Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Edgarmm81

Edgarmm81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Could somebody please evaluate if this user is here to contribute to encyclopedia, and, if yes, whether they are competent enough to contribute. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter - Looking now. Stand by... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter - I see the concerns regarding the edits made to Catalan independence referendum, 2017 that were reverted here and here citing multiple issues (such as NPOV concerns and replacing referenced content with different information). Looking at the article's talk page, on the surface it looks like the user made multiple edits to it that were not appropriate (1, 2, 3, 4) but some of them contain what appears to be an attempt to explain. "Although https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ymblanter (sic) and Spanish unionist may feel uncomfortable, this accusation is well-grounded. Let me show you some evidences and abnormal activities" - I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was trying to explain, but it clearly looks like this user is driven to edit here and by a single-purpose. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the analysis. Let us give them more rope then before blocking indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter - You're welcome, and I agree - give him enough rope; the tiger will show its stripes and the obvious will come to light if the user's intentions aren't to build an encyclopedia :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Edgarmm81 (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC) I am not expecting that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ymblanter shares my point of view. It is obvious his ideology and his intentions. But, unlike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ymblanter, I am a witness. And I wish I could find articles for half of the things I saw!

But anyways, almost all of my references are excerpts from... UNIONIST MEDIA to keep it more objective and neutral!!! Who knows what would have happened if I had used pro-independence articles! Btw, would https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ymblanter dare to write this article just with pro-independence information?

Never mind, let's focus and let me explain my points in more detail:

Like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crystallizedcarbon says, he's right when he says "like the video of an officer hit with a chair". But that policeman is one of the 12 wounded policemen reported by the Catalan Health Service. Besides, the man who threw that chair was arrested.

Moreover, there is another video of a policeman bitten during a charge and another one of civilians throwing stones at a armoured van leaving Sant Carles de la Rapita (after causing 40 wounded people), which has no consequences for those policemen health. Anyway, what I was trying to point out is the incongruence when saying it does add up to 431 (like the Minister said), especially when there were reported just 39 that night by the same Minister(so it makes nearly 400 new injured during that night), and above all, because there are no clinical reports beyond the 12 policemen attended by the Catalan Health Service, no further documentation, just speculation of newspaper in the heat of the moment. Furthermore, the coordinator of all the police bodies during the Referendum, Mr Diego Pérez de los Cobos, said "the police was received with direct violent actions", but "there were only 5 arrests". Sorry, it is impossible to believe that after 431 wounded policemen, there were just 5 people arrested... And I have to say that, obviously, it is likely it could be more wounded people, but the ones who were not attended by any hospital were because they had superficial injuries. And that applies to both sides! (policemen + civilian, not just policemen).

UPDATE: On the 11/jan/2018, the Spanish Police (Policia Nacional) sent to the Permanent Instructional Court number 7 of Barcelona an internal report saying that there were 40 injured antiriot policemen, the most severe suffering from a sprain of wrist and a broken finger. 5 policemen were recommended to have off days.

That makes a range between 12 and 40 injured policemen. Far from the 431 policemen that Wikipedia is currently reporting.

Like I said, this article is clearly biased on the Spanish point of view and it has generated indignation among Catalans. And what's more, when you try to expose the other point of view, the censorship appears, as usual in Spain, and that's what https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ymblanter is trying to do.

Please, keep in mind the report about lack of plurality and indepenence of the TV collaborators in the public RTVE for the whole 2014... and it keeps working like this and then it was extended to the private TV). Therefore, please, expect overreactions from the Spanish side, as they are not used to dealing with contrary opinions, and that's why they struggle and reject it, by calling the Catalan information as "biased", "sensationalist" and other words that I will not say.

Long time ago, I wrote a neutral NPOV in which I explained the difference between legality and legitimacy of the referendum. And the reason why Spain grabs legality and why Catalonia grabs legitimicy... but you did not publish it, either.

Please, accept my apologies because my English is not that good and I try to explain it the best I can. Besides, I am a newbie on Wikipedia, and I struggle. For this reason, there are so many edits. Please, take into account just the last version!

Another point highlighted by by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crystallizedcarbon: Regarding the issue "the Spanish Ministry of the Interior instructed the Spanish Attorney General to investigate whether the accusations of police sexual abuse against protesters made by Mayor of Barcelona Ada Colau, who had mentioned the councilor's statements, could be considered a legal offense of slander against": It is true that the Ministry instructed it, but you forgot to say that it has been reported that the Mayor of Barcelona was going to sue the Spanish police for some sexual improper behaviour. This is relevant and you forgot it... You are biasing the article by omitting why the Mayor of Barcelona made that accusation!!! Furthermore, it is false that the case of Marta Torrecillas (the woman of the broken fingers) was found far-fetched by an investigation, but because Marta Torrecillas modified her statement the following day, as I have reported several times. But this case is one of the most important points that the Spanish unionism use to discredit the Referendum, so that's why they omit that rectification, and Wikipedia is working like a unionism abettor unintentionally (bias). So, please, modify the current explanation on Wikipedia, since it is deceiving. If you like it, put it under the heading of "Other controversies" and provide the full explanation, or else, just remove it, as you are not explaining all the wounded people, individually.

With reference to the elections results (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crystallizedcarbon), it is relevant to give an interpretation of the results, as readers are not experts on Catalan nor Spanish elections. It must reflect that:

1) The pro-independence parties confirmed the majority of seats. 2) The Spanish ruling party was severely punished, becoming the seventh (and last) party in votes and seats, achieving just 4 seats in the Catalan Parliament out of 135 (insufficient to constitute a Parliamentary Group). 3) Although the Spanish government claimed the Catalan Referendum had no guarantees, had several irregularities and, even, people voted several times, the number of pro-independence votes in the Catalan elections (that took place on the 21/12/2017) was greater than in the Referendum.

Please, notice I gave you a reputed British reference..

I would also like to point out that this article is full of speculation. Being investigated or suing is a National Sport in Spain. There are lots of reciprocal accusations, and there will be more in the future. Besides, it has been the stategy of the Spanish Government since the beginning of the Catalan affair, as there is no separation of powers in Spain (10/12 of the Tribunal Constitucional judges are appointed by politicians, for example).

And what's more, until the judge makes a decision, you are reporting just an specualtion. And this article has plenty of that. Under investigation: Mr Trapero, Mrs Colau, the police for sexual harassment, politicians, judges malfeasance and some you are not including... Please, remove it until you find real evidence, it looks like a tabloid, instead of an objective article.

Finally, keep in mind that those biases and speculations have been on this website over 3.5 months, and the most visits took place in the following days after the event. You should have been more objective, but in fact you have been releasing a very biased Spanish unionist point of view for long, enhancing sensationalismt, delivering opinions and no contrasted information, providing speculations and inaccuracies. Please, beware of that next time.

Those to whom "my ideology and my intentions" are "obvious" probably should get less rope. Today I was already accused in being Slovakian nationalist, Spanish nationalist, someone who can not see obvious consensus, someone who does not speak English, and someone who must be deadmin for behavior unbecoming for administrator. To be honest, this is becoming too much for me.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Calling names to editors is out place and insistence on it should have whomever does that blocked, I have gone through that myself (and worse). Now I have this article on my watchlist and seen how just having the parliament of Catalonia mentioned at the beginning of the article was a struggle and a torment, despite being one of the five Ws, which eventually led me to largely abandon this article out of tediousness.

So I have not looked through all the details of this dispute, but I have seen deceptive edits summaries and misrepresentation of sources in this article that I have pointed other times, which honours the claims of Edgarmm81,like this gratuituous removal edit, or the mass removal of sourced information and no attention to detail I reverted myself, polishing it next.

The editor's behaviour is coarse, that is true, but his/her claims in form (but also in content) seem to be well-grounded and constructive. A didactic approach applies, since s/he does not seem to be familiar with the rules of the EN WP. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not defending the article at all, and, as a matter of fact, have absolutely no affiliation with any side of the conflict. I just seriously doubt that Edgarmm81 can achieve anything in this way, and that they are willing to learn. For the time being, they are just a single-purpose account, they do not have any other edits to Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ymblanter, you are scared because I am unveiling the lies that the Spanish Government has been systematically spreading. And what's more, it is so weird that you permit those manipulations and, now, you feel so offended, nervous and trying to censor and boycott my work... even though I provide clear unionist references... Like I said, this article on Wikipedia has caused a huge indignation among the Catalans, because of its bias, partiality and lack of objectivity, and that's why I opened this account, to shed light on it and correct all the misinformation and manipulation. By the way, I wish I hadnt had to do it...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgarmm81 (talk • contribs)

Ok, the user basically says themselves they are not here to contribute to the creation of encyclopaedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Ymblanter. Maybe this editor confuses Wikipedia with a forum. A small example are these 50 consecutive edits on the Catalan independence referendum, 2017 talk page. Or maybe thinks it's a propaganda platform: see this edit made a little over an hour ago, despite what is being discussed here, that I have undone --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 01:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, absolutely not. It is actually pointing to the deficencies and problems raised by the present, poor state of the article, both related to the statements made and its sources, which is actually a systemic issue, related to WP:RS. As an informed person, I would not come to this article to get an accurate picture of the events, it is full of noise, starting from the very lead section, unbalanced and greatly pumped up in order to, I would say, condition the reader's view, like attempting to charge the first sentences with 'illegal' and a string of legal considerations, discussed here, for one.

This concern for keeping pumping the lead, left the lead section swollen, which I pointed here, as editors like BallenaBlanca kept adding details, highlighting details in the same direction, I should say. Also this insistent edit by BallenaBlanca (note the deceptive edit summary) after I corrected the misrepresentation of source (afterwards reverted by me again), does him/her little favour.

Edgarmm81 does not know well how WP operates, but that is not a big issue, it is in the spirit of the WP to keep learning and building up. Iñaki LL (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Iñaki LL You are showing biased information by not giving all the information. Why do not you show this edit of mine, where I explained why I unmade the other edit?

Also, you said "or the mass removal of sourced information and no attention to detail I reverted myself" A veteran user like you? Do you stay so calm after saying something similar...? Edits that were original research and referenced with messages on Twitter? For more explanations see [1]

And without taking into account that you have not had the courtesy of pinging me after mentioning me, to give me the possibility to participate in this discussion, which I have seen by chance.

These are good examples of the type of edits / behaviors that other users and I are trying to neutralize.

Anyway, I have the feeling that the discussion is being diverted and that this is not the place to discuss the content of the Wikipedia articles. Am I wrong? --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 18:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca:You are right on pinging (I had still the echo of other discussions with users protesting the use of ping) and your last point, but since you were citing 'neutrality'. On this, you mention above, and your claim, what do you mean? I will not elaborate on your other claims either. Go to the article's or my talk page, if applies, for that. Iñaki LL (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Arcarius

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

Arcarius has been editing for a decade, but the same issues persist. They do not usually respond to messages from other editors, even when it is clear questions and repeated concerns being raised about the same issues: mainly referencing. You can see at [2] the many messages many editors have sent. I see my name is on the page 72 times - none of the messages were responded to. I have directed Arcaruius to WP:BURDEN and WP:Communication is required and tried many times to engage Arcarius in a discussion about their editing, to no avail.

