Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Swarm (talk | contribs) at 23:57, 19 January 2018 (→User:Tahamzd: close). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    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)

    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 ([1]). 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Apparently not working on your mobile browser. General Ization Talk 04:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't work on my desktop either.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    See my recent contribs. -- zzuuzz (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Spam blacklisted. SQLQuery me! 04:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    We're just talking about redirects, right? Not any pages that reference them? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @Oshwah: Is diff an attempt for something similar? Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnuniq: I'm no admin, so I can't comment on the previous, but yes, it looks like the idea is similar. Easy enough to turn into a transparent redirect. See User:Bellezzasolo/sandbox. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dilpa kaur

    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)[reply]

    Yes it's a disruptive meat puppet. See [2] filed a report just after JosephusOfJerusalem (another SPA) had his report rejected.[3] 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."[4] 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."[5]
    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)[reply]
    @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 BladesGodric 08:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    I ran Interwine but missed the diff.Thanks:)Winged BladesGodric 09:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    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 [6] 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[7] 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[8]. 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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 [9]. 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,[10][11] located in two different [12][13] 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[14] to ensure the page looked the way Kautilya3 wanted [15]. 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 [16]. 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 [17]. He then did a disruptive revert on the article [18]. 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,[19] with no other contribution to the discussion, and does a revert [20] 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)[reply]


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

    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 [21]. The tool shows that Dilpa kaur and I have only edited in 4 same places,[22] 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,[23] 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.[24] JosephusOfJerusalem has contributed to several places [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] where I and Dilpa have not and similarly Dilpa[35] and I[36][37][38][39][40] 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,[41] many of them talkpages. You intersect with Capitals00 on 404 pages too.[42] All three of you intersect in 103 places,[43] many of them talkpages, whereas I, Dilpa and Josephus intersect only on 2 places[44], 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Why is having prior interactions with someone a prerequisite to opening an SPI? I would think most SPIs are opened to report accounts one has not interacted with before. Anyway, I didn't miss anything -- you showed up on an ANI involving a user you had conflicted with some months ago (at which time said user had managed to convince a quite conservative CU-enabled user to perform a check on you), and, as a former (repeat) victim of hounding that looked very similar to this, I decided to call it what it was. It seems like MBL opened only one SPI on you, so it's really unclear what you mean by He has been doing that numerous times. [...] it's [not] me who's doing the "hounding" -- are you accusing MBL of hounding you? If so, I would encourage you to present evidence or read WP:KETTLE and retract that baseless accusation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Wait, did you do so under an alternate account or something? I did a pretty thorough check, and it wasn't hard (you've made less than 500 WP-space edits in that time). Are you being pedantic and saying that technically February 12, 2007 was less than 11 years ago? If that's the case then let's just say 10 years, 11 months and 5 days. I was rounding up. The above 2014 diff is the only edit your current account made to ANI between February 12, 2007 and your above off-topic remark MBL, whose edit summary did not include Tendentious editing by NadirAli across Multiple Articles. Ctrl+F "Incidents" and that section title yourself here if you don't believe me -- the former brings up 48 results, the latter 46. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    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[45], 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[46]. 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" [47]. 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Apparently I am a "normie" [48].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)[reply]
    The large number of warnings over a short editing history[49][50][51][52][53][54] 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)[reply]
    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).[reply]
    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)[reply]
    It's not Til. Doug Weller talk 14:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's Wittgenstein123. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoever it is, can admins please have a look at what Lalvia has been doing today since he or she came off their block-serious vandalism in numerous places. [55]Smeat75 (talk) 05:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeffed. --NeilN talk to me 05:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tahamzd

    Blocked indef. Swarm ♠ 23:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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. [56]. 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 [57] 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 [58]. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    @Slatersteven: I'd like to see some examples of my "issues" with NPOV. Thanks. Geogene (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    [59] is a dismissive comment that implies you accept there was interference we we should accept there was (As no RS does explicitly say there was interference). It is certainly POV pushing as much as the OP is a troll. This can also be seen as POV pushing as you clearly comment on another users motives [60], with this added for good measure[61]. This is (of course) borderline and not actionable, but then neither is the Trolling accusation. But what many of them are (including) the trolling accusations are disruptive in that they make article talk pages about users, not the article. As you say about the IP's here [62] these posts are a huge time sink, and wastes everyones time.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Slatersteven, you claim it's "POV pushing" when I told somebody to quit casting aspersions? [63]. Also, you just accused me of violating NPOV because I accept that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. Are you serious? Geogene (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I said "This can also be seen as POV pushing as you clearly comment on another users motives", as I also went on to say "This is (of course) borderline and not actionable, but then neither is the Trolling accusation.". My point is that (yes) if you want to assume bad faith and read the worst possible motive into a users comments yours can be seen as POV pushing (and how about the first link, are there any RS that say unreservedly that Russia interfered?). No I did not say you violated POV because you accept that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election (which is by the way a POV, one you claim you were saying in an article talk page). I said you claimed RS agreed.Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me ask another question. Do you have any sort of positive doubt that Russia was involved in some way in Donald Trump's election? Are you trying to influence the article in that direction? Geogene (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not about my views (or me). Oh and this can also be read as POV pushing, it does not matter what you or I think, what matters is what RS say. Anything else is POV pushing "it did happen and our article must not be allowed to imply otherwise) is POV pushing.Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slatersteven: this is about you, since you're deeply involved there, and since you have found your way into this thread and begun to throw accusations. And, where are those sources that say it didn't happen? I'm assuming you must have them. Geogene (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Found my way? [64]. You cannot prove a negative, but you can prove a positive. I do not need a source saying "it did not happen", as that is not the basis of an argument I am making, but you have claimed RS have said something. It is thus down to you to either provide that source or admit there is not one.Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Slatersteven: That link shows a straightforward summary of the problems with Humanengr's longstanding behavior wrt American Politics. Personally, I would characterize Humanengr as a user who does not understand site policy about due weight and original research, but it's been explained over and over and other editors have concluded his behavior is not constructive and have lost all patience with him. SPECIFICO talk 19:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I said he has issues, I do not agree he is a troll.Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And if you want to wikilawyer this, I didn't say they were a troll. I said they were trolling.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geogene (talk • contribs) 19:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is the same thing, and you know it. But agreeing he has issues, but not the one he had been accused of is not.Slatersteven (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't agree that it is. And I think you should be introduced to WP:SPADE. Geogene (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)I think both Geogene and Slatersteven are great collegial editors who've made lots of article improvements. "You're a troll" is a personal remark and cannot be evaluated. "You're trolling" describes a specific action and is readily verified or falsified. Humanengr often trolls, according to the definition of that behavior we commonly understand around here. Geogene did not label him a troll, which would be an hurtful personal remark, especially where the problem arises from incompetence rather than ill will or malevolent intention. The two statements are formally and substantively dissimilar. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is wikilawyering in a nut shell "ahh I did not say he was a "X", I said he wrote like one". As I said I agree that Humanengr has series issues that should have been reported here a while ago. But I do not accept that saying someone is trolling is not calling them a troll, after all are you not what you do?Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Helpful guidelines - Fair enough. Let's not get sidetracked, however. Here is guidance we can use to consider Humanengr's behavior:
    It seems from the above that SPECIFICO agrees with Slatersteven that Geogene called me a troll? Do I read that correctly? Can some more neutral party pls weigh in on this point in isolation? Tia, Humanengr (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I've noticed a tendency to not learn from RS, but to constantly push views that can only come from fringe and unreliable ones. This creates endless circular discussions with no progress. This makes them a time sink, where we cover the same stuff again and again. No positive learning curve shown by abandonment of debunked views and adoption of newer and improved ways of seeing things. An inability to see the difference between a RS and an unreliable one gets right to the heart of WP:COMPETENCE. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @BullRangifer, re ‘views’: cites pls for where am I pushing ‘views’. Humanengr (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can see how that comment could look like trolling (I can't imagine a person who follows this issue would actually need a citation for that), but I don't think that it was trolling. A number of points could be made by first asking for a citation, and then responding when such is given.
    I can't speak to the disruption caused by either party on that page as I've not been paying close attention to it lately, but I will say that I've seen both editors contribute positively to discussions in the past, and haven't seen either behave in an over-the-top partisan manner, or engage in disruptive behavior before. One or both may well have become disruptive in the past few months, but given my experience with them, I'd need to see some pretty clear evidence before accepting it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

    And the title presents ‘interference’ as fact.

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

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

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

    no RS explicitly state there was such interference that is such spectacular bullshit [65], [66], [67]. You have a bizarre POV that's at odds with reality. Worse, you're perpetually trying to Debate Club it into the article. You never let anything go. You were just now complaining about the article's title. You're still trying to plant "allegedly" in there to cast aspersions on the mainstream view. People have been trying that since December 2016. It never goes anywhere. The reality of Russian interference, per sourcing, never goes away. You know the former, you must surely be aware of the latter, yet you keep bringing it up. This is unacceptable. Geogene (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And I can't remember exactly what Slatersteven said earlier. If you quoted them correctly, then shame on them, they should be embarrassed for such an absurd falsehood. But--this is a key thing--they're not tendentiously trying to wear everyone down with endless argumentation to change the article to reflect their (alleged) POV. In fact, their lashing out at me here earlier is probably the first time I've seen them cause any problems. Geogene (talk) 07:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Examples - It's in the nature of this kind of behavior that single diffs don't readily convey the extent of the problem. So I am linking a few threads. These are just from the current talk page. This has been going on for a long time. Other editors may have further examples. There is a long history of the same behavior at article talk and elsewhere. Keep in mind, the concern is what Geogene correctly described as trolling. It's not overt incivility, personal attacks, etc.
    There's_still_little_evidence_that_Russia's_2016_social_media_efforts_did_much_of_anything[68] [69] [70] Then after that long first thread went nowhere, he reopens the issue again here: Recapping from above § on WaPo’s Philip Bump on social media SPECIFICO talk 14:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is a diff from December, 2017. Humanengr gained no support in a long thread rehashing a previously settled issue on the article talk page, but he continued to press a pointless and circular discussion of the question. So @MrX: launched an RfC to definitively settle the issue. The link shows some of Humanengr's engagement at the RfC. Note that he mass-pings @MrX, Neutrality, Geogene, O3000, SPECIFICO, My very best wishes, Slatersteven, Fyddlestix, Casprings, Gouncbeatduke, and ValarianB:, which can only be expected further to prolong the repetitive discussion. SPECIFICO talk 14:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose TBAN from Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

