the table much more readable. Hardly a contentious edit, I would have thought. Then Dennis reverted that so I tried collapsing it instead, so as not to take up 25% of the talk page but retain Dennis's preferred layout. He then left a shitty message gentle warning on my talk page about refactoring, hence me using the phrase, "You've become a pain in the ass, and I think you're doing it deliberately now." Not the most civil wording, I admit, but I stand by those words. He seems Hell bent on rubbing other editors up the wrong way.

After having a go at me for making his table more legible he then decided to delete my comment entirely, several times. Other editors have repeatedly reverted his removal of my singular post, and his table has also since been refactored. He makes a rod for his own back then gets all uppity about it. I'm at a loss to explain his behaviour, but I can honestly say that I am quite calm. Really. nagualdesign 08:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you're not aware that Nagualdesign reported himself to the Admin Noticeboard, earning recognition for WP:SPIDEY. He apparently thought it was a clever Jedi mind trick? You'd have to ask him. There is history here: Nagualdesign has shown much more interest in stirring up conflict with other editors than focusing on what is in the sorurces. The reason I went to the extreme of laying out so many citations and quotes all together in a table was because it has been so difficult to get anyone to look at the sources, rather than fling mud at each other. A topic ban would be getting off easy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Not a Jedi mind trick, no. I was just bored of your constant accusations. nagualdesign 08:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

For more information read this, and more recently this. This is getting tiresome. nagualdesign 07:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, there was not a personal attack in your latest attempt to remove Nagual's comment. You're now on WP:4RR; stop this before the boomerangs start flying. SkyWarrior 07:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

You should be ashamed of this. You're ganging up to bully another editor, instead of focusing on article content. There is actually an on-topic discussion trying to get off the ground. Why don't you move your "not a personal attack" comments here? ANI is an appropriate place to discuss editor behavior. Keeping that crap at the top of a productive and relevant discussion is irritating to editors who don't care about this petty squabble, and it is preventing making any progress on the issues related to the article. Bring it here, not there. Or better yet, delete it. It's garbage. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

​I think that SkyWarrior is referring to the fact that the second time I reverted your removal I left out the "pain in the ass" sentence, but you removed it again anyway. I'd suggest a self revert. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 07:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Multiple editors ganging up this way is not an automatic excuse to violate the 3RR. Collectively you've reverted more than three times, for no good reason except to derail a discussion. It's within the discretion of admins to issue a 3RR block on that basis. You're acting like bullies, and your focus on other editors instead of the sources for the article suggests a battleground mentality. I've repeatedly asked all of you to stop posting garbage on the talk page, and try to have an on-topic discussion about how to improve the article. Your response suggests you are incapable of that. Is that so? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Um, that's not how WP:3RR works. You can't accuse us of 'collectively' reverting more than three times. WP:3RR applies only to individual editors; if multiple editors are revering your repeated removals, that is a sign to you that you should stop, especially when you are doing something that you shouldn't be doing in the first place. Given your attempt to collapse his comment after all this, one could argue that you are around 5RR at the moment. Not a good place to be. Given your last comment, it seems like you don't find anything wrong with what you've done. Which is a pretty big concern. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 08:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Again nagualdesign is persisting in trying to draw every other editor away from the article subject to rubberneck at the trainwreck. Why is is so important that everyone else see nagualdesign's insults? I've asked nagualdesign to post evidence that the sources I've listed are "cherry picked". Such evidence would be of interest and of use to other editors. Instead, he wants everyone to read his personal attacks. I want to have a discussion about content. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Once again, there is no personal attack in Nagual's comment, at least not anymore. Stop trying to remove or refactor his comment (which is a bit ironic considering you warned him for doing the exact same thing to you, which in that case I would argue was appropriate for readability reasons). You say you want to start having a discussion about article content but doing this shit isn't helping at all.

  The solution here is simple: drop the stick, both you and Nagualdesign, and move on to something else. SkyWarrior 08:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  Dennis Bratland, stop trying to edit/remove/hide the current comment and move on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  If you say so. Want to bet how long it takes for them to get right back to personal remarks? Some people are not capable of focusing on article content. Watch what they do next. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

IMO it's not a personal attack, and even if it was, it's a very lame one. --Tarage (talk) 08:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Czalex

user:Czalex is repeatedly applying edits to Vladimir Peftiev article, full of alleged and unreliable information including accusations and defamatory statements, supporting them with multiple links to tabloid press only. Once he did it before, discussion took place at article's talk page and a consensus was achieved that edits of this user are violating WP:BLP and potentially WP:NPOV. Therefore Czalex's changes were reversed. Yet, Czalex applied his edits again and is accusing users of supporting subject's PR, indicating some sort of personal/political agenda behind his opinion (see talk page). Czalex ingores the fact that his edits are violating WP:BLP and ignores opinions of other users, feeling comfortable with starting an edit war. Issue must be addressed by an administrator. More info at Talk:Vladimir Peftiev. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.56.195.81 (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The Wikileaks stuff is (arguably) a WP:PRIMARY source, but I fail to see any tabloids referenced. Also I fail to see any obvious WP:BLP//WP:NPOV violations. Sourced negative info does not qualify as such. Perhaps 46.56.195.81 would like to point out tabloid references and BLP violations. The rest is a content dispute. I suggest you take it to WP:DRN. Kleuske (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Kleuske: Are there any links to tabloid press? Check References 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18 of the current article (if you can't understand half of it, it's ok, because it's not not in English). Check talk page of the article to see what Czalex refers to in his own opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.125.107.49 (talk • contribs)

Even if they are, and right now, i've only got your sayso for that, that's a content dispute, suited for reliable sources notice board, not ANI. You made some pretty stiff accusations (WP:NPOV/WP:BLP violations, even vandalism), so please back them up with appropriate links. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

There is not a single tabloid media outlet among the sources - unless you refer to official EU publications or to France24 as a tabloid.

The information is reliable, citing authoritative sources, namely:

• Official EU documents accusing Peftiev of being a sponsor of the Lukashenka regime (doesn't matter if the accusations were lifted later)
• Malta Today stating that Peftiev may have Maltese citizenship
• Wikileaks
• France24, one of France's top media
• Ogonyok, one of Russia's top magazines. The article quoted was written by Pavel Sheremet, one of the best-known and most authoritative journalists in modern Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine
• Charter97, Narodnaja Vola, major independent Belarusian publications

These are reliable sources, removing information citing them is a direct violation of Wikipedia principles. As these were made by anonymous users from Belarus and Poland, I have serious suspects that we're seeing Peftiev's PR at work - which is a serious violation of the rules as well.Vandalism is exactly what this gang of anonymous users is doing: deleting properly sourced information.

There is a lot of strange and unsourced information in the article about unknown Belarusian scientists and some irrelevant and unknown books written by Peftiev (which makes the parts of the article look like either an autobiography or a promotion article). However, for some reason this does not interest these otherwise non-indifferent anonymous users. I wonder, why. --Czalex 20:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Adding contentious information to a BLP is a tricky thing, no doubt. Wording needs to be done carefully, and the weight assigned to criticisms needs to be carefully judged. That being said, I've checked the sources in question and I agree with Czalex's response refuting the claim that he's relying on "tabloids". This complaint appears to be without merit. Swarm ♠ 03:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: @Czalex: Malta Today is arguably a tabloid, and article has I think 6 of those, for example one, two, three. Arguably tabloid info in BLP must be removed. Also there is this, this, this and this, which is not in English (mostly) and the sources aren't exactly trustworthy (no-name political publication is not something suited for BLP). France24, Wikileaks and EU documents are perfectly fine. 46.216.6.175 (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

MT is a tabloid, not a tabloid. Perhaps that's the source of your confusion? It's clearly not a "tabloid" in the "unreliable sensationalism" sense. Swarm ♠ 23:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Senyung

This user has a bizarre editing pattern--immediately creates user/talk page with minimal text, then adds/removes spaces to arbitrary articles repeatedly to become autoconfirmed, and now his/her edits appear to be limited to favorable edits about a D-list actor. (Of note, he decreased the actor's age by 4 years back in 2010--this appears to have been his only substantive edit in the sea of space additions/removals--and has repeatedly restored this birth year. A mutual acquaintance who attended high school with Tochi says there is no way he is so young, which is what brought this article to my attention in the first place.) Could be a random tendentious editor, but strikes me as the editing pattern of a sock in a PR sock farm. Thoughts? Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

This isn't the first time there's been a dispute about Tochi's age; see this LA Times article. It's not difficult to source an age for Tochi; it's too bad the LA Times reporters didn't have access to a modern search engine and 100 years of archived newspaper articles on the internet, eh? But, no, I don't recognize who this might be. The username could be a reference to Victor Sen Yung, a character actor. Could be someone with a COI, or might be a fan of Asian character actors. Regardless of whether there's a COI, I'd warn for adding unsourced content to a BLP. We can eventually block if it keeps up. I think it's sometimes better to go for the obvious issues than the more complex ones. Sock puppetry and COI editing are difficult to prove, but disruptive editing is obvious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate is correct, and the underlying story is hilarious. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added the sourced approximate age to the article, by the way. Odd to have gotten into this slow-motion edit war on something I care zero about. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Evidence of canvassing at AfD/British Independence Day

I've found evidence of canvassing in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/British_Independence_Day where a Reddit user Wikipedia1234 has on four separate occasions tried to stuff the vote in favour of "Keep". The same Reddit user also canvassed for votes for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Debate_over_a_British_Independence_Day_observed_in_the_United_Kingdom_(2nd_nomination) 9 months ago. Only one "Keep" editor participated in both those debates, but of course that it not proof it is the same person. I also suspect some sockpuppetry in the latest AfD with some SPAs and editor accounts which are seldom active popping up. It's not just the AfD debate where I believe that abuse is going on, the creation of the British Independence Day article essentially recreated the older Debate over a British Independence Day observed in the United Kingdom under a different name, I believe to get around the AfD decision. Some eyeballs on this issue would be appreciated. Shritwod (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Threats

See diff here. Now, I'm not actually worried for myself, as this isn't my real name and he clearly has no idea who I am. But the person that he thinks I am, whoever that is, might be at risk? Not really sure what to do about this, so dropping it here for others to ponder. Oh, the ip is blocked user and sock puppeteer Jack Coppit. Neil S. Walker (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Removed and oversighted, IP is blocked. ~ GB fan 01:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

SPA user Beluuga

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

---

• Beluuga (talk · contribs · count) Reverted by User:Ealdgyth, User:Sjö, User:Freshacconci, and myself. Likely a Holocaust denier. Removes all warnings and advice from his talk page (Freshacconci, myself, etc).[279] [280] Grossly offensive edit summaries. Bad faith editing in progress. See Treblinka extermination camp: Revision history for more of his recent edits, which are less than one minute apart. Poeticbent talk 20:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Treblinka_extermination_camp&diff=prev&oldid=828307531
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Treblinka_extermination_camp&diff=prev&oldid=828306119
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Treblinka_extermination_camp&diff=prev&oldid=828249214
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Treblinka_extermination_camp&diff=prev&oldid=828248402
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Treblinka_extermination_camp&diff=prev&oldid=828248241

I actually blocked them for violating WP:3RR before I saw this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

And I reverted their last edits to the article before being blocked, then saw the block when I went to post a comment on their talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk)

The user doesn't look like he has a future on Wikipedia. However, the OP needs to be aware that there is no rule against deleting stuff from one's own talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Poeticbent, which edits made you think of Holocaust denial? SarahSV ^(talk) 23:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Treblinka (as we all know it) was a pure extermination camp (not a labour camp, and not a transit camp). I might have overreacted about the denial, sorry, but his edit warring with everyone else about "a forced labour and extermination camp" which sounds like the forced labour at an extermination camp when you put these two side by side, or his changing "prisoners" to "passengers" out of the blue sounds really bad. Poeticbent talk 01:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

There were two camps at Treblinka: a forced labour camp and an extermination camp, and the article is about both, so I agreed with his edits there. Our current first sentence is inaccurate. I didn't see anything that suggested Holocaust denial. I see he has been banned as a sock, so apologizing might feel like a pointless thing to do now, but I hope you'll consider it anyway. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Being familiar with this sock, further responses will probably only result in more profanity-laden abuse. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

SarahSV, please continue our discussion at the Treblinka extermination camp article. There was only one (!) extermination camp. The labour camp was 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) away. Poeticbent talk 01:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: thanks, I'm not familiar with him. My only point is that there was no sign of Holocaust denial or (that I noticed) bad-faith edits. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Unattributed reuse of Wikipedia text?

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

---

(Posting this here because I recall a similar thread some years back.)

Details here.