Arcarius has been editing too long for this, and also did edit their user talk page back in 2016, so does know how to use the page. I would like Arcarius to join a discussion here and show that they understand Wikipedia is a collaborative project where it is required that you respond to editors when they raise concerns. I would also like Arcarius to show a good understanding of WP:V and to realise that if mann issue with sourcing, this should inform their future article creations. Some of the redirects are concerning too, redirects from terms which are not mentioned in the article at all. I'm not sure how else to get Arcarius to engage. Boleyn (talk) 09:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there any current ongoing disruption or any edit disputes in progress that requires this user's input to resolve? I see that you're concerned about ongoing issues over time, but I'd like to review any current issues that are in progress. Someone not responding on their talk page isn't something I can force this user to start doing... obviously :-). But if there are current disputes and issues where communication and his participation are needed and disruption is occurring in lieu of this (such as edit warring), then that's another matter. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. There seems to be a history of failure to engage. And there's a new issue where we can see if they respond. He's just edited an article[3] adding 2 section headings with underneath them "TO BE ELABORATED FROM THE ITALIAN WIKI". I'll try to get him to respond about that, but I'm also concerned about his continued failure to source. Doug Weller talk 14:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I'll bother to post on his talk page. He's been busy editing since he got the ANI notice (at least 10 edits) and still hasn't responded here. I don't have time to waste. Doug Weller talk 14:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

As a long-established editor he doesn't seem to know about date formats - see grotty recent additions to Tharros. PamD 15:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The ongoing issue is the lack of sources in articles Arcarius has created, discussion about the seemingly misleading redirects etc. They are also going against the policy at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Discuss with the other party: Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia...Sustained discussion between the parties, even if not immediately successful, demonstrates your good faith and shows you are trying to reach a consensus...Talk page discussion is a prerequisite to almost all of Wikipedia's venues of higher dispute resolution. Boleyn (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Arcarius, we can see you are still editing, can you please contribute to this discussion? We are just trying to resolve these issues, and we can't do this without you. Please be aware that if you refuse to engage with this discussion, you risk an indefinite block. Just talk to us. Boleyn (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Arcarius has now disappeared as soon as I mentioned here that we could see they were editing but not communicating. I think at this stage an indefinite block is the only way to get Arcarius to communicate. Arcarius, please prove me wrong and join the discussion. Boleyn (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible canvasing and meatpuppetry

This has recently been bought to my attention [[4]] with comments like "I signed up to Wikipedia -for this, can I influence somehow?" and "Good news, Yair: the article passed editor review! But *just* barely. Still need some editors with knowledge to fill out the article and expand it with info." This was raised here [[5]], which in turn was a response to this [[6]]. The AFD did seem to feature a number of almost inactive or fairly new accounts.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven - For sake of clarity here, we're talking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillel Neuer, correct? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I would have thought reading the twitter feed would have told yo, it is a resolved AFD here [[7]] however (apart form the fact it was not raised here at the time) it seems like it may still be a possible issue (given some of the comments (on the twitter feed) with the article Antisemitism in the Labour Party. But it seems it may well be a wider issue then one article or AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Slatersteven - Ah, thank you. I saw the twitter feed but got distracted and didn't get to read through the whole thing. I'm going through the AFD now... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• The incident first came to light on the AfD page [8] with a noticed uptick in votes and brought up by Tontag. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• (ecx3)A bit pointless bringing this up, the article survived AFD due to policy based arguments not because of numbers. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

A, It was no consensus.

B, As I said above this may not be a resolved issue of canvasing, it may still in fact be having an impact.

C, The "threat" of (for example) making changes to the article to better reflect "the facts" means that there is still the possibility of disruption. It also seems that it is not occurring on just the one AFD, thus is (clearly) an ongoing issue.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

No consensus is equivalent to keep for AfD purposes, so that argument is irrelevant. If you have an issue with the way the discussion was closed, the proper way to resolve the dispute is to discuss it with the closing admin, and then to take it to WP:DELREV if that doesn't resolve the dispute. Iffy★Chat -- 15:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I was replying to DS's claim that it was a vote for keep (it was not)due to policy based arguments (in fact it was made clear both sides had valid points). Also this is a wider issue then the one AFD (as I also say in my reply to DS). IN fact it was (as I think it should be clear from my OP) that I am more concerned about further potential disruption in article spaceSlatersteven (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• I think Oshwah was referring to this newer tweet; this twitter feed has once again announced an AFD in hopes of influencing it. If there is suddenly a major upswing of keep !votes, we'll know why.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• I thought this was about the news article which was brought up on the article talk page, obviously I've missed something Darkness Shines (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• All that really shows is E.M.Gregory watches this Yair Rosenberg's twitter feed, saw his piece, and decided to troll everyone at the talk page by calling them POV editors -- with that as "evidence". I am more concerned about the AFD process being disrupted on more than one occasion by a twitter handle.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• How is your above comment not a violation of the FIVE PILLARS? We get it, you don't like EM Gregory and you have a bias, but your constant hounding of him and behavior has got to stop. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Sir Joseph throwing out the word bias again, I see. May you describe my bias please? I am unfortunately unaware of it; my apparent shear dislike for Gregory (which I was also unaware of) has blinded me.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• There is nothing wrong with having a bias, we all have one and it's real silly to say you don't have one. But your comment did not come across as something neutral and AGF. Maybe I misread it but it seemed to me to be a little off. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

So how would you have described E.M.Gregory's comment about "POV editors making Wilipedia look bad"?Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with it 100%. There are POV editors and they make Wikipedia look bad. In this case, (both Neuer and Antisemitism) we have clear notable people or subjects that warrant 100% inclusion. There are certain topics in Wikipedia that for some reason or another, many people want to hush up. I also don't get why you're asking me this. I'm not the one who called someone "trolling." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Really so having 2 articles that mention something is "hushing it up"?. I am asking you because you have tried to defend a blatant attack on other editors. Oh and I do agree it was trolling, what else is linking to an inflammatory article (on an articles talk page) and using it to attack other edds without actually making an constructive suggestion as to how to use the linked article not trolling?

Not only does it violate rules about making PA's but also ones about what article talk pages are for, and maybe even a few other rules for good measure. It was nothing but a disruptive act of soapboxing. Perhaps we need to ask admins if this was a rules violation?Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• 1.) It is entirely routine to mention the fact that an article has received media attention on the talk page of the article. 2.) It is absurd to suppose that we can prevent Tablet (magazine) or other media from covering our editing process. Nor can we prevent such coverage from inspiring people to become Wikipedia editors. Such inspiration is not meatpuppetry.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not "entirely routing" to attack other editors o POV pushing and bringing Wikipedia into disrepute on article talk pages. And there are things we can do to mitigate the effect of of Wiki canvasing. That (by the way) is my main concern here, to mitigate the potential effects of of wiki canvasing (for example is there a link between the author of the tablet article, and any edds who have edited those pages, and if so should that user get a ban?).Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, we are talking about a man Yair Rosenberg, with over 53,000 twitter followers who writes for a popular magazine, Tablet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• User:TheGracefulSlick certainly does, as User:Sir Joseph writes above, have political biases that lead her to behave towards me - and towards other editors with whom she disagrees - in an aggressive, WP:BATTLEGROUND manner.
• Here she follows me to other users talk pages just to be gratuitously nasty, belittling, and assume bad faith (I found this because she pinged me) : [9].[10], presumably to "improve" her stats at AfD. She certainly knows how to strike a comment properly [11].
• Here: [12] TGS follows an editor with whom she regularly disagrees on terrorism-related AfDs to an arcane American history article, a topic she rarely if ever, and makes a false assertion: "On further examination, the sources Icewhiz provides here are passing mentions, not indepth coverage." In fact, the editor she accused had specifically brought to the page and flagged at AfD an INDEPTH 2013 article in the Saturday Evening Post.[13] To GracefulSlick, the point often seems to be "winning," even by means of making false assertions that appear to discredit fellow editors.
• Here: [14] she was canvassed by an editor to come to his defense at ANI, and she complied, accusing me of being "someone who 'may' have it out for you." In fact, it was my third comment in that thread; my first two were defending the work of the accused editor.
• Here she makes a series of gratuitous attacks on and complaints about fellow editors, here: [ https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/7700_16th_Street_NW&diff=813949404&oldid=813866725]; [15]; [16], [17], [18], here the slurs and innuendo are about a page that I found at AfD and almost completely rewrote [19], she then improperly changed her iVote to a "comment". E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• May I remind you the last time you made these accusations (at an ANI thread for your behavior) on the same flimsy "evidence", the admin quickly disregarded your frivolous claims. Taking diffs out of context doesn't prove I have a political bias; it does, however, prove you handle your own personal issues with editors by trying to deceive others. Now, if you haven't noticed, this is a thread on canvassing and meatpuppetry. If you want to file something against me, I encourage you to do so.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Sigh. This is entirely unsurprising. In my 12+ years in the IP area, canvassing from the pro Israeli editors have virtually been the norm in the AfDs Huldra (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment  This AfD diff provides the same Twitter URL of the OP here.  I searched for "can I influence" and I don't find the quote at the URL.  Why are we looking at off-Wiki links anyway? 
  Beyond answering that question, the other thing actionable I see here is User:TheGracefulSlick "encouraging" a self-WP:BOOMERANG, which given the 2nd link in the OP, [20], TheGracefulSlick has been outed for accusations of WP:CANVASSING.  The diff itself also has the personal attack recorded in the edit summary.  Possibly ignore the accusation along with an admonishment not to stir up the community, would suffice.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Unscintillating, I appreciate your concern, but I have never been outed and C. W. Gilmore never accused me of canvassing. Please read and understand the thread before making such statements. Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Concern?  Ok by me.  Just remember that the next time you go "encouraging" an ANI filing against yourself, this episode will be in the record.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Template hijacking

A template (not sure which one) has been vandalized to redirect clicks anywhere on certain article pages that use it to a Youtube live feed ([21]). One of the affected articles is Barack Obama. To demonstrate the issue, navigate to that page, then attempt to click on any blue link (or even in the white space of the page, as the exploit actually uses a transparent overlay). General Ization ^Talk 04:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't seem to reproduce it on mobile ... maybe fixed already? Or just not working on my browser? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Apparently not working on your mobile browser. General Ization ^Talk 04:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't work on my desktop either.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This was fixed; see the VPT thread. {{Excessive citations inline}} had a overlay element added to it. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Apparently fixed now -- either undone by the initiator of the hijacking or corrected by someone else. General Ization ^Talk 04:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

See my recent contribs. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 04:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I have seen this same exploit before (redirecting clicks, as I recall, to the same webcast). I won't say more because last time it was all revdel'd so as not to give anyone ideas (WP:BEANS). General Ization ^Talk 04:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Spam blacklisted. SQL^{Query me!} 04:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I noticed a few templates in my watchlist getting protected the other day; apparently this process needs to be speeded up. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

One of these templates had 8 transclusions. Whatever standards are applied, a template like that is probably not going to be automatically protected, and even if it was there'll probably appear an autoconfirmed sock. However feel free to join the discussion at WP:VPR. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've run a purge job on all pages where that was transcluded, so it should be clear now. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
• Can I take this opportunity to point out to people that if you see reports of template vandalism, "strange vandalism" or similar, then the first thing to check is this newbie template contribs link (it's easy to reconstruct). The edits are almost always immediately obvious. If there's nothing there you can always check recent changes for unregistered contribs. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

  @Zzuuzz: template "related changes" for a page usually helps as well e.g.. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Xaosflux and Zzuuzz: At least one of the templates in the "newbie" link above - Template:Conservatism sidebar - is still transcluding vandalism onto pages when logged out; this image was just appearing on Republican Party (United States) instead of the template when viewing the page in incognito mode. I've purged the page and it appears to be gone from there, but the template transcludes onto 128 other pages according to the tool. I'll see if I can find any others. Home Lander (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
    • • • @Home Lander: I'll have a bot purge them all now. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
          • Thanks Xaosflux; by chance, can you spill the beans on how to do that? Home Lander (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
          •  Done @Home Lander: you can grab the 'what links here' list from the template, then feed that to anything to script either running WP:PURGE or null-edits to the pages. You could even use AWB and just append {{subst:null}} to a list of pages. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
            • @Xaosflux: Oh lord, you lost me quickly. I have no experience with the AWB or bots (other than the anti-vandal or AIV helpers). I think I'll just leave that to you. Home Lander (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Aww, dang it... I've been meaning to pull a list of our templates with the highest translusion count and make sure that any high risk or highly visible ones are protected. I'll put that back on my to-do list... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

MusikAnimal has done a lot of work to list and protect templates and modules. See the recent User talk:MusikAnimal#List request from Primefac. Johnuniq (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Perfect! This is exactly what we need to be doing so we can reduce the risk of major template vandalism that would impact many pages. Thanks for letting me know that this is a currently in-progress task; I'll see what I can do to help (if it's needed). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Primefac protected a boat load from a report I gave him (which I agree with, for the record :). I'm not sure how much further we should go without broader support, but anyway I have a script that I can run anytime you need me to. A bot task used solely for reporting is probably a bad idea, per WP:BEANS. I suspect however that at least one of the vandals we're dealing with is running their own queries. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Would it be possible to protect all redirects to such protected templates too? Don't know how worthwhile it'd be, but I remember a while back people were hitting template redirects too. ansh666 04:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

We're just talking about redirects, right? Not any pages that reference them? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, like how Template:Info box redirects to Template:Infobox. (Perhaps a bad example, since thankfully the former isn't used at all.) ansh666 01:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I got'cha. I don't think there's an automated way to do that (or at least easily). Cascading protection only protects subpages of a page, but what you're asking for sounds to be almost the same thing (except... with redirects). You'd have to find each one and do it one-by-one if it can't be done with automation... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

If that's the case, we'll need to stay a step ahead and do this ourselves. I agree that having a bot report these things is not a good idea. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Akhiljaxxn

Warned him before[22][23] that if he continues his disruption he will be taken to ANI and it seems that he wishes to continue it. One can agree that he speaks very bad English, and he claims on his userpage that he is "a native speaker of the English language".[24] There are many competence issues. He has been disrupting the articles about Michael Jackson, sometimes creating WP:POVFORKs by violating WP:COPYVIO,[25][26] and removing what he believes to be negative against Michael Jackson.[27][28]

He was blocked months ago for sockpuppetry[29] and recruiting people from social networking sites to help him on-wiki,[30] but he made his way by "canvassing different admins via email",[31] with one admin that he canvassed from Malayalam Wikipedia would assure that the user will "be carefull editing articles".[32]

During debates, he usually posts his opinions and turns talk pages into WP:FORUM.[33][34] Also prefers to edit war about the things where no one else would ever agree with him and he reverts[35][36] until there are multiple editors to revert him. (also see last two diffs of first paragraph) Also contrary to WP:BRD, he will never start the discussion on talk page.