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

    Standard Wikipedia definition for TBANs -- just means that the user could not go to an article on the CIA, e.g. and remove a reference to the report on Russian hacking. Unless others have a better definition for this case, I think using the common framework makes it easier to deal with. SPECIFICO talk 00:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Has he been warned before (I am not sure this has been raised here before). If the answer is yes I support a TBAN, if the answer is no then he should be warned that his actions are unacceptable and that if he continues he will get TBAN (with maybe a small temporary sanction at this stage).Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose – Humanengr has been engaging in polite dialogue and careful editing of the contents (as noted above, he made many more edits to the talk page than to the article itself). I understand that he can be criticized for verbosity and insistence, but that's a far cry from "trolling". Most of his contributions and questions are designed to try and improve the article. Sure, some editors disagree with his POV, and this is why we have talk pages. In my view, neither Humanengr's nor Geogene's behaviour are actionable. They should go back to the talk page, mutually AGF, and strive to reach consensus. (Full disclosure: I'm one of the "regulars" at that article, so I'm well-versed in the events reported, their history, the evolution of the article, and the perennial disputes about it.) — JFG talk 12:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a serious issue with him raising the same damn thing 15 times worded slightly differently whenever he does not get consensus (over, if I recall rightly, over multiple forums). But without kind of community Waring it seems unfair to ban him over this.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would add I find it very odd that no one deemed his actions report worthy, until he reported another user, and then they leaped straight for the TBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    When someone is just being disruptive with WP:ICANTHEARYOU, it is not an easy case to bring, and even harder to get action on, from what I've seen. Most editor don't want to risk WP:BOOMERANG and gain nothing. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Humanenegr has been warned more than once by Admins, and numerous times by civilian editors, on talk pages. SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So now admins have been militarized? EEng 16:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Cf. GorillaWarfare, NuclearWarfare and Bongwarrior. - MrX 🖋 17:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Procedural comment – SPECIFICO is under an April 2017 sanction enjoining her to refrain from requesting sanctions against her fellow editors, except via the WP:AE process or an uninvolved admin's talk page. Her public call in this thread for a boomerang against Humanengr appears to be a violation of her own AE sanction, which arose due to similar inappropriate behaviour in the past. Pinging NeilN for comments, as the administrator who imposed the sanction on SPECIFICO. — JFG talk 12:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @JFG: I agree that input from NeilN would be helpful here, but this discussion could at least be argued to be about community sanctions, not discretionary sanctions, which would therefore fall outside SPECIFICO's sanction. Of course an admin could unilaterally impose a TBAN as a result of this discussion and then who knows where we'd be? GoldenRing (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @JFG and GoldenRing: While the wording of my sanction restricted SPECIFICO to those two specific places, the purpose of the sanction was to stop SPECIFICO's practice of calling for sanctions on article talk pages and user talk pages. Requesting sanctions on an admin-geared noticeboard is not disruptive and does not go against the purpose of the editing restrictions I placed on them. --NeilN talk to me 13:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose – It seems almost prejudicial to "see where we stand" on a topic ban on an editor without a proposal for the topic ban which has been backed up with accusations of bad behaviour supported by diffs. This proposal lacks such evidenced accusations, and cites this post by My very best wishes which neither proposes a topic ban, nor contains supported accusations. Cjhard (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Links are provided in upper section. SPECIFICO talk 17:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I think that comments by Humanengr do not help to improve this page, but result in significant waste of time by other contributors. However, this should be up to contributors who frequently edit this page. If they want to debate these issues with Humanengr to infinity, this is their business. My personal inclination, as an occasional participant of this page, would be to support this proposal. If there is a clear violation of anything (I do not really know), this should be reported to WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, seems like much of this is a difference of opinion rather than actual disruption. And jumping straight to a topic ban is a step too far. fish&karate 15:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's certainly way beyond a difference of opinion. A TBAN or page ban seems less restrictive than a block, but if you feel there should be, say, a 6-month time span set for the TBAN that would be less of a restriction than a TBAN that would need additional community process in order to lift it. SPECIFICO talk 16:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments like that on article talk page can be viewed as an WP:NPA problem. When repeated multiple times, this is a WP:TE pattern. Hence my vote above. My very best wishes (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per previous comments by SPECIFICO, Geogene, Bullrangifer, and Beyond My Ken. This user is congenial, but their many voluminous posts are a time sink and a net negative in this subject area. Volunteers should not have to waste hours upon hours of their unpaid time swatting at every oddball theory this user comes up with. Several attempts have been made to get Humanengr to alter their approach, to no avail. They show a lack of understanding and inability to grok our core policies like WP:NPOV and WP:OR. - MrX 🖋 16:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering the obvious contentiousness that led to this, I could get behind a 1 week TBAN for one or both parties. Note that this is exceedingly short on purpose: I've seen them both engage productively, so I know they can. But apparently tempers have been rising, based on the discussion here, so maybe doing something to cool them down would help. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a one-month topic ban on Humanengr, for all things Russia/Putin. Now that I'm aware they've been arguing "nationalist bias" over at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. [71]. I guess if they can't cast doubt on whether Russia interfered, next best thing is to say America does the same thing. This is obviously tendentious. Geogene (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ongoing disruption from IP 50.254.21.213

    IP blocked for one week. Please alert Seraphimblade, or report back here, if disruption continues after that. Softlavender (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin closure)

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

    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:

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Enough's way more than enough at this point (and no, I don't consider myself "involved" because I gave a user a previous warning). Blocked for a week, and will be longer next time if they persist after the block is up. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the block. There have been far too many posts about those links. SarahSV (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Charlene McMann

    This is good to close now. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    I'll message this user and direct her to the proper place to receive help. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Possible block evasion by Mariasfixing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ^^ 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)[reply]
    There is this too, FYI. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Good call on the sock puppetry - thanks for digging into this :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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. [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Talk page trolling