I'm pretty sure GoodReads has been discussed on RSN before, with consensus generally being that they shouldn't be used as a reliable source, but I don't think copying text from Wikipedia without attribution came up. I'm not really bothered by not being credited for my work, but the problem with no attribution is that in the particular context of GoodReads.com it looks like the content comes from whatever book is being discussed. It also leads to the conclusion that Wikipedia is plagiarizing text from elsewhere, rather than the other way round: theoretically, if I had been too distracted to respond on that GA review, the article would have failed based on a misunderstanding that wouldn't have happened if GoodReads attributed text appropriately.

What's the normal operating procedure here?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks - section "non-compliance" 87.115.246.245 (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• I've seen my photography on the cover of the phone book here and in other places, with no attribution. One image that I put in PD gets used a lot, but that is fine. I don't sweat it so much. I expect those that can't create will steal, so the bar is pretty low as far as expectations are concerned. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Blanking of article section Dana Loesch#Personal life

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

---

Ping to user's talkpage here Talk page discussion here

User believes material in section deleted is in article elsewhere. But, this claim fails substantiation.

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff .--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't even know where to begin with this editor. From the repeated BLP vios to the constant low-level edit warring to the assumptions of bad faith, there's a CIR problem here. They couldn't even get the ANI notice right. There are also some seriously suspiciously timed talk page comments that raise socking concerns. I'd ask for a boomerang and provide links, but ugh, I have better things to do with my time, including productive editing. Maybe some temporary arbitration restrictions would be helpful, I don't know. FWIW they have already received the appropriate DS warnings. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Where's the beef? ... In my complaint about a fellow editor in good faith to the community, I do what's considered normal hereabouts and provide diffs!!--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hodgdon's secret garden, why are you duplicating material already present in "Early life"? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Take time to check things out at Dana Loesch#Personal life before you chime in, please. I.e., the current version is the one I restored. There is absolutely zero repeat zero duplication in the article.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Text in "Early Life": "She grew up as a Democrat, a point of contention early in her marriage to Chris, a Republican. However, she began drifting rightward after Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. After the September 11 attacks, she fully embraced conservatism."
• Text you added in "Personal Life": "Loesch grew up as a Democrat, a point of contention early in her marriage to her husband, a registered Republican. However, she began drifting rightward after Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. After the September 11 attacks, she fully embraced conservatism.[3]"

That's "absolutely zero repeat zero duplication" to you? nwatra (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

OK. Contributor of the section is User:AmorPatiturMoras, btw. In any case, editing protocol isn't to blank the entire section, including all its sourcing. Pretty heavy handed. no?

Thanks, I'll address that issue.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• I think I can safely say that the latest dispute has been resolved. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Unnecesary attacks and rude 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.

---

User Wilford Nusser has some incredibly hostile and agressive attacks against me on my talk page and in the talk page of Costa Rican general election, 2018, among others:

• Go ahead and request a sockpuppet investigation. I dare you. That ISP is in Panama; I am in Washington DC. So if you want to embarrass yourself, feel free.
• This looks more like political support than any attempt at reasoning on your part.
• NEVER. Do you know what that word means?

When I ask politely that please refrain from attacks or I will report him, but I won't if he apologizes he says Go ahead and file your report, because no apology is forthcoming. and then gloats about revenge filing; :I filed one in response. We can both play this game, but you are clearly the one in the wrong here, on all accounts.

He then proceeds to make the revert again without consensus. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

In my defense: I have been an editor here for more than 10 years, with zero history of these kinds of disputes and zero warnings for my conduct here. The edit in question was made following the policy of being bold, and there is an accompanying discussion on the article's talk page, along with links to sources that confirmed my position.

Dereck Camacho escalated this by reverting the edit with an accusation of vandalism, despite the clear explanation on the article talk page. When another user reverted his reversion, he immediately reverted again with an accusation of sockpuppetry. I suspect that the only reason that it hasn't been reverted yet again is to avoid violation of the three-revert rule, as I see in his history that he has been disciplined for edit warring in the past.

I refrained from reporting him in response, although an investigation will clearly reveal that I had strong grounds to do so. I look forward to input from outside of this dispute. --Wilford Nusser (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Some tempers flaring but I don't see anything that needs admin intervention. Add: Dereck Camacho, don't call good-faith edits vandalism. That will attract admin attention. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

An observation: Wilford Nusser made the reverts long before a consensus was reached or even other users were heard. Users with much longer time participating in the edit of the artilce. His accusation that I didn't do it for fear or the 3 revert rule is part of the same tendency he has to violated good faith policy. And about my previous sanction, worth noticing that the other user was proven to be a vandal with many sockpuppets that were all expell from WP. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Your reply seems to suggest you have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:AGF and WP:Consensus. Wilford is operating under WP:BEBOLD--v/r - TP 02:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with NeilN. Calling good faith edits vandalism will earn a response. Wilford's response seems adequate and appropriate. I don't see any wrong-doing on Wilford's part except for a bit of snark and heat. Dereck's only mistake is calling good faith edits vandalism and I think this thread will serve the need, there. Wilford doesn't need to wait for consensus, the policy is WP:BEBOLD but don't get into an edit war.--v/r - TP 02:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It's OK, I accept Wilford Nusser's effort to ammend stuffs in my talk page, I'll take that as an apology. Thank you for the mediation in any case. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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

TP-access.needs revoking

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

---

User talk:Broken Dick (blocked as vandal). Claims to be a French sock). Kleuske (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

What have they done that needs to have their access to the talk page revoked. They have removed things from their talk page that they are allowed to remove and you have readded them. ~ GB fan 12:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking WP:BLANKING, but block notices are not included. Sorry. Kleuske (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Cyberpower678 what did they do on their talk page that makes removal of their access appropriate? ~ GB fan 12:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

They have repeatedly blanked their block notice. With that being said, the username and the behavior makes it really hard to AGF.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 12:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

They are allowed to blank the block notice. Kleuske was wrong to restore it. If Kleuske had not incorrectly restored the content then they wouldn't have had to remove it again. ~ GB fan 12:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, a username violation is not a reason to remove talk page access. ~ GB fan 12:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Block notices and unblock requests of active blocks are not to be blanked. That was my justification of revoking TPA. I never used the username as justification, I just pointed out that it makes it hard to AGF in the first place.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLANKING does not prohibit the removal of block notices. It does prohibit the removal of declined unblock requests of active blocks but there were no declined unblock requests removed. ~ GB fan 13:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

(EC) As already mentioned by others before your reply, you're mistaken. Unblock requests of active blocks are excluded from the things editors can remove from their own talk page. Block notices are not excluded so can be. If you've removed talk page access because the editor is removing stuff they're allowed to remove, I suggest you restore it. Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Oops I guess I goofed there, but what about the bit calling Anna Frodesiak a pig and swine? I would consider that an inappropriate use of their talk page while blocked.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes I just noticed that. It's probably sufficient to revoke talk page access especially given the low chance the editor is actually going to ever use the talk page for the purpose intended. Although I suspect if we removed talk page access for everyone who left an insult or two for the person who blocked them, even rudely, we'd probably be removing it a lot more regularly. Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

(EC)They said it twice in back to back edits and didn't repeat it when they edited after that. That is a rev-del possibility but not enough to remove talk page access. If they hadn't been blocked we wouldn't even block them for that. ~ GB fan 13:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. UPOL vio French Sock Attacks Disruptive editing = A clear WP:NOTHERE. Why even allow them to talk? We'd just give them unnecessary rope.—CYBERPOWER (Chat)

You can try to justify your use of the tools since your reason for removing talk page access was innapropriate. ~ GB fan 13:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I've restored it.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Got one French Wikipedia admin Thibaut120094 said that this user is a LTA WP:WIKINGER, and request a global lock at here. SA 13 Bro (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah it's Wikinger pretending to be a French LTA, he has been doing this since 2010. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Now globally locked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Mashrud

The following discussion is closed. 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 5 times over the last month about creating over 100 unreferenced articles. They continue to edit, including still creating unreferenced articles, but won't respond.

Please see User talk:Mashrud#Sources. I have directed them towards WP:Communication is required, WP:V and WP:BURDEN, but they just won't communicate. They don't seem to have ever edited their talk page, in 4 years of editing. Boleyn (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Bach2804

The following discussion is closed. 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 messaged this editor four times in the last three months, asking them to communicate re creating unreferenced articles (see User talk:Bach2804#Sources. You can see above my messages three other editors sending similar messages, and multiple pages they have created needing to be deleted.

I have directed them towards WP:Communication is required, WP:V and WP:BURDEN, but they refuse to answer or address the issues. They have been editing for 2 years but don't appear to have ever responded to anyone. Boleyn (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Crystalline 29

The following discussion is closed. 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 messaging this editor since July - 8 months - about creating unreferenced or poorly referenced blps, such as Piotr Ligienza, which has an empty references section and an external links section containing a link to the unreliable source, imdb. Please see User talk:Crystalline 29. They have been editing for over a year, but have never responded to a message. They have also been contacted by at least one other editor, but haven't responded.

I have directed them towards WP:Communication is required, WP:V and WP:BURDEN, but they won't respond or address the issue. Boleyn (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 Malayedit - use of unreliable sources in BLPs

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

---

• Malayedit (talk · contribs)

Posting it here rather than at AIV, because the editing from this account don't appear to be spam or vandalism. Regardless, the use of poor and unreliable sources from this account hasn't waned despite warnings going back to May of last year. I think the editor's talk page makes it clear. --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Wow. Given the insane number of warnings for this issue, it's high time for an indef. Swarm ♠ 15:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

SquigzNix

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

---

• SquigzNix (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Another user where the majority of his/her contributions are on this user page, with about 3720 revisions in total. Please delete and block this user for not being here to build an encyclopedia. Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The vast majority of their contributions have been deleted (that'd be their sandbox). 47 edits to the mainspace, 7 to talk. But 6,857 edits when including deleted... I agree with NOTHERE. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Contested move and suspicious response

The following discussion is closed. 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 fairly new editor (just over 500 edits, most recent, most associated with the subject I'm raising here) moved Family Force 5 twice yesterday for the sole reason that the band has changed its name and so the article should be moved to the new one. I contested and started an actual move discussion. A new editor arrived to support the first editor. That editor's first and only edits have been to the talk page of that article under the move discussion. It would be good to have an editor comment. If I'm misreading WP:COMMONNAME, I'd like to know, and I'd like the discussion to be public: in that article's move discussion. I'll gladly acknowledge my error. If I'm not wrong, I'd like to know that there too, and have these two editors know that as well. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Definitley sounds like canvassing, so I second this incident report. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Page has been protected against moves for a month. It would be useful to have someone other than me offer an opinion on what COMMONNAME is about. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

As a new editor, I appreciate the quest for accuracy and clarification on WP:COMMONNAME. However, I do not agree that assumptions should be made about the disposition of a new editor merely due to a difference of interpretation and opinion in a particular discussion. What is concerning to me is Walter Görlitz and WP:CONDUCT. His personal attack against another editor "When you stop having your friends and fans create accounts so that a discussion between experienced editors can happen. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)" was at the very least improper. Dareblock (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I made no claim that I was right and you were wrong. That's not an attack though. That's drawing a line. Others have also found it suspicious. Shall I open up a formal sockpuppet investigation for you and the other two new accounts who have gone straight to that page or would that be problematic? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for reiterating my point regarding what is now your repeated violation of WP:CONDUCT - now you are making a threat. Last time I checked, ALL are welcome to join the Wikipedia editing world and contribute productively with proper conduct which I have followed. Whether I chose this page or another page to contribute to first should be of no concern to you. Despite your deplorable conduct, I look forward to continuing a long-term collective effort to improve and maintain Wikipedia content, and to call out abusive editors such as yourself. Your apparent and unfounded discrimination against me as a new editor is shameful. I will no longer respond to your attacks or threats not this thread, but I look forward to cordial discussions on future topics with you and any other editor.Dareblock (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

When brand-new editors show up and go directly to participate in Wikipedia policy and consensus discussions, it is not at all unreasonable for experienced editors to be concerned about meatpuppetry and off-wiki canvassing. It is not "abusive" or "discrimination" to express such concerns. Your editing history is entirely relevant and subject to scrutiny here; vanishingly few good-faith editors begin their Wikipedia careers by making their first edit on one side or the other of a particular policy dispute. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your candid and polite contribution NorthBySouthBaranof. Your points are delivered in a manner compliant with WP:CONDUCT. As a new editor, I'm happy to have this type of discussion with editors such as yourself. Thank you.Dareblock (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Walter Görlitz: FYI I've filed an SPI just to make sure this isn't outright socking, if the accounts come back as unrelated I will protect the talk page to prevent SPA derailment because it's still either meatpuppetry or simply fans who are coming in without objective, policy-based viewpoints. Now, regarding the underlying content issue, the rule states that if sources start using the new name, then they should be weighted over pre-name change sources that would otherwise establish a WP:COMMONNAME. The previously-established name should only be retained if post-name change sources continue using the old name. So basically, the page should only be moved if sources reflect the name change; conversely, the page move should only be opposed if there is evidence that post-name change sources are continuing to use the old name. Any rationales for or against the move that don't specifically address the issue of post-name change sources are wasted breath. Swarm ♠ 15:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification on WP:COMMONNAME Swarm. I look forward to using this clarity if disagreements such as this come up in the future. Dareblock (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Two sources that are not directly related to the subject continue to use the old name so there is clear precedence for no move. Also, thanks for opening the SPI and explaining that my concerns were not unwarranted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) 2600:1702:1690:E10:A0EF:AD87:BC1:7894 (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Sly attempt to evade title blacklist for Pavan Kumar NR

The following discussion is closed. 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 months now a number of accounts have tried to push an article on this actor, to the point the title was blacklisted/salted. Then they made new accounts at ABC, tried title variants, etc.