And I have just checked that he reverted one of recent my edit, calling it a "rv possible vandaliam"[37], contrary to WP:NOTVAND, and has been warned about that before as well."possible_vandalism?" I believe that a block or any kind of other sanction for this disruption is warranted. Excelse (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

It appears that most of the diffs are several months old. Besides reverting one of your edits, what has Akhiljaxxn done recently that you feel deserves a block? Billhpike (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. I agree the editor should not have called your edit vandalism but it seems unlikely it's enough to warrant sanction due to months old misbehaviour in different areas. Nil Einne (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the issues presented here are all from 2017 (and many of which took place months ago). Blocking this user or taking administrative action towards them over issues that aren't recent, current, and/or in-progress (especially if they're from the past like this) - would be extremely inappropriate and unjustified. What concerns or issues are occurring with this user's edits that are recent or in progress? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Billhpike, Nil Einne, and Oshwah: His activity is low, he is disrupting Wikipedia for more than 3 years and these incidents demonstrate the long term problems with the user still exist. I omitted the mentions of the incidents where I didn't had the article on watchlist or the incidents are old. He made only a few edits since those "several months old" diffs. The diff from 12 January, where he willfully called constructive edit a "possible vandaliam",[38] alone shows that he is not competent enough to collaborate here. In fact there was no need of making the revert and he also failed to discuss his edit. Even if he decides to discuss his edits, he will just use talk page as forum with his very bad English. These are not small but big problems and the user has demonstrated that he is not going to hear. Since he has serious competence issues it is impossible to think that he will ever reform. Excelse (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you mean by "no need of making the revert and he also failed to discuss his edit". The reversion appears to either have been a mistake or a content dispute. If it was a mistake then I guess you're right there was no need to make the revert. But if it's a content dispute then reversion is sometimes an acceptable part of handling a content dispute per WP:BRD as the information is sourced, and does refer to to the impact of Michael Jackson, there could easily be resonable dispute about whether or not it belong in the article which should be dealt with in the manner of all content disputes, i.e. via discussion not via ANI. And the talk page for the article has some recent discussion from you touching on scope, but nothing that seems to deal with the particular removal. Therefore you have not really discussed it either and cannot resonably complain about someone else "failed to discuss", it's intrinsic on both parties to discuss and it rarely does anyone any favours by arguing the other person should discuss first, nor that edit summaries are sufficient. If you do raise the issue on the talk page and leave time for responses and there are none, it's likely to be resonable to re-instate it and if anyone continues to revert without at least entering the discussion, then you can bring it to ANI. As for the other issues, as already mentioned since sanctions are intented to be preventative not punitive it's difficult to argue in favour of a block when there is very little evidence of much recent misbehaviour. If we blocked everyone for calling something vandalism when they shouldn't I wouldn't be surprised it the number of blocks issued increased by an order of magnitude. If this editor continues serious misbehaviour report it then and they will hopefully be quickly blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes there was no need to make a revert if we go by policies and guidelines, we can remove the undue large quotes that have nothing to do with subject. But these things are just too much for Akhiljaxxn. He hates do discuss his edits, he never starts talk page discussion neither he carries it on, although he prefers to edit war. His problematic approach to turn specific articles into fancruft and misrepresenting policies is also an issue. He won't consider removing the content that makes his preferred article look less of fancruft, yet he edit wars over valid content on other articles, I have already mentioned one,[39] another example is Vijay (actor) where he edit warred over valid content (mostly), by calling it "not fan page", "puffery"[40][41] he falsely claimed that the editor has COI. Of course we can block any editors who are being disruptive for over 3 years and they still don't understand, because competence is required and evidently he lacks it. Excelse (talk) 05:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I’m inclined to agree that this edit removed puffery. Do you think articles should have phrases like honour Vijay's spectacular achievement in the movie industry and rising to glorious heights.? Billhpike (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I had said "mostly", if you read properly. You must have also ignored that in these diffs, he is not just removing the content, but himself adding unsourced and puffery like "is an extremely famous one in Tamil Nadu" and also claiming that the editor has COI, which is itself a serious allegation. We are talking about an editor who spent more than 3 years on Wikipedia, violating copyrights, edit warring, sock puppetry, offline canvassing, has a very bad English and still doesn't understand what is vandalism. I am not seeing how a block is not justified. Excelse (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Billhpike, Nil Einne, and Oshwah: Excelse is a problamatic wikipedian who always fights with different wikipedians and has been warned by different wikipedians and blocked for 2 weeks period for sock puppetery. As you can see he is a elvis fan and he always tries to malign other artist pages and he behaves with me a sense of vengeance. Before taking a decision on this i'm kindly requesting to all the wiki admin over here to take a look of the contribution [42] and talk page [43][44].If you check his contribution we could see that he has a fighting mentality and you could see nobody has an issue with me only to excel but excel got warrned by different users for his conflicted edits. I thought i shouldn't be here to justify my action but i see excel writes several falsehoods about my edit on actor vijay's page like i added puffery's like "is an extremely famous one in Tamil Nadu" This is is factully wrong, i only restored the previous version by removing the puffery.Excel is following me like a shadow And interferes in all activities of mine .Is it possible to hide my contribution from excel? If yes pls help me to do that- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

But you were indeffed for socking and off-Wiki canvassing a few months ago and you canvassed many admins by emailing them to get yourself unblocked and you have failed to meet their expectations. Yes you had added the puffery, "extremely famous one in Tamil Nadu", twice and also added the COI tag.[45][46] Even your statement confirms that you added this puffery while removing a lot of content that was valid. By calling these diffs a "falsehood" you are only demonstrating your incompetence and giving others a reason why you should be blocked. You have failed to convince others for preserving your MJ fancrufts and it should not mean that I am against you. While your comments are entirely without evidence, I can remind you that you were trolling on a WikiProject and you even claimed that "Michael Jackson literally dominated EVERY MARKET music was sold",[47] though Michael Jackson was always far from that. Do you really want me to count how many editors/admins have warned you to this day? One can always look at the history of your talk page which is full of warnings and you were also engaged in vandalism.[48] Just because you have always removed your warnings it doesn't means that we can't see them. By misrepresenting these two diffs[49][50] and using them as rebuttal, you have made it even more clearer that you have serious competence issues. Don't hope for a fictional feature "to hide" your contributions, because your existence doesn't stop anyone from checking your edits and rectifying them. Excelse (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Excelse: Please read WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, WP:PERSONALATTACK, and WP:DROPTHESTICK. Billhpike (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

So I need to assume good faith with his deliberate deception? You need to read AGF is not a suicide pact, WP:CIR and WP:CHERRYPICK, unless you are telling me that we need to tolerate highly incompetent users and let them disrupt Wikipedia as much as they want. Excelse (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Dilpa kaur

• Dilpa kaur (talk · contribs)

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

Yes it's a disruptive meat puppet. See [51] filed a report just after JosephusOfJerusalem (another SPA) had his report rejected.[52] On report he writes, "Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#India-Pakistan_2: A civility restriction. Any suggestion that any editor is not editing in good faith will lead to an immediate block."[53] Same green font and sentence that JosephusOfJerusalem had applied, "Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#India-Pakistan_2: A civility restriction. Any suggestion that any editor is not editing in good faith will lead to an immediate block."[54]

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

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

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

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

Saving a template from the preceding report, working on it when the reported person displays more bad behaviour, as is the case here with Anmolbhat, is not meatpuppetry. Your other diffs [55] are a misrepresentation, sometimes i struggle with making my pre-planned edits on my mobile because it gets frozen and goes haywire and copying from my phone notes and pasting and saving becomes a hassle. This[56] was a temporary notice on my part on the page to underline the issues with the text I was trying to remove, until I could fix the text properly when my phone improved, which I did within 5 minutes[57]. This seems like a detraction from the current AE case against MBlaze Lightning's friend Anmolbhat who has just broken the civility restriction. My guess is that when I by mistake pasted my report on Anmolbhat by mistake in the wrong place and came back to insert it in the right place later, during that time MBlaze Lightning started planning a diversion from the AE case against Anmolbhat. What should be looked into is the long-term tag-teaming between MBlaze Lightning, Anmolbhat, Capitals00, Kautilya and some others. Dilpa kaur (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filer's tag-teaming and harassment

The filer has been part of several spurious and failed attempts at getting blocked the users he disagrees with. Just last month on here MBlaze Lightning created a report against Dilpa kaur so ridiculous (he could not differentiate between the different IPs of @Dilpa kaur: and @Danish.mehraj26:) that he had to revert himself [58]. He also paarticipated against me and @Danish.mehraj26:/@JosephusOfJerusalem: in a frivolous SPI which ended up confirming our innocence. The question is why is the filer so desperately making multiple attempts to get others blocked (his own block log is hardly one to envy)?

And what was happening in the middle of all of this? Two IPs,[59][60] located in two different [61][62] Indian cities, turn up to frame me and @Owais Khursheed: for meatpuppetry. Both IPs were had knowledge of a user known as @Kautilya3:, which indicates they were old users IP socking to frame me and Owais. The different locations of the IPs suggest collaboration between multiple old users is happening on IP levels, and even worse is happening through the accounts where they are using hook and crook methods to get opposing editors blocked.

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

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

For example the senior editor @NadirAli: observed on Talk:Violence against women during the partition of India that Kautilya3 suddenly arrived on a talkpage discussion for an article he had no contribution to. Even more interestingly, MBlaze Lightning turned up on the same page to do a revert[63] to ensure the page looked the way Kautilya3 wanted [64]. This despite MBlaze Lightning not contributing much to the article either.

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

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

And then comes in Adamgerber80, who had no contribution to the discussion, to restore MBlaze Lightning and Kautilya3's preferred version during the edit war [65]. Note his edit summary ad then check how much he has contributed to the discussions on talk.

Just recently, MBlaze Lightning again proved to be part of a tag team. Until now he has had no major contribution to the discussion on Talk:Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus except for one vague statement (and no response thereafter when he was questioned) in support of Anmolbhat and Kautilya3's POV [66]. He then did a disruptive revert on the article [67]. Fortunately the edit war has been ended graciously by the admins who have locked the page now so MBlaze Lightning and Anmolbhat can no longer break WP:NOCON and do disruptive reverts.

Then there is Capitals00. In an extensive discussion on sourcing between Kautilya3 and JosephusOfJerusalem Capitals00 turns up to make vitriolic comments,[68] with no other contribution to the discussion, and does a revert [69] to Kautilya3's preferred version while there is still discussion going on on the talkpage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intertwined contributions only display the ″last 1000 cumulated contributions of the two users″. It does not show intersections. To check intersections you need to use this tool [70]. The tool shows that Dilpa kaur and I have only edited in 4 same places,[71] of which only 2 are talkpages and the remaining two are ANI and AE boards, likely not even on the same threads. JosephusOfJerusalem intersects with Dilpa on 6 pages,[72] of which 1 is the article you mysteriously turned up to 'uninvited' and only 2 are talkpages. His intersections with me are also only in 6 places.[73] JosephusOfJerusalem has contributed to several places [74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83] where I and Dilpa have not and similarly Dilpa[84] and I[85][86][87][88][89] have contributed where each other has not.