    Talkpage protected, IPs are obviously blocked, FWIW I've also removed the trolling. –Davey2010Talk 21:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    @Courcelles: They're now doing the same thing at User talk:2606:A000:6940:3500:419D:8A93:32C0:AEEE, including misuse of unblocking templates, so I think something more needs to be done. Home Lander (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    As a "hacky" solution, I've blocked 2606:A000:6940:3500:0:0:0:0/63 (Note the difference) for 24 hours without talk page access. I don't want to take the block on the /64 to no talk page unless we have to. Courcelles (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Courcelles: See Special:Contributions/2606:A000:6940:3500:F4A5:5749:E8AC:B5E2. Now they're misusing Template:Ipexemptgranted. Numerous other talk pages here also. Home Lander (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasting enough time... I've just gone ahead and made the /64's block no talk page with a pointer to UTRS. Courcelles (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I wouldn't check PRODs at all, because they can be removed for any, and indeed spurious, reasons. AfDs would be the only metric to use here. Black Kite (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh. There's guaranteed to be someone at the top of the list regardless, so that's not automatically evidence of a problem. Reyk YO! 08:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Do you have a point, or are you just shit-stirring? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Charming. But, yeah, the somewhat obvious point would be that if you're going to remove a PROD from something, it might be a good idea to actually check it for obvious issues, but perhaps that's just me. Black Kite (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    Have you read the comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles#Bandini_deletions? Bulk-blanking 18 articles in 5 minutes (so no actual review of each) with descriptions of "not notable", "all technical garbage", "redundant and all technical crap" and "unsourced fanwank" is not a valid attempt to clean up anything, it's an excuse to slag other editors. Then boilerplating the keep !voters [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] is not any part of the AfD process that I recognise. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What's bold redirects have to do with this? Redirecting poorly-sourced small articles containing primarily technical details to a master article is good practice. Frankly, all those articles should be merged and redirected to something like List of Bandini Automobili vehicles, and all the cruft should be removed. As to the talk page messages, they may be a bit confrontational, but again, this is WikiPolitics: deletion vs. inclusion. It's not trolling, let alone sanctionable. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And here[83] is another case of inadequate prod summaries. There is clearly an abuse of procedure here. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    And this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detrended correspondence analysis had plenty of sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    Just stumbled over that. Got my goat too. This reminds me of someone angrily lashing out at things that don't fall into their personal area of interest or understanding. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I don't think it's "trolling", per se, but the fact of the matter is that when I first became an admin back in the halcyon days of 2011, I quickly noticed that, WP:HAMMER-subjects aside, TPH's nominations at xFD were...we'll call them spotty at best, and they have not improved - if anything, they've gotten worse, with nominations that indicate a complete failure of WP:BEFORE (for instance the nomination of {{Petty family}} for deletion, which was refuted with five seconds at Google - and, some times, the distinct impression the subject being nominated wasn't even read. I'm not sure what can be done here, procedurally, as TPH does do good work, but he needs at least to spend more time researching topics before nominating, as this is a continuing behavorial issue. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest a week's ban on prods and AfDs, to be extended for a further period if behavior does not improve. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    • Diff – "You just admitted there is no sourcing, yet it's notable anyway? On what planet do you live?"
    • Diff – "You seem lost. Sources go in the article, not in the AFD. Try again."
    • Diff – "So are you going to fix it, or are you going to just let the article fester and rot forever?"
    • Diff – "You seem to have confused the AFD for the article. IF you find sources, put them in the article, not in the AFD. Try again."
    • Diff – "And saying that there are sources = adding them to the article right? If there are souces, WHERE THE FUCKING FUCK ARE THEY and why are they not in the article? Don't say there are sources unless you can fucking prove it yourself, mmkay? Otherwise, I could say there are sources out there on my own ass, and it could have a fucking article."
    • Diff – "And that means the article is now automatically FA right? No one ever needs to do anything to it again? It's notable, it's the best thing ever on this goddamn wiki? How about fixing it instead of sitting on your fucking hands?"
    • Diff – "So trivial that you didn't even add them to the article. Because you clearly believe that saying "I found sources" is the same thing as adding them to the article right? They will just magically add themselves."
    • Diff – "Again, finding the source means it automatically adds itself to the article, right? Nothing more has to be done here? It's automatically turned into an FA just because you found that? If you're going to argue notability and dig up sources, then how much harder is it to fucking add them? I see this all the time: people scream their heads off that it's notable, argue that it be kept, but no one ever adds the sources, so 10 years later the article is still an unsourced trainwreck."
    • Diff – "What's stopping you from adding them? AGain, are you expecting the article to magically turn into an FA overnight just because you said keep? If you're gonna talk the talk, walk the walk. Not that fucking hard."
    • Comment This user, in addition to clearly working against WP:CIVILITY, does not often reference proper deletion policy, acknowledge WP:GNG, and their WP:BEFORE checks have been incredibly insufficient (if they are even performed). It took me 20 seconds to find that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuel Asajile Mwambulukutu fulfilled WP:NPOL. I've suggested to them that if they are really oh so bothered by the poor quality of certain articles, they ought to make the fixes themselves (curiously, they did not respond). These accusations that other users do all the work are rather hypocritical. After all, if it's "not that fucking hard" for someone else to add cited info with new sources, then surely TPH can do it themselves, "fixing it instead of sitting on [their] fucking hands". I don't consider this trolling; TPH isn't disrupting the system for the sake of disruption. They just want to get rid of things because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This user has been around too long to be unaware of the criteria for deletion and ignorant of how to conduct a proper BEFORE (aka Google search and clicking). They should know better. I for one would like to see them topic banned from AfD until they demonstrate some civility and an understanding of deletion policy and BEFORE. Otherwise they are just wasting more of our time with Deletion nominations that should never have been thrown into the queue in the first place. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- This looks like TPH making a bunch of ill-advised deletion nominations and exasperated comments at how crappy some sections of Wikipedia are, but not trolling. Reyk YO! 08:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe not for the PRODs and AfDs, but when it comes to these, after the AfD has closed, [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] I find it hard to think of any other term for it. It's a closed AfD, even though he then re-filed it immediately afterwards (and then thought better of it) so just what are these comments intended for, or likely to have the effect of? They won't change the article, all they're going to achieve is to gratuitously piss off a bunch of editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Being exasperated and annoyed with editors who don't fix things is not trolling. Accusing someone of trolling is essentially the same as accusing him of vandalism except in talk or user talk space, that is, editing in talk spaces to undermine the community deliberately. I don't think what TPH is doing there is deliberately aimed at undermining the community, but at pushing for responsibility. And I really don't think it even has a negative effect other than getting people's attention. This is one of those situations where someone does something I wouldn't do, but that I wouldn't do it doesn't make it sanctionable. Andy, I expect better proof of misconduct from someone of your expertise. In particular, the discussion you cite above at WT:CARS draws more attention to your own reactions than anything else. I seriously fail to see why you felt the need to rush to ANI over a bunch of bold redirects. That you are Tired of this guy is hardly relevant, and I am really surprised at your response to an honest commment from TPH, that him saying there was nothing worth keeping in the redirected articles should bring the case even closer to ANI. Andy, disagreeing with you is not cause to bring someone to ANI. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I share Hammer's exasperation at article quality, but as I've already said, it's the way he goes about it, not the issue that has brought him here. His attitude was heading that way already (and not for the first time) and I made that very clear. Blanking a whole set of articles is wrong (they're hard to source in detail, not unsourceable - Bandini are listed in all of my "complete encyclopedia of" books, just not in much detail) - but to disparage the articles as "unsourced fanwank" is tantamount to disparaging the editors in that area as unsourcing wanker fanboys. You do not get to slate other peoples' interest groups like this, any more than I get to delete Oldham Athletic because I've no interest in footie. For him to then start harassing his opposers at the Oldham AfD has gone beyond exasperation to trolling of individuals, and that's when this went to ANI. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - this will go around in circles until TenPoundHammer gets a topic ban from the deletion process. fish&karate 09:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand his frustration. There are a number of articles - a very large number in fact - whose current content fails core policy, but whose subjects are asserted to be notable and thus they are defended. This is an existential conflict between "the subject is notable, therefore the article must exist and it's not my job to render it compliant with policy" and "the article is not compliant with policy so should be nuked regardless of the importance of the subject" (ake WP:TNT). This struggle is as old as Wikipedia and will never go away. My suggestion to TPH is to try stubbing them instead. Just nuke the no-compliant content and recognise that any article that is part of Wikipedia's international directory of education topics will never be deleted. We don't need to re-fight the school wars. Guy (Help!) 11:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • ​The thing is, he's not restricting himself to pages whose current content fails core policy, and it's fairly clear from his deletion rationales that he's not actually reading the articles either; he's just slapping deletion tags on anything he doesn't like the sound of. As a very recent example, this is what Chad–Sudan relations looked like at the moment he tagged it for deletion with a rationale of No basis for an article. Like most X-Y relations articles, this is just a random slapdash collection with no focus; for the benefit of those who aren't aware, the borderland between Chad and Sudan is better known in the west as Darfur and the uneasy relationship between the two countries is one of the most significant in Africa, and if TPH had even performed a 30-second skim-read he'd have been aware of this. This isn't a one-off but a consistent pattern; as well as the assorted examples given in the OP and the claim that the Battle of Pęcice must have been a hoax because he'd never heard of it and his lying about there being "no sources" when I pointed out that I'd found multiple RSs within two minutes, we have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latin house, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petroleum politics, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public domain film just from a dip-sample in the last few days. ‑ Iridescent 16:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm. Most of this bilateral relations articles are either a series of news stories or blatant OR, but I take the point. However, I also share TPH's frustration with people who !vote Keep, assert that there are sources, and leave an article unsourced or otherwise crappy. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two points of concern here:
    • There is clearly no attempt to follow WP:BEFORE here. While a one-off AFD nomination without BEFORE could be understood, and a few of these look obvious that BEFORE wouldn't have helped, most show that the AFD nominator should have done work ahead of time to better justify the reason to AFD the articles. AFD is not cleanup. The AFD process is geared to put the onus on those deleting, though if the issue is something completely unsourced, then yes, those !voting keep need to be doing some legwork to avoid deletion via WP:V.
    • WP:FAIT is also appropriate here. While the breadth of the articles do not necessary impact one set of editors too much, still nominating this many articles at one time is flooding the system (particularly admins and regular AFD editors). This FAIT point would likely be less of an issue if the first point about BEFORE had been followed, but this still should be kept in mind.
    Why we ask these is not something well documented in policy so I can fully see TPH's argument that they were using tools available to do necessary cleanup work. That's a reasonable AGF argument, but that's why TPH should be well aware now that this is not the approach to take in the future. --Masem (t) 16:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- I am not an admin, and am currently mainly patrolling CFD and the AFD lists for History and Christianity, which is as much as I currently have time for. Most of my time is devoted to editing a book on the history of the iron industry, which often contains research based on primary sources. If I come across blatant mistakes I correct them: in one recent case I was mistaken and my edit was very properly reverted. The problem as I see it is that certain editors are nominating articles for AFD, because they lack (or have inadequate) in-line references. However WP:V requires that content should be verifiable, not that it should be verified by in-line references. A distinction needs to be drawn between articles that are not credible and are probably WP:OR and those which may be correct, but lack references. Some of these will require research in secondary (or even primary) sources, because relevant and credible material (WP:RS) is not available on-line. The right answer in such cases is to tag the article for its defects, in the hope that some one will fix them. As far as I am aware there is no time limit for this. TenPoundHammer's fault seems to applying a time limit, rather than devoting his time to fixing those defects that he can fix. Some of these may require the editor to have access to a library or even primary (archival) sources, but not every book is available in every library, and archives (unless digitised or filmed) are generally only available in a single repository. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • TPH needs to be topic-banned from all deletion-related activities. His nominations are often wilfully incompetent and his attitude stinks. It has always been thus, and it's time he was prevented from wasting so much of other editors' time. --Michig (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't have agreed to this, and I'm the OP.
    But then I was reminded of this, from 2012: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TenPoundHammer
    There has been no change in six years. Same old problems. So yes, "topic-banned from all deletion-related activities". Andy Dingley (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical marine climate looks germane to this discussion. XOR'easter (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly he wasn't in the same O level geography classes I sat through... 8-(
    To continue with this crusade of badly thought out AfDs, even whilst ignoring an ANI thread on the same topic is indicative of the underlying attitude problem here. Topic ban. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alternate suggestion. We've got a couple of problems here. First, we've got a lot of well-intentioned but abandoned crap articles. Lots of those have been tagged for cleanup without a reason given (probably out of desperation), and so contribute to an appalling backlog of 9200+ articles in that cleanup "category", some of them there now for nearly 10 years. Doubtless various people have wanted to address that backlog before, but have been cowed after poking around and finding themselves somewhere between confused, lost, and disinterested. So I emphathize with TPH for advocating a "blow it up" solution to cut the Gordian knot. I also emphathize with those pushing back, saying notability is there, sources exist, the article can at some point be improved by someone (just not them!) and so policy says don't delete.
    To TPH: You're definitely not trolling, you're trying to improve the encyclopedia. But you are being disruptive, because your approach is not achieving its objective, namely improved or deleted articles, because in your end-justifies-the-means approach you're making too many factual errors about the existence of sources, and because you're unproductively annoying other people who could be on your side. Rather than a formal TBAN from deletion processes (which is gaining traction here out of frustration, may lower collective blood pressure, but won't solve the underlying issue) could you make a voluntary commitment to not PROD or AFD articles explicitly or implicitly based on WP:TNT until/unless it becomes accepted policy, to not assert lack of sources in a deletion discussion unless you have taken real time to check, and to not argue with others about whose responsibility is it to fix an article. Instead harness that energy to propose and help enshrine into policy a better solution for abandoned crap articles. I could see WP:TNT, or some version thereof, becoming policy, now that we're a lot more mature than 10 years ago. Or if not, a solution with a template saying something like "This article has been abandoned for many years, in a state a far cry from what we aspire to. If it's a topic of interest, please help us improve it" bot-added to any article that's been in cleanup-tag purgatory for 3+ (or whatever) years. The details need fleshing out, but I think people could get their heads around something; and it will have much more positive impact than frustrated AFD nominations, speedy keeps, recriminations, and unchanged articles. Martinp (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I noted above, I support no action here because I see no misconduct on TPH's part. I also see no disruption, contrary to what Martinp asserts above me. The incident that appears to have triggered this report, a thread at WT:CARS, is not even related to deletion, but to boldly redirecting old unreferenced articles. That TPH has a history with deletion is true, but we aren't here to discuss past conduct, we're here to discuss whether TPH has done wrong. Focusing on past conduct is prejudicial and only really relevant to remedies. That is, we are putting the cart before the horse. Again, TPH has not been shown to have done anything wrong, and talk of sanctions—whether or not they're disguised as voluntary restrictions—is both premature and inappropriate. There is no consensus that TPH has done wrong. So let's slow the hell down. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you consider it appropriate to blank an entire series of articles with no discussion and no attempt to add references? –dlthewave ☎ 03:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I went through some of TPH's recent AfD nominations and I agree with those who find them to be inappropriate and disruptive. While TPH may be frustrated with articles that need better sourcing, AfD policy does not support that as a deletion rationale if sources exist and can be found. And TPH is aware of this. So bringing articles to AfD and then harassing participants in the discussion who point out existing sources is disruptive and inappropriate conduct. And this has been going on (possibly on and off) for years. Rlendog (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dlthewave: He didn't blank anything. He redirected unsourced articles that had sat unsourced for ages. This is a perennial problem in the deletionist-inclusionist debate, the matter of WP:BOLD merge/redirect actions. We do not have a functional process for this, so the usual method is to be bold. So, responding to your actual question, whether BOLDly redirecting unacceptable articles to a master article is appropriate, my answer is that it is entirely appropriate. Taking someone to ANI for being "tired" of him, as Andy said at WT:CARS, is the inappropriate action taking place here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't consider dropping the F-bomb because other users won't adhere to your demands to be in line with WP:CIVILITY policy ([90])([91])([92]). And same with repeatedly nominating things for AfD without citing proper deletion criteria outlined in the deletion policy after years of working in AfD (these aren't just mistakes). -Indy beetle (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ArbCom would tend to disagree with you, that swearing on-wiki in the midst of a dispute is inappropriate, let alone uncivil. Fairly recently, I recall someone telling another to "fuck off" was not a civility violation. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it ought to be. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    Agreed (both). I seem to remember that this would have been a CIVIL breach (and rightly so), but clearly not of late. I think it ought to be. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I still think it's absolutely frustrating that people say "Keep, it's notable, see, here are sources" but never add them, so five years later, the article looks like absolute shit. How hard is it to just add it yourself? We've been around this block so many times -- people have questioned my civility in this, but no one has ever agreed to do anything about it. I would think that if I were being disruptive enough to cause a problem, that something would've been done years ago. So why don't we just drop the stick and walk away from what's left of the horse? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ...we seem to be getting around to doing something about it, bide a while... regarding "no one ever adds sources", that's just a vast crock. I don't hang out at AfDs much (more so recently due to NPP drive), but in a couple months I've seen a least a dozen that came out of the discussion with "Keep" due to refs having been improved by participants. Which is still not a requirement. Consequently your approach of bombing AfD with sloppy nomations to coerce people into cleanup clearly strikes many as disruptive. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    On that point, I move to close. The above comment, which is pretty representative of the other complaints in this thread, deals entirely with disputes over Wikipedia policy and simply couches those complaints in behavioral dispute language. TPH is absolutely right that these sorts of AfD outcomes happen, and in my opinion is absolutely right to call people out on them. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, but it is not an indefinite webhost of materials that violate core policies. We need to find the balance between WP:TIND and WP:NOT, and bootstrapping an ANI thread in order to silence people with whom you disagree is not how we develop policy on Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ​But again, materials that violate core policies isn't the issue here; the issue is that TPH is arbitrarily tagging pages for deletion based on the fact that he hasn't heard of the topic (typically using the edit summary of "add", presumably in the hope that watchers will be less likely to spot the deletion tag being added), and lying about claiming to have searched for sources when it's clear he hasn't. Which "core policies" are you suggesting Chad–Sudan relations, Tropical marine climate or Battle of Pęcice are breaching? ‑ Iridescent 09:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think TPH and Melndaliv are right that it's unhelpful to just dump a list of purported sources on the discussions and walk away (or worse, simply assert there must be sources out there somewhere and then walk away) without any thought of actually bringing the article up to a minimal standard. But a bunch of ill-advised AfD nominations is not a useful way of dealing with the problem (though on many of them a good dose of TNT is exactly what's needed). And if TPH is using misleading edit summaries then that is a problem, more so than just getting grouchy about a lot of shitty, never-to-be-improved articles. Reyk YO! 09:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Dumping a list of sources but not adding to the article (whether at the talk page or the AFD page) is helpful, but practice has evolved that as long as those sources are identified and linked in a common sense place to the article (eg the talk page, the AFD header that should be on a talk page after it closes, etc.) then for purposes of sourcing, we are supposed to treat the article as if those sources were included. This can lead to sloppy articles, no question, but I also agree that as long as we have no deadline and the location of those sources are obvious, using AFD to force cleanup just because those sources aren't in the article is very much against the spirit of WP. Tag with a maintenance tag instead. (The other issue of simply asserting there are sources but not supplying anything close to a proper WP:V link, that's different, and needs to be stopped). --Masem (t) 16:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iridescent: I'm not talking about those articles, and nobody else in this thread seems to be talking about those articles either. In fact, you bring up the other problem with this thread, that it's like a shifting sand dune. There's no actual substance or consensus to any of the complaints here, just a bunch of people with different problems or different complaints airing them. This isn't a proper use of ANI, and there's no administrative action that could possibly lie to address the myriad minor complaints that have been brought up. It's time to nip this thread in the bud and close it now. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    How about no. There's a large of number of statements here that TPH's behaviour is experienced as disruptive and they should change it. Your inability to understand the issue if it's not presented in a two-sentence executive summary is not a reason to shut down the discussion. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1. We are constituted that articles don't need to be sourced to pass AfD, they need to demonstrate an ability to be sourceable. TNT is not policy. You are right that articles are poor and that they ought to be better, but it's not policy to use AfD to delete them when they aren't. Either accept that or get out of AfD.
    2. How about you doing some of this? - a serious invitation. Rather than PRODing "sterilant gas monitoring" as "no sources", do what I did and add some. Takes longer, but it achieves more than a handful of snowball AfDs being thrown right back.
    3. This cleanup relies on other editors, not just one brave hero and his flaming hammer o'justice. So starting out by pissing off all the likely editors is no way to encourage anything useful to happen. I got as far as taking the Bandini books down off the shelf but still haven't worked on the articles (and chances are probably won't) because having articles continually described as you have been (which is just plain unacceptable anyway) is no way to motivate any efforts to improve them. Bandini only built something like 70-odd cars (cars, not models) and we have 18 articles. Are they really all separate notable models? But at present no-one is really looking, because you've entrenched an opposition from the cars project who have taken the entirely expected line that the only way to defend against your bulk actions is with a bulk defence. Maybe the 1963 750bis belongs as a section in with the 1962 750, not separate, but your attitude has completely shut down any such discussion. You are acting against your own supposed goal of encouraging cleanup. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban proposal