By sheer chance, my watch list caught a weird piped link in which the editor was adding said actor to lists, but with the target page of Pawan. This [unpleasant person] blanked a page to hijack it to host their article: diff

Presumably a sock, but I don't know how to report it at SPI, since the title is blacklisted I can't see the History tab to know who's tried to create it. In any case, PressJayasurya appears to be an SPA and likely sock, who made a number of very minor edits at other articles, presumably to look less-SPA. Can we block them, and is there some way to set things up so someone is pinged if they try to hijack and blank another page for their article (like an RSS)? MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Sock blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks NeilN, and now I know where Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/N R Pavan Kumar/Archive is. And holy heck, this person has at least 21 listed socks, and I'm aware of others that were simply blocked but not SPIed since I saw them try to get it through AFC multiple times. I suppose it's not hard for them to re-submit since it's really quick to make a new name, and they probably have the article content on MS Word to just paste in, but that's still a lot of persistence to try to force an article through. I really hope they don't get into the habit of blanking extant valid articles to hijack the space... MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:BuildermanRx

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

---

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

This seems to be a vandalism-only account. They recently created Underground Surface of the Universe:Monster's and that stuff, with no references; it's unlikely to be true as the supposed creator was recently fired by Nickelodeon. Previous edits have also been unsourced, often adding that characters are 12-year-olds or 7th graders. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Olsen24 resuming disruptive edit behavior

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

---

Olsen24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user’s block just expired and has already started editing MTA Regional Bus Operations bus fleet. He help taking the list out of chonological order and keeps adding information that it too trivial. Can somebody please do something about this user, like block him indefinetly? SportsFan007 (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

• For reference, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive972#User:Olsen24 and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive971#Persistent_edit_warring_and_WP:OWN_behavior (and others at WP:ANEW). power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Just because you don't like my edits dont make them disruptive. Olsen24 (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Immediately after his block expires, he returns to make the same kind of disruptive edits that got him blocked in the first place. That includes adding individual bus numbers with no citations, an action that he has been repeatedly warned against. He also has refused to acknowledge his obvious socking while blocked, and repeatedly removed block messages from his talk page while blocked. This is a user who is unapologetically disruptive. Time for an indef. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Just because you don't like my edits, doesn't make them disruptive. If you have an issue, message me on my talk page, which nobody has yet to do. Olsen24 (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Biografer "correcting" others' talk page comments

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

---

Biografer was advised not to edit the talk page posts of other editors to correct spelling errors, etc. here and here. Biograher was further advised not to do this by an administrator Nihonjoe both here and more forcefully here. Biografer's response was to these "warnings" and continue to make such corrections here. Biografer has been exhibiting WP:IDHT behavior throughout the discussion at WT:JAPAN, but editing other editor's talk page posts is something which should stop. Perhaps another admin can explain this to Biografer here in this thread. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I provided it in edit summary wasn't that what people wanted me to do if I will edit somebody else's comment?--Biografer (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Biografer: Stop editing other people's comments or you will be blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK. Let me explain why I do it. I use voice recognition software, therefore when the machine tell me the comment (and that comment is full of errors I can't make it up.--Biografer (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Biografer: Given the amount of wikispeak appearing in posts that no voice recognition software will recognize I doubt you are forced by the software to make corrections. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours by Alex Shih --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I ran into edit conflict. I have blocked the account for 48 hours, the rationale is provided here. Alex Shih (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, an editor being blocked feels a bit uncomfortable even when it is done in order to prevent disruption. My goal here was to try and make it clearer to Biografer that editing others talk page posts is not going to be considered acceptable except under certain conditions; however, even in this thread, Biografer continued to "tweak" my edits like this and this. The comment Biografer made about being asked to leave edits sums when making such "corrections" leaves out the very important part that such edits should only be when it's really necessary, like in the examples given in TPO, and not just when its based upon personal preferences.

As for using voice recognition software, this is the first time this has been mentioned and I don't exactly know what that entails. Assuming good faith here, if this has to do with MOS:ACCESS, then perhaps someone can make a suggestion that's more constructive than for me to "get the bloody spellchecker", which makes it seem like more of a personal issue than an MOS:ACCESS issue.

Biografer has requested an unblock and seems sincere. I have no objections to that as long as Biografer fully understands that any repeat of this behavior (even editing the spaces in section headings or other parts of a post) is most likely going to lead to a much longer block per WP:IDHT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

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

User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof

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

---

User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof is attacking members of the English Wikipedia by calling them "snowflakes" and by saying "are you triggered?" Multiple users have discussed their distaste with this user on his talk page is two separate instances. The user continues to attack others using degrading terms and refuses to acknowledge what he has done.

Direct quote from users talk page: "Did I trigger you? Can't handle it when someone calls you what you are? Sad! Maybe don't make racist-apologia edits on the encyclopedia and then start ridiculous ANI threads when people call you on your bullshit. I don't apologize to white supremacists and if you have a problem with that, feel free to take it up on ANI. Oh wait <snerk>. Have a nice day."

See sections on user talk page titled (please stop insulting me) and (Simple Request). Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 06:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jamesharrison2014: I went ahead and notified them of this discussion. Please remember to notify in the future.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

He did ([281]), NorthBySouthBaranof is very quick to acknowledge it by reverting. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

<ec>:LOL. never mind. I see the same thing happened to me as happened to you. User is aware of this thread.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, please not that in response to User:Dlohcierekim reposting the tag by mistake the user removed it again and posted in the note to the Wikipedia administrator to GTFO (get the f*ck out). Clearly showing once more that he has violated Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy.Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 07:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, as a new user, you seem not to understand Wikipedia very well. The edit with the summary "gtfo" had nothing whatsoever to do with Dlohcierekim. Try again. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

It absoultely does as it was his edit that you put the note on. Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Uh, no. It wasn't. Again, competence is required and you're demonstrating that you don't have the competence to successfully read edit summaries and diffs. This edit has nothing whatsoever to do with Dlohcierekim. Perhaps you should study it more carefully. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

competence is required is not Wikipedia policy. Go read please. Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 07:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

A user with fewer than 500 edits and no interactions with me in the last month (when he attempted to remove reliably-sourced information about a political candidate without consensus and was then rejected on the article talk page) returns after an editing hiatus of more than a week to start an ANI thread complaining about my snarky reply to an editor with white supremacist sympathies who had their hand slapped for also starting a ridiculous ANI thread against User:Beyond My Ken. Pardon me if I smell a rat here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Your baseless accusations are simply that not backed in fact. Administratiors I encourage you to preform a checkuser and or any other relevant checks you can to prove that I am not releated to the Beyond My Ken situation. I have nothing to hide as I only came accross this when revewing an article. I am an independent 3rd party and only noticed the behavior. Feel free to do whatever is required to show that the claims are false.Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 07:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

"I only came across this when reviewing an article" and "am an independent 3rd party." What part of "reviewing an article" involves starting ANI threads about two-week-old talk page posts made by someone you haven't interacted with in a month? Remember, when you start an ANI thread, you open yourself and your own conduct to scrutiny as well. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I will also ping User:Spartaz who has expressed well-founded beliefs that this is not the user's first account. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I was reviewing the Kelli Ward article and looking at the history. Saw your user page clicked on it and saw the abusive behavior where you said ""Did I trigger you? Can't handle it when someone calls you what you are? Sad! Maybe don't make racist-apologia edits on the encyclopedia and then start ridiculous ANI threads when people call you on your bullshit. I don't apologize to white supremacists and if you have a problem with that, feel free to take it up on ANI. Oh wait <snerk>. Have a nice day" and realized it was a patern of abusive behavior as an unrealted 3rd party I decided to request ANI the fact that you are still deflecting and not realizing your comments were abusive, belittling, disrespectful, and more is sad. Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Number of edits is not relevant to following wikipedia policy. You clearly are not following the . To try and flip this on me is again not aknowleging that you are not following policy. I don't edit all the time and I have made mistakes but again I have been following policy. You however have clearly violated policy. Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 07:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Once again, when you start an ANI thread, you don't get to control the thread and where it goes. Your conduct and your editing history, including what might be your motivations for starting this dramafest thread about a two-week-old user talk post directed at a third party, is just as open to scrutiny as anything I have done. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, admins feel free to run checkuser or any other tests. Not same user this person is trying to defer from the fact that he has been called out for abusive behavior. I have nothing to hide.Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 07:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, to your point about the edit on Kelli Ward I was warned and have not made such edits since. You were asked and warned multiple times and continued your abusive behavior. Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 07:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• I do not see diffs of any edits in which NbySBaranof insulted Jamesharrison2014. Have I missed something? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

As previously stated, I am an independent 3rd party. Here is the behavior for your note. Also, closing admin I will start a different request if needed but I smell a sockpuppet prior relationship of User:Beyond My Ken and User:NorthBySouthBaranof. See User:NorthBySouthBaranof's comments above about their previous relationships. Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=826614533 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=826616861 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=826766583 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=828703362

LOL. Now I'm BMK's sockpuppet? I suspect we have a competence is required situation here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

First, competence is required is not policy as it states "It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." I think its ironic you tag the Beyond my ken stuff above and suddenly he or she starts talking. Its alomst as if you are interacting with them outside this fourm. Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

WHOOSH!! That's the sound of the point going right over your head. When someone writes "I suspect we have a competence is required situation here", they are not claiming the we have a policy requiring competence. They are saying that they suspect that you lack competence and that in their opinion competence is required - a view that is held by many Wikipedia editors. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

When a person is tagged in a Wikipedia edit, they receive a notification of that mention. Again, these are all things you would know if you had a reasonable understanding of how Wikipedia works. That you do not is evident. That is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. But when you make wild accusations based upon nothing more than your failure to understand simple Wikipedia editing features, it evinces your inability or disinterest in learning how the encyclopedia works before charging into dramaboards and launching threads about third parties. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Jamesharrison2014: Indeed, I came here because of a notification I received just after I had finished editing Irvington, New York,which I did at probably about the same time NbSB was posting some of his remarks here. Before you choose to cast an aspersion again, you might want to do some basic research on the editors you're suggesting are sockpuppets - such as comparing their contributions to see if they were posting edits at the same time. Suffice it to say that your suggestion is a pretty ridiculous one. Beyond My Ken (talk)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof I have one question.. Do you honestly think that this is not a personal attack. "Did I trigger you? Can't handle it when someone calls you what you are? Sad! Maybe don't make racist-apologia edits on the encyclopedia and then start ridiculous ANI threads when people call you on your bullshit. I don't apologize to white supremacists and if you have a problem with that, feel free to take it up on ANI. Oh wait <snerk>. Have a nice day."Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I make no apologies for describing an editor who removed the impeccably-sourced description of "white supremacist" from the article about well-known racist anti-Semitic shitbags Identity Evropa" as someone who is making "racist-apologia edits on the encyclopedia." It is merely a provable statement of fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

You didn't describe you attacked. "Are you triggered?" "Snowflake" these are not descriptions they are attacks. No one deserves to be disrespected or belittled. Also, attacking someone for having views that are not the same as yours is against the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 08:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Jamesharrison2014 appears to be on a crusade against Baranof, likely due to their long-running dispute at Kelli Ward. He's doing a very bad job of it, and is probably risking WP:BOOMERANG sanctions if he keeps this up much longer. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, that would certainly explain why they would pick up on a couple of old beefs on NbSB's talk page and re-package them into a new complaint on AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Based on Jamesharrison2014's persistent IDHT behavior, it is likely that his consistent dispruption will continue until he is either indefinitely blocked or topic banned from areas of American politics. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment For the sake of clarity, NBSB did not revert my notification with "GTFO".--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment Correction. I applogize you are right he removed the personal attacks tag bringing back this comment "Did I trigger you? Can't handle it when someone calls you what you are? Sad! Maybe don't make racist-apologia edits on the encyclopedia and then start ridiculous ANI threads when people call you on your bullshit. I don't apologize to white supremacists and if you have a problem with that, feel free to take it up on ANI. Oh wait <snerk>. Have a nice day."Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

So, really, you have nothing beyond the two "insults" you reported initially, is that right? Do you plan to repeat them, over and over until you get NbSB blocked? Such a strategy is unlikely to succeed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Both of you, stop with the color text and bolding. It's obnoxious. --Tarage (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof, Let me ask you a genuine question. Why do you take the bait? You know exactly what he is doing. You've been a valued editor for years. You've seen this a million times before. Yet you let him drag you into some stupid dispute. It worked out this time, but you never know - next time you could end up getting a topic ban or worse. For what? Because some IDIOT has nothing better to do than spew racist drivel? I would post this on your user talk page but unfortunately it is blocked for some reason. Anyway, thanks for all that you do. Just looking out for you pal. 99.48.183.176 (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I detect a lack of creativity and variety in the insults described here. I have a page that may help: [282]. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Roxy the dog: WP:PA

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

---

• Suzukake Nanchara

User Roxy the dog is being uncivil towards me. And this is a pure insult and a personal attack: [283]. Can anything be done about this please?