The same is not true for your friends. The tool shows you and MBlaze Lightning intersecting on 404 pages,[90] many of them talkpages. You intersect with Capitals00 on 404 pages too.[91] All three of you intersect in 103 places,[92] many of them talkpages, whereas I, Dilpa and Josephus intersect only on 2 places[93], 1 of them an AE board. Whatever you say now does not wipe the proof I have provided of obvious tag teaming between your meat puppets. I would even request admins to check your emails. Do you really think you can get away with all the tag-teaming without the rest of us knowing that all this is not a coincidence? KA$HMIR (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive editing

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

---

Persistent disruptive editing by User:2601:CB:8200:15B6:99F5:1672:479C:17B at Gandhara. See history of that page, and warnings at User talk:2601:CB:8200:15B6:99F5:1672:479C:17B. See also Talk:Gandhara#Animism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 36 hours by Callanecc. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Based on his edits and personal attacks, I'm sure he's not a new user and is IP-sock of a blocked account. If you review his edits on other targeted articles like Arachosia, Bactria, Bactrian language, and Kanishka, all of them have a similar pattern of POV-pushing. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• The IP is with 100% certainty a sock of indefinitely blocked user Spalagdama, based on both the subject area, the edits and the geolocation (Alpharetta, GA). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spalagdama for a number of previous named socks, but they have also used a considerable number of IPs from their own home area over the years, and also open proxies from around the world. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The IP is a static connection from Comcast Cable, part of an IPv6 /64-subnet (i.e. what a single user gets) that has been used by Spalagdama only for more than a month now, so I recommend a lengthy rangeblock (see combined contributions for the /64). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked three months. Thank you for the info, Thomas.W. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Dan56 (again)

• Dan56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not surprisingly, Dan56, who once declared that he was done "wast[ing] too much time on here as it is concerning myself with self-righteous bores and misguided pests at articles no one reads", is back, and although he doesn't seem to be as active as he used to be, he's still up to no good; on Raw Power, for example, we get into a dispute and have a lengthy discussion about it, he stops responding, and after I proceed to make the edit again, he reverts it within half a fucking hour and even opens an RfC about it. This isn't the first time he's opened an RfC about something so trivial; even if it isn't ownership anymore, can someone please do something about it? Esszet (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

You didn't get the memo? Jimbo Wales is editing Wikipedia under the username "Dan56" these days. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'm straining to see the good faith in this request, but it is difficult. If someone reverts you, talks, then you change it, then they revert you and then start an RFC, that sounds like the normal editing process. Doesn't mean it is always pretty, but as long as he actively engaging in the topic in good faith. He started the RFC, a few participated, all of them agreed. Whether it is an official RFC or just talk page poling is meaningless to me, its all the same: building consensus. Right now, it sounds like you are complaining about someone building consensus. Unanimous consensus in the one example. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, but he was the one who stopped responding, and if you were more familiar with him, you'd see what I mean; if you look at his contributions, you'll see that pretty much all he does now is revert other people's edits, often without explanation. By the way, both of the other people in the previous RfC (yes, there were only two) said it was a stupid thing to have an RfC for. Esszet (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

First of all, calling someone a "raging egoist" is a personal attack, so I would recommend striking it. Second, your report here is mainly complaining about how you don't like him yet you haven't managed to articulate a single policy he has violated. Claims like "he's still up to no good". You complain that he stopped responding, right after complaining about the lengthy discussion. You complain about the revert, but you admit he immediately put up an RFC to get a broad consensus view. If two people are reverting each other back and forth, on any point (petty or not), putting it up for the community to decide is exactly the right solution. As for looking through his contribs, the onus is on you to present diffs that demonstrate a policy violation, to at least give us some direction. Throw us a bone. Telling us that you simply don't like someone and that we should just go on a fishing expedition through hundreds of diffs, that isn't likely to bear fruit. If you have a specific policy violation claim and the diffs to demonstrate it, by all means, present it. Otherwise, this is frittering away a lot of time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

His last edit appears to be tagged with rollback - which if rollback was actually used is an abuse of the tool. -edit- actually taking a look at his contributions, quite a lot are tagged with rollback which are almost all content/style changes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

In Twinkle, there are three rollback features: a bad faith, a good faith and a neutral one. The neutral and good faith are not much different than an undo, except they are much more convenient. If he is tagging good faith edits as vandalism, that is a problem. If he isn't, then he's just using the tools that we've provided for faster reverts. Not always optimum, but the tools exist for a reason. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

As I understood twinkle, if the editor has the rollback permission it uses that, if it doesn't, it performs a standard revert? As he appears to have rollback rights, is twinkle using that permission to rollback non-vandalism? If it is, its irrelevant what tool he is using, the rollback user-right is not to be used for non-vandalism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

About to make the commute, so I don't have time to look up. Mainly, I'm looking at the summary, which doesn't mention vandalism and the verbiage is no different than an UNDO except it says ROLLBACK instead of UNDO. No mention of vandalism or other negative words. Rollback used to be a negative thing only, but not now. It is just a fast way to automatically undo all of an edit, or multiple edits, without the chance to modify them along the way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Note - In the last ANI discussion between these two, Dan56 was on his way for a boomerang and 1RR restriction before he "retired" to avoid scrutiny. I recommended for the restriction to still be implemented for his inevitable return but it seems the thread was simply closed without any action.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Actually, it appeared that there was no consensus. Had there been a clear consensus, it would have been closed with action. I'm not going to retry that case, the community has already shown they were split on those issues. I've looked for clear policy violations in this report but no one has presented them. I can see some potential problems, but it isn't my job to do all the homework and present the case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I guess the issue here really is ownership; judge for yourself whether an RfC was necessary here or in the previous instance. Especially in light of his past behavior (see here), I really am inclined to think a lot of this really isn't in good faith and he's trying to drag out the discussion as much as he can just to make it difficult to make edits he doesn't like. It may not seem that bad – yet – but I'm trying to nip this in the bud. By the way, the vote count in the previous thread here was 6-2 in favor of sanctioning him – I'm not trying to be snotty, but is that not enough? Esszet (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

And yes, using rollback to revert good-faith edits is considered an abuse of the tool, but sanctioning him for that probably wouldn't do much; he'd just start doing standard reverts instead. Esszet (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

In this case, for example, I ‘’was’’ trying to establish consensus (hence the discussion on the article’s talk page), and what I think he’s doing is trying to discourage other people from participating by the sheer length of the discussion (if he was, it worked) and then opening RfCs when the other person simply won’t give up. As I said, it isn’t that bad – yet – but at the same time, you shouldn’t have to have a lengthy discussion and an RfC every time you try to make an edit he doesn’t like. Esszet (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown and Only in death:? Esszet (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I've said all that I felt needed saying. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Now I'm confused, I thought I spelled things out pretty clearly the second time around. Esszet (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this was very poorly done. What I was going after was WP:FILIBUSTER or maybe WP:DISRUPTIVE, but two (petty) RfC's aren't enough for that. This can be closed now. Esszet (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

User: Chaipau(Disruptive editing)

• Chaipau (talk · contribs)

Could an admin take a look at the contribs of this WP:SPA account, especially the edits made on the pages Chutiya kingdom[94],[95] and Paik system[96](The used references can be verified if necessary).The user seems not to stop disruptive editing the pages and uses fake excuses like wrong sources mentioned, could not find source(whereas proper links and sourced are added) and sock-puppetry, thus deleting important information in the guise of essential edits.2405:205:1084:A4F0:B46E:F42F:82B4:EAC9 (talk)

• • This incident has been added here by a suspected sock puppet who is under investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LauraGoldstein67. The user has been blanking the page [97]. This user has the habit of top posting[98], which he did on this page as well [99]. Chaipau (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• • @Kleuske: Chaipau (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• As it is evident here, the user Chaipau has been taking down valid users under the case of sock-puppetry, while himself cunningly removing sourced info. I am a new user well versed with these articles. He has some POV mentality involved with the articles related to the Chutia community.
• Even the top posting he mentions seems to be not valid as "Chutia" is the correct spelling of the word. For instance look at Sonaram Chutia. Even the organisation involved with the community has the name All Assam Chutia students (https://m.facebook.com/allassamchutiastudentsunion/). On the other hand the word "Chutiya" is a well known slang/curse word in India. Therefore, it is evident that the user is trying to defame the community name due to some personal reasons.(https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/chutiya).

2405:205:1084:A4F0:B46E:F42F:82B4:EAC9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I reverted blanking of an SPI-page. That's where my involvement ends. The rest looks like a content dispute to me, on which I have no particular opinion, although diffs are required to back up any claims. Kleuske (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Ban Snooganssnoogans for disruptive editing and edit warring

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

---

I am trying to improve Immigration to Sweden, but when I was editing the crime section, the user Snooganssnoogans deleted the entire section and replaced it random excerpts remotely related to the issue without first discussing this on the talk page. The section is now 1500 words long (which is longer than any other section about immigration on the entire English Wikipedia). At the same time it manages to leave out the most crucial pieces of information. Things that would be nice to have in order to fulfill WP:NPOV includes

• Perspectives other than the highly politicized and debunked sociology professor Jerzy Sarnecki
• The censoring of new crime statistics
• A general summary of the development of crime which is needed for understanding the arguments.

The way Snooganssnoogans achieve both having a section that is both too long and leave out the relevant information is to discard structure and include irrelevant information.

• Two paragraphs are dedicated to what Donald Trump's view of the situation is. A man who is famous for changing opinion depending on the audience and situation and has probably never even been to Sweden or written a research paper.
• The same information is repeated in the beginning of the article and towards the end (Brå 2005 and Sarnecki 2013)
• Most text is spent giving different perspectives on how immigrants are over represented, but not if you account for socioeconomic factors.

Snooganssnoogans is quite good at posing as a legitimate user, but when you see the history you realize that this user is not trying to improve Wikipedia. It is obvious that he tries to get me to attack him to trigger some personal attack warning.

• First he deleted the section that looked promising and replaced it with this mess and he won't even allow deleting duplicate of information.
• He has falsely accused me for editing warring when trying to get him to argue why he deleted the previous section, and then when I try to improve this section. First time I broke 3RR (although I don't think it applies to mass removal) and now he broke the 3RR rule and he still blame me.
• He won't seriously engage in the talk pages, and when he does he does not try to argue his position and instead try to provoke me.
• He quite successfully tried to side track my RS thread to be about a choice of words instead of the issue[100]
• He openly boasts about provoking other users on his page and his talk page is filled with people trying to engage in serious discussion with him (which is a waste of time) Wikipedia:Civility
• He disrupts any attempt at improving the crime section

If he sees this post, he will likely try to side track it to be about Tino Sanandaji, but don't take the bait. I would like to continue to improve this section, but it is impossible to do so with Snooganssnoogans present and I have demonstrated that he is not a serious user. --Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

First, I did not violate WP:3RR. Second, Immunmotbluescreen made similar complaints against me 12 days ago [101]. The complaints were as spurious then as they are now. Note that Immunmotbluescreen is doing the same edit warring over essentially the same content as he did 12 days ago. The edits have been rejected by other editors and Immunmotbluescreen's proposed changes have not been approved on the talk page. Immunmotbluescreen's discussions on the talk page are usually just WP:NOTFORUM rants against "sociology" and his desires to introduce WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:FRINGE-style content and sources (self-published books and a PDF released by Sweden's far-right party) to counteract "sociology" (which he believes is a lesser scientific discipline).[102] When the user refers to "sociology", he's talking about the numerous academic publications and dozens of high-quality news outlets that the Wikipedia page under dispute currently uses. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I have lost count of how many times we have been through this. Serious scientists have debunked Sarnecki[103][104]. If he was a serious scientist instead of an activist, he would be struggling with Statistics 101. It is still the crime section which you have made worse than how it was when we started, but it is a completely different angle which serious editors will notice. As honest editors will notice, no one is against removing Trump or reducing the length of the article. The only thing that is disputed there is whether or not Sanandaji should be included which is a different discussion. No serious editor would exclude the most famous academic on the issue's comments and no serious editor would let one debunked academic decide the picture of an entire country.