    How about a 3 month total ban from PRODs but not AFD's. If at the end of that time TPH's AFD hit rate doesn't start to improve (at least 70% ending in delete/merge/redirect) then a total ban from deletion? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose: There's no consensus that misconduct has occurred, let alone that sanctions are required. Let somebody lay out a coherent case that there's misconduct first. Everything thus far has been disjointed and vague waves to a long history of problems. This kind of thread is how ANI gets its "pitchforks and torches" reputation. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think there is no problem after reading all of the above, looking at their PROD/AFD history and the various comments linked by editors above, then short of eating a baby I doubt there is anything that would convince you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, there is no coherent case of specific misconduct anywhere above or below. All that's happened is a bunch of people have come out of the woodwork to air assorted, unconnected grievances against TPH. Many of the complaints aired in this thread have nothing whatsoever to do with deletion and would not be addressed by this preposterous topic ban. Similarly, most of the arguments above and below do not support a single, coherent sanction, but just a mishmash of "topic ban from all deletion" or "topic ban from AfD" or a bunch of other things that aren't even related or supported by any evidence. If this discussion results in any sort of topic ban, I would counsel TPH to appeal it to the Arbitration Committee immediately, because there is simply no coherent consensus emerging here, let alone discussion among the complainants. There's just a bunch of angry people saying angry people things into a wall of text. This is not discussion, let alone deliberation. This is simply another case of ANI bringing out the pitchforks and torches because someone unpopular pissed him off. Unpopularity is not and has never been cause for sanctioning or punishment, and couching someone's unpopularity in terms of him being "disruptive" or in terms of "protecting the project" does not mask the odious nature of this sanction. I am appalled. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No coherent? Unconnected? Not supported by evidence? Editors have provided multiple diffs showing where TPH has clearly not done the basic groundwork to nominate an article for deletion. Multiple diffs over an extended period have shown this behaviour to be disruptive to a wide range of editors. Your post above has no basis in reality and is verging on outright fabrication. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from all deletion related areas I agree with some of my fellow editors above that TPH, for all his probably good intentions and all justified frustration with WP:Somebody else's problem mentality, has not yet grasped (and apparently is unwilling to ever grasp) that policies and guidelines apply to him as well and that just nominating stuff for deletion is neither helpful nor allowed by policy. If he were to invest all that time and energy into acutally fixing the articles he finds problematic, the project would be better off and banning him from deletion might achieve just that.

      In addition to the examples provided above (the most fragrant of which is imho trying to use the "uncontroversial maintenance" G6 criterion to get rid of things he does not like (and, unfortunately, suceeding)), there was recently a slew of A7 mistaggings and misleading and incorrect statements regarding his edits and those of others. Examples:

    Even though RFA#7 was nine years ago, all the concerns that were raised back then about his approach to deletion still appear to be well-founded today and I'm sure TPH knows that his approach is not correct but still he persists time and time again. I think after 14 years, we should honestly consider whether his approach and the drama it causes again are really worth his participation in deletion related areas, especially also considering the valid points NA1000 makes about his civility in such discussions. Regards SoWhy 10:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef topic ban from all deletion related areas - per North America’s diffs, as noted by Softlavender, and subsequent discussion and diffs. This person is an abusive bully of the type who the community needs to sanction. Actually I’m in favor of an indef block from the project until some genuine contrition and commitment to complete change is expressed. I thank Andy for standing up and speaking out. Jusdafax (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose- I definitely do not approve of the less-than-informative edit summaries, and it would be hypocritical of me to try to excuse it when I have previously criticised others for lying in edit summaries. On the other hand, what's happened in the past when someone on the inclusionist side has used inaccurate edit summaries to obscure what they were really doing was to smile benevolently and pat them on the back. It won't do for the community to mete out punishment and praise for the same behaviour depending on wikipolitical affiliation. Futhermore, the preceding debate looks more like a mish-mash of unrelated gripes and grumbles. Let there be a coherently set out case against TPH first. I don't approve of the misfire AfDs but, since the articles are getting kept mostly, it's hard to see any major disruption. Reyk YO! 11:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure I follow: If the nominator knows that the AFDs will be kept mostly because he is deliberately ignoring WP:NOTCLEANUP, how is continuing to nominate such articles that not a major disruption? And if an editor persists in using false edit summaries after multiple people asked them to stop, including pointing out that several policies in fact require that they use informative edit summaries, how is that not disruptive? Just saying "Well, when editor X did that, he was not sanctioned", is not really a strong argument, because you admit that TPH is doing something wrong, you just don't feel like it's fair to sanction them for it when others weren't. For the record, I think anyone trying to obscure their edits in edit summaries should be sanctioned, not just "deletionists". Regards SoWhy 11:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Assistance needed at AfD

    Closing as resolved. Coffee seems to have agreed to allow someone else to close it. SarahSV (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woody Allen sexual assault allegations has been open for nine days. Coffee has arrived and instead of closing it, he has relisted, announced that he will probably close it and that he will be doing something unusual, although it's not clear what. I'm concerned that this sounds like a plan to cast a supervote, and I've asked him not to close it. Would an uninvolved admin please decide whether it ought to be closed, and if so how, or whether it ought to remain relisted? SarahSV (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @SlimVirgin: I appreciate you taking this concern over here (so as to not pull the AFD off track). It is common practice for any deletion discussion to be relisted if consensus cannot be found after the first set 7 days (this will sometimes be a few days longer due to administrative lag). This can happen up to twice, and in some rare cases 3 times. Each of these relists are for an additional 7 days. This is only this discussions first relist, after I determined that consensus was not clear yet. My rather long (and self-admittedly unorthodox) relisting comment, is just to point out to the community that I am trying something new: A bi-gender administrative close of a potentially contentious topic which if a single gender closes may cause a form of bias to be displayed. Interestingly enough, and I don't know if you realized this, the main reason I even thought to do this was because I noticed your statement in the AFD about the perceived male-gender bias that is manifested in Wikipedia on some of the sexual assault/harassment allegations (or beyond) articles. I took that into severe consideration, and pondered on how to come up with a good way to fix this from becoming an issue. This isn't the first time I've seen the type of concern brought up, but it was the first time I had seen it discussing a possible misuse of BLP to stifle female editor or female article subject opinions. I knew that the most likely gender who would close this in 7 days time, not with nefarious intent but just out of the nature of our site's gender ratio, would likely be male. And as I've been in discussions with several former female administrators/oversighters/checkusers/editors, who all have stated they left because of the perceived toxic nature of some of the males here, I took a step back and questioned if just letting this get closed without ensuring the closing administrator wasn't missing anything was the best idea. I decided that it wasn't. So, I thought ensuring that two administrators from two sides of the gender spectrum closed it would be the most non-controversial way forward... as counter-intuitive as that sounds. I hope that's a bit of a better explanation. And I hope you can see how I don't intend to do anything more than evaluate the consensus in 7 days time with a second pair of eyes. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisting is for discussions where "insufficient discussion took place to determine a consensus or lack thereof". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions. There has been sufficient discussion to determine that there is consensus or that there is no consensus.
    I can see the appeal of multi-gender closes, but they wouldn't necessarily solve anything (sexism can come from anywhere). And in this case, there has been sufficient discussion, so any uninvolved admin would be able to close it. No special set-up is needed. SarahSV (talk) 04:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would they not solve anything? That comment surprises me honestly, I would have thought the status quo was seen as not solving anything. Would it not at least be a positive step to try this out before making such a harsh judgement of it? Has it even been tried before? What happened to the days of "being bold" and trying new things to solve problems on this site? At any rate, the relist is final. Even if I decide to not go forward on the bi-gender close in 7 days... as apparently the person I thought would appreciate it the most, does not like the idea of trying to do it at all. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Coffee, this is a routine AfD. It doesn't need special handling. SarahSV (talk) 04:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not how you made it sound in your original comments at the AFD regarding the interpretations of BLP that you had seen, but whatever. I don't know why I even try sometimes. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last thing this project needs is the impugning of editors' capacity to carry out routine functions because of where on the "gender spectrum" they are. EEng 04:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    A discussion can be relisted if it's believed further discussion might lead to a clearer result. I'm not sure that one's a hopeless no consensus. That being said, I object to someone who relisted a discussion being the one to close it, let alone trying to "reserve the right" to close it. After the discussion has run for at least seven days, any admin can close the discussion if they believe either a clear result has been reached or there's little chance one will be. And I've always thought admins who relist discussions and then close them can give the appearance of trying to put the discussion back until the result they favor is reached, whether or not that was in fact their intent. So, if it got relisted it got relisted, but let the close take place in the natural course of things, and absolutely not on a relister "reserving" the close. I also firmly disagree that an editor's gender should be taken into consideration for performing a function as normal as closing a discussion, and think that's a very poor example to be setting. So, I don't necessarily disagree with the relisting, but I strongly disagree with everything that comes after. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meh. I don't care about it enough to get my head chopped off at the stake. I just wanted to try a new possible way to solve a very old problem here. The relist is staying, but I'll remove everything after since it's such a terrible thing to try to ensure our very long and obvious history of male editor bias, and very long and obvious history of low female editor/administrator retention has any fix at all. Let's just keep the status quo as it is forever. I hope everyone else can also post a 300 word reply about how obviously terrible and outrageous a move this was for me to do. Good day y'all. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The relisting is good: I had looked at this earlier today and thought about doing it myself, but decided to pass. I tend to agree with Seraphimblade in terms of my general views on relisting (admins should generally avoid relisting and closing). That being said, i know of at least one specific instance where a current arb relisted with commentary and announced their intent to close. I was critical of it then as a bad idea, but I also don’t think it is any policy violation, and it is something that is done even if I personally don’t like it. I also don’t see why this is at ANI: from Coffee’s response it seems he would have been perfectly fine talking about it on his talk page. Might I suggest this thread be closed and any further discussion take place there if it is needed? It seems to have been largely resolved. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Disclose: I recommended "keep" at the AfD. I disagree with relisting in this fashion and trying to create gender balanced administrator closing teams. This matter is straightforward and requires no innovative gymnastics. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • It’s not an incident that needs administrator intervention. His talk page was the first place you should have gone, where he would likely have backed down from the creative close like he did here. Everything here is resolved per Coffee’s responses, and I think you should close this yourself. There is literally nothing to review other than the relisting itself now, and that is well within the norm of administrative discretion at AfDs, not to mention I’ve never seen a XfD relist by an admin reviewed in any forum, much less ANI. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Copyrighted material hosted on a personal webpage