The discussions took place here:

• User talk:Moscow_Connection#Speedy deletion nomination of Suzukake no Ki no Michi de "Kimi no Hohoemi o Yume ni Miru" to Itte Shimattara Bokutachi no Kankei wa Dō Kawatte Shimau no ka, Bokunari ni Nannichi ka Kangaeta Ue de no Yaya Kihazukashii Ketsuron no Yō na Mono
• Talk:Suzukake no Ki no Michi de "Kimi no Hohoemi o Yume ni Miru" to Itte Shimattara Bokutachi no Kankei wa Dō Kawatte Shimau no ka, Bokunari ni Nannichi ka Kangaeta Ue de no Yaya Kihazukashii Ketsuron no Yō na Mono#Contested deletion

--Moscow Connection (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Although Roxy the dog really could have been more polite, their snark was nowhere near bad enough to justify a block or any other administrative action. On the other hand, I suggest that you move that monstrously long title to "Suzukake Nanchara". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I have been WP:BOLD and made that move. The long title was obviously untenable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm moving it back. There has been a move discussion already and the page wasn't moved. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I did not see the RM until after the move -- in fact, never even considered that the move of such an unwieldy title could be controversial in any way, especially since the article itself points out that there's a shortened title -- but I did read it afterwards. I did not believe that the close of the RM accurately characterized the consensus of the discussion, so I chose to invoke WP:IAR and leave the move in place. Of course, I have no intention of reverting you if you move it back, but I will comment that doing so is not an improvement to Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

May I say that having looked around the premises a little more, Moscow Connection, who created the article, appears to perhaps have something of an WP:OWNership issue regarding it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Bad dog! I'm not likely to block over this one instance of incivility, but Roxy, you do need to pull back and put forth a bit more assumption of good faith. A pattern of incivility IS something that I (and any other admin) will block for. Let's just not do this anymore, please. And "Meaningless drivel with no encyclopeadic value" isn't really a good CSD rationale. You know this, you aren't new. I don't want to make this bigger than it is.

I noticed you failed to notify Roxy on their talk page. This is required. I assume it was an oversight, so I simply did it myself, but the template for notification is at the top of the page. Please do so in the future if it is needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I've notified him, but I accidentally did it on his user page: [284]. I'm sorry, but I'm busy with something else right now and all this was sudden and unexpected. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh good Lord. Did anyone read the whole thread? User:Moscow Connection persistently misrepresented what Roxy wrote. He did this in a couple of different ways, suggesting it perhaps was not entirely accidental. Yes, we should remain civil even in the face of (real or perceived) provocation, both because it's the right thing to do and because it makes the other party's misconduct stand in sharper relief. But editors are human after all. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Where exactly did I misrepresent what Roxy wrote? --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I consider the massively excessive length of that title to be bizarre almost to the point of insanity, and I highly recommend that it be moved to "Suzukake Nanchara" immediately. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we need an RFC on that bizarre title, so that uninvolved and reasonable editors can explain why the current 42 word title is untenable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

"Suzukake Nanchara" is not an official title. I've simplified the sentence mentioning it when Roxy the dog tagged the page for speedy deletion (cause I wanted to make the article more accessive), but I will add the details back now. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

We do not use only "official" titles. Please read WP:COMMONNAME. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

It is not a common name. The Japanese media is very scrupulous about writing everything correctly, in the exact way it is supposed to be written. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

We are not the Japanese media. We are English Wikipedia, and we have our own standards for names. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

And we have a consensus system to determine those names. Someone just needs to start a WP:RM if they haven't already and let a discussion take place. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

As you have noticed already [285], "there was an RM 5 months ago that left it as a long name". (Not five months, but rather 4 years. But there was a thorough discussion.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The name you suggest isn't the common name in English. Spotify uses the long title: [286]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Spotify may or may not be a reliable source, but it's certainly not a definitive one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I have converted the discussion begun by Cullen into a formal RM discussion here, and have warned Moscow Connection in advance not to WP:BLUDGEON it, since he has already shown signs of doing so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I think I have posted more or less the same number of comments as you, so it isn't me who should be warned not to WP:BLUDGEON. And in your initial comment on the article's talk page you acted like I didn't tell you anytbing (here and in my edit summaries). So I have to repeat all my points all over again. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The WP:BLUDGEONing editor responds to every editor, or almost every editor, who disagrees with him, thus inhibiting other editors from participating, since they may not want to be subjected to the BLUDGEONers incessant commentary and repeating of the same points over and over again. I, on the other hand, have only responded to you in the discussion in question, and only to counter specific arguments that you raised. That is called "a discussion", and it is how we reach a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I acknowledge Dennis' admonishment above, perhaps I could have been more polite. I sincerely hope that the original Japanese article, which our article appears to be translated from, carries a great deal more clarity and meaning than does our meaningless obfuscatory version. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 08:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Bhavesh Nial's user 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.

---

Bhavesh Nial has moved the user page at the previous username of "Bhaavesh Niall" to the talk namespace (Talk:Bhavesh Nial), resulting in the latter being deleted per WP:CSD#G8. Also, the same user moved Category talk:Redirects from moves to become the user page at the current username. These moves can't be right, however, so an administrator will need to do the following:

1. Undo the blanking of Bhavesh Nial's user page and move it back to the Category talk namespace (no redirect).
2. Undelete "Talk:Bhavesh Nial" and move it to "User:Bhavesh Nial" (no redirect).

GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Fixed? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Fix looks good. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 atempt to invade the blacklist

The following discussion is closed. 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 Was reading ANI when I clicked on a link mentioned in the post "Sly attempt to evade title blacklist for Pavan Kumar NR" i would have posted in this post but it was closed so i have to make a new post the user name of the new person who did the same thing PressJayasurya did is 72.73.103.205 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.135.214 (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked 72.73.103.205 for block evasion by User:PressJayasurya. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

And I've semied the target. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock - Laredo AM power vandal

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

---

I was reading another LTA/AIV report and learned that /64 rangeblocks are feasible and passable for administrators.

I'd like to suggest a (new) rangeblock of 2605:6000:cc06:2200::/64, which is the IPv6 home of the Laredo AM power vandal. This editor has been at it since late November 2016 — there is also an IPv4 IP, 70.124.106.182, which has been blocked three times now and is currently in the back half of a six-month block. No other contributions have come from this range ever besides those tied to the vandal.

The IPv6 range has returned to life after a three-month block assessed in November 2017, which was the second to this IP range. Is it possible to do a longer-term block on this /64? Raymie (t • c) 06:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Raymie: Blocked one year this time. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 86.24.197.178 posted personal information

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

---

Resolved

 – Revdel done by Zzuuzz. (non-admin closure) –FlyingAce^✈hello 11:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

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

IP 86.24.197.178 has posted personal information (see contribution history). Appears to be posting home address of an author of a somewhat notorious book. Request revdel of the article concerned. WCM_email 08:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: If you have reports of someone posting personal information, please don't post it here at one of the busiest pages on the Internet. See this instead. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Name-calling?

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

---

120.79.194.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This IP called Volunteer Marek a "communist foreign propagandist from Poland" here. I didn't think that was nice. This user is harassing other people over the issue.  Anchorvale ^{T@lk | Contributions}  08:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked.  Anchorvale ^{T@lk | Contributions}  08:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

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

disruptive editing by 1256wiki

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

---

The user:1265wiki is engaged in disruptive editing for the past year on giraffe-related pages. The user has been notified on their talk page, but the activities continue. DerekELee (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

1256wiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't see any bad faith editing there; there seems to be some dispute over the proper taxonomy of giraffe species (which seems, from my reading, to be something that is happening outside of Wikipedia), but I don't see anything beyond that. Can you elaborate on what the problem is? --Jayron32 12:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I did some digging and found that complaints about this user introducing unsourced and/or factually incorrect information date as far back as December 2016 and have been a regular issue since then. There have also been problems with copyright, and in spite of multiple users pleading with them, the user has utterly refused to communicate the whole time, with their only talk page edits being to remove messages from other users. I've blocked indef. This has gone on way too long. Swarm ♠ 19:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:75.186.83.183

The following discussion is closed. 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 continuously been changing headings in various articles from "Characters" to "Fighters", often needlessly. I have asked him several times to stop and he blatantly ignores me. His edits have been continually reverted and he won't stop. Please have words with him. 79.74.210.191 (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Injustice_2&diff=prev&oldid=828123811 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X-Men_vs._Street_Fighter&diff=prev&oldid=823924118 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BlazBlue:_Cross_Tag_Battle&diff=prev&oldid=821273984

What difference does it make if these entities are called "characters" or "fighters" since they're both? How are these changes harmful? 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:480B:1D12:4102:2962 (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) A video game has characters, since they're fictional. You They really need to read Wikipedia:Communication is required, since this question is the first time you've actually responded to any concerns. They have not responed at all. Kleuske (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Kleuske: I'm not the user being reported. 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:480B:1D12:4102:2962 (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Apologies. Mistake corrected. Kleuske (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Sander.v.Ginkel

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

---

In the past, user:Sander.v.Ginkel was the subject to many discussions on this page due to his substandard work. See here, here, here, here and here.

Sander.v.Ginkel got an offer from a user:MFriedman to protect/improve articles something that made people unhappy. See also here. Still, MFriedman went on with moving articles back to main space from draft space, effectively circumventing/ignoring the clean up operation. So far, so good. And the name stuck in my memory.

Recently, Sander.v.Ginkel placed an article on the Dutch Wikipedia nl:Ilse Kamps. And out of the blue, after a 4.5 year hiatus, MFriedman showed up to vote for keeping the article due to the article being properly sourced. But MFriedman added these sources, after his vote. At that moment my alarm bells went off!
I requested a sockpuppet investigation and it came back positive. The Checkuser confirmed that Sander.v.Ginkel and MFriedman were identical.

So now we are confronted with a lot of articles that were never checked for the substandard editing of Sander.v.Ginkel moved back into main space by what turned out to be a sockpuppet of Sander.v.Ginkel, MFriedman. This is clearly misusing a sockpuppet to protect articles against thorough scrutiny.