Even on this very page he continues with lies and a attempts to side track the discussion. The edits that were discussed did not cover Sarnecki vs Sanandaji, but Trump vs relevance. He will never contribute in positive sense to Wikipedia and disrupts others attempting to improve the articles. Take a look at the edit this liar claims to be about Sanandaji [105]. I have never used a pdf "released by Sweden's far-right party" as a source, it might have been included in section which I was attempting to fix, but it was there before I arrived [106] to the page. That was another lie in your statement. He needs to be banned for his lies and false accusations. --Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

These personal attacks and BLP violation lead me to suggest WP:BOOMERANG. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

A few gems from the article's talk page:

• "The reason why you are against this is because if the views are presented fairly you know that people will dismiss sociology view, and rightly so."
• "The scientific method does not change between different fields. If logic doesn't apply in a field it is likely it's a soft science/pseudoscience."
• "It is also biased as the sociology view is pushed at every opportunity. ... We also know that Sarnecki is wrong and thus should improve the article accordingly to achieve the best outcome. The relationship between low socioeconomic status and violent crime has been questioned by more serious sciences than sociology."

EvergreenFir (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how any of those are attacks and I don't think it is a secret I want to include other views? 1. If he avoids the argument, you might suspect that there is something else behind the editing. 2. That is also a true statement and the statistical methodology is the same regardless of the field. 3. According to WP:IAR even if there was a rule against showing the full picture, which there is not, we can use IAR to override it. I also posted links here from an economist and Psychiatry perspectives. How are they wrong in their arguments? I am not suggesting we should remove the sociology perspective (even if I think it is irrelevant). I simply think it should be complemented. Does the current version seem fair and balanced to you? As Sanandaji is arguing, socioeconomic factors are irrelevant for the question whether or not the immigration has lead to higher crimes since the immigration undeniably have lead to more inequality. To account for fat and carbohydrates when consuming a bag of potato chips does not make the consumption any less healthy. You can't make a problem disappear by accounting for factors. "There were no genocides in the Soviet Union if you account for totalitarian governments" does for example not make any sense. Socioeconomic factors might explain why people commit crime, but says nothing about increase in crime.

It is not a personal attack to call out dishonest editing and lies. Rather, it is the only defense for honest editors.

However this is Sanandaji vs Sarnecki, and not part of his recent edit war. Look at these edits [107]. Do you think Trump should be included?

BLP violation? --Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2018 (:::::If

@Immunmotbluescreen: This is not the place for a content dispute (re: Trump). You have a strong POV regarding sociology as a discipline and you've made repeated personal attacks on users (here against Irnya Harpy and a few times in ANI here against Snoo). You've admin shopped ([108], [109]) as well. I don't have time right now to dig further (sorry JzG), but your behavior thus far has been far from ideal. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

PS, your BLP violation was the "statistics 101" comment... EvergreenFir (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I commend a review of the contributions of Immunmotbluescreen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This smells of long-dead rat. Guy (Help!) 00:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I totally agree, as I predicted Sno tried to side track the conversation to be about this. Let's not bring up sociology vs facts and logic here. We can leave it at I, like most people of hard science, don't take sociology seriously, but that this does not show in my article edits. I needed to explain the context to inform you about the situation because of your three out of context quote. As you see the edit that I reported him for, it does not involve Sanandaji and my attempt was an improvement that he blocked. As long as you agree that we should not delete the treatments of Jews in Nazi Germany because if you account for anti-Semitism in society and law, they we were not treated any different, you agree with me on this issue though.

As I have said before, calling out lies and dishonesty does not count as personal attacks. Harpy also falsely blamed me for edits I did not do, change her interpretation about Wikipedia rules depending on the situation and makes preposterous claims about the use of sources. I have never attacked her, only defended myself from her attacks. I asked the administrators to intervene, but they did nothing other than to warn Sno.

@JzG: That is what I am requesting. Take a look at the version history and see that I am making constructive edits and he is not. However, since he is so constantly dishonest, he has lied twice in this very conversation, which is enough for a ban. His own user page breaks every rule in Wikipedia:Civility. Maybe it is too much to ask to review the claim that is pretending to be stupid while making purposefully biased edits so that serious users try to explain to him basic science and logic and eventually are outraged. You can simply ban him for lying and lack of civility. Just a couple of clicks and Wikipedia will automatically get better.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

If I disagree with Nazis, I agree with you? WTF?

Your dismissal of an entire academic discipline demonstrates your inability to edit neutrally with respect to it. Your nonsensical comments about Nazis, your repeated personal attacks (don't call other users liars), your denigration of fellow editors, your inability to edit neutrally regarding social sciences ("Let's not bring up sociology vs facts and logic here"), your BLP violations, your apparent admin shopping, your WP:RGW attitude trying to insert your interpretation into articles... I think a t-ban is in the future. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Sociology does not have exclusive rights to immigration. Immigration is part of economics as other fields as well, but my personal and quite wide spread opinion of sociology is not relevant for my edits. I have never expressed any opinion about either immigration or Nazis, it simple demonstrate that accounting for factors does not make end results disappear. Accounting for anti-Seminism does not change the fact that Jews were mistreated in Nazi Germany. Accounting for socioeconomic factors does not prove that the level of immigration does not affect crime. That's not taking a side, that is a statement of fact. BLP only applies to articles? I have not written Statistics 101 on his page. WP:RGW does not apply as I using Massutmaning as a source.

Lie - "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive", Liar - "a person who tells lies". Sno wrote "The edits have been rejected by other editors and Immunmotbluescreen's proposed changes have not been approved on the talk page. Immunmotbluescreen's discussions on the talk page are usually just WP:NOTFORUM rants against "sociology" and his desires to introduce WP:FALSEBALANCE" The edit in question does not involve Sanandaji [110] and has never been disapproved on the talk page -> Lie 1. "his desires to introduce [...] WP:FRINGE-style content [...] a PDF released by Sweden's far-right party)" The pdf was there before I started editing[111] -> Lie 2. What does that make Sno? At a closer inspection of Wikipedia:Assume good faith, it is not recommended to say it out loud, but to report it do administrators. Technically I did not follow this order, and I suppose I am sorry for not using ANI more often, but now that you know that he is spreading lies it is the administrators job to stop him. --Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

If you don't want to do anything about Sno, how can the section be improved? Honest question. I think you agree with me that it needs to be fixed.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Immunmotbluescreen: This board isn't for discussing content disputes. See WP:DRR for other options. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll bring this dispute there. That leaves his lies and disruptive editing for discussion here. Can we all agree that he is lied on this very page and mislead fellow administrators to engage in an side track discussion about Sanandaji vs Sarnecki that is not relevant, and that this behavior is not allowed? --Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

People are giving you a lot of rope, be careful that you don't hang yourself. Snooganssnoogans isn't an Admin. User:NeilN and I are. Doug Weller talk 15:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Zakkax1

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

---

• Zakkax1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over the last month, I've sent this editor several messages about creating unreferenced biographies of living people. I've listed the articles in question, pointed out WP:Communication is required, WP:V and WP:BURDEN, but no response at all, even though they have continued to edit. Similar issues have ben raised many times over the last 2 years, also with no response and with the creation of such articles continuing. Boleyn (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

A total of one talk page post made 3+ years ago and that was complaining about another editor. As Zakkax1 edits only sporadically, I've placed an indefinite block until we get an answer about what's going on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Chutiya POV-pushing and sockpuppetry

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

---

There has been long term disruption centred on Chutiya Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles, promoting a specific POV. A number of socks were just linked to Qwertywander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) by CheckUser, I am not sure if it is al one person but it seems to me that the Chutiya POV-pusher should be banned. The most recent spate of this was:

• LauraGoldstein67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MattGordon900 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Akashkachari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (just blocked - new account whose first and only action was to undo reversion of edits by the previous two)
• Jalal567 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Also numerous IPs. I have semiprotected various articles. I guess that sockpuppetry this blatant is a de facto banning offence. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Given this SPI, every sock editing this article can be blocked for block evasion.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Repeated insults and libelous comments

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

---

User:HistoryofIran violated BLP in a non BLP article by this libelous comment. On his talk page, I explained that BLP covered talk ages, too and warned him against repeating this. I removed the comment. He restored the libelous comment and I removed it again with my edit summary asking him to see WP:BLP. He again restored the comment, but this time was reverted by another user and received a message telling him that his comments were defamatory or libellous. Now, he introduced another defamatory and insulting comment which is a clear violation of BLP. In fact, he kept on repeating his behavior after two editors had told him that his edits were violation of BLP. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked a week. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Someone want to translate the edit summary here so we can know if it's more of the same? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

HoI responded here. Blackmane (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, no further action needed because of it, I think. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• That is a welcome change from a long series of blocks for edit warring. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Continued disruptive activity by an IP

It looks like IP 173.177.124.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing their disruptive editing behavior, even after they were released from a recent 3 day block. From what I can tell, very few edits appear to be in good faith. I do not follow much NASCAR so I would not know about the quality of their edits on relevant articles, though my reversions on such articles, if any, were primarily based on other previous reversions of similar material made by the same IP. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 22:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• The only thing I know about NASCAR is that it's boring and pollutes the world so companies can sell beer, but you are going to have to explain what is disruptive, because all I see on the user talk page are generic warning templates. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• I have to ask - why is Quaker State 400 presented by Advance Auto Parts called that, rather than simply Quaker State 400? (And the same for all of the other races). Are we an advertising firm now? This seriously needs to be sorted - we don't call the FA Cup the "Emirates FA Cup" or the Grand National the "Randox Health Grand National". This is nonsense and needs to be looked at seriously ASAP. Black Kite (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Black Kite - that article title is beyond the pale.SeraphWiki (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It was moved from just Quaker State 400 back in November by Zacharycook597. As the move is clearly controversial, I have moved it back and would encourage anyone who wants the title changed to start a move discussion. SkyWarrior 01:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Ditto with Buckle Up in Your Truck 225 presented by Click It or Ticket. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted Coke Zero 400 powered by Coca-Cola back to its original name as well; thankfully, that appears to be the last of them Zachary has made, though I do see some other questionable moves in his log. SkyWarrior 02:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Drmies Simply put, it's not just NASCAR that's the issue, but rather other subject areas. i.e. I do not see why one would make an edit like this IP did to Superman (1999 video game), which Freikorp reverted for what I assume is a violation of WP:COMMONNAME (not all sources refer to the game as Superman 64.) jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 01:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Jd22292, I also don't see why the IP would make that edit but I don't know Superman. The problem is I also don't easily see why Freikorp reverted it--the problem with this edit is that it says nothing at all and I'd count it as rollback/Twinkle abuse. There is no way an admin like me who doesn't know the subject matter can decide what's what. If those editors leave edit summaries, and more detailed notes on the user talk page, we can do stuff. Without it, not so much--and it's obvious from your words above that you're also having to assume why editors revert. If they did their work better, you could present a better report, and I could do something, if justified. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I reverted the edit because Superman 64 was not the official title of the game. This should not require an explanation, any more than I'd need to explain reverting an IP who changed the name of Green Day to "Green Day 75" or Star Wars to "Star Wars 69". How about we don't add random numbers to the names of things? Ping me back if you need me for some reason; this conversation does not interest me. Freikorp (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Gross reversions without reference to Wiki guidelines

