Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    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)

    Start a new discussion

    Editor changing lead on biota articles against consensus + massive IDHT

    @Couiros22: has been editing a large number of articles about biota (mainly fish so far), making changes to the lead against consensus, MOS guidance and the Fish Project advice. Typically, if the article title is the scientific name, they change the first sentence from starting with the article title to the common name (not WP:COMMONNAME) and sometimes to an arbitrary choice amongst a number of common names for the species or even ambiguous names. I became aware of this when they edited an article on my watchlist.

    A sample of some of his recent changes: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] there are way too many to list them all here, but a quick check of their contributions will find plenty more if you want to look.

    The editor was first called to task for this behaviour here followed by considerable back and forth involving a number of editors including myself. The editor has continued to make their changes unabated, despite advice and several warnings that action may be taken if they do not cease [11][12][13][14]and most recently[15]. The editor has made further edits since the last warning, as I write this the first three diffs above were made after the last warning. The editor is simply not listening.

    The editor does appear to do some useful work on article categories, but I have not checked whether they suffer from the same idiosyncratic approach as that used toward the article leads. I am not sure what appropriate administrative action should be taken here, I am leaning towards a short block to get their attention followed by a topic ban on biota articles, broadly construed, after the block expires or is successfully appealed.

    - Nick Thorne talk 15:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not a problem of Couiros22 causing major problems or vandalism. The edits the editor is making are pretty trivial, and the errors that he is creating are also relatively minor formatting errors. The main problem is Couiros22 is exhibiting clear WP:IDHT behavior after several different people have persistently and politely pointed out the problems with his edits, and he has just continued onward with the same behavior. This type of editing is not compatible with a collaborative editing environment, and signals that Couiros22 does not care whether people have to go along behind him to correct the errors. I support a removal of editing privileges from Couiros22 for the time being. I am on the fence about whether or not he can persuasively convince the community that his manner of editing against consensus can improve in the future. Neil916 (Talk) 16:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been watching this situation develop for some time – I happen to have the user's talk-page on my watchlist. Looking through that page, I see two areas where the editor has come into disagreement with others: the present kerfuffle over fish names, and an earlier one over the categorisation of birds, where two pillars of the birds wikiproject separately took issue with what Couiros had been doing. In both cases there's a fairly alarming reluctance to listen to what others are saying. I don't see that there's been any conflict over, say, articles on French geography, so perhaps this can be resolved without anyone getting blocked. I suggest the same topic ban on all biota articles and categories, broadly construed, that Nick Thorne has put forward above. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just spent about two hours replacing the article title at the beginning of the opening sentence of a large number of fish articles edited by Couiros22 (more to come, but I do have to sleep sometime). I noticed a large number of category changes as I was working. I did not investigate the appropriateness of those changes as that's a can of worms I'd prefer not to open, but given this reply when queried about a category change by another editor approximately one day after this AN/I thread was started I am not convinced that Couiros22 understands, or cares about, the collaborative nature of our work here. Seeing that reply, I asked who had made that determination here and received this which to me implies a disregard for other editors' opinions. - Nick Thorne talk 14:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Couiros22 simply does not engage properly in discussion, seeming to regard all comments, however polite, and however well grounded in existing policies, as a challenge to be resisted. Couiros22 needs to learn that editing here requires consensus and following established guidelines and policies. I support removing editing privileges for a time in the hope that this will lead to better behaviour. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be interested in other editors opinion on this edit. DexDor (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the editor continues to make no response to this ANI report I think it is time for a block to get their attention. Per his talk page, he notices that his approach is being criticized but he intends to make no changes whatsoever in what he is currently doing. On June 12 alone he has made dozens of category changes, with no evident support. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That edit is obviously wrong and shows Couiros22 does not understand how categorization works. Fish of Australia (if they are not separated from Freshwater fish of Australia, and even then there are brackish water species) is a subset of Marine fauna of Australia, not the other way around.
    I tend to steer clear of categories for the most part, because I am not sure I properly understand how they work on Wikipedia. However, fish of Australia cannot be a subset of marine fauna of Australia because not all fish are marine. Freshwater fish of Australia must logically be a sub-set of fish of Australia, so if fish of Australia was to be put in a higher level category then it would need to be something like fauna of Australia, without the "marine" qualifier. C22's re-categorization does not seem logical to me and I suspect it makes it harder for people to find what they're looking for, not easier, which surely is the point of categories. - Nick Thorne talk 02:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The whole matter with the common fish names is that Couiros22 does not follow any logic. He picks certain common names at random and pushes those as the only validly accepted ones. It is becoming a mess and while fauna categorization and proper naming or documenting the various common names is useful, those tasks are now not done, "in favor of" wild and rogue edits that do not create a better encyclopedia. He seems deaf for objections, even when they are sourced and well-argumented and this example here above clearly shows he does not grasp the whole concept of categories. Tisquesusa (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been gradually working my way back through C22's contributions re-bolding and moving the article title to the beginning of the lead. To be fair, in a few cases, the articles' leads were either always the wrong way round or somebody else had made the change, either way since I'm there I am applying the MOS. In the overwhelming majority of cases these articles are stubs, so I suspect they do not get a lot of attention, but I'm adding them to my watchlist as I go. I'll be spending some time expanding articles about Australian freshwater fish (my area of interest and knowledge) once I've done, but obviously I can't re-write the entire fish area of the Wiki. I had considered just reverting C22's edits, but without spending a lot of time trying to understand how he has been changing the categorization, I did not feel that was a good ides, however, if others think he is making a complete mess of the categories, then I would support such an action. Meanwhile I will continue to try and undo the damage manually, but it will take a while to get through all the edits. - Nick Thorne talk 02:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal for block