What to do next? The Banner talk 15:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Checkuser needed I don't know what's the community consensus regarding accepting CU results on another wiki. If one of our checkusers confirms then I'm looking at indeffing both accounts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Neil, the CU is stale as MFriedman has not edited on the English Wikipedia since February 2017. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. At the moment, I wouldn't support a block for it would be against policy. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

(moved from AN) No need for an investigation. You can just ask me, and yes I'm using both accounts Sander.v.Ginkel and MFriedman. When the account Sander.v.Ginkel was blocked I used MFriedman, including review my own articles I created with. See that there are no main issues in the articles I reviewed and added references where needed. See as example here, here, here, here, here, here etc.. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked Sander.v.Ginkel for six months and the puppet account indefinitely. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

And how is Sander.v.Ginkel's block preventative in any way? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano: It prevents them from quite flagrantly violating basic policies whenever they feel like it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The thing is, the latest violation was one year ago. I agree that the sock could be blocked, but Sander's block to me seems punitive since it is so long after the fact. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

A year ago was when SvG also stopped editing before resuming this weekmonth. I do not believe he would have stopped socking had he not been caught last week on the Dutch Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Scores of his pages moved to Draft are coming up for WP:G13 after being tagged as promising drafts 6 months ago which lead to this discussion Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Pierre_Le_Roux Legacypac (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Back when this issue first came up there was pretty clear consensus to indef block this user. Unfortunately, that consensus was overruled in a pretty blatant supervote. If the views of the participants in that discussion had not been discarded and ignored on a whim, this ongoing disruption could have been avoided- as I said at the time. Reyk _YO! 16:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• No issue with me if editors want to change my six month block into an indef. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Already requested a User_talk:Sander.v.Ginkel#February_2018 block review. My review is to indef. There are a lot of page moves that need to be checked again Special:Contributions/MFriedman Legacypac (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Some Wikipedians have already misjudged the likelihood that SvG would continue to be a problem editor. I think some editors have, in their misguided mercy, forgotten that WP:BLOCKDETERRENT is supposed to have deterrent value. If en-wiki is unwilling to halt the editing of problem editors, then it only encourages this sort of activity where crocodile-tears promises and the forgiveness of long-undetected misbehavior becomes the norm. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've just noticed that MFriedman commented in the thread linked by Reyk above that somewhat swayed a few following comments! SvG claims he "wasn't aware how bad it is to use another account." It should be obvious that you shouldn't use an alternative account to support yourself. With this in mind, I'd support upgrading the block to indefinite. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

MFriedman discussed SvG as another person here [287] which is deceitful and suggestive we can't believe the statements in the unblock request either. It is pretty clear that their promotions of SvG pages back to mainspace were problematic from the talkpage. Legacypac (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef- obviously. Reyk _YO! 19:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Having read through this past thread and noting SvG's assertion that he wasn't "aware how bad it is to use another account" [288] I believe more than ever that my six month block was justified. This isn't tripping over some Wikipedia policy, this is an indication of a lack of basic common sense and ethics. We cannot have an editor deficient in both areas editing freely here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Is Beatley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) likely to be another sock? Guy (Help!) 20:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

  I though Beatley is a confirmed sock of Slowking4.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I just don't know Slowking4, I don't know if this could be one sockfarm. I guess not, though. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

As I said in that original ANI thread, I'm shocked that someone who is meant to be submitting a Master's thesis has such a poor grasp of copyright. The debacle is further evidence that they do not belong here. Using another account to mark their own work as "no problem", despite the extensive issues found, is akin to submitting an exam paper and giving it full marks themselves. Support indefinite ban Blackmane (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Permaban. Now. I checked the stats: Pages created 37,054 of which 22,482 since deleted, I don't think I have ever seen an editor with that many deleted creations before - and then add the blatantly deceptive sockpuppetry. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
• I think the consensus is clear; given the deceptive sockpuppetry after they were very lucky to get away without an indef ban last time, I have changed the block to an indefinite one. This is required in order to prevent further damage to the project by an individual who clearly does not see the need to follow our rules, and who cannot be trusted to conform to the expectations of the wider editing community. I haven't had time to consider the question of this user's articles yet, but I think that is a discussion that needs to be had separate to this block. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC).
• Indef block - I am not impressed in the least by the Wikilawyering/WP:BUROish arguments presented above. WP:IAR is clear: when a rule is preventing you from improving Wikipedia, ignore the rule. Well, the rules cited above which supposedly prevent the indeffing of SvG are standing in the way of the project being improving by removing from its midst a blatantly problematic editor, problematic both in their behavior and in their content output. Wikipedia will be improved by not having SvG around, so let's stop gnashing our teeth and worrying about technicalities and get rid of him. Let WP:COMMONSENSE reign. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Are we considering Lankiveil's block a community imposed sanction? That will affect the nature of any future appeals. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• That is my view of it, although others may have alternative perspectives. Given that nobody has objected or done anything in the past few days since I made the block I think we could also consider it a de facto ban. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC).

• Cross-wiki activity - This user has been blocked on Commons per the above CU results, the user has uploaded on both accounts mentioned in an act of sockpuppetry, uploading dozens to hundreds of files as "own work" while attributing real Olympic photographers names as the author. His crosswiki activity supports the indef block as discussed above. These files are now being nuked. ~riley (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef ban lots of disruption, lots of deception.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef cban. User has been very lucky up to now IMO, has done an enormous amount of damage still to be fully assessed (and it may take a long time for it all to be found and fixed), and there is little reason to hope that they will behave any better in the future. For the protection of Wikipedia, we have no choice but to indef them, and move on. Andrewa (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef and ban. Our rules about socking are clear. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Permaban No other viable choice.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 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.

---

I started G5ing the article, but looking at it again, that may not be what's needed. Many were moved back while SvG was not actually blocked, though he undoubtedly would have been if this had been spotted. If they had remained in Draft, most would long ago have qualified for G13 as very few had any substantive edits at all other than the SvG sock (a few bots and formatting edits, and almost none with any edits in the last 6 months). The issues that led tot he move to Draft have undoubtedly not been fixed in more than a tiny proportion of cases, since there have been few if any edits to any of them.

Should I leave them nuked, or restore and move them back to Draft? Guy (Help!) 20:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I somehow thought that at some point I nuked all the articles which were left in the draft, there were around 5K of them. I am surprised that there are still any left. Is it clear what the origin of these drafts is? Were they moved out of the draft and then moved back? On an unrelated note, I do not see anything controversial with the deletions, but delinking the pages from Olympic-related pages might be not necessarily the best idea - all Olympians are notable, and redlinks are way more visible than black unlinked text. Also, if an article is created by a good faith user, it takes a bit of time to figure out where it should be linked from.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Created by SvG, moved to draft during cleanup, moved back by MFriedman with comments like "checked" or "no SvG issues". Guy (Help!) 21:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I see. I would say then indefblock and mass deletion. This is clearly evasion of sanctions imposed by community on SvG.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

They shouldn't be unlinked. There are several prolific creators of Olympian biographies, and this adds a time-consuming additional step if/when they create these ones. —Xezbeth (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

OK. will bear that in mind. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Suck's that a nuke had to happen and olympic medal winner's like Alec Potts end up deleted but i guess it had too happen, feel sorry for the poor soul who has to clean up the nuke's results. GuzzyG (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: - I'm happy to (re)create a stub for any nuked Olympians. If you (or anyone else) wants any doing, drop me a note on my talkpage, or list them at WT:OLY. I'll do this one later at some point. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• All to drafts I am absolutely not convinced, because I have dealt with a bunch of SvG articles and have not found a problem that cannot be corrected easily. SvG did a lot of gnomic legwork that helps the wikipedia project, mostly by creating stubs and basic information about subjects that are less exciting to most editors but notable enough to achieve WP:N. Below, I have gotten harangued by all number editors with generalized complaints, while when I deal with the specifics, I seem to be regarded as the problem. I was criticized for approving SvG articles (and subsequently improving upon his start up), because I have NOT deleted any SvG articles. That is backward logic, assuming there is a problem. You have a predetermined verdict and will not tolerate hearing opposition. If I can, and I have done so, make the article a viable subject for mainspace, what is the crime here? Admittedly, I've only dealt with a couple hundred SvG articles in my area of expertise. All useable. The above editors complain about the number of SvG articles that have been deleted. Those ARE THE SAME EDITORS WHO DELETED MANY OF THEM. They created their own excuse. At this point, I don't trust them. Bring all the previously deleted content to draft status. Let real editors, with knowledge in those subject areas, look at those articles and decide if it is useful or not. This will take time a lot of time. We do not need an artificial deadline. While in draft form, the public does not see this content. There are tens of thousands of articles. Each one needs attention from someone with a brain. Bulk deletion is mindless and destructive. Maybe, eventually, you will see the cumulative merit to SvG's work. Maybe I will eventually see something he did that was worthy of deletion. We aren't there yet. Trackinfo (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I looked at this article. The version SvG moved into article space had four sentences, one of which was an obvious BLP violation [289] (admins only). How can they have missed this? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Between you and me, I don't think the sports fans necessarily look very hard - they are generally looking to have as many articles as possible, and any article that has superficial referenciness gets pretty much a free pass. Hence the massive problem with SvG. They mean well, but their inclusion standards are, IMO, well below the norm for Wikipedia. "Competed in X" suffices even if nobody wrote about the person in any way at all other than in the results table. Guy (Help!) 13:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Pageant fans have the same or bigger issues. High school students blessed with classicly attractive genes get articles - often with zero references - while we regularly reject pages on business people that spend years building up companies, employing thousands, creating new innovative products and driving the economy forward. Legacypac (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I posted a list of SvG drafts tagged as "Promising Drafts" on User_talk:Legacypac#SvG. They have the same issues that the others do, and should be deleted. Legacypac (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC) (now resolved). Legacypac (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Sander v. Garfinkel

-EEng

• Are we done now? EEng 07:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a list of Promising Drafts. Out of the thousands of articles deleted, none are promising? And EEng#s, that was an appropriate picture, right?

To the more important point above. Promising drafts, vs junk. You don't really know the difference, do you? I don't think the sports fans necessarily look very hard - they are generally looking to have as many articles as possible, and any article that has superficial referenciness gets pretty much a free pass. Hence the massive problem with SvG. They mean well, but their inclusion standards are, IMO, well below the norm for Wikipedia. "Competed in X" suffices even if nobody wrote about the person in any way at all other than in the results table. What that exhibits is a lack of respect for the content and thus the editors who created it. Just last night, I stumbled over one of those stub articles, not created by SvG, but a similar kind of "junk" stub. Its been around for over 5 years and looked like this. After I put a little effort in, it looks like this: Robert Poynter and transcludes in multiple places. This is what I refer to as the chain of knowledge. Nobody knows what lies behind each of these useless stubs until someone with a little knowledge about the subject applies themselves to editing it. It has to be there to be found. In our notability standards, we assume there is more of a backstory to all of the subjects achieving the standard. The above statement disrespects those standards. It is that same disrespect for our notability standards that leads to this thoughtless mass nuking of SvG content. Trackinfo (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Have you still not read the actual reasons these articles were drafted and then deleted? While some subjects were not notable, this was not the reason for this whole operation. The "mass nuking" was not thoughtless and not because of notability. The mass nuking was because the articles had very little content to start with, and half of it was wrong (sometimes very blatantly), plus a number of other problems like copyvio in the cases where the articles did have more content. Most editors agreed that it was better and safer to nuke them and to start on a solid basis, even if that meant that a number of notable subjects would be redlinks for a while (which is the case for many, many notable subjects which haven't ever been created as well, this is the nature of Wikipedia). You obviously disagree, and believe it would be better to keep poor articles with known problems than to have no articles at all. That's fine, but that doesn't give you the right to continue to misrepresent the reasons why this action was taken and to disregard the actual discussions that lead to this. Fram (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

There were discussions, you've banned the user, he used a sock in violation. Certainly there are problems. I have not seen any evidence, I only have to trust your analysis. I've possibly looked at 1% of SvG's content. It was all valid. So of the other 99%, how much was worthless? 1 article, 1%, 50%? Do you know? How much are you nuking? By the perceived definition of nuking, it is thoughtless, mass deletion of content. And in the case below, valid content was blindly deleted. Its restoration was resisted by the same people for a week, based on assumptions of guilt. When the truth comes out, there was a cover up. How much of this nuked content is valid? You can't tell me. Without it being visible as drafts, we mere mortal editors have no idea, we can't fix it or convince you. Most importantly we have no say. Assume, assume assume. Good faith went out the window when I was lied to for a week. Prove it. Trackinfo (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Trackinfo:--I'll strongly advise you to drop the stick and move on to something which is more productive.The mass-nuking was an outcome of community-consensus at a widely discussed AN thread and was executed through a streamlined workflow.~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