I'm in a situation where a person dedicated to high school article editing according to his own very strict standards is clearly calling on his close contacts to support him without any critical judgment (see time schedule on reverts, and immediate comments on talk page). Neither they nor he (User talk:John from Idegon) have given me answers to where I might find the interpretations that he is insisting upon. I think that in the article Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School it is helpful to any reader to know the successfulness of this model at this school, by drawing on evaluations of the model as they have occurred, with relation to the model itself. I know noone at this school and have no connection to it, but I believe that it would benefit any reader to get the best objective appraisal of what is going on there that we can provide them. There's no way I can get a host of editors to back me up as John can: I don't know personally a single editor in Wikipedia. Could I get your independent opinion on what parts of my edit is against Wikipedia policy, and perhaps also where I can get the most explicit guideline on this? Jzsj (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Have you tried WP:Third Opinion? If that doesn’t work, you are welcome to try to establish a consensus via an Request for Comment. Billhpike (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• In this edit, you write "As described in a Presidential Medal citation..." and then cite from an award ceremony--"as described" means "the following is true and it is described this way in this document". That is not appropriate (per WP:NPOV), and neither is the namedropping of what all colleges the students got into: we cut that in every single article we run into, where it is usually placed by school administrators who copy it from their annual report. WP:NAMEDROPPING doesn't exist, but it should be obvious. And these aren't John's "own very strict standards"--the rules are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Jzsj, by posting here at this noticeboard, you have ensured that several other editors and administrators who share John from Idegon's strict standards for high school articles will evaluate and comment on this article. But we do not resolve content disputes here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I just hadn't run into such crude comments from administrators as I was getting from him, or such collusion from associates who obviously didn't take time to read the article (check timing) or to be specific or distinguishing in their criticism. I made 5 separate edits hoping that he would allow one or other of them, but he simply dismissed all at once without any further explanation. I appreciate your taking the time to give me some Wiki references to pursue. Thanks. Jzsj (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I don't believe John from Idegon or anyone who commented on the article's talk page is an administrator and even if they were that would not give them any special advantage in a content dispute. As I mentioned on the article's talk page, you were WP:BOLD and made what you percieved to be an improvement to the article; another editor, however, felt differently and reverted your change in good-faith. This is part and parcel of participating in a collaborative editing project such as Wikipedia and the thing to do when there are disagreements over content such as this is to discuss them on the article's talk page per WP:BRD. Moreover, assuming that everyone who feels differently from you is in cohoots with John and posting comments such as this are not very conducive to such discussion; you're basically accussing him of WP:CANVASS without providing any WP:DIFFs in support. If people disagree with you, it could simply mean that you have not done a good job in explaining why your proposed changes should be made. Finally, making multiple edits involving the repeated addition of contentous content in the hope that one might stick is not a very constructive approach to editing in my opinion; it would be better to propose the changes on the article's talk page first and see if there's a consensus for them per WP:CAUTIOUS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Aw, c'mon. Y'all throw a party for me at ANI, and I have to hear about it from a third party? That ain't right! Sorry I was late to the ball, but it looks like you've got this wrapped up without me, assuming the OP actually internalizes what was said here. I'm not gonna do the stereotypical thing and shout boomerang. G'nite from Idegon. John from Idegon (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Editor adding neutrality disputed tag and refusing to discuss

This is fairly minor as far as these things go but I would like an admin to explain to editor Lalvia that since when a POV tag is added to an article or section of an article it leaves a note on the page "The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page" the editor who has added that tag needs to discuss the problems he or she sees on the talk page. Lalvia added a tag with no explanation and without opening a discussion on the talk page of the article Barabbas[112], I took it off, he or she put it back on with original research in the edit summary (Not at all, it's more likely that Barabbas is patronymic, and that the first name "Jesus" was removed by scribes because the name Jesus had become too holy of a name. Anyone who knows a shred of Hebrew understands), I removed it again and left a note on the user's talk page that they need to discuss the issues and that opinions such as Few scholars would agree with the section,also in an edit summary, are not worth anything here as they must be cited to WP:RS he or she simply removed the note I left and put the tag on again, this time with an edit summary that says (partially) Too bad, it's fact, not opinion[113]. So I left a note on the talk page of the article asking the editor to discuss the issues there to which the (partial) response was "Don't waste my time" [114]. Can an admin please explain to this newish editor that this is not how we do things here, they need to discuss issues not edit war, do not put original research in edit summaries or anywhere else and do not tell other editors not to waste their time. ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Just because my account is new doesn't mean I'm new. I know the rules quite well.Lalvia (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Apparently I am a "normie" [115].I had to google that, it seems be meant as a WP:PA but I can think of worse things to be called. And "Just because my account is new doesn't mean I'm new" hmm, what does that mean? Reappearance of a blocked or banned user, maybe?Smeat75 (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The large number of warnings over a short editing history[116][117][118][119][120][121] makes me suspect a blocked user editing under a new account. Does anyone know of a blocked user who shares the same interests as Lalvia? You can email me if you aren't sure enough to post in public. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I don't; if it was Til Eulenspiegel, I suppose Doug Weller would already have recognized them. In any case, there's too much disruption, especially repeatedly edit warring right up the the 3RR "bright line". They are indeed wrong about adding "disputed" tags without opening discussion on talk, and I see that was the first thing the account ever did, here. Blocked 48 hours for persistent disruption, while we wait to see if/when it becomes clear whose sock they are. Bishonen | talk 05:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC).

Although I don't see any evidence either of these banned users have ever socked, I see possible behavioural connections to Alastair Haines (interactions) and Andycjp (interactions), although looking at this now it seems possible-to-likely to me that Andycjp was Alastair Haines' sockpuppet (3-way interactions). Lalvia also edits the same biblical historicity articles previously hit by socks of ItsLassieTime but behaviour doesn't match. That's all I've got time for right now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not Til. Doug Weller talk 14:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Tahamzd

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

Tahamzd has been creating unreferenced articles and adding unreferenced material despite many warnings. You can see at User talk:Tahamzd many of these warnings, but many messages from other editors were simply reverted, e.g. [122]. Tahamzd only seems to have edited their talk page to delete messages from other editors, but not to respond or to address the issues.

Tahamzd has also on at least two articles repeatedly removed unreferenced/refimprove tags from articles which clearly have empty references sections - Tahamzd removed reference tags four times from Supercoppa italiana [123] but did not add references. There is no communication, not even edit summaries. Tahamzd has repeatedly been referred to WP:Communication is required, WP:V and WP:BURDEN but continues this editing with no response. Boleyn (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

This user has created many articles; which articles are you referring to that the user created that were completely unreferenced? I've gone through all of the ones created after December 23, and many appear to have references, and they all appear to at least have an external link. The Supercoppa italiana article you refer to ended up being redirected to the main article due to already being created. It doesn't excuse the concerns you're expressing, but I did want to point this out as well. Other than this article, are there other disputes that are currently occurring and in progress where this is an issue? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Good find, Boleyn. It appears this user has created 62 articles with the bulk comprising stubs of volleyball teams and players. The first stub I checked for copyvio Camillo Placì failed. Rather than ANI, this needs to go to either AfC or NPP for clean-up. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah, many have an external link but few have references. I have repeatedly asked if the editor means references by external links, but no response. If you look at their talk page, you'll see many of the articles with these issues such as [124]. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

WhiteGuy1850

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

---

• WhiteGuy1850 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User WhiteGuy 1850 continually makes disruptive edit in article Finns, e.g. adding information that Finns speak Swedish. Could someone do something about this? Velivieras (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

This looks very much like a content dispute, with the article being a mostly unsourced mish-mash of Finns and Finnish speakers, which are not necessarily the same thing. Please use the article talk page. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Around 5% of Finns speak Swedish as their mother tongue. Kind of similar to Canada and English/French. You may want to revert your edits and apologize. 91.155.192.188 (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Ofihombre disrupting an AfD multiple times

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

---

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

This user is so desperate to keep the article he wrote at Fix-It Felix Jr that he's disrupted the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fix-It Felix Jr multiple times. The 1st time, he moved the article via Wikipedia space and Talk space in to User space (Requiring 3 WP:G6 deletions and Admin intervention to fix the mess, as detailed in the AfD), and removed the AfD notice from the article twice. Now he's returned and he removed all the votes he didn't like from the AfD (special:diff/820805868) when he added his Keep vote. I think a block may be necessary to prevent further disruption. Iffy★Chat -- 19:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• They appear to have apologised for removing non-Keep votes (special:diff/820811961) after they received notice of my post here, hopefully they'll stop being disruptive and no further action will be required. Iffy★Chat -- 19:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Competence and Refusal to Abide by Sourcing Guidelines

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

---

The user in question is User:XJJRosebrook.

We are dealing with a snarl of issues, including competence, ownership, and repeated violations of WP:V despite warnings. My understanding is that this is the only venue for reporting behavioral problems of this kind. If there is another venue that I should be using instead, I would be happy to be informed and will withdraw this entry.

We're dealing with repeated additions of unsourced material to two articles, and blatant refusal / inability to comply with WP:V.

For example, 1:34 16 Jan.

I attempted to point out that the user was adding unsourced content: 1:50 16 Jan.

User re-added the content: 2:48 16 Jan.

User than added additional unsourced content. [125], [126], [127], and [128].

After this content was removed, user re-added: [129].

I posted a warning to the user's talk page outlining more explicitly the problem with adding unsourced content, and explaining examples at length: [130].

It was promptly blanked: [131].

Blanking was followed by the re-addition of unsourced content: [132].

I then raised the issue on the talk page: [133].

The user posted a reply indicating a lack of comprehension of the issue: [134].

I attempted to explain again: [135].

The user then responded by adding citations to a self-published website and a YouTube video: [136].

Then he added a Bible passage to support his claim about what modern Christians, Jews, and Muslims think: [137].

I attempted to explain what a reliable source means, and why the Bible doesn't work as a source on what today's Christians, Jews, and Muslims think, and directed him toward the relevant policy pages: [138]. He responded with more utter incomprehension of what a reliable source means.

As can be seen at Talk:Ishmael, the conversation has reached an impasse. We have a pretty clear behavioral issue in the form of WP:V violations despite repeated warnings and general competence issues. The editor has decided that I am a Muslim troll (because why else would I object?) and refuses to discuss further (I can get diffs of that if you like but the talk page shows the discussion pretty clearly, with the sole exception that the user has tampered with some of the dates). Alephb (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I would highly suggest that any moderator reading this visit the Talk Page to Ishmael, and judge for yourself while also seeing my edits. This man, or woman, accusing me is in fact a troll. This case is just silly, I'm not going to respond to this issue anymore. Rosebrook (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I've been trying to carefully walk the line between fully documenting the extent of the issues, on the one hand, and not overwhelming the ANI board with too many diffs. The problems involved could be seen exhaustively by anyone who wants to work through the page history and talk page history of, first, Rephaite, second Ishmael, and finally, the user's own talk page, where you'd have to work around the blanking that's been done. Alephb (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

XJJRosebrook, I just read that thread at Talk: Ishmael, and in my opinion as an administrator, you are displaying a complete lack of understanding of what constitutes a reliable source for use on Wikipedia, and also a lack of understanding of our core content policy, Verifiability. In addition, your speculation about another editor's religion is wrong and offensive. It is completely unacceptable to call another editor who is trying to help you understand our policies a "troll". So, I suggest that you change your attitude quickly if you want to keep editing Wikipedia. Complying with our policies is not negotiable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Just a brief look at a few of those diffs has left me rather stunned. In the first diff given,[139] the first words added by Rosebrook are In the Hebrew Bible and according to contemporary Jewish thought, a Repha'im (Heb. רְפָאִים), or alternatively a Rephaite, is literally translated to mean, "shades," or "spirits." They are, according to the Jewish Virtual Library, "are known from biblical, Ugaritic, and Phoenician sources." While the first use of them would be as "a gentilic (e.g., Gen. 14:5; 15:20; Deut. 2:11) referring to a people distinguished by their enormous stature. Especially singled out are Og king of Bashan (Deut. 3:11) and the powerful adversaries of David's heroes (II Sam. 21:16, 18, 20)." And in regards o the second use it serves as a "poetic synonym for metim (מֵתִים; Isa. 26:14; Ps. 88:11)." It thus refers to the inhabitants of the netherworld (Prov. 9:18) Um, sorry, what? Grammar errors, typos, incomplete sentences, very difficult to grasp what it is trying to say - And in regards o the second use it serves as a "poetic synonym for metim - eh? Choosing a diff from the other article referred to, you find Moreover, according to the Book of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible, Isaac is considered to be the legitimate son of Abraham, and is the promised child by God in inheriting the covenant. This is also reflected in the Qur'an in the Muslim tradition as well as it is literally written in the original Arabic, but is not often taught in Mosque around the world for other, likely discriminatory, reasons,added by Rosebrook, yes, with no source, excuse me, WP is saying in its own voice here that "Mosque around the world" are not teaching what is literally written in the Koran for "likely discriminatory reasons".[140] Mind-blowing. I could hardly bear to read more but a quick look at Talk:Ishmael shows that Rosebrook thinks that William Lane Craig's blog, www.reasonablefaith.org, which is clearly announced on the site as "Defending Biblical Christianity" is a WP:RS for Islam, also thinks it is quite OK to use primary texts, the Bible,as references, as well as links to youtube vids, and, yes, does ask Alephb repeatedly if he is a Muslim, as if that is the only reason anyone could possibly be taking exception to any of this. That's all I could take but it was more than enough, WP at its absolute worst, I feel sorry for Alephb having to deal with this. Please admins do not drag this out but deal with it decisively and quickly.Smeat75 (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Following the entire run-in at Ishmael, the absolute icing on the cake is this: [141]. Alephb (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Smeat75, not trying to excuse other issues presented in this AN/I report, but that paragraph you quoted doesn't seem that bad? I mean, it has a few mistakes in it, but (for me at least) it's easy enough to understand after taking a couple seconds to figure it out. Unless I'm totally misunderstanding it, but it seems sensible to me. Here's how I'd edit that: The word "Repha'im" is known from Biblical, Ugaritic, and Phoenician sources. It is commonly translated as "shades" or "spirits", and has two meanings. First, referring to very tall people, especially Example and Example. Second, it is a poetic synonym for "metim", referring to inhabitants of the underworld. Since a paragraph like that can be pretty trivially turned into decently readable prose, I don't think that someone should be sanctioned just for making some mistakes in writing when its meaning can still be figured out. Just my 2¢ (not commenting at all on the validity of this case, just in general). —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 05:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked for disruptive editing and persistent WP:CIR issues. Courcelles (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Fram and incivility