    At the Danny! biography, a couple of Atlanta-based IPs have been edit-warring with me, returning eight "references" to the article, the references being copyrighted material from news and entertainment sources, all of it hosted on dannyswain.com, Danny's own webpage. Am I interpreting the rules right in removing these? Or are they okay to keep in the article? Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    No they should be removed obviously, Using that subjects is fine providing the content is in their own words - If it's been nicked from various places and dumped on their site then no their site shouldn't be used and I would go as far as to say it should be added the spam blacklist. –Davey2010Talk 21:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hold on. More discretion is called for here. We do link to sites using fair use materials. So if the clips are a few seconds they should be okay from a copyvio point of view. Links to lengthier clips fall afoul of our linking policy but be sure these clips are not embeds from properly licensed sources. If they are, link to the official source. --NeilN talk to me 21:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I assumed they meant the text was being copied from news sources and pasted on their website, If we're talking about clips then I don't really think that's problematic. –Davey2010Talk 21:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there is absolutely no text being copied from news sources. 2601:C6:8480:11:8099:3893:E66B:EACC (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    With the exception of maybe one cited link, which again includes original music composed and performed by the subject, any content (all created by the subject) seems to be less than a minute long. The edits seemed very impulsive as we have seen other articles linked identically. 2601:C6:8480:11:8099:3893:E66B:EACC (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you are linking to entire talk show performances and commercials "nicked" without the permission of the copyright holder. --NeilN talk to me 21:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, this is the one "more than a minute" clip I was referring to. Anything else related to works-for-hire (commercials, songs) by the subject does deem copyright, and I'm having a hard time understanding otherwise. 2601:C6:8480:11:8099:3893:E66B:EACC (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject does not own copyright over work-for-hire projects like commercials. --NeilN talk to me 21:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't any content being "nicked" or "dumped" anywhere, the sources in questions lead to work created by the artist and hosted on his personal webpage as a source. Please enlighten me, genuinely as this does not seem to be in any violation, what the issue is. 2601:C6:8480:11:8099:3893:E66B:EACC (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no violation, no admin issue. Discussion of relevent external links belongs on Talk:Danny!, obviously. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Your posts here are getting less and less helpful... --NeilN talk to me 22:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Now the Atlanta person has passed 3RR with this reversion. Binksternet (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, despite what 86. says, there are violations of our linking policy. I've reverted and semied the page. --NeilN talk to me 22:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ban evasion

    I gently ask the blocking of 201.215.141.30. Diego Grez-Cañete has been evading his ban under that IP. The IP accepted he was the former user in Sctots Wikipedia. Best, --Warko talk 21:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:SPI is thattaway. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Warko: Don't take it to SPI. The IP's edits are too old for any action to be taken now.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    IP 146.200.77.220 has for some time being making claims of plagiarism. This claim has been investigated by admins Michig at Talk:Golden Hind (passenger train)#Plagiarism of my article and PrimeHunter at Wikipedia:Help desk#Plagiarised article and found to be untrue, but the IP made a threat of legal action in this edit. I gave the appropriate warning at User talk:146.200.77.220, but he responded by repeating the threat at User talk:David Biddulph#Legal threat. It should be noted also that he refers to having a Wikipedia account, but has so far not disclosed which account. In this edit he said that he had created the article Pembroke Coast Express, hence it appears that he has been using IPs such as 209.93.106.136 and 209.93.173.47, and it was the former who created the draft which Michig and PrimeHunter examined. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Should be blocked (per WP:NLT) while this is debated. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked the IP, as the legal threat was repeated after warning. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @SarekOfVulcan: Indef? The person is indeffed but the IP should not be. --NeilN talk to me 22:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @NeilN: No, that's just what Twinkle said when I posted the notice. The block is long, but not indef. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the default for legal threats, but you can change it before you click on okay (or whatever it is you click on).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Only if you place the block with Twinkle. If you place and then use Twinkle for the notice, it doesn't give you a time option. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    A bad workman blames his tools.
    C'mon,admins, type those 20 letters in person - so we know you care. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You're just poking everyone today, aren't you?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Joefromrandb conduct

    I am requesting admin intervention with respect to the article talk page behavior of Joefromrandb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at talk:Kim Davis. Joefromrandb, who was the subject of an RFAR in November. There is a discussion underway about revising the lead. Here are some of Joefromrandb's contributions so far:

    • "It was developed by collaboration among overtly biased editors who somehow managed to get it through a GA-review with no less than 3 outright lies in it, to say nothing of the myriad biases and exaggerations."[94]
    • "Hopefully nothing now. That's all been dealt with. I'm just noting that Mr. X again and again edit-warred demonstrable falsehoods back into this article in the past." [95]
    • "Oh, yeah; how could I forget the most-recent pile of bullshit: "Davis and her staff were found to be paid too much". [96]
    • "That's real cute, El C: purposely waiting & protecting the wrong version. I used to respect you." [97]
    • "It sure fucking is. [98]
    • "You put lie upon lie into this article, so please don't pretend you have any interest in it being "good"." [99]

    He has been especially hostile to Prhartcom (the editor who I believe took the article to GA status). Example: Talk:Kim Davis/Archive 6#Write, don't just revert

    Edit summaries:

    • let's be real
    • spare me
    • more lies
    • so disgusting
    • fuck no!
    • bollocks

    Joefromrandb has a history of edit warring and berating editors,[100][101] in lieu of collaborating with them. Arbcom decided not to do anything about this three months ago, so I'm now asking someone to do something about it now. Thank you.- MrX 🖋 23:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This is nothing new. The lies to which I referred are indeed lies, and all there in the article's history, along with its talk page, for everyone to see. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of lies, this user has conveniently chosen not to mention the bits of my original post to El C that I struck as inappropriate many hours ago. You simply can't make this shit up. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joefromrandb: whatever the factual status of the article (now or previously), your assumptions of bad faith and sniping at other editors is extremely unhelpful. Surely, whatever problems the article has can be fixed without calling people liars or trolls. clpo13(talk) 00:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Trolls" perhaps, but the issues with the lies are crystal clear. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is a list of the supposed "lies"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Joefromrandb. When you accuse another editor of repeatedly adding "lies" to an article, then you are obligated to provide proof in the form of diffs. Mentioning the edit history of a lengthy, complex article is not sufficient. Provide proof promptly or withdraw the accusations, please. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I already went through this with El C on the article's talk page. The (partial) list of lies is right there. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned on the talk page, I think items on the list should be expanded. El_C 04:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's pushing midnight, but in the morning I should have time to post a complete lie-by-lie summary. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Even one diff would be helpful. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Midnight has come and gone. Are we going to see the lie-by-lie summary with diffs or a retraction? By the way Cullen328, Clpo13, and El C, this still doesn't addresses the hostility like calling editors "overtly biased", or the edit warring. Or this or this If this isn't going to be addressed here, then I'm just going to take it back to Arbcom.- MrX 🖋 23:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Athos