    @Couiros22: has continued their editing behaviour making over 85 edits today alone, even as this AN/I thread continues, changing categorization despite their approach being challenged. They steadfastly refuses to explain their changes, even when asked, not even using edit summaries. I have specifically asked them to explain their approach on their talk page, but they continues to answer with non sequiturs. See here here and here. I have left a final request for them to explain here, although I expect this to be handled in the same non-responsive way as before. I believe it is now time to act. C22 needs to stop making changes until a consensus has been established, it seems to me that the only way we can get them to listen is a block. - Nick Thorne talk 11:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    As expected, a non-responsive reply: here. - Nick Thorne talk 11:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Nick, I've reviewed all the present discussion on Curious22's talk page, and while I do see the issues with less than stellar collaborative mindset that have been raised here, I'm also not finding your approach toward Curious to be 100% ideal either, at least at the moment. For a start, I agree with MSGJ below that Curious does indeed seem to engaging in discussion--you just don't seem to like their answers very much. Which is fair, their attitude is pretty gung-ho and they clearly do not understand the pace at which BRD is meant to work and I would even go as far to say that if they cannot make an effort to re-calibrate their perspectives on how consensus is formed, they could soon find themselves blocked or removed from certain areas. But your own approach to them (at least at present) is overly aggressive; your unilateral declaration that they are facing their "last chance" is particularly problematic, in my opinion. If I were facing that onslaught of demands to answer your questions to your satisfaction in every instance, and they were phrased like that, I'm not sure my responses would be any less curt than those of Curious22.
    Now I can fathom that probably you did not start out approaching them this way and that you might reasonably claim that this is the result of frustration with a prolonged argument, which is fair enough. But other eyes are on the issue now, so it may be wise to stop grilling/engaging the editor in this fashion. If they continue to not engage substantially with the community in a review of these matters, very likely they will be blocked, in which case we will have begun to address your concerns. However, I see enough of a haze of antagonism here, that I'm not prepared to write off Curious as a problematic editor who cannot be made to see the need to slow down and discuss, if approached in the right way. Perhaps I am lacking details that would make me less optimistic about the liklihood of that, but I think right now both "sides" need to take a pause and step back, if only for a moment. Snow let's rap 01:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the "declaration...problematic" part of the above comment: But I've also seen an admin (in a discussion about a very similar editor to C22) say  "I elected to not block since I was not comfortable with the warnings I saw.". DexDor (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I have made a brief comment on their talk page. Basically I can't see what they are doing wrong. Perhaps the communication style is poor, but I do see genuine attempts to explain their rationale. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Placing the category "Fish of Australia" within "Marine fauna of Australia"[16] then doubling down by re-adding it when reverted.[17] This is obviously incorrect as "Fish of Australia" includes "Freshwater fish of Australia" which it should be obvious cannot be included in "Marine fauna of Australia". This sort of action seriously questions C22's judgement. Never mind that C22 fails to properly explain their categorization system, only states things like "common sense" and that they have decided what to do as if their decision is the end of the matter. They do not actually explain the rationale behind their approach when asked, simply say "I have already explained" when they plainly have not done so. The burden lies with the one proposing change and C22 has abjectly failed to this when challenged. This is not the way to collaboratively build an encyclopaedia. - Nick Thorne talk 11:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I made a mistake here, they did not place FofA in MFofA, but the other way round. This is even worse as marine fauna should obviously includes crustaceans, cephalopods, zooplankton, corals and other invertebrates as well as marine mammals and probably some bird species. - Nick Thorne talk 19:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, if you'd like an example of C22 muddling up freshwater and marine fauna there's this. Note: The edit summary of my revert of that edit should have read "The rasboras are freshwater fish" (I was editing on mobile and hit the wrong key). DexDor (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I replied to this here which again, you seemed to have freely dismissed. --Couiros22 (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean this? "Initially I had no idea the category would eventually contain just fish in the absence of other marine fauna, nor that (ini the presence of the "Freshwater fish of Australia" category) there would have to be a sister subcategory entitled "Marine fish of Australia" to "Fish of Australia" - nevertheless it's no alarming matter and perhaps we could just *automatically?* change the title "marine fauna" to "marine fish" ?" What sort of logic is that? Competence is required. - Nick Thorne talk 19:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above quote came from this edit where C22 ignored the normal conventions of talk page use and gave a scattergun reply to individual points threading their replies within another editor's post thus making it very hard to understand who said what when reading the talk page. This is another example of C22 disregarding the norms of Wikipedia and failing to act in a collaborative way. - Nick Thorne talk 20:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Shevonsilva