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

---

Now, I understand that likely nothing good come out of this request, but I am afraid I can not help it. Fram developed an unfortunate habit of interpreting my statements and then saying I have said something I did not. In particular, here they claimed I said something which I did not say. I quoted verbatim what I said and they insist it is the same as their interpretation. I said they are lying - well, I always thought I know better what I am saying than other people, including Fram, and if they insist, it means they are doing it deliberately. They continued to follow me and came to may talk page, where said that I can not understand my own statements. Could it be stopped somehow? I long ago stopped replying to the points made by Fram because they have never ever changed their opinion about anything and they show up as extremely aggressive. It is unfortunate they continue to be admin. However, apparently, if I do not reply at all people think I do not have anything to reply to start with, and when I do reply Fram becomes even more aggressive. Last time they filed an Arbcom case against me and failed miserably. Avoiding them completely is not really an option, since they continue to comment on the points I make. In the past, they said they have no reason respecting me (which I am sure I will be able to find a diff, if someone insists). To be honest, I am completely fed up with this, to the point that I thought in the morning I should retire. Any advise will be appreciated. I am not comfortable working in a project anybody could say I do not understand my own statements, refuse to retract, get away with it and continue doing so on a regular basis.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Your statement[142], with my interpretation, as I said on your talk page.

• "Well, both communities felt confident enough to award me administrator privileges, something which I have not seen you to achieve with either of them." = I'm an admin, you are not.
• "But, as I said, you are certainly entitled to have your opinion on the subject, even if it is completely uninformed and aggressive. This is ok with me." = you may have your own stupid opinion
• "I am not even going to report you for a personal attacks. But I hope you will excuse me if I stop spending my time replying you." = I'm not going to reply to you any further.

Apparently that statement of yours meant something else (not sure what), and my interpretation of it was "a lie". Complaining about incivility when you are dismissing a user because you are an admin and they are not, and stating things like "I do not feel I should be communicating with someone who (i) calls me a liar thus lying themselfves; (ii) on top of this have difficulties understanding elementary text.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC) " (again, not about me) and so on... Perhaps someone needs to remind Ymblanter that accusing people of lying is a personal attack and is normally not tolerated on enwiki without very good evidence.

Above, you claim that you "quoted verbatim what [you] said and they insist it is the same as their interpretation." Where did you quote yourself verbatim? As far as I can tell, I am the only one who has actually quoted your statement (first in full, then in separate sentences with my "interpretation"), you haven't. Fram (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I did obviously expect Fram to comment, and I did not expect them to say anything except for that this is only my own fault, and they have never done anything wrong. I would still appreciate comments by other uses how I can avoid this in the future. For the context, it might be good to remind that my statement they quote and misinterpret was a response to "I cant put it any simpler to you, you clearly don't even understand the scope of your own pet project <Wikidata>", directed at me by a user who does not participate at Wikidata and has vastly inferior experience at the English Wikipedia than I have (much shorter tenure, 10 times less edits).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

"I did not expect them to say anything except for that this is only my own fault, and they have never done anything wrong." Yes, that's clearly what I said, I have never done anything wrong. Thanks for making my point. Any update on where you quoted verbatim what you said? Fram (talk) 10:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, we can watch bullying in real time. If I say yes, they would say I accepted my error; if I say no, they would say I still do not understand anything. This is exactly this behavior of Fram which I find aggressive, outrageous and annoying, and, again, I kindly ask administrators to jump in.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

??? You claimed in the opening statement here that you quoted the statement I lied about verbatim. I don't see where you did this. I may have missed it, or you may have misremembered. This is not bullying, this is not a yes or no question (no idea where you see a question where you need to say "yes" or "no" here). You made a factual claim, which you either can easily show to be true, or which you can strike-out as a mistake. Neither will make your complaint or my reply "the winner". Fram (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Only comment I am going to make and hope this is speedily closed as the rubbish it is. As the editor who some of the comments were initially aimed at I entirely concur with Fram's 'interpretation'. I say interpretation, its not interpreting something to read what someone actually wrote. Either Ymblanter has a serious English language issue, or they are being disingenuous here. To make his comments mean something other than exactly what they said, both in wording and within the context of the discussion - they would have to say something completely different. Ymblanter blatantly attempted to pull rank and avoid direct questions that he was unable to answer without making himself look foolish. That's his problem, not anyone else's. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

  Exactly. A brilliant example. I am continuously exposed to this bullying, and I am really tired of it.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Well, I did obviously expect Fram to comment, and I did not expect them to say anything except for that this is only my own fault, and they have never done anything wrong; well, Fram really didn't do anything wrong in this situation so that is correct! Please close this before there is a boomerang. His "interpretations" of your comments were not outlandish and actually quite to the point.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• I would have interpreted the first two sentences of this diff exactly how Fram did; i.e. "I'm an admin and you're not, so I'm correct" and "You can have your opinion, but you're wrong (or worse)". Now this is either simple condescension, verging on rudeness, or it's a language issue on your part which means you don't realize you're doing it. Neither of those are useful attributes for an administrator to have. Black Kite (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• From what I've seen of this discussion, Ymblanter is quick to antagonise people by belittling them and their opinions. For instance, announcing loudly to everyone that Fram's opinions should be ignored for reasons unknown, and that Only In Death's opinions matter less because he's not an admin and Ymblanter is one. He then adopts a victim posture when people object. Perhaps Fram and others have misunderstood what Ymblanter meant with the "I'm an andmin and you're not" stuff but, if so, that would only be a misinterpretation and not a lie. And since Ymblanter won't say what he did mean, it's all speculation anyway. I suggest closing this as unactionable since it's clear that Fram has done nothing wrong and it's also unclear what admin actions are being requested here. Reyk _YO! 10:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I did say what I meant (on my talk page, because I could not reply in the hatted section), and Fram disagreed and said that their interpretation is correct, and not mine.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: For the sake of clarity, could you please point to a diff where you explain what you did mean by this? It looks above like you say that you quoted that verbatim and that you explained it at your talk page, but I can't see either there. GoldenRing (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

(EC) I looked at your talk page and I have no more clarity. You say you meant "they have way less experience that I have" but the comment that seems to be referred to said nothing about experience. It said "Well, both communities felt confident enough to award me administrator privileges, something which I have not seen you to achieve with either of them". Even given that experience is a prerequisite for admin privileges on wikipedia and I'm assuming wikidata, it doesn't follow that someone without admin privileges has less experience than someone that does. So if you had meant to comment on relative experience levels you should have referred to experience levels rather than something else which is at best a very weak proxy. As for the reason you did not wish to engage further, it was fairly unclear from the comment. Was it because of the admin thing? Was it because your regarded their opinions as "completely uninformed and aggressive"? Was it because you felt that they had engaged in personal attacks? Even given that Fram chose a fairly harsh interpretation, the obvious solution was to explain further rather than accuse someone of lying when your comment itself was unclear. Nil Einne (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The whole discussion is here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Discussion (linking to Wikidata RfC). The first diff by Oidde I was specifically responding to: [143]. This is what I said: [144]. This was the reply: [145]. This is what I replied, and this is what Fram refers to: [146]. This is how Fram refers to it: [147] (first three lines: You are the one who refused to engage further with another experienced editor because you are an admin and they aren't). My explanation that this is not what I said: [148]. In plain words: I indeed stopped discussing the Wikidata issue with Oidde, but not because I am admin and they are not, but because I do not think they understand they are talking about, and on top of this they find it useful to teach me about Wikidata (in form of personal attacks) despite the obvious fact that I have more experience both on Wikidata and Wikipedia than they have. The reaction we basically see in this topic.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The more I read into these discussions, the more I wonder how this was even possible. You must have been an entirely different editor then because you can't seem to understand what is wrong with your comments and responses now. Your total failure to communicate appropriately is a vital failure in your duty as an admin.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

At least you must be proud you have never voted for me.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

(Multiple EC) Can you give one or two specific examples of what you said, how Fram intepreted it and what you actually meant? Because having looked at the various diffs and associated comments, I can't work out what specifically your complaining about. You mentioned something about "quoted verbatim" but I'm confused where this actually happened as what I'm seeing is Fram quoting you and offering their interpretation, most of which seem resonable. Nil Einne (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

(Also multiple ec) Responded above.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Okay I lied, not the only comment as I should address my own behavior there too. The only defense I am going to offer for my own aggressiveness is that this is in the context of a wikidata discussion, where wikidata proponents are advocating (amongst other things), linking to blank wikidata entries, linking to wikidata targets that are unrelated to the article, linking to wikidata living people who don't have an article on ENWP (Wikidata has no BLP policy remember). The softly softly conciliatory approach has been tried for months and months now and its not getting anywhere. Its tiring getting the same unacceptable responses from editors like Ymblanter when these problems are raised. So when you have someone pulling the 'I know better because I have more edits than you and I'm an admin' card, its going to be more than slightly annoying. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

  Just to make it clear, I did not advocate blue linking (actually, quite the opposite). I tried to get my point across - that Wikidata is not what most Wikipedia users perceive it to be - and instead of constructive discussion (the only user who managed to discuss it constructively was Beetstra, and I disagree with him, but we did not have any issues) got a bunch of personal attacks.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing any civility problems here. I think Fram's paraphrasing of what you've said is reasonable. @Ymblanter: - you're clearly pissed off and acting in the heat of the moment is always a recipe for doing something you regret (perhaps such as starting this thread). This isn't a criticism; we all do it. Don't retire, but perhaps consider a day off. It won't matter so much after 24 hours. ElAhrairah ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Clearly a lot of editors in that long Discussion thread are frustrated and irritable, and are discussing editors instead of content. (For some reason Wikidata seems to polarize people and arouse argumentativeness, perhaps because it is still a work-in-progress and there is no universal agreement yet on all of the basics.) All of those doing so need to step back and chill and then return to discussing only content and policies and guidelines, not other editors. If you disagree with someone, there's also no actual need to repeat yourself numerous times, in my opinion. While I don't think it was a great idea for Fram to go to Ymblanter's talkpage (he should probably stay off of Ymblanter's talkpage), I don't see any intentional incivility or gross misrepresentation on his part. As it is, an uninvolved party had to hat some of the ad hominem arguments in that RfC Discussion thread. So I think the soluton is for everyone to henceforth refrain from mentioning other editors and stick to discussing content and policy and guidelines. Don't even use the word "you". Contrary to what someone said above, it is possible to get one's point across civilly if one's arguments are cogent enough. It may be the case that that RfC and its subthreads/subparts are trying to accomplish too much. Possibly some of the subparts will have to be hashed out again in another discussion for further refinement. Softlavender (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Geogene

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ongoing disruption from IP 50.254.21.213

The IP 50.254.21.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been a source of ongoing disruption. The user has displayed an astonishing level of WP:IDHT resulting in widespread WP:ADMINSHOP behavior. Combined with a possible misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works along with marginal communication skills on talk pages, the result has been ongoing disruption on multiple pages. A quick scan through their edit history find the following forum and admin shopping:

• User talk:SlimVirgin#external links
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive973#External links
• User talk:NZ Footballs Conscience#Sybil Shearer
• User talk:Barek#external links
• User talk:The Bushranger#external links
• User talk:Dennis_Brown#HELP
• User talk:Seraphimblade#edit war
• User talk:50.254.21.213#WP: FORUMSHOP and consensus
• Talk:Sybil Shearer#The Morrison-Shearer Foundation
• Talk:Helen Balfour Morrison#Foundation link