    As per NeilN below, all editors are warned to (a) stop any more edit-warring on this article for at least 3 days, and (b) use the talk-page to discuss this dispute. I will not protect the article at this stage, but that may be necessary if a similar issue occurs. Black Kite (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I apologise, but I just want to bring to the attention of the community a situation that is happening at Mount Athos‎ where an editor, User:Dr.K., is behaving agressively adding over and over an usourced controversial statement and even faking sourcing. Please help. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @FkpCascais: Why is there no discussion on the talk page? --NeilN talk to me 23:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I engaged in discussion on their talk-page (as you can see) but they ignored me and just kept behaving arogantly and possesively and templating me. FkpCascais (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They ignored me and just kept agressvely templating me and talking trough agressive edit-summaries. FkpCascais (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @FkpCascais: The article talk page is better suited for content disputes. And you realize you've broken WP:3RR? --NeilN talk to me 00:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    None of these editors are coming out of this well. Not that it still isn't edit warring, but as far as I can see the FKP 22:14 edit isn't a direct revert, merely a removal of something added a lot earlier. Dr. K has also reverted three times, and User:SilentResident has just reverted FKP with the editsum "Restoring article to last stable version prior to all this disruption" despite the fact that version has, as far as I can see, never existed before. Black Kite (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite: All the reverts/edits are about the same sentence. --NeilN talk to me 00:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, I'm just pointing out that particular one isn't a direct reversal of a recent edit (I can't see that the 22:02 one is either). I would go for warnings all round and protection here? Black Kite (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @Black Kite: I already provided a reliable source which verifies the content as requested by the OP. You can protect if you think it is needed, but the source I provided verifies the sentence, nevermind the allegations of the OP that the source is faked. As far as "warnings all around", I have explained to you that my last revert was justified by the OP's request for a source, which I provided in good faith, not counting that he would keep edit-warring using false accusations of alleged faking of sources. Dr. K. 00:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite: Sorry but you better check your facts again. The last stable version actually existed as far as back to August 2017 and even earlier: [102]. Hence why the "Restoring to last stable version". --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 00:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, you mean the version that you edit-warred with Future Perfect at Sunrise over in August? That doesn't sound too stable either! However, I think we simply need to stop the edit war now, so I'm closing this since NeilN has agreed. Black Kite (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite: You are admin. Please it is expected that you check carefully what the other editors are saying, and what the revisions state. Please, as I am patiently and kindly pointing that revision for one more time in case you didn't check it carefully: [103]., where you can use the CTRL+F (or your web broswer's shortcut for searching keywords), you will find the paragraph's last stable version, which I copy-paste here for your convenience: The Byzantine Empire was conquered in the 15th century and the Ottoman Empire took its place. The Athonite monks tried to maintain good relations with the Ottoman Sultans, and therefore when Murad II conquered Thessaloniki in 1430 they immediately pledged allegiance to him. In return, Murad recognized the monasteries' properties, something which Mehmed II formally ratified after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. In this way Athonite independence was somewhat guaranteed.. This revision dates August 2017, and is not exactly what you claimed, that it "never existed before". I am just pointing out. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 00:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite: I consider these reverts: [104], [105], [106], [107] but yes, warnings to use the talk page and refraining from editing the article for say three days would be good. --NeilN talk to me 00:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because the content of the edits was different. There were two options, one which would have included a much neutral wording, and another, which would eliminate the unsourced claim. I didnt insisted 3 times on any of these. Besides, a little background on the matter want hurt, the previous wording was tendentious insistig only Bzantines matter over the issue, while historiography agrees that Bizantine empire at time was divided between internal fights and was weak (on of the causes of successfull Ottoma invasions of Europe) and at Balkans instead, during 14th and 15th centuries a strong Serbian state came in place defending Christian Europe. So, having in mind historiography, either that sentence, giving a false assumption Bizantium was the only player in matter back then, would go away as unsourced, either the wording would be adjusted to modern historiogtaphy consensus that Serbia did played back then a key role in the ergion until Kosovo battle and as such worth mentioning in the context since Serbia held Mount Athos fos over three decades prior to Ottoman invasion. Sorry to say it in such a straight away manner, but their opposition to my edit or onsistance to keep the unsourced wording, is off context. PS: If I 3RR so did they. FkpCascais (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @Black Kite: Please see my response below. I was based on the expression in the edit-summary by the OP: Restore it as it was and you will be repoted. Dr. K. 00:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict × 2) I thought that adding a reliable source, amply verifying the fact by the sentence which the OP disputes, that the dispute would be over. But no. This user had actually said in his latest edit summary: Removing controversial unsourced claim from agressive POV-pusher editor. Restore it as it was and you will be repoted). I then provided a source and quote thinking that I was not restoring it "as it was" but actually verifying it. But the OP summarily dismissed it as "faking the source", and reverting it rapidly as he has been doing since this started. This person has been attacking as intensely as edit-warring. In his first revert he accused me of bad faith. In his second revert he wrote: Removing controversial unsourced claim from agressive POV-pusher editor. Restore it as it was and you will be repoted). By "controversial" he means the undisputed fact that after the fall of the Byzantine Empire, the Otomans took over Mount Athos. By the way, this is exactly what my added RS says, but apparently this editor is still not satisfied with that and he falsely attacks me as "faking sources". Dr. K. 00:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It was me who tried to assume good faith and open discussion at their talkpage, while all they did was calling a Greek pall to revert ad template me agressively. FkpCascais (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: Dr. D, your source, att alleged page, doesnt say anything even near of the wording you are insertig on thee article, so it was clearly fake sourcing, a clear no-no in Wikipedia. FkpCascais (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't keep repeating the same falsehood. The RS I provided states: After the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, Byzantine political influence was effectively ended, but the prerogatives of the Greek Church remained and were amalgamated by the Sultans.. That means after the Byzantine Empire was conquered, the Ottomans oversaw the affairs of Athos. But in any case, this can be rephrased. There was simply no reason to revert it. Dr. K. 00:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite: I'd consider the 15th January revision the last stable version for the most part - [108] - largely typo correction and a reference addition. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    @Black Kite and NeilN: After BK's close of the thread FkpCascais has performed revert number 5 on the article. Dr. K. 01:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, already blocked. --NeilN talk to me 01:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I've started a discussion concerning the disputed sentence: Talk:Mount Athos#Disputed sentence, request for discussion, and have asked NeilN to consider unblocking FkpCascais so that they might participate. Paul August ☎ 11:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dr.K.: While, as I said on that talk page, you've made a persuasive case, it seems to me that FkpCascais should be allowed to participate, and the discussion would not seem to be "over", until that happens. Paul August ☎ 14:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Paul August: As I mentioned in my comment above, the attempted edit is demonstrably false, because the Serbian empire was conquered in the 14th century, not in the 15th, as the edit-warrior was adding. Further, the existing version in the article is cited and has been restored to the article by an admin while the article was protected. The blocked edit-warrior may have something to say, but given that he accused me of "faking the source", which is a demonstrable falsehood, I don't hold much hope that his contribution will be constructive. In any case, I don't see the urgency to allow him to contribute to the talkpage, as all indications are we are going to get more of the usual disruption. Please check his block log for more indicators of disruption, including AE-imposed topic bans from WP:ARBMAC/Balkan/Serbian-related topics. When his block expires, let's see what he has to say about these undisputed facts as elucidated on the talkpage of Mount Athos. Dr. K. 15:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @NeilN: While I agree they should be prohibited from further editing the article, their being allowed to participate on the talk page would be best, sooner than later. Paul August ☎ 14:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paul August: There are three ways they can do that: 1) Change their attitude. 2) Successfully appeal to another admin to lift their block. 3) Wait 35 more hours. The content in question isn't exactly "in the news". --NeilN talk to me 14:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @NeilN: Fine. I won't unblock then either, we can wait for whatever it is they might have to say. Paul August ☎ 15:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, this is pretty much FkpCascais's mo. From the times I had to deal with him, seems that nothing has changed. Maybe I'll join into this discussion. I'm not too familiar with anything, but I'm sure FkpCascais is POV pushing like always. 141.136.223.3 (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC) — 141.136.223.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    My, oh my

    Can I please have an administrator look into the contributions of this seemingly combative, aggressive editor who is refusing to get the point? It seems they get into the same old, same old arguments on current event portals, as well as displaying frighteningly incompetent behavior. Their contribution history should suffice to display they are single-purpose only. Thank you. Boomer VialBe ready to fight the horde! • Contribs 02:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It is almost certainly the same person as this person who made the same poor edits to 'current events' and refused to communicate other than agressive edit descriptions claiming everyone was a 'troll' or 'sockpuppet'. Murchison-Eye (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm and to think that I "dude"d them in October. Blocked for 31 hours. Keep an eye on this--I'm sure they will return. If they come by to chat, that's great. If they keep this "you're a troll" bullshit up, we'll look into rangeblocks. PS MURCHISON-EYES YOURE JUST A TROLL HERE WITH YOUR OBVIOUS BIAS, maybe? ;) Drmies (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: See Special:Contributions/2600:8800:ff0e:1200:38cb:9114:760:e5f1/64, this is their range. I was dealing with them in October. Home Lander (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Home Lander. I have never seen a range that was so truly home to one editor. The only thing that is stopping me from blocking the entire range for a few months is the good article edits they make, and the fact that one should never block before breakfast. I am interested in the opinion of some other admins. And in coffee. Drmies (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Drmies: The disruptive Portal edits seems to have a political agenda - recent ones [109] [110], and one where they edit warred with me and several others last year [111]. What would be great is a software change so you could block someone by namespace, in this case, disallow Portal edits from this range. Home Lander (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    New account adding contentious cats

    Would an uninvolved admin take a look at a new account, Jenny0627forever (talk · contribs · logs)? It was created in July 2014, used for the first time and only a few times in February 2015, then created 丹寧日 in April 2017, and on 18 January 2018 created several contentious categories about feminists, including Category:Biphobia feminists and Category:Trans-exclusionary radical feminists. These are being added to BLPs, and the account is edit-warring to restore them when they're removed. For example, see Janice Raymond, Sheila Jeffreys, and Germaine Greer. SarahSV (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note that @SarahSV is one of the partisans in the dispute about those categories, and has repeatedly declined to even acknowledge my requests[112][113] that per normal CfD practice, articles removed from categories under are listed at the discussion so that editors can assess the articles concerned and their souring.
    Every CfD tag includes an : "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress".
    I disagree with the BLP concerns, but can accept that if genuine they would justify breaking the don't remove rule.
    I would find it easier to sustain AGF if discussion was not being undermined by the non-disclosure at CfD of which articles have been removed. I hope that SarahSV will remedy this situation soon. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Describing anyone with an arguably-negative category should only be done where there is a clear and unambiguous consensus of reliable sources which do so; when in doubt, the category should be removed. This is because categories are not nuanced, but strictly "either-or." If there is any level of dispute or debate about the categorization's applicability, we need to default to "no category." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    SarahSV did the right thing. BLP-violating labels on the bottom of the article are not ok just because a CfD discussion is running. Update the CfD tag. Perhaps ask for category-removal diffs to be logged in the CfD, if this doesn't perpetuate the violation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If articles are removed while the categ is under discussion, that removal should be disclosed at the discussion. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 18#Category:Trans-exclusionary_radical_feminists is discussing an empty category. Without disclosure of what articles the categ might include, editors not already well-versed in the topic will lack crucial context, including the ability to assess whetherthere actually was a BLP violation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's quite right too. let's continue at Template_talk:Cfd#Removing_members_during_a_CfD_discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah c'mon SmokeyJoe. A discussion on conduct while CfDs are underway needs much paticipation than will arise from putting it on a template's talk page. It should be located at WT:CFD, which is watched by over 20 times as many editors as Template talk:Cfd. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is edit-warring over these, it's minor and on both sides. It's deliberate removal by one side, citing BLP as "TERF is a slur", despite it being a sourceable self-identified label. Emptying categories during their CfD discussion is particularly wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This discussion has gotten off topic. This is supposed to be about Jenny0627forever (talk · contribs · logs) edits. I find her edits to be problematic. However, I'm even more concerned about the fact that she hasn't responded to any of the challenges against her edits. She seems determined to right great wrongs and appears to lack in understanding of Wikipedia policy. I think a block until she attempts to communicate with other editors might be in order. JDDJS (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:RPP

    Fixed now, but needs watching to revert the IP that keeps messing things up further. Softlavender (talk) 08:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin closure)

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

    Hey, could someone please bop over to RPP and fix whatever the archive bot did? Somehow, an administrators userpage is about all that is there. I think it's Drmies, but I'm not sure. John from Idegon (talk) 06:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    IP is harassing me

    IP blocked. Please report if further disruption ensues.
    Softlavender (talk) 08:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin closure)

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

    The IP user 89.217.125.147 has just started reverting all my edits for some reason, often with the edit summary "restore to last correct, clean, complete, non-vandalised version!" I left a message on their talk page asking them to stop, but then I had a look at their contributions page and saw that they had even reverted my request for page protection, and appear to be acting the same way at other articles that I am not involved in. Additionally, there is mention on their talk page of them potentially being a well-known sock puppet, though I personally do not have any evidence to support this so I thought coming here would be best. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    That's sock of Dopenguins. They would keep coming out with a different IP after one gets blocked. -★- PlyrStar93. →Message me. ← 07:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for helping out with trying to remove their vandalism Plyr, I've never come across behaviour like this on Wikipedia before. Is there anything that can be done to try and stop them from continuing? - adamstom97 (talk) 08:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, they have just been blocked from editing, so I think that solves that problem. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Arcarius

    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 [114] 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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[115] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Restoring prematurely archived thread. Can we action my suggestion of an indef block until there's communication? Arcarius has continued this behaviour wafter the ANI was opened and has now briefly disappeared (presumably to avoid discussing the issue) but is a regular editor. Boleyn (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded. --Tarage (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Мит Сколов