We are in a new discussion now about further actions beyond the damage done last year. Yes, you got a closer's decision, after 5 proposals and a WP:BLUD attack by at best <a couple dozen editors against opposition. Mostly it was the same, loud <dozen voices pounding the will out of the resistance. So I have to be loud back. I am required to accept the decision of the past but we don't need to do further damage a year later. You like it when the resistance goes away. I am getting advised to go away now. I was not involved then. At the time I was involved fighting another effort to blank content from wikipedia that has since survived. Why is it we have so many destructive forces coming from the upper echelon of wikipedia administrators? For almost 11 years on wikipedia, I feel like I have been in an endless battle against people who wish to whitewash content from public view. I digress. When athletics articles started disappearing following your decision, I found the project and got involved checking them, with obviously a few of my efforts disrespected and nuked. In the examples given in the original case, I note the one example article in my territory; Sapana Sapana. It was moved to draft by a BOT, moved back to mainspace by a respected athletics editor Raymarcbadz, moved to draft again moved to draft again inexplicably by Fram and returned to mainspace again by SFB where it survives today. That's just one article, new on my radar, but the same old story. The attacks are unnecessarily relentless. Legitimate editor's work to restore this content is dis-respected by some of the same group attacking SvG content a year ago and commenting here. Administrative editors who have tools and power. Again. I am trying to tell you, as a group, you have an attitude problem. And your system is, in the legitimate articles I have been involved with, making mistakes; needlessly nuking content. The mass nuking, before; at the "deadline"; and now the new wave of mass nuking, is thoughtless, virtually automated. The current discussion is on what to do about content checked by SvG's sock MFriedman. In regards to athletics articles, during the previous check phase, several editors were taking care, checking that content. The existence of MFriedman bypassed us too, but that doesn't mean the content deserves to be nuked. If MFriedman didn't have the rights to check content, revert his edits, take our Project Athletics related content back to draft status where we will again make an effort to rescue the content. Including the diversion by socks, we were 100% before. I expect nothing less now. And quit with the artificial "deadline." That deliberately overwhelms the limited capability of a few editors, with a designed goal of our failure. I have not seen the same attention to detail from other projects, but I don't spend time reviewing their work. This content was once categorized, so that should be easy to resurrect. I would expect there are other projects who might have an interest in saving their content, why don't you ask them? I'll answer that question: Because you have a predetermined result you wish to achieve. Predetermined before the first discussion and first proposal; to nuke all content. I think this content can be rescued if some thought were applied to it. You might realize that too, so you are doing everything to prevent it from being rescued. You obviously don't like to have opposition, so you keep trying to beat me down. Trackinfo (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak for flying Godric, but personally I like opposition, as long as it is well-informed and reasoned. Shouting "BOT" as if that somehow is a horrible thing (if the decision is made to move 18,000 articles or so to Draft space, do you really think some poor human would do this when a bot can do you it just as well and a lot faster). You then claim that an article was "moved to draft again inexplicably by Fram", while the explanation is rather simple; different editors were involved with checking and moving the articles from draft back to mainspace. Some were diligent and only moved back correct or corrected articles. Some simply moved the SvG errors back to mainspace, and if too many of those happened, all moves by these editors were undone. This was discussed as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive286#SvG cleanup and deletions, not done sneakily or anything. But then again, you were already present in that discussion, so "I was not involved then." doesn't seem to be actually true. Fram (talk) 08:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The only thing I say about a BOT is that it executes the instructions of its master, by definition a thoughtless process. And the only portion of this process I was not involved in is this great decision where it was decided to nuke all this content. I've been fighting an uphill battle against that decision ever since, as I see content disappear. But its always "too late" because the decision to nuke was already closed. The sequencing of the history above shows no difference between the content at each of those specified movements to and from draft. You just didn't respect the opinion of the mover, @Raymarcbadz:. You did, apparently respect the same opinion when it came from @Sillyfolkboy:. This is about respect and the lack thereof. That was then. Here is what SFB is saying about this now:

Looks like some of the articles I (and others) helped review have suddenly been deleted a year on without warning. That outcome is profoundly unsatisfactory as it's not only a waste of editor time and will, but also represents removal of articles that were not problematic.

The point being, we've fought that battle. Theoretically on Athletics articles, we won, 100%. But that's not good enough and we have to find our content disappearing again a year later. That is what THIS discussion is about. And if Athletics articles were salvageable 100%, why should I think that other subjects are not similarly salvageable and this whole exercise was a waste of time? Trackinfo (talk) 14:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: I believe we've managed to salvage all the affected athletics articles. I agree this proves that the underlying cause for mass deletion was the lack of editor time/will to avoid that outcome. Sadly, sports like volleyball and wrestling don't have enough TrackInfos and SFBs editing. It's illuminating that notability and acceptable minimum standards for articles are brought up – the views raised are against the global consensus.

My general position is that I had a dog in this fight (we brought him home and he's doing fine), but I can understand why people couldn't tolerate the remaining loose strays. I can't look after every stray. Personally I think the copyvio and BLP concerns were loin cloths to get this matter closed. The Darius Dhlomo case proved that identifying copyvio text among bare stats edits is a technically simple task (and public stats and basic one liners cannot be subject to copyright). As for the BLP issue, this policy is to prevent the spread of harmful material about living people on Wikipedia. Nobody volleyballer has ever legally threatened Wikipedia for stating their birthday as 1981 instead of 1980, and I haven't seen errors from SvG that amounted to more than that. Again, similar issues were overcome in the Darius Dhlomo case without mass deletion. I'm not looking to fight this outcome as I've not much left to win, but I will call a spade a spade and say this was a case of us as a group deciding to delete a bunch of threadbare articles, by an unconscientious editor, about topics that we don't know or care much about, through a tenuous application of policy.

The main lesson to be learned here is that this trend towards nuking the edits of problematic editors can become toxic for the community if the time isn't taken to properly inform the groups of editors that will be affected. Recently it took extensive calls for help by a prolific (and insulting) sockpuppeteer to bring to my attention that an admin had deleted several hours of my work in error. I'm sure I'm not the only one affected. I've been here for almost a decade quietly and meticulously working at a niche. I'm generally laid back and most chats I have here are nice ones. I shouldn't find myself working with socks against admins or commenting on ANI so that valid content remains – it's an indication that we're not getting things right as a community. Good-faith editors should not be trampled on when the stakes are so low (i.e. no public or legal complaints in relation to SvG's work). SFB 17:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

"Nobody volleyballer has ever legally threatened Wikipedia for stating their birthday as 1981 instead of 1980, and I haven't seen errors from SvG that amounted to more than that." Then perhaps read the discussions leading to this again? He was claiming that people had lied about their age to be able to play and win youth soccer tournaments, he was claiming that people lied about their nationality, he was claiming that people had had doping offenses without sources backing this up. Less extreme than this, but a lot more serious than getting a wrong year of birth, was e.g. the issue I indicated about one of the articles he created during his brief return, where they claimed someone won a gold medal at a tournament they didn't even participate in (as they were too old for a youth championship at that time anyway). The standard on enwiki is luckily not yet "if no one sues us for it, it can stay", and such an attitude is rather worrying. As for the copyvios, these were not in the mass of very short articles by SvG, but in nearly every attempt by him to add some text to an article beyond those first lines. That you and Trackinfo haven't seen these doesn't mean that they didn't exist. People don't believe me on my word for such things, I linked numerous examples of all major problems in the discussions (and others provided plenty of other similar problems), and others looked at the articles and agreed with my assessment. His articles about athletes may have been better than his articles about e.g. soccer players (which were riddled with such errors), but the number of articles was so huge (and the distinction between "better" athlete articles and "worse" other sports was not made at the time by anyone anyway) that the time needed to check these individually became prohibitive and letting them linger in mainspace was deemed unacceptable. They were given a lot more time than the original discussion called for (many people advocating nuking them all, the closing admin giving them one week), but eventually they were deleted. The "efforts" by some people, including Raymarcbadz and of course MFriedman, in putting problematic articles back into the mainspace unchecked and unchanged, didn't help this rescue operation of course. Fram (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Exactly this. These articles were full of errors and many of them contained libellous statements-- and I'm actually a bit surprised that none of the affected sportspeople have complained yet, though that is just a matter of time. Dealing with the BLP issues is a matter of urgency. Writing responsible and properly sourced stubs on these people can be done later and at a more reasonable pace. Reyk _YO! 08:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't often find myself agreeing with Fram, but they are 100% correct here. We shouldn't wait around for our BLP articles to cause harm. We need to be proactive in making sure that they are correct and of a good quality before someone feels a need to come and complain to us. I completely reject any notion that errors on BLP pages are no big deal if the subject isn't aware of them or doesn't come to us asking them to be corrected. In the case of SvG, although I only reviewed a small number of his articles they all had errors of one kind or another, some more serious than others. Given the large volume of the articles it is best to be safe and take action. Nobody is saying that these articles cannot be recreated by an editor in good standing, so I do not understand all of the angst. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC).

I have not suggested that his "suspicious" content be left public. I am advocating for it to be left (or since a lot of it has been deleted) returned to draft status where legitimate editors can review and supplement SvG's initial legwork. The public doesn't see the drafts. Obviously, BLP violations should be caught in such a process, with the legitimate editors taking responsibility for the articles they approve. Trackinfo (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Neutral admin needed

This is not exactly an incident but there is a talk about putting a possible quite-limited interaction ban at Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion#Promising_Drafts_of_Mathematical_Articles. It is a follow-up to the previous suggestion at [290]. I’m afraid that I formally making such a request on the ban can trigger a drama so it would be nice if someone (preferably admin) with less conflict of interest can coordinate the terms. —- Taku (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that in that discussion, you may have already violated your topic ban, although it's not the easiest topic ban to understand (imo).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I've recently been of the opinion that this topic ban gives an unfair advantage to TakuyaMurata's opponents, who it is not much of a stretch to say have been using MfD to harass him over his use of draft space. I think if an uninvolved editor has raised an issue regarding the draft namespace specifically regarding his drafts and has specifically asked for his input, he should be given a pass. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, I am not talking about the draftspace, policies or usages, so I thought I was ok (it’s about the interaction that the topic ban doesn’t cover). I have mentioned the topic ban, mentioning the ban per se can’t be a violation of the ban, I believe. — Taku (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes that seems correct to me. Paul August ☎ 23:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the thread is evolving to an incident after all, which I don't want to be involved in. So it would be nice if someone with less conflict of interest is involved (I have too much COI). -- Taku (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

There are no opponants of Taku, there are editors who don't like the drama he generates around draft space. Taku has created and abandoned a large number of math drafts ranging from three words to more extended content. He will not let anyone delete, redirect or even postpone them in the normal course (examples available from today and over the last year).Given the topics require extended math knowledge, the best solution for stale math drafts seems to be discussion at MfD where knowledgeable editors (some alerted by Taku) are deciding to delete, merge, redirect or improve and mainspace the old Drafts. There is no problem with this process unless someone wants to make it a problem. Taku also knows his drafts can stay G13 exempt and off the G13 eligible list if he just works on them occasionally. I'd rather not even discuss behaviour, just factually deal with what to do with the content. Cheers Legacypac (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Precisely "someone" (namely one user named Legacypac) wants to make it a problem. Without them, there is no problem: those draft pages are dealt just like any other. -- Taku (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC) (unnecessary comment)

• Wasn't there a very long and drawn out discussion on this topic over on WP:AN not too long ago that went on (seemingly) forever, primarily because TakuyaMurata kept extending it? Is that discussion not what resulted in the topic ban? Why are we here again? A painful discussion like that which results in a topic ban should mean that there is zero wiggle room for the banned editor, considering the pain he put the community through. My feeling is that the ban should be very strictly interpreted and enforced, and that the enforcement should be done before this thread turns into the Frankenstein's monster the last one was. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

  I don't believe I'm entirely to be blamed: if it is only of my fault, the discussion would have been much shorter. Anyway, can someone just close this thread. Apparently starting the thread itself was a bad idea. I wanted to ask someone to put out a fire and that request itself is fueling the fire. -- Taku (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I followed the entire discussion closely (even participated to a small extent) and, yes, indeed, you' are primarily to be blamed for the length of it by your constant WP:IDHT behavior which was, frankly, infuriating -- and I don't even have any real interest in the subject! I can't imagine how other editors put up with it. You need to look a bit more closely in the mirror. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Why don't we just move the stuff to subpages of Wikiproject Mathematics? Suggested in the thread and seems like would save a lot of trouble.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics members have not been interested in storing these notes and some are getting downright pointed in their comments [291] . Anything moved into the Wikiproject will never be looked at again until someone gets around to seeking deletion. Legacypac (talk) 10:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I repeat: I ask everyone here to stop talking and close the thread ASAP. I have made a mistake of starting this thread, which was not meant as reopening the old dispute (but mere request for an admin intervention). Appropriately or not, all the blames will fall on me and I don’t like that (and I’m not even allowed to claim the unfairness, see above.) —- Taku (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

You've made the post, but you are not allowed to control the scope of the investigation. Your actions are on (if not over the border) of the topic ban. The investigation should continue. Hasteur (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Neutral Non-Admin Comment I am not an administrator. I do consider myself neutral in this controversy, and have tried to research its history.

First, I think that the one-sided topic-ban on User:TakuyaMurata has proved to be unfair. In my opinion, it has created more drama, most recently on Valentine's Day, and has encouraged baiting, and doesn't really address either the issue of the math stubs or the question of whether the use of MFD on the stubs is prudent or efficient. I didn't come here to propose that the topic-ban be lifted, but will support a proposal to lift it.

Second, I think that the use of Miscellany for Deletion as a means of discussing the math stubs has been demonstrated to be sub-optimal. Do the stubs do anyone any harm? Just leave them alone.

Third, I agree that User:TakuyaMurata has generated more heat than light in this area, but so has User:Legacypac. If User:Legacypac is allergic to the dust from the mathematical cobwebs, stay out of the dustbin or take a pill.

Fourth, I don't really know what the problem is with the math stubs anyway, but maybe that is because I have forgotten more math than some of the editors here have learned. (I don't mean Taku, who I have confidence remembers the abstract math, and it is mostly analysis and advanced calculus that I have forgotten.)