The user has received at least two warnings to stop the disruption: (here) and (here); To which they have continued to post to the article talk pages as well as pinging yet another editor at User talk:Grnbk222#Helen Balfour Morrison

The only reason I have chosen not to block the user myself over WP:NOTHERE or WP:DISRUPTIVE is I am one of the admins with which the user has shopped their views. I don't believe it comes to the level of WP:INVOLVED, but decided to bring it here just in case someone sees it otherwise. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

This IP user is frustrating and seems to have a real ownership issue of both pages Sybil Shearer and Helen Balfour Morrison. They are a dog with a bone regarding the external link to the Foundation website and Facebook which has resulted in all this. They are a big fan of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST despite being told a number of times about consensus. There editing style is also frustrating with a lack of understanding how to edit and use talk pages and multiple edits on same page because of lack of using preview button. NZFC^(talk) 18:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• I had previously given them a final warning. They have an admitted conflict of interest and been bludgeoning a number of us with the same wall of text. They refuse to capitulate on any point, instead they mis-attribute quotes and keep trying to convince others of the same (mis)interpretation of policy without attempting to understand what anyone else is saying. They aren't here to build an encyclopedia, just to add social media links in a couple of articles. I honestly feel there is no hope for change. I would welcome a long term block, and on the verge of implementing it myself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Charlene McMann

I was wondering if Ms. McMann's outing of her IP address [[REDACTED - Oshwah] here] ought to be revdeled? Regards,   Aloha27  talk  18:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll message this user and direct her to the proper place to receive help. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible block evasion by Mariasfixing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

^^ My thoughts as well re: Mariasfixing. I remember this from a couple of summers springs ago. I also remember (quite strongly) that to the extent the husband "put [the subject] on Wikipedia," it was prior to the criminal case and was part of a COI public relations effort to promote the cancer charity (i.e., lest there be any confusion, the article hasn't been put up by a vengeful estranged spouse as part of a smear campaign), and that there is an AN/I thread documenting same, and that at some noticeboardAFD the conclusion was drawn that the article's subject was indeed notable. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

There is this too, FYI. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Good call on the sock puppetry - thanks for digging into this :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Akandkur

Akandkur has been creating errors and adding irrelevant information on KQEH, making the article hard to read. He is not here to build an encyclopedia. He has also been engaged in an edit war. [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be a NOTHERE pattern of editing to me. I see that you've attempted to engage on talk, but you need to either continue doing that, or find someone else to help you deal with their lack of response. Edit warring along with them will get you both blocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I've warned him not to add unsourced content. What Sarek said - keep discussing. If the problem continues then let me know. ElAhrairah ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Deleting opinion in RfC on Talk:Cary Grant

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

---

Hi, folks. I added a Support opinion in a Request for Comments on Talk:Cary Grant. User:Cassianto removed it, writing this has been closed by a bot. I did my best to explain to Cassianto on his talk page that Legobot doesn't actually close RfCs, only humans do, and restored my opinion. Cassianto deleted my comment off his user page, without response, and deleted my comment from the RfC on the article talk page with the edit comment are you doing your best to piss everyone off today?. So, rather than edit war, to reinstate my opinion yet again, I'm asking for administrator assistance. And for some opinions on Cassianto's last question - have I really done my best? I mean, I wasn't really aiming towards that goal; and yet, I have been told that I should try to do my best in everything I do ... --GRuban (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, well, well, you are busy tonight, aren't you. Cassianto^Talk 19:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Cassianto, if the discussion hasn't been formally closed, then it doesn't really matter if the bot's timer has expired. You shouldn't be removing comments there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Talk page trolling

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

---

If someone wants to revoke talk access for this range which is blocked for long-term abuse, they're clearly trolling on the talk page of their current IP. Not notifying them of this discussion. Home Lander (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• For various reasons, I do not want to revoke talk-page access for that entire range, instead, I've semi-protected the talk page that is currently being abused. Let me know if problems resume elsewhere. Courcelles (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Ongoing trolling by TenPoundHammer

There's an ongoing situation which does not appear to be getting any better. TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs)

Hammer, as is his habit, and his right, has been busy AfDing articles. A typical example (no involvement of mine) would be Education in Moldova / Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education in Moldova as "Meandering mess with no central topic, no sources, no notability. If there is a topic here, then WP:TNT and start over. This has been sitting to rot for over 10 years and no one will even so much as look at it. "

It's not the AfD that's the issue here, it's the attitude. There is no way "Education in Nambia" is going anywhere, so just what is this AfD expected to achieve - other than an opportunity to slag off editors in general? TNT is not policy (I'm one of those who's long advocated it). There is a stream of those, all of much the same "How about fixing it instead of sitting on your fucking hands?" attitude.

I got involved here: WikiProject Automobiles#Bandini deletions where 18 articles were blanked as redirects in 5 minutes flat, their category speedy deleted as WP:CSD#G6 for being empty (a technically invalid CSD anyway, see WT:Criteria for speedy deletion#G6 on "empty" categories?) and the related category and template XfDed at CfD:Bandini Automobili / TfD:Bandini Automobili. These deletions were robustly opposed. I also warned Hammer that this was heading ANI-wards.

There's plenty more of the same - AfD:List of ecclesiastical abbreviations AfD:Petroleum politics for just a couple.

At AfD:History of Oldham Athletic A.F.C. we see another where there is no chance of that topic being deleted. Closed as an unsurprising speedy keep. After which all of the keep !voters were then boilerplated with "So are you going to fix History of Oldham Athletic A.F.C. with the sourcing that supposedly exists, or are you going to just let it stink up the wiki forever?! "

Given that I'd just removed his prod of Sterilant gas monitoring and fixed up the issues involved, I do not need or deserve this sort of abuse.

It is not acceptable to stalk opposing !votes like this. Certainly not in this continuing context. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• I replied that way because none of the Oldham !votes addressed how the article was notable. They were just WP:USEFUL, WP:ILIKEIT, and WP:DEADLINE, none of which are valid rationales for keeping an article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

No, you are lying here. RetiredDuke gave you six sources for it, right in that AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

To clarify my own position here, I would like to delete it per IDONTLIKEIT. It is sports content, I have zero interest in it being here (and I'm also the last person able to expand it). But that is not policy, so it doesn't count for anything. The topic, given its significance, is a shoo-in for GNG and (as confirmed by the sources given) there will be sources around for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See also this very recent thread at WT:MILHIST; TPH has been on something of a spree lately of nominating obviously-notable topics on the basis that he hasn't heard of them or doesn't like the sourcing. This isn't a new issue—TPH has been doing it for close to a decade—but the problem seems to have significantly intensified recently; as well as the AFD activities Andy Dingley raises above, I'd estimate that whenever I clear out CAT:EX at least 50% of the WP:PROD nominations I decline as inappropriate turn out to have been nominated by TPH when I check the history. ‑ Iridescent 21:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Check out for Articles_for_deletion/Cliff_Padgett as well; there is a series for false claims about inability to source. (The fellow shows up, in context, in good sources, from a simple Google search.) Before that, it was PRODed] with a rather low-key edit summary. Anmccaff (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest making a list of editors who post the most PRODs that are declined, double check to make sure that it isn't one admin doing all the declining, then topic banning the editors on the top of the list from PRODing articles.

This is getting a little meta-, but I'd suggest doing no such thing unless you also checked it against AfDs, too. Anmccaff (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Most of this was me trying to clean out the backlog at Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field. Most of the articles I found were in such dire shape that I felt WP:TNT was the only way to treat them. And it infuriates me when people scream for a "keep" in an AFD but are utterly unwilling to do the legwork to unfuck the article. So it gets stuck in an endless loop of "Keep, it's notable, here are sources." -> no one adds sources -> Article looks like trash -> Gets nominated for AFD for looking like trash -> "Keep, it's notable, here are sources." -> no one adds sources, on and on and on. It wouldn't get under my skin so much if the people who are clamoring for the sources they find would add them to the article because it's really not that fucking hard.

That said, I'm going to be less deletion crazy next time I attempt to plow through a backlog that big. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The thing is, you either did not bother to check for sources, or you checked and lied about it. That's not a minor error. Anmccaff (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:ATD is policy, TPH. Trying to use AfD to clear a cleanup backlog is inappropriate, disruptive and, as you surely must have noticed by now, futile. We don't delete articles for fixable content problems and editors who !vote to keep an article because they think it is fixable are under no obligation to work on it. It's not a case of "being less deletion happy", it's paying attention to what deletion is actually for and doing your due diligence so that you're not wasting others' time. – Joe (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• It's also a shame that when Andy Dingley removed the PROD from Sterilant gas monitoring and spent a while cleaning it up, he didn't check that at least half of it was a copyright violation. Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• No action: I don't see trolling here. Just a deletionism-inclusionism dispute that's boiled over to a noticeboard. When someone holds a belief that's different from yours as to policy and practice, it's entirely possible for that belief to be held sincerely, and for those actions to be taken in good faith. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Potential WP:NLT violation

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

---

Nice short and sweet one. Vaugnandco00001111 was reverted by CBNG, so the user decided to come to my talk page with... not so much threats, but anyway, you'll see. Helpful Link: User talk:Rich Smith#JAMES O'TOOLE WIKI ENTRY

Cheers!

-- - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 22:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Panix comics

A very new and very combative editor is making non-constructive edits that do not follow MOS or grammar; has edited others' comments on a talk page; has started an RfC with a contentious and heated post rather than a neutral statement or question; and is edit-warring despite my good-faith attempts at discussion — as well as admin C.Fred's request [154] that this editor "propose some smaller edits that can be more easily evaluated" in discussion, rather than edit-war.

On January 12, Panix comics, made edits to Marshall Rogers that were filled with non-constructive edits such as

• an unexplained deletion [155],
• a large number of MOS errors and grammatical errors (for example, see line beginning "Rogers Born in Flushing, Queens, NY" here),
• and clunky, non-encyclopedic-tone (for example, see sentence containing "his heart wasn't totally committed to it" here).

After I reverted [156], stating those reasons, he did not follow WP:BRD but instead began of series of edits restoring his non-constructive additions and adding more (see edits of 21:17 - 21:53, 13 January 2018‎).

I restored the last stable version and began discussion at Talk:Marshall Rogers#Today's edits on 01:20, 13 January 2018. There he gave a hostile reply with the uncivil edit summary ""Tenebrae - war on editors". He again began edit-warring on the article, and at some point — and it's hard to tell because his talk-page posts are non-chronological and all over the place — he began an RfC with a screed containing phrases such as "I fixed this and then it was reverse make false claims as to me not identifying the reasons for the edits" and "he seems intent on zero sum rollbacks and refuses discussion or compromise." Obviously, that's not a neutral statement or question, which I pointed out here.

After C.Fred urged discussion, I wholeheartedly agreed [157]. After Panix comics replied, I posted the first of my comments about his edits here.

And that began a series of nasty, insulting comments by him that displayed little or no understanding of Wikipedia policies, guidelines or MOS (starting here). Additionally, he posted a series wall-of-text responses with poor grammar and lots of meandering. And he edited my comments by changing my subhead and by confusingly inserting his comments within my own. He also blatantly added a subhead ("refusal to collaberate" [sic]") above one of my sentences ("What are your thoughts?") that he separated from a larger post.

I asked him to please put his talk-page posts in chronological order and not within other editors' comments, so that we could properly continue discussion [158]. That request was met with another nasty reply, insisting it's "normal" to edit others' comments by sticking your own within them! [159]

It gets worse. I made that request at Monday 23:00, 15 January 2018. I was then away from Talk:Marshall Rogers for one day, returning today, Wednesday, 21:57, 17 January 2018‎ ... and in the meantime, that one day was enough for him to accuse me of "refusing" to collaborate. He unilaterally restored his contentious, poorly written and non-MOS version ... with the barely comprehensible edit summary "RFC and refusal to colab or discus" [sic].

After days of this, including my own genuine, perfectly reasonable attempt to discuss specific edits (here), I think his abusive and combative behavior needs to be brought to admin attention. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Note that it is considered normal in some contexts to comment within a thread. Since he's a new editor, he probably just needs to adjust. It took me a while to get used to it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Lack of knowledge of things to come

More FAIR WARNING that some things are going to occur of which you lot have no knowledge, but in their mulitude, magnitude, and magnificence will be unparalleled. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. 185.69.145.8 (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)