    Мит Сколов has a bee in his bonnet about apitherapy, a form of quackery. Among xyr advocacy behaviour we see edit summaries like stop attack on public health, it's all medline & systematic review. There's no apparent understanding of WP:MEDRS and the like. I have no real opinion on xyr other edits, but the promotion of apitherapy is becoming disruptive, as per the talk page yesterday. I think at this point there should be a warning that further POV-pushing will lead to a topic ban. Per xyr Talk page, this editor is a co-ordinator for a group offering quack apitherapy for what sounds to me very much like the non-existent chronic Lyme disease. Guy (Help!) 11:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hello! I'm from Russia (excuse mу for my bad Google Translate English). Apitherapy is not "quackery". "Bee venom (BV) therapy (BVT), the therapeutic application of BV, has been used in traditional medicine to treat diseases" PMID 17555825 (Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 2007). "Bee venom therapy (BVT), in which bee venom is used for medicinal purposes, is available worldwide, but is primarily utilized in Asia, Eastern Europe, and South America" PMC 4440710 (PLoS One, 2015). Are you talking about Lyme disease? Yes, it's also there - PMC 4549745 (Toxins, 2015). Yes, it's all MEDLINE & reviews. And there is something else: in Russia it is legal, use supports of society, scientists and the state. Anyone who speaks Russian will confirm this to you: article about apitherapy on Great Russian Encyclopedia [116], in the state legislation (articles 4.5 & 3.12), in education for example in Moskovskij Komsomolets. This has a long-standing roots, see book of Member of the US National Academy of Sciences May Berenbaum - [117]. Russia has many excellent scientists on Apitherapy: Nikolay Artemov, Shamil Omarov, Boris Orlov, Vasily Krylov, Alexander Ivanovich Tikhonov et al. Thank you for attention --Мит Сколов (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And despite Russia's "excellent scientists", it's still quackery. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't we find a category for traditional or nature-based traditional medicine? Many people feel it works: e.g. the pharma sector makes all kind of artificial cannabis derivates, however the curative effect of the hemp flower resin is known since millennia. I think the so-called 'quackery' argument is a bit too much (ab)used. Cannabis as a pain killer for instance is not quackery, people know better than the greedy industry and police. Wakari07 (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Traditional" and "nature-based" are code words for "quackery". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd call that a prejudiced opinion. Most pills from doctors that i took either had no effect or an adverse effect. Since I stopped taking their pills, i'm healthier than ever. Their "quackery" is their problem, not mine. Wakari07 (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Your failure to work more closely with your doctor is decidedly your problem and your prejudiced opinion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an evidence-based process. I feel you a bit tense. Wakari07 (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you take a look at confirmation bias. --McSly (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm so "lucky" that I don't need a doctor to tell me I'm healthy. Now can we talk objectively about the proven merits and dangers of apitherapy? Wakari07 (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The article already covers those things pretty well. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that Traditional Chinese medicine, for example, can legitimately be called "quackery". Paul August ☎
    They have indeed been ranting on bee related articles, but it's mostly been ignored so far. This editor hasn't really got the point that this behavior is not in line with Wikipedia though. Since this editor has been notified of discretionary sanctions in CAM topics on their talk page, any admin is free to impose sanctions such as a topic ban. There have been enough editors at the topic keeping this editor in check that a topic ban isn't quite at the level of absolute necessity , but it would keep the community's time from being wasted even more at this point (usually the tipping point for when topic bans become warranted). Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    But no matter how you want, I intend to continue to write about science and scientists. And you can not stop me or remove it, because I use good sources, and you and your friends can only attack me personally. --Мит Сколов (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually we can stop it and we can remove it. Change your attitude now. --Tarage (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Even the Pentagon rescinded their war-on-terror-panacea today. I think the anti-quack horde may also find nuance in the long run. We better work constructively together. Wakari07 (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    New editor repeatedly inserting unsupported claims

    Immodylor (talk · contribs) is repeatedly inserting unsupported claims into the infobox at Raid on Mount's Bay. He does not use edit summaries, and has not responded to messages on his talk page. I have advised him about WP:BRD, to no effect. I don't want to get shot down for edit warring, so would appreciate some outside eyes and input. Editor seems to have a surprisingly good knowledge of how to edit infoboxes and templates for a brand new account. DuncanHill (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Phishing website imitating Wikipedia - thread on Help Desk

    For information only. Please discuss at the help desk. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Please see this thread on the Help Desk. A website is imitating Wikipedia and asks for usernames and passwords. DuncanHill (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    revoke TPA for 2001:8003:5291:2c00:b40e:283:a1f5:6363

    Talk page access revoked; nothing else to do here. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 Talk 17:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    See talk page for IP 2001:8003:5291:2c00:b40e:283:a1f5:6363, who has just made threatening messages, such as coming back as a different IP to disrupt again, on talk and on edit summaries. Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

     Done, thank you for letting us know - TNT❤ 15:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Query regarding IBAN's

    When in an IBAN, is the other person able to follow me all over the fucking shop? Cos I'm getting massively pissed off by this shit now, Darkness Shines (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the incidents board. If you’re complaining about an incident, spell it out, with diffs. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a query Darkness Shines (talk)▪
    (edit conflict) Yes. There is nothing in WP:IBAN that would prevent that. On the other hand, WP:HARASS may apply if it's obvious that someone is following you to multiple articles to cause distress.- MrX 🖋 19:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sound diffs forthcoming Darkness Shines (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would remind you of your own IBAn, and the fact that it says "Limit IBAN vio reports to blatant violations." As well as saying much the same about harassment and stalking, If this is not blatant there would be a danger that it could boomerang, so be very sure there is some blatant examples of (whoever this user might be) following you to pages.Slatersteven (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an astonishingly poor way to begin. Might be worth rephrasing, if you haven't already torpedoed yourself. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Never been so pissed off you no longer give a shite i guess? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    About Wikipedia? No, I have not had that experience. You're free to do as you will, just trying to point out repercussions. Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say this is not the clear cut kind of case you were told you needed. He may well be trying to wind you up, but frankly editing pages (for example) you are not even editing is not stalking, even if he thinks you are watching it. In the case of the others, well it's not exactly a lot is it, and not even the pages you are currently very active on (the last appears to have been 2 days ago, on one of the articles). The other you have not edited for a month. Sorry this looks like just the kind of spurious fishing for ban you were warned not to do.Slatersteven (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    For everyone unaware, I have been trying to mediate this interaction ban via email for the past week. I had a soft agreement to not bring things to ANI without getting outside input as the last one did not go so well. I wish my advice had been heeded. So now, it needs to be discussed publicly before I give up on both of you. @Darkness Shines: I explicitly told you that you should avoid bringing things to ANI as your last report was not received well. I told you to give me the information of any violation and that I would report it for you if I believed a violation took place. Why did you ignore that? I did ask C. W. Gilmore to not edit any page that you have edited within the last 30 days, so that advice was also ignored; however, it isn't necessarily a violation of the IBAN (just stupid and ill-advised). If either one of you want to avoid being blocked again, I strongly suggest you let me continue mediating the both of you and that you both listen and dial it back quickly before you do something you can't recover from. I know both of you are passionate about editing, but this is not the way to go about it. Nihlus 20:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    No, either he stops following me or fucking indef me, I do not need this shit Darkness Shines (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Indef him then with this attitude ohh and.
    Donald Trump on social media, No edits by Gilmore
    Fake News Awards, No edits by Darkenss
    Rohingya persecution in Myanmar (2016–present), no edits by Darnkess for over 30 days, then Gilmore edits, then Darkness edits.
    Talk:1576 Cocoliztli epidemic, yep, gilmore did breach his agreement.
    So not a lot here really.Slatersteven (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The way I read that first diff is: On the Trump page, Darkness refers to the Fake News Awards on the 18th. Gilmore edits the Fake News Awards on the 19th.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why I agree that Gilmore is pushing it a bit. But it is a stretch to call this stalking. Yes Gilmore is playing silly buggers, and needs a warning. But by the same token this is Darkness fishing for a ban on Gilmore on some shaky grounds. In essence he is saying that Gilmnore cannot edit any pages he has any link due, not matter how tenuous.Slatersteven (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    By what standard is this phony "Fake News Awards" notable for inclusion? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note - I followed Volunteer Marek to that article [118] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No idea, I have not be party to, or following, the merger discussion.Slatersteven (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the thing, the merge discussion was on another page, that I know nothing about. It took me a while to even understand what everyone was talking about. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    While the phrasing of the report is poor, I find the diffs persuasive. It seems a pretty clear case of Gilmore following Darkness on multiple pages. For tolerably obvious reasons, I'm not going to place a block myself, but I think someone should. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @SarekOfVulcan: I'm not sure your trigger happy touch is needed at this time. Your previous blocks only served to drive this mess further than it needed to be. Nihlus 20:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Slater you are an idiot, I did a rm on that page last week, the persecution one, seriously learn to actually look at shit Darkness Shines (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So the date of that edit?Slatersteven (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment @ Sarek, I stay off pages for 5days so as to avoid any interaction, if others from the IBAN show up, I finish what I'm doing and stay off that page for 5days. There are articles such as US politics, world news and events were are interest overlap, so I set the 5day rule to avoid interaction. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @C. W. Gilmore: I suggested that you stay off those pages for a month. Why do you think five days was a reasonable compromise? Nihlus 20:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nihlus: - I can look back 5days and be pretty sure I don't miss anything, 30dys on something like a Trump page is not manageable. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @C. W. Gilmore: It's not unreasonable at all since there are tools for this. Nihlus 20:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly Gilmore I am almost as unimpressed with you as I am with Darkness , you know full well you are pushing the envelope, and I have said this to you before. The moist likely result is that the pair of you will be indef. Trying to wind him up by sneaking "half violations" is not going to sit well, and we are not all so stupid as to not be aware of what you are doing.Slatersteven (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Again we go back to the only way to prevent this just being brought up once a week is a total ban on each user editing pages the other edits, yes it will create a race to claim pages. But that might cause less disruption then this constant bickering and needlaing.Slatersteven (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I would only support this if it was limited to 30 or 60 days; however, something needs to be community enforced as they are not really listening to me. Nihlus 20:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think a limited time offer will have any effect. But would give it a goSlatersteven (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It will allow them to edit a page that the other maybe edited a year ago. It will allow us to avoid wikilawyering. Nihlus 20:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And CW edited the Rohingya persecution in Myanmar (2016–present) a day before that [119]. Besides (as has been said) Gilmore has not been banned from editing pages, and if you look at this [120]I see a ton of pages Gilmore has not fetched up on. So this is not stalking.Slatersteven (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ohh I see, sorry I misunderstood, I thought you meant it would only last that long. I agree there has to be a non grandfather clause. yep edited within the last 30 days seems fine.Slatersteven (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment There are multiple pages where all parties to the IBAN have edited, that's why I set the 5day rule for myself, to keep distance. It's because of overlapping interests and intersecting edits. Also, I can check 5dys with certainty. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a problem, you did fetch up on pages you have never edited before. To be fair you also did not edit a lot of pages he does.Slatersteven (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We seem to overlap because of some of the editors we follow. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That is possible, which is why I did warn Darkenss to be careful before launching this ANI (and got told top fuck off for my trouble).Slatersteven (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't like me, that's grand but stop being a dick. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is best if I do not respond to you anymore, as all you seem to do is react aggressively. I have no wish to be accused of badgering a user.Slatersteven (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The OP here just talked himself off a 2-week block after a couple of days, and it's only taken a couple more days to pick up where he left off. If he won't listen to good advice from others, maybe that block should be reinstated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the constant abuse I have been subjected to for sustaining this ANI was not a good idea, yes it should be.Slatersteven (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note I stay off whatever article or talking page is not clear for 5dys. If 5dys is not long enough then give us both the same time frame to work with and I will comply. If posting on a Talking page while the other is on the article is not allowed, then say so; I'm getting tired of being dragged to AN/I every week. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is total bullshit. There is no time limit on how long you should avoid pages where your opponent has been active. The rule is simple: stop following DS around. You had an opportunity to demonstrate that DS's edits needed your attention and that argument was not accepted. An interaction ban means that interaction is banned. Stop looking at your opponent's contributions and talk page and do not edit pages where they have been active. Johnuniq (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it is the truth, I followed Volunteer Marek to that Trump page and found it clear of any IBAN[121]. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've moved onto editing other areas due to the frustration of dealing with Gilmore. And now I seem to be running into some of the same issues of him following my contributions for seemingly unencyclopedic reasons. I admit I have assumed bad faith on one occasion, but interacting with this editor can be truly infuriating, especially after being borderline canvassed by him on Jefferson Davis Park. Honestly before I even saw this report today I was thinking of how I might get rid of the feeling that he's trying to crawl up into my asshole and set up shop. Anyway, just my thoughts on the matter. Gabriel syme (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Gabriel, making fun of suicide is not a 'joke' I appreciate, it brings back too many memories. Please don't do it again. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What?Slatersteven (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I suspect this illustrates a fundamental problem here; CWG appears to honestly believe that his wishes and beliefs have power over other writers, the rules of Wikipedia, and factual questions; the problems with DS and others are symptoms, not the root cause. This is not a problem likely to fix itself in a week of sulking. Anmccaff (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there's a couple problems there. I didn't make the joke, I posted onto another editors page referring back to their use of it. You make it incredibly hard to assume good faith when you show up in places you have no encyclopedic reason for being to throw your two cents into a conversation where your name was not even mentioned. Kindly fuck off. Gabriel syme (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They should compromise in the state of Washington, that bastion of Confederateness: Leave the portrait of Jeff Davis, but paint a dress on him. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Misogynist. Anmccaff (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No. You must be unaware of the legend (true or not) that when the Union arrested him, he had been trying to evade capture by dressing as a woman. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, and no. Its was just a poke at the way so many conversations connected with CWG get hijacked, For great social justice. All of your threads are belong to us. Anmccaff (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look, jokes about suicide are not acceptable, even worse when they are made at another editor's expense [122] and picked up and repeated [123], even if my uncle had not committed suicide, it would still not be appropriate. And before you go saying it was just a joke, suicide by hammer is not [124] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Jokes aside, I see that you have in no way offered any sort of defense of the other conduct issues I brought up, but you seem to be doing a fine job hanging yourself on your owngetting yourself blocked. Did not intend hanging comment to be humorous but quickly saw that it could be taken that way, apologies. Gabriel syme (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Gonna have to agree with Gilmore here. Gabriel, that was incredibly uncalled for. I suggest you stop now or I will pursue sanctions for this. Don't joke about suicide. --Tarage (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate that suicide is not something to joke about. I didn't. I did refer to another editor's joke about suicide when posting on their talk page, and that was perhaps off color. What I don't see is how Gilmore even became involved in me posting a barnstar to another editors page. It's tough to AGF there, which is why I decided to comment in the first place. Gabriel syme (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    off topic discussion
    May you never, ever lose someone close to you from suicide. It hurts like hell. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I find your offhand assumption that I haven't to be pretty goddam offensive, but I do agree that it is incredibly painful. Gonna throw a hat on this as off topic. Gabriel syme (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Can we just block both of them and be done with it? Yes, their contributions may have been worth something in the past, but this has become a net drain of many administrators time, and we end up here every week. At some point, this has got to stop, and since it seems like both parties are too stubborn to figure out how badly they are behaving maybe we should have a break from both... --Tarage (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And the two of you can go do something use full for once Ya. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You continue to defy your IBAN. How useful is that? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggestion: Both editors are banned from editing any page the other has edited within the last 30 days, any and all pages --Originally posted by Slatersteven but modified to be a suggestion rather than a topic header by Tarage (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I will be fine with that, however, something like that Trump thing could happen again as they pages are not connected, in fact I didn't know there was talk of merging until this AN/I came up. 30dys, clear on All pages (article and TP), can be done. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite frankly you are in no position to bargain right now. I suggest you stop. --Tarage (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tarage, that was not me bargaining. I was agreeing to it, sorry if it came off badly. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, the above section header was actually added by Slatersteven [125]. Lepricavark (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry is that not permitted?Slatersteven (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Think about readability for a second. 1. It doesn't even say who posted it. It's just a header. 2. The super bold text implies perhaps that an administrator has made it fact, rather than a suggestion. Either way, I've modified it so that it's less confusing. Feel free to fix it how you see fit, but just a section header is not a good way to make an argument. --Tarage (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    C. W. Gilmore/Darkness Shines IBAN Revision