    User:Shevonsilva has been creating a lot of stubs with a lot of problems. A lot of time has been spent on their talk page by PamD, Vexations, Nick Moyes, Imaginatorium, and me. They have issues with things like sourcing information, mass creation of stubs with the same misspelling, bad titles, and using Wikipedia as the source for article creation. Despite a lot of patience, things have now devolved into personal attacks like:

    • I never expect you as a big liar. [...] You have no idea about the subject there [...] You do not appreciate other, and, telling lies and discourage other. If you cann't understand the article it is fine. STOP LYING to other people. [...] This is dis-graceful. You are attacking me personally. I am very unhappy about you, now. I hate liars.[18]
    • You like to involve in arguemnts with me and impress others while others are supporting me and suggesting me important things like bots and stuff. You only created two pages (according to your page), look like you got no idea how much effort we have to put to create pages[19]
    • and the ironic Your English is much like Gangster English.[20]

    I suggest they be banned from creating articles due to WP:CIR and strongly warned about civility. Natureium (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to note that I am on Kenya constituency stubs (actually, already for three days) and I am steadily improving them. No need to intervene in this area. Just in case.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is about me. I will post the full discussion. There were personal attacks towards me and my work. I will post the full discussion. Creating stubs are something else.Shevonsilva (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    minus Removed

    Sorry for the whole mess. Shevonsilva (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Here are the full discussions:[reply]