Fifth, User:Legacypac really should stop nominating math stubs for deletion, even if they need deleting.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

First, your positing that Legacypac is specifically going after Taku or Mathematics as retribution is erroneous. It is sampling bias that Taku and Mathematics drafts show up frequently because Taku and Mathematics drafts constitute the majority of pages in Draft namespace that are over 6 months unedited that are not part of Articles for Creation. Taku wants to keep copious reams of content that is at best draft work for an eventual (2 years or more) mainspace article. At worst it's WP:NOTWEBHOST/WP:DICTDEF content that doesn't need to be hosted on Wikipedia. Multiple attempts have been made to try and get Taku to store the content in their Userspace (as they seem to be the only one interested in it) only to have it rejected. Multiple attemptes have been made to get WikiProject Mathematics to try and clean up the page, only to have the discussion nitpicked into a no-consnsus to do anything. Fundamentally, these pages either need to live in Taku's userspace, be submitted irrevocably to Articles for Creation (and put on a timeline for improvement), or dealt with using regular WP editing process (redirecting, merging, deletion). Hasteur (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Okay, maybe User:Legacypac isn't going after User:TakuyaMurata as retribution. It certainly looks that way, and it certainly looks like a case of two editors who do not like each other. On the one hand, I strongly support Legacypac's basic objective of cleaning up draft space, most of which is worthless at best, and is mostly cruddy spam. On the other hand, the math stuff is a special case, and Legacypac is wasting a lot of community energy on a fight that is not worth fighting. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

*Robert McClenon, I've changed your header to bold as it doesn't make much sense as a discussion header where multiple people will be commenting. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Dealing with these specific stale drafts via MfD is the only option that has worked to get them deleted/mainspaced/redirected or whatever. I've tried G13, submitting to AfC, postponing them with a note, redirecting them etc and have been met with drama at every turn. MfD is a process that gives a week of review and can't be reverted out of like all the other paths. Facts are MfD has proven an excellent way to bring closure for abandoned math drafts. Now, to Taku's credit he created Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages after I told him to make a list and track his pages. Several users are working through the list now to get things out of Draft space. Focussing efforts on the list and ensuring pages don't go unedited 6 months will solve the problems and prevent pages from making the G13 or MfD lists. I sincerely hope that the new list resolves the drama. Legacypac (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to lift User:Legacypac's 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.

---

Legacypac is effectively the only user who goes through stale drafts. His work there should be commended: he works through what is often promo spam, copyright violations, and linkspam. To be blunt, draftspace is a mess, and Legacy is one of the few users (if not the only user) who is trying to clean it up. All of this mess with Taku I think can be traced to the topic ban: Legacy is often portrayed as a deletionist, but many times I've been at MfD, he has suggested promoting articles I have suggested be deleted for draft concerns to mainspace pointing out that AfC reviewers had been too hard on them, and I've rethought it, and agreed with him. This relates to the current proposal in this way: Legacy now has to send something that is stale to MfD to get it promoted. This causes Taku stress, but there is no other real way for him to do it because his hands are tied. Taku does not own his drafts, and he is currently all but ignoring policy by storing his personal math notes in draft space and forever arguing over their deletion. He does not own these, and he should not be left to keep them there and survive G13 and MfD until the cows come home. I propose rescinding Legacypac's topic ban on page moves from draft space and AfC, I haven't seen any BLP concerns from him of late, and I think he understands the concerns the community had at the time. I think this will vastly cut down on the Taku-draft workload at MfD and also be beneficial to the project.

The ANI for Legacy's topic ban can be seen here. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support Legacypac has, as noted above, been doing yeoman service clearing out the detritus that collects in Draft space. Being prevented from moving articles to Main space seems to be a counter-productive restriction at this time. Jbh ^Talk 00:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Philosophical Oppose as much as I completely agree with Tony on the merits of the case, I think that the request needs to come from Legacy; they often expressed great concern over the block but seemingly have no interest in getting it lifted. While I would much rather have Legacy contributing in a fuller/unchained capacity at AFC, their apparent need to hold a grudge is greatly concerning and I think the only way to resolve it is to have them make the argument for why they the tban should be lifted. Primefac (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
  • Primefac, I get that (and I normally oppose other people requesting restrictions be lifted), but it's becoming abundantly apparent that this topic ban is a net-negative for the encyclopedia. I'm fine with ignoring all rules or letting Legacy have a point of pride or whatever this is to help cleanup draftspace, bring good content into mainspace, free up space at MfD, and cut down on needless ANI threads, and don't think we should keep a sanction that is no longer useful just because we want to be asked. That creates needless work for everyone, and I'm quite frankly sick of dealing with the fallout of a topic ban that honestly was probably overkill, which is what most of this Taku stuff is. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
    • This Taku stuff is an entirely different matter, and is a case of two editors refusing to go one step further than they absolutely have to (it's also irrelevant to this particular proposal). I honestly haven't looked at Legacy's TBAN (or at the least, not well enough to remember) so I don't know what evidence was presented, and I would appreciate AFC not being clogged with good things they find in the rubbish pile, so I've amended my !vote to be one of a philosophical disagreement; a user shouldn't be able to bitch about their prohibition until someone else asks to lift it for them. Primefac (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I disagree, re: the Taku mess. I think a lot of it could be solved (or, at least make it clearer who is actually at fault), if Legacypac was able to move the stale drafts that should be in mainspace instead of having to send them to MfD. That's why I proposed it. I'm sure Taku will try to move them back to draft (ironically, that was my first interaction with this whole issue), but I think that community is running low for patience on that, and given that he is open to mainspacing more of his drafts, it might actually work. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I want it lifted. I've said that before. Legacypac (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support I have examined the dispute over math drafts and Legacypac is doing excellent work in that area and in other cruft cleanup. The idea that anything in draft space should be regarded as precious and in need of preservation fails to accommodate reality: sticking stuff in the bottom drawer works for a while, but eventually it means that worthwhile items cannot be found as they are drowned in gunk. Cleaning up is very valuable. Johnuniq (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support We bend over backwards for people who are at least attempting to service Wikipedia's ideals. While I wish the request would have come directly from LP, I am still willing to the amicus request. Hasteur (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - While I closed the discussion that instituted the topic ban, closing isn't a statement of my opinion, but of the community's at that time, and I stand by my close, even while admitting I had misgivings about it at the time. Since then, I've been around Legacypac enough that I think he understands what he contributed to the initial problem and will be more careful. His work IS appreciated. People that work in the trenches often have to be forceful to get things done, but seeing him deal with other issues since then has given me faith that he will take a more cautious approach, and communicate better. This won't prevent him from crossing paths with Taku if Taku really has that many drafts open that haven't been edited in 6 months, but really, that is Taku's fault. Perhaps they should start fewer and finish more, so they don't have so many drafts that come up for examination. If I sound like I'm not very sympathetic, it is because I'm not. If your work (or lack of it) is clogging up the queue because the only time you work on something is when it is at risk, I have little sympathy for you. As far as whether MFD, G13 or whatever is best, I think Legacypac will be willing to listen to any better idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support lifting the topic-ban if it will permit User:Legacypac to move some of the math stubs into mainspace. For the stuff that is attested to by another mathematician such as User:D.Lazard, or even by Taku, as having value, moving it into mainspace makes far more sense than tagging it for MFD because it is promising. Tagging anything for MFD because it is promising is stupid. Support if that is the effect. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support per above. No good reason to continue preventing Legacypac from vetting drafts. -FASTILY 04:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Thanks Tony for proposing this, and Legacypac, thank you again for your work in draftspace. I hope this thread helps show you how much your work is appreciated, because it really is. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - didn't read very far through the very long ANI discussion that TonyBallioni linked, but seems like a bizarre restriction to place on an editor who does so much work in drafts. I'm pretty sure I've asked Legacypac directly why he doesn't just move some drafts that end up at MfD into mainspace instead, not having been aware of this ban. If this proves to be problematic I'm sure it won't take long for us to revisit. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 04:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support per TonyB's convincing argument. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support -- The contributions have been positive so far, and further work in draftspace would improve it. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support I recall thinking when it was imposed that this TBAN was not particularly timely. I do not think maintaining it would be a net positive to WP. VQuakr (talk) 06:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support' per TonyB--Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support For goodness sake, yes. !dave 08:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support if it prevents the completely Kafkaesque situation of having to send usable stuff to Mfd just to get it mainspaced... ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 08:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support Clearly a net-positive for the 'pedia. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 08:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support the topic ban looked a little hasty from what I saw in the ANI, would help with his useful work Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support Not only would this reduce potential bad interactions, but to have to send something to MfD to get it to mainspace really is just stupid. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support- no reason not to. Reyk _YO! 13:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Thank-you everyone for the kind comments and support of the work I do to find gems and clear the junk Legacypac (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)}}

Indefinite community ban for TakuyaMurata

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

---

Observing that TakuMurata has caused disruption (see the parent thread), that TakuMurata has in Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion#Promising_Drafts_of_Mathematical_Articles conduct of potential violation of their topic ban, has disruptively asked for a permission that would enable continued disruption in namespace, has recently started reverting redirects that have stood for many months as less destructive soluitons (besides deletion) to the copious notes in Draft namespace, and for which TakuMurata is attempting to replay a previous disruption (move the pages to WikiProject Mathematics, then back to draft space) for which the topic ban was enacted, and for disruptively making a "If I'm sanctioned, I want others sanctioned too" argument:

TakuyaMurata is indefinitely community banned from English Wikipedia. Appeals of this ban shall be through the normal channels ({{unblock}},WP:UTRS, or WP:BASC) 6 months after enactment of this ban. Ban appeals should be brought to the Administrator's Noticeboard for community discussion and include a plan for how TakuyaMurata will resolve any remaining draft space creations of theirs (including a timeline for resolution) and how they will conduct themselves going forward from a successful appeal. Unsuccessful appeals shall reset the 6 month timer for appeals. Sockpuppetry shall reset the appeal timer 6 months from the time the most recent sockpuppet was detected.

I'm tired of this, Legacypac is tired of this, Administrator's Noticeboard is tierd of this, and the community at large (I suspect) is tired of this. Taku has been somewhat well behaved, but their actions in the past few weeks show a return to their previous modus operandi.

• Support as proposer. I really wish it hadn't come to this, but Taku has been testing the limits of the Topic ban repeatedly in multiple locations. Hasteur (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  Presented as further evidence: [292] Seeking administrator intercession to try and overturn the reversion of a redirect that has stood in place for ~6 months because "the redirect is wrong". All Taku has to do is redirect it to an appropriate target. Redirects are far less stressful/destructive than a deletion. Something I would have thought Taku would have appreciated. Hasteur (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Seems like there have been a lot of CBANs being thrown about lately. Are there really no better options than to ban an editor who has made and continues to make good contributions in an area where few others can? Jbh ^Talk 01:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Jbhunley: When a user is topic banned from certain parts of Wikipeida for disruption and they start disrupting in broadly construed areas, what sanction would you have the community apply when their recent contributions in mainspace consist almost entirely of gnoming activities that any editor can do and do not "need" TakuyaMurata's help with? Hasteur (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  Well I would start with Group-scheme action and maybe this and this. Maybe those are insignificant contributions to math editors but I bet not. Jbh ^Talk 01:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  So a page (Group-scheme action) that was created in mainspace and has one paper as the reference with no claims of notability, adding a definition from a graduate level mathematics text book, and broad copying in HTML commented out text that appears to have been lost in the next revision (can't make heads or tails of where the bytes from that Rev went). Definitely significant contributions. /sarcasam Hasteur (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  Well, speaking as an oh so lowly gnome myself, I say it is still a contribution. I get that you have an obvious grudge here but, really, denigrating and dismissing good faith contributions does absolutely nothing to advance your case and tends to make me think that you are likely a significant part of the problem. Possibly I am wrong but your attitude here does nothing to convince me I am. Jbh ^Talk 02:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Taku is a knowledgable mathmatics editor, who makes valuable contributions. Paul August ☎ 01:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Paul August: Please point at which contribution in their recent history is a "valuable contribution". Hasteur (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Huh? Are we looking at the same list? Most of these edits seem valuable to me. Certainly too many to list. Paul August ☎ 01:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so vague hand wave at the useless gnoming edits. Got it. Hasteur (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