    Per the above discussion and my own experience in trying to mediate the two, I recommend we as a community formally alter their current restriction.

    Current

    C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs) and Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) are hereby banned from interacting with each other. This includes, stalking, getting in conflicts on the pages they edit, warring over the content, editing each other's userspace, or mentioning the other user. It is not considered a violation if the other party is being correctly reported for violating the interaction ban or other valid sanctions. It is recommended both parties permanently step away from any article's they have both edited recently.

    Proposed

    C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs) and Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) are hereby banned from interacting with each other. This includes, stalking, getting in conflicts on the pages they edit, warring over the content, editing each other's userspace, or mentioning the other user. Additionally, both users are prohibited from editing any page and its corresponding talk page if the other user has edited either within the last thirty (30) days. It is not considered a violation if the other party is being correctly reported for violating the interaction ban or other valid sanctions. It is recommended both parties permanently step away from any article's they have both edited recently.

    I don't think exceptions should be considered otherwise we will most likely end up back here soon. I consider this to be a last chance for both of them. Nihlus 23:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support as proposer. Nihlus 23:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose because this last chance business hasn't worked any of the previous times it has been applied. We're at the point where we need blocks to prevent further time being wasted on this. --Tarage (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Tarage: I would personally be against blocking them currently given my discussions with them (I have hope I can get through to them), but I wouldn't fight it if the community wished it. However, I would be against an administrator blocking them without community sanction. So, feel free to propose it if you believe that it is the best solution. Nihlus 23:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I'll do just that. --Tarage (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    C. W. Gilmore/Darkness Shines Indefinite Block

    Look at the above sections. Look at the absolute mess it is. We have two editors who, for whatever reason, are incapable of leaving things well enough alone. Look at their block logs. Look at how much time and energy has been wasted on this. Time that could be spent actually building an encyclopedia. Between Gilmore's toeing of the line at every chance he can get and DS's inability to be civil for more than 5 seconds, we have a net loss to the project. Perhaps removing one would solve the problem, but they are both so stubborn that it doesn't matter anymore. It's time for this to stop. We can amend IBAN restrictions till we're blue in the face. Just end it. Block them both until they understand.

    New editor Catfurball and article move

    User:Catfurball moved the Bariloche article to San Carlos de Bariloche without explanation or consensus. Bariloche is the WP:COMMONNAME, San Carlos de Bariloche is the formal name. I set up a discussion topic on the talk page, waited a day with no response, so I moved it back to the original. My move brought it back to the article title that it was moved to in 2015. Catfurball moved the article yet again to San Carlos de Bariloche. So I asked them on their talk page to please discuss on the article talk page. The user then removed my comment and continued editing. I noticed they did this with another editor earlier here. As Catfurball does not seem interested in discussing the topic, what can be done? Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bahooka: I've moved back the article and move protected it. Catfurball needs to read and follow Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_controversial_and_potentially_controversial_moves before they are blocked for move warring. --NeilN talk to me 20:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your assistance, NeilN. Bahooka (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The Banner and editing warring

    The user The Banner has started numerous edit wars with me in the past, and is now doing it again. The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) undid numerous edits I made to the German-Soviet Border and Commercial Agreement page, one of which was a request for information in a sentence to be cited with reliable information. If some action could be taken so that he could not continue this behavior I would appreciate it. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegoodmanisamazing (talk • contribs) 22:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The edit history of George Tiller and German–Soviet Border and Commercial Agreement show me that if there is or was someone causing an edit war, it's you... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Yeah, Thegoodmanisamazing should know better already after the two blocks he drew over George Tiller this month alone. My only complaint about The Banner's handling is in describing a {{citation needed}} tagging as "disruptive editing" and giving a {{uw-disruptive1}} warning for adding it. The concern with the tag is pretty evidently whether a qualitative statement requires sourcing, and I can understand that concern. That said, Thegoodmanisamazing should have gone to the talk page. I think no action is required at present, but Thegoodmanisamazing should be very, very clear that dueling edit summaries are not discussion: You have to go to the talk page rather than keep reverting. That something you disagree with is on the live page in the meantime is something you have to learn to live with. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    What do you recommend I do in order to ensure that the first section of German-Soviet Border and Commercial Agreement is not only fair and unbiased, but cites sources as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegoodmanisamazing (talk • contribs) 22:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    If there's a dispute between you and another editor over content, you need to start a talk page discussion and work everything out and come up with a revision that you both agree with - then you can edit the article and modify it to reflect the censensus reached. What you do not want to do is revert other editors in a back-and-fourth pattern (which... is edit warring). Resolve things by following Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol and work things out peacefully with others. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alexb102072

    Alexb102072 is an editor who's been here for quite a while. Their first edit was made in November 2006, and they have accumulated 10,275 edits. [126] Their work can best be described as WikiGnoming. They tend to make a few small changes per edit to each article they work on, and then do anywhere from 1 to a dozen (sometimes more) edits on that article. (There's nothing wrong with working that way, I often do it myself.)

    The problems with Alexb102072 are twofold.

    First, their editing often includes overlinking of common words, changes of grammar which make the article more awkward to read and less fluid, and their writing choices often feel like high school-level composition. They been told that all these things are a problem, in fact there are at least 12 comments or warnings from other editors on Alexb102072's talk page. None of these have been the least bit effective in changing the editor's way of working.

    The second problem lies in the fact that Alexb102072 has never responded to any comment left on their talk page. They have, in fact, never once edited that page. [127] It is impossible to collaborate with an editor who will not talk to other editors.

    A few days ago, I began to engage the other editors who had left comments and warnings on Alexb's talk page. The discussion took place on the talk page itself, so that everything was completely transparent, and Alexb could see what was being said. (see link above) During the discussion, Alexb was urged to respond to the problems other editors were having with their editing, but Alexb has yet to do so, nor have they changed their editing in any way.

    The consensus among the editors in discussion is that Alexb102072 needs a wake-up call. Somehow, we have to get his attention, so that we can explain the problems and get them to change - or, at the very least, get an explanation. Whether that means a strongly worded warning from an admin, or a short attention-getting block, we need to get through to Alexb that they must be willing to communicate with other editors in order to continue to edit here.

    I don't think anyone in the discussion doubts Alexb's good faith, and that they are indeed trying to improve the encyclopedia, so this is not vandalism we're talking about. It's possible that there's a CIR issue, but it's impossible to tell without being able to discuss things with him.

    Would an admin be willing to try to jump-start the dialogue by getting Alexb's attention in some way? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Alexb102072 has been notified. [128]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeez. This is someone who has only edited in mainspace (except once in template space and a handful of times in portal space). In other words, never once in any talk spaces. Ever. Since 2006. Does Alexb even communicate in edit summaries? Or is the 75% with edit summaries just automated or canned edit summaries?
    Normally, I'd be inclined not to do anything, but this editor's actions have pretty clearly become problematic, especially as his or her contribs have ramped up in the last couple years. Most years Alexb had less than 500, but last year had over 5000, and with nearly 300 this month Alexb is on track to match or pass that this year. Given Alexb is pretty active, I think a block would get his or her attention. I just hope it elicits a response. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't recall ever seeing a "live" edit summary. A quick check seems to indicate that they're all "canned". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Yeah, looks like you're right. I just skimmed through the last couple thousand edits (back to about August 1). The only things popping up in the edit summary field are section headings. I think that gives independent grounds for sanctioning: Never using edit summaries. That said I can't recall the last time I've heard of someone being sanctioned for not using edit summaries... but yeah, something should be done here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just had to fix one of their edits. They are, simply put, not competent to edit Wikipedia. Their grammar fixes are wrong more often than not and what edits they do make that are acceptable are mostly unnecessary and not really contributory. This user appears to take up much more time and waste than they're worth. Time to throw them out, or at least force them to communicate with an indefinite block and strong message on their talk page to force them into communication. However considering how long they've been here, I don't hold out any hope that they're redeemable. If they haven't managed to figure out basic grammar by now, they're a lost cause. Canterbury Tail talk 23:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Might be worth trying a temporary block, a week or so. Such an experiment's results could provide some clues on how to proceed. 79.43.127.185 (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with 79.43.127.185. These changes have been going on for a considerable time and comments and warnings on their Talk page have been ignored for years. A much longer block is needed in the hope they might see sense. David J Johnson (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Wow. Fixing a spelling error that any spell checker would get and putting a hyphen (???) in "prime minister". Here's a weird overlink within a quotation, though my real concern is correcting the grammar of the quotation; was there an "a" in the original? Did Alexb check, or just correct it? Without an edit summary, we have no clue, and it needs to be rechecked. I think BMK was being a bit too charitable in calling Alexb's contribs "wikignoming". —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As a matter of information, there have been to further "contributions" from this person since this thread started. This just underlines their contempt, or ignorance, for Wikipedia conventions. A long block is needed. David J Johnson (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @David J Johnson: Length of block is unimportant; eliciting a response is, if possible. Probably, there will not be any, but the attempt should be made, I believe. 79.43.127.185 (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=821358324"