    Anyway in reality, all are worring about the issues to improve the encyclopedia Shevonsilva (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: Indeed, Shevonsilva has created more than 1000 stubs on subdivisions of Africa over approximately 6 weeks. Many of these have included lots of careless errors (each one mass-duplicated); the most recent couple of samples I looked at did not have any obvious errors. So I find it easy to assume good faith, but I cannot see how all this effort is improving Wikipedia. For many of the countries concerned, there is absolutely minimal information, and some sort of list of subdivisions (e.g. Departments of Gabon): putting this list in tabular form, adding information such as "Capital" or "Population" would obviously be an improvement. But instead what happens is a mass of microstubs, giving the same information in less convenient form. Worse, when there is an occasional division with a useful article there is no way of distinguishing it, since every division has a microstub link. A few other points:
    • Shevonsilva does appear to be engaged in a bizarre "point scoring" exercise. When it is pointed out that many of his pages (for example from a previous mass-creation of "units" pages) have been converted to redirects, we get comments like "Re-directions are regarded as a creation."
    • The history for the page M'Bagne Department is curious. (See User_talk:Shevonsilva#Mauritania_now). Originally there were eight extra paragraphs after the usual boilerplate, the first duplicating the boilerplate (with the usual punctuation errors), the rest of an oddly poetic style. Shevonsilva replied to me that this "was in another source", and progressively deleted the last three, then the last two paragraphs. I cannot imagine how anyone capable of reading the text could truncate it progressively in this way; it simply makes no sense.
    • Many people (from the very first comment on his talk page) have asked Shevonsilva to "slow down"; the response to these requests has always been evasive. It is very difficult to cooperate with an editor with this approach. Imaginatorium (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, I had no idea about point scoring thing. I don't need any point. Shevonsilva (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyway in reality, all are worring about the issues to improve the encyclopedia Shevonsilva (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • These issues wouldn't be a problem if they weren't repeated by the hundred. The title of almost all of the stubs need to be changed because they all end in the descriptive word as though it is part of the title. Ex, Farafangana District. District is not part of the proper noun. There are hundreds of articles that need to be moved. I informed them about the title thing a few days ago and they are still creating new articles with the same problem. Natureium (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Before they recently removed a bunch of comments from other users, Shevonsilva's talk page looked like this. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, they've removed a lot of comments. (Just a few examples.) And this may explain some of their approach to mass creation of sub-par articles. Natureium (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That is very very motivational, please refer full discussion (the approaches are well discussed there): [21]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shevonsilva#Please_get_your_bot_to_take_a_little_more_care!. Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyway, FYI, I stopped stub creation of administrative divisions. Anyway, I am glad to discuss naming issues of the articles with policy makers and we have re-structure naming of over 10,000 articles (I never created or edit those) if we are going to make a change on naming. I am thinking to focusing on my own works. Thanks all. Shevonsilva (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • (edit conflict) The issue here is whether Shevonsilva should be sanctioned for their conduct. I lean toward an indefinite block based on a mixture of WP:NOTHERE, WP:CIR, and WP:IDHT. Shevonsilva has over 5,000 edits. They didn't start editing in earnest until 2014, and in the three years 2014-16, they made between 350 and 700 edits each year. In 2017 they had one edit. In less than half of 2018, they have made a whopping 3400 edits, but apparently mostly not benefiting the project. I don't see a temporary block as serving any purpose, other than perhaps to slow them down, as I don't expect their abilities to improve.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly a ban on article creation with an appeal only allowed after they have diligently worked to repair the mess their mass creation made? I do fear, based on their writing here that there may be an English competency issue i.e. I am unsure whether they are not comprehending the issues being brought up and the need to address those issues, if they are simply engaging in willful WP:IDHT or if they simply lack the necessary clue to edit. If the first then it is possible they can learn to contribute constructively. Jbh Talk 18:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd agree to a ban from creating any new articles or redirects, widely construed, for an indefinite period. GiantSnowman 18:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That would give thee time to practice editing, expanding, and sourcing.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    can anyone kindly, confirm me, in Districts of Madagascar do I have to change the naming for the articles which only I have created, or, do I have to change the naming of all pre-existing ones too with the syntax, "name department"? Shevonsilva (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Question Oh wise admins, is there a tool for mass moving of pages? Natureium (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, bots.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, then, I will move articles I have created as this is everyone expects and that is my responsibility to do it as I am the creater. Heavy work. I will follow the pattern e.g. name (department). I will try to move other pre-existing ones (a heavy bulk, which I never created or edited, over 10000 articles) if I have a free time. Hope this is what all are expecting. Shevonsilva (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, the name should be discussed first, and per country. Do not rush to move before we establish consensus. I am actually happy with Kenyan stub names, and they follow the same pattern earlier articles did.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear, dear, I am very sorry. Just now I saw your message. I changed the naming for the articles I have created as everyone was expecting it(except for Kenya as someone was in it). I really feel this is breaking the Extended metaphor. I think we have amend the policy of naming related things like this. Anyway, no worries. I will revert the naming if it is helpful. Anyone can easily trackdown the pages through my user page which has all the link for the articles. I am always here to help and go with consensus. Shevonsilva (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a Senior Software Engineer and Researcher. There are a few cases. In user interface design (including web pages), we always follow the same metaphor to make the user less confused. The other part is search engines give more weights for URLs sometimes. If we use name (department), search engines have to use lexical analysis and probably gives a less weight, but, if we use name_department, it will filter the underscore, and, easily pick it. And, as I know it is a common practice to use name department than name (department). One good example is we call Hydrogen ion not Hydrogen (ion). To be honest, I only tried to help. I am getting nothing with these changes, only tried to help you all. Shevonsilva (talk) 02:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the saddest aspects of all this is that this flood of stubs are so ridiculously minimal. "X is a [type of unit] in [country]." and nothing else, except an infobox giving the same information (except when it's mangled, as for Madagascar). Even where the sources cited clearly state the intermediate unit(s) (eg Regions in Madagascar), Shevonsilva will not add that extra information which could transform a pretty useless stub into one which enables the reader looking for "X district" to find out roughly where in the country it lies, and get more information about the area. I've upgraded Sakaraha District from the original version, using the source provided. I've pointed this out several times, to no effect. The flood of all-but-useless stubs, many of which would be much more useful as a redirect to an existing sourced and informative list of administrative units, has continued unchecked until it finally arrived at ANI.
    There's a huge amount of cleanup to be done, which ought to be done by Shevonsilva before they are allowed to create any more mess.
    There is also a need to add navigation links - thus Sakaraha District should have a hatnote link at Sakaraha, and similarly every article called "X [unit]" needs a link by a hatnote, dab page entry or redirect from "X". If this editor had the interests of the readers at heart, they would be making these links. It looks as if their sole goal is to add to the length of the list of "Articles" created, seen on their user page.
    Editors with long memories may remember a slightly similar set of problems around obscure units of measurement a few years ago - over-enthusiastic stub creation based on a very dodgy source, and necessitating a lot of cleanup. PamD 20:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, as I promised, now I am going to improve the articles I have created as the second round, after resolving the naming issue with moving articles. These are really my responsibilities. Thanks all. After resolving all the issues, I am really going to focus on my own stuff. I will try to finish all the issues tonight. I am measuring myself how fast I am. Thanks everyone. Shevonsilva (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I will go for coffee and come back address all the issues.  :) [As, I am in a break of my job, I really tried to help Wikipedia.] :) Shevonsilva (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    PLEASE learn how to indent... --Tarage (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Title problems are fixed now. Shevonsilva (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sub title problemsa are fixed now. Shevonsilva (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Added additional information for all the minimal stubs (as my stage 2 work). Hope things are fine now and resolved the issues. I am thinking to take a break now.Shevonsilva (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Shevonsilva. I'm afraid I do not see all the issues resolved. I recognise your keenness and enthusiasm to create all these microstubs. But I feel this editor is still not properly listening to, or acting upon, editor feedback here. Seeing some of those concerns deleted from their talk page raises 'alarm bells' with me. All these errors, taken on their own, are not normally of huge concern. But this user is clearly automating the process of stub creation in some way, and is not taking enough time to check that their work is good enough. Magnified over hundreds and hundreds of stubs, and possibly not always based on reliable sources, this is really not acceptable. (We had detailed discussions prior to Qbugbot going into operation making entomological stubs, which produced very high quality content. Sadly, and despite the best of intentions, this is not happening here.) I raised my concerns (diff]), and the user assured me s/he was doing this work manually, and admitted they shared my concern over the reliability of some of their key sources on which some pages' existence was actually based. But then the user deleted their answer to me (diff) and has not address my request for them to go back and fix the issues I raised. Since then, it's clear their process is automated. For example, looking at their contributions on 9th June between 16:57 and 16:58 they created 87 articles. That's one every 1.3 seconds! So the question we have to ask ourselves is whether we tolerate innumerable microstubs that a user doesn't work to clean up any errors (either before page creation, or afterwards) but which we wouldn't have had without their input. Or would we prefer not to have them at all if their content - or sometimes even verifiability - is in question? I tend to lean slightly towards the former, but remain very worried at the quality of such rapid, sloppy content creation. As with Qbugbot, a Village Pump discussion required page creation to be throttled back, and for checks to be made on batches of new pages. This isn't happening here, so perhaps a temporary block on page creation would be helpful, only to be lifted when there is a consensus that past articles have been cleaned up, wikilinked, referenced to WP:RS and any unverified content like this removed. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That description for Ibanda was in French encyclopedia as I remember (I check it later again). Yes I will re-scan all the stubs again and do another clean up for the content. Every work was Manuel, but, I use some different techniques to speed up (that is why I removed that description from the conversation as readers get wrong idea. Sorry.) I will do the clean up today (I have to do these as I am the one responsible for creating) :). Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shevonsilva: Yes, the description of Ibanda, Democratic Republic of the Congo is in the French wikipedia, at fr:Ibanda. It is unsourced there. You have stolen the intellectual property of the editors of that French article by dumping a poor translation into English of their exact text into the English encyclopedia and claiming it to be your own work. That is unacceptable behaviour. Also, the two references you have cited might support the first sentence but have no mention of the rest of the content, so you should not have placed the references after the unsupported content. And you didn't bother to link to any other Wikipedia articles except "Commune" and "Congo", while the French article linked to Bukavu, Lake Kivu and Rwanda, so that your version of the French article was even less useful to the reader. This shows very little understanding of how to contribute to Wikipedia. And of course there needs to be a hatnote at our article on Ibanda, a Ugandan town, so that readers have a chance of finding the new stub about the DRCongo place. There just seems to be constant series of problems here. PamD 16:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As we operate under a creative commons license, and it is just a translation from the French Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia, nothing has been stolen. Derivation, alteration, and usage of one's work on Wikipedia in perpetuity is something one can and should expect, and translating from one language to another is rather standard practice. Icarosaurvus (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    While that is technically true, Icarosaurvus, we do have guidelines for translation that should be followed. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 16:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is true, and I wish to state that best practice was certainly not followed here; I likely should have stated that above. However, calling it theft of intellectual property struck me as rather disingenuous. Icarosaurvus (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the link of we do have guidelines for translation. I noted a good point here, I can try to develop a more efficient bot to cross reference the missing bits across different encyclopedias with varied languages. Thnanks all.Shevonsilva (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Icarosaurvus: I didn't look at the details here and dislike the phrase 'theft of intellectual property' in general but remember the guidelines come about for a reason. The CC BY-SA licence allows derivative works but it requires certain conditions are met. If someone is not meeting those conditions, they are violating the terms of the licence and therefore are likely engaged in a copyright violation. The fact that someone has chosen to release their content under the CC BY-SA licence doesn't mean we don't have to respect their intellectual property and so we should not tolerate copyright violations whether they are of CC BY-SA licenced works or works released under some different licence or simply not released an open content licence. Someone who released their work under the CC BY-SA licence isfully entitled to be as aggrieved about any misuse as someone with any other licence or no licence. The fact we can use someone work doesn't mean misuse is acceptable. If anything it's just dumb. To be clear, it's possible to comply with the CC BY-SA licence requirements without following our guidelines so I can't say this actually happened here. It's also possible copyright does not arise if e.g. the threshold of originality is not met. Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's good that you're trying to improve these articles now, but you're making upwards of 50 edits per minute. How is this possible? Natureium (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am using my own automation which is much more technical. Shevonsilva (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    hi all, :) I improved the content of the articles, and, localized information, and, citations tag when it is more required. Hope thigs are better and fine now. Thanks all. Anyone please suggest me a place (in wikipedia) to discuss re-structuring issues like article naming specially with administrators and policy makers and other relevent personnels, or, this is the place for it? Thanks all. Shevonsilva (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa could be a good starting point. And pls stop editing until the consensus is clear.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, and, thanks for the link. I am too more interested about the naming consensus too. Anytime, I can surely help to revert all the namings with the top categories if it is required (for the articles I have created, and, if it is needed if i can help for other articles too). I too like to join with the naming consensus discussion too. Sorry for asking this in a different angle again. What would the better place (in wikipedia) to discuss a matter which is affecting whole Encyclopedia (e.g., if we take naming about all the areas in the wolrd or universe [which has hierarchies in classifications) or, here will be the better place for a discussion? Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Shevonsilva, no, unfortunately the latest suite of articles you have just mass-edited at 17:56 UTC today still contain flaws. e.g. Matadjana and c.80 others all contain a url in the published field, which displays red in references. Can't you see this? Please explain why you didn't create one page, check it, and then carry on if it looked OK, or corrected it if not? I think WP:MEATBOT is relevant here - please read it and note that all bots require approval from Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group. So, I'm pinging @Cyberpower678: to take a look at this issue, as I believe you've strayed into territory that needs involvement from an administrator with experience in that field. You tell us you are editing manually, but also that "I am using my own automation which is much more technical." Nick Moyes (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. Clearly an unapproved bot is at work here, and a very controversial one at that. I approved Qbugbot, and I ran it through numerous stringent trials to ensure the community would accept it once approved. Shevonsilva is to stop using their automation immediately before they land themselves an indefinite block. If they want to run a semi-automated/fully-automated process at such a speed, they need to file a BRFA.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 19:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi all, thanks for letting me know about @Cyberpower678:. I am really looking forward to develop some useful approved bots for wikipedia and I may need his support in some point in future. Thanks for letting me know about reference url error (template is not allowing me to add an url, I was trying to find a way to include it in the template). Shevonsilva (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    HEY Shevonsilva Multiple people have told you to stop with these mass edits and you are continuing to run your bot at this very moment. STOP. Natureium (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi all, I fixed url issue too. :) Hope things are fine now. :) Anyway, let me know if there is any missing thing. Thanks all for your support. Shevonsilva (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooooops, and, we are still discussing title naming consensus. It will be interesting thing to discuss too. Thanks Shevonsilva (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi all, kindly refer the following, based on the feedback from some contributors, I have moved some administrative units in the format, for example, ame (department) even though it is directly breaking existing standardards of other relevent administrative units.
    Kindly refer:
    Now these have amalgamated two standards (i.e.: e.g., Name Department and Name (department)). This is not what I expect from my work on administrative units which are missed in the encyclopedia to create less-user friendly-ness during the navigation by an ordinary user who is not aware of the wikipedia formats (here now there are two formats). Kindly, please everyone, present your ideas over this matter. Shevonsilva (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Alssa1's harassment of Garageland66 