In that list of edits you linked to I find he created Group-scheme action, Universal homeomorphism and Sheaf of algebras. He made major editions to GIT quotient. How many do you want me to point out? These are major contributions. There are many many more valuble contribution in that list. Paul August ☎ 02:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: "I'm tired of this, Legacypac is tired of this, Administrator's Noticeboard is tierd of this," I'm tired too. And it does feel that is the strategy: people lose patient and just ban the editor instead of working out the complicated arrangements. Maybe it's not enough but I promise to address old drafts once and all. It's not worth indef-ban. -- Taku (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  WHEN Where is the concrete roadmap with measurable objectives and milestones? We've been trying to work with you for over 2 years now only to have you delay and drag your feet on fixing the problem. You've played the "stall for time, until people are focused elsewhere" gambit far too many times for me to take this as anything but a wolf cry. Make the commitment and I'll be willing to reconsider. Hasteur (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  This time is different. I'm scared and I will change my behavior accordingly (e.g., I will finish up Draft:Level structure today or tomorrow.) -- Taku (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  I have just rushed to finish Draft:Level structure. Everyone happy now? -- Taku (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Honestly, I'm wondering if simply limiting Taku to a maximum of 12 drafts is the solution. 12 is more than enough to work on at one time, and they can't start another until they do SOMETHING with one of the 12 existing. This would mean they can not start any new draft until their current count is reduced to 11. This isn't a total solution, but it is a start. It would be a last ditch effort to prevent an indef block, btw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  Observing that Taku will loose a great many drafts if this were to take effect because I would expect they have over 1000 pages in Draft space currently. I do like the idea, but suspect we'll be back in a few seasons trying to compel Taku to clean up those. Hasteur (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Taku identified all his Draft creations and a bunch of others at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages I count 58 Drafts by all editors including Taku (but excluding the bios and misc at the bottom). A bunch of these 58 are at MfD already (they were 6 months stale) and will shortly be actioned. I also see notes being made and effort put in on the 58 now which is excellent. Legacypac (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• I don't know what to do. On the one hand, Taku's handling of the inordinately large number of MFDs of their drafts recently has been reasonable (they've stuck with the "vote only" clause of their TBAN) but on the other hand they just keep rising to the bait set out by Legacy and Hasteur and (whether by design or through stubbornness) keep drifting in and around the areas where their TBAN specifically told them not to go. I've offered countless amounts of advice, the main one being "walk away" but for whatever reason(s) it doesn't stick. Do I think Taku should be community banned? No. Do I think Dennis Brown's idea above is a good one? Yes. Do I think it will solve the issue? Maybe? Something needs to be done, as it's clear that this Legacy/Taku/Hasteur sandwich of unhappiness is not going away without it. As a minor note, there is nothing wrong with being a gnome, which if I'm reading Hasteur's comments above is what is implied. Primefac (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep quotient: Amount of beneficial work a user does divided by the sum of the amount of disruption the user causes and the amount of cleanup work other editors have to do to clean up. Taku is so far below a reasonable level that their "gnoming" edits could easily be done by annother editor, so there is no real reason to tollerate the disruption and janitorial effort that is being invested in him. Hasteur (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment the creation of the list of Drafts in Project Math is a big step in the right direction and is pretty much what I told him to do on my talk page. [293] so that should not be a strike against Taku. I noticed the reversal of a couple redirects but that seems related to cataloguing them for discussion/working on on his new list rather than to be disruptive. The request for get AFCH access troubled me but I'm retinking that. None of his own creations are in AfC (he's fought that hard) but while building the new list he did uncover some pages that should be promoted. I'm unaware of any history of inappropriate creation in or promotion to mainspace, so allowing him to use the AFCH tool on other people's drafts might be ok. It is also a good way to note up Draft pages with comments that can be stripped easily on promotion. Legacypac (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Good editor, but needless drama about the drafts. I think all of this drama could easily be avoided too. Sławomir Biały (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose a ban of Taku. That is the wrong answer. This seems to be a case of an irresistible force meeting an immovable object, where Legacypac seeks to be the irresistible force clearing out draft space, and the math stuff is the immovable object, and we need some common sense compromise. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - I would support lifting the topic-ban on Taku. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - At this point, this is getting to be such a mess that it really needs to be sent to the ArbCom. We have good-faith editors who have trying too many Gordian knots, and we need Alexander the Great with a sword, and maybe the ArbCom with the 'At wits end' principle to impose some draconian remedy. Yuck. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose strongly, and endorse passing to Arbcom. Taku is a subject matter expert, has created a mass of content on a niche topic in good faith, and has been harassed over some of that work being incomplete for more than a year now, probably much longer. That one of his serial harassers has the arrogance to propose this sort of nuclear solution is bullshit, to be blunt. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 03:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  Try 2.5 years ago when I first raised the issue with WP Mathematics to see if they could do something about the collection only to have Takuya nitpick it into no action. Hasteur (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose and I’d oppose sending to arbcom at least two arbs, possibly three, would likely need to recuse on this. We are finally getting progress here, and the possible removal of Legacypac’s TBAN combined with Taku’s actually being fine with mainspacing some of this stuff means that there are viable community options short of both a CBAN and ArbCom. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  It is a falsehood that I was not ok with mainspacing some drafts started by me. This time I have corrected the redirect to the wrong target: I have never insisted the so-called notes (and they are not even my notes) to be kept in the draftspace forever. That's a lie! -- Taku (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Oppose community ban or arbcom. I very much agree with User:Paul August. I am very familiar with the topic area and many of the mathematical editors (e.g. [[User:R.e.b.]]). Although Taku's modus operandi is probably sub-optimal—to paraphrase User:Sławomir Biały—I do not agree with either the topic ban or the community ban. Mathsci (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Interaction ban with User:Hasteur

The following discussion is closed. 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 had enough!! I think Legacypac and I can be able to work together on the drafts started by me. Hasteur'a confrontational approach has proved to be too unproductive, however. The above ban proposal itself is the lasted example and many other uncalled-upon unnecessary comments in this thread. See Level structure (algebraic geometry) for another example. See also [294]. [295] also appears more to be more personal than interest in content development. It's hard for me to believe this is not personal grudge.

• Support as a proposer. -- Taku (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Both of them are trying to cleanup draftspace. Taku, I’m very glad that you and Legacypac can work together now, but I think sanctions against anyone here will only make the problem worse. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose You don't get to ask for IBANs for people calling out your failures and your lack of cleaning them up. Hasteur (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - whatever your opinions are on the use of draft space or the usefulness of a stub draft that never sees editing or the use of any area of the encyclopedia to store content notes on a complex topic, you have to be able to see from discussions like Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bivariant theory that TakuyaMurata has been willing to work with editors to pursue a proper disposition of their content to work it into the encyclopedia, but they have been doing so under a continuous barrage of aggression from Hasteur (e.g. [296] [297] [298] [299] [300] [301] [302] [303] [304]) and to a much lesser extent from Legacypac, both of whom absolutely do good and needed work in the draft space but that work does not justify this level of aggression. They have made Wikipedia toxic for an expert editor in a niche topic whose only obvious fault is perhaps poor organization. I picked Bivariant theory as an example because that discussion looked like this after I hatted Hasteur's abusive personal attack-laden tirades, which Hasteur insisted on restoring because apparently they feel the need to prove some kind of point about TakuyaMurata's character. It is very clear that this has become personal for Hasteur, and so I fully endorse the proposal for an interaction ban. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 04:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support Simply from his attitude and behavior (see the denigration and dismissal of TakuyaMurata's work and contributions in the section above) in this thread it is plain that he has completely lost perspective re TakuyaMurata and his work. There is absolutely no way Hasteur should be allowed to continue his grudge. Whatever legitimacy their goals had - and I do not doubt that he started out with the best of intentions - he has quite obviously lost his way. Jbh ^Talk 05:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as unwarranted and vindictive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Hasteur when Legacypac and Taku were blocked recently I suggested as an alternative to an IBAN (which would have been a disaster then just as I think this one will be if it passes) that he limit himself to one reply to Taku in a given conversation. He agreed to the idea generally and seems to have followed it and it seems to have been helpful. Might this be a good rule of thumb for you to follow as well? I’m aware of how complex this situation is, and don’t reallt like the idea of one party getting an IBAN from the other when they are the ones who would benefit in practice the most. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

With respect, but If I tell Taku "You need to fix XYZZY" and they say "No", am I just supposed to leave it? Am I supposed to walk away after I apply maintenance tags only to have them "resolved" before I get to post my explanation for why they need to be there on the talk page? Am I supposed to walk away when this editor thinks providing a single point of reference to a singular book (for which it is a very close paraphrasing of the book's text) counts as being "Reference Improved"? I would rather they get the lessons I'm trying to impart to them than the very unrelenting bat of zealous New Page Patrollers who would bust the page back to Draftspace or nominate for CSD or just go straight for AFD. Hasteur (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I’m opposing this IBAN for those (and several other) reasons. I think like the TBAN above and the previously mused on IBAN with Legacypac it would be a sanction that would be a net-negative, and one where one party clearly comes out on top (Taku wouldn’t have to worry about your valid critiques re: his drafts.) I think on talk pages of drafts and the like the back and forth may be helpful, but at noticeboards or Wikipedia talks they rarely are. In terms of the helping him learn bit, sometimes experience is the best teacher there. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• oppose net negative.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Definitely not. Also sensing an incoming WP:BOOMERANG -FASTILY 06:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, partly procedural as the proposal doesn't demonstrate the need, is not backed up with diffs, and appears to be a knee jerk reaction to the discussion above. While Ivanvector does provide some interesting diffs, given the full context of the discussions, at least the few I sampled, I would say Hasteur's frustration was well founded and his complains focused on Taku's lack of action rather than being purely personal. It might not be optimal, but one can hardly blame him. One example given [305] in fact show why an iban is a bad idea, as Hasteur is obviously trying to bend over backwards to accommodate Taku with a compromise. Another diff, [306], shows Hasteur making a reasonable argument but choosing not to !vote due to concerns expressed by others that he might have a bias. These are not the reasons you give two editors interaction bans. Some editors just rub each other the wrong way, but I can at least see Hasteur making real efforts to keep the discussion on the merits. Because of this, I would oppose any interaction ban, even a watered down one, as the evidence simply doesn't support that drastic of an action, nor does the iban solve the real problem here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose the IBAN proposed at the bottom of this thread is no better than the one proposed at the top of this thread. The solution is the systematic management of drafts by the creator, and failing that, not fighting the systematic management of those drafts by others. Legacypac (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Question for @Hasteur: You have chcrachteized Taku's edis as consisting "almost entirely of gnoming activities that any editor can do" Let me assure that is simply not the case. May I ask whether you have any mathematical expertise? Without any, it would be impossible for you to adequately appreciate Taku's contributions. In which case, I would respectfully suggest taking the word of other editors above, who might be in a better position to evaluate Taku's contributions than you. Paul August ☎ 18:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Paul August: I categorized the majority of Taku's edits as gnoming (adding internal wikilinks, Adding formatting, correcting mathematical errors). However the Level structure (algebraic geometry) page is an example of good content creation. I would also to like to also note that Taku wanted to leave the content at a really poor state and only brought it up to the current level because I refused to leave it at such a pitiful state. I am looking forward to Taku's further efforts to clean up draft namespace and continue to improve mainspace mathematical content. Hasteur (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Last word?: I have to say then development at Talk:Level structure (algebraic geometry) is ... very troubling. I thought I gave Hasteur what they wanted to (to shut him out.) maybe Hasteur is just rude or bored (no I don't believe Hasteur's ongoing behavior is productive in content development/cleanup.) -- Taku (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Hasteur is blunt and doesn't beat around the bush, but that isn't a bad thing. Again, I think the problem is you are biting off more than you can chew. You need to move some of your drafts into mainspace, work on finishing them instead of just starting them. I can't see why you would need more than a dozen drafts at one time. Finish what you start before you start something else, and all these problems go away. You are quite literally the only person who can make all the drama go away by following this simple advice. Drafts do not improve the encyclopedia, finished articles do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  I agree with "you are biting off more than you can chew", in hindsight. And I agree with the "drama-away" part too. But is Hasteur'a personal attacks not against me but the others really warranted? What is the aim? -- Taku (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  Yes it would be better if Taku used draftspace more judiciously (actually I don't really see the need for drafts at all, but Taku does.) But none of this justifies the obvious harassment he has received. Paul August ☎ 23:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  Ok you get your wish. I drop the white hat of an AFC patroller and put on the black hat of a NewPagePatroller. No more Mr Nice guy. We go straight to TagBombing, CSD nomiantions, and AFD nominations. Oh wait, you don't like that either? Then accept my current methodology as the path of least pain. Hasteur (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Hasteur: How about instead you put on you content editors hat, realize that Taku’s content contributions, are valuable (rather than the “crap” you seem to think they are), as several knowledgable editors have tried to explain to you, and try to give Taku less of a hard time? I have to say, what you describe as your “current methodology” (which apparently includes tying to site ban Taku), as exemplified by your response just above, is seeming more and more to me like a personal vendetta. Paul August ☎ 12:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Drafty area

Do any of you folks deeply involved with this Draft stuff, get along? If not, then Arbcom is right around the corner. It's not a place you want to end up. GoodDay (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Out of the 200 AFC reviewers, having 1-2% of them bickering is probably expected. Primefac (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Good point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The people who deal with 100 or more drafts weekly and see the same crap day in and day out get burnt out. Why not take one for the team and the community at large by taking some of the pages in pending Articles for Creation (Category:Pending AfC submissions) and provide a review Hasteur (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

In such an endeavor, I would be quite autocratic in my duties. I'd have no patients for disagreements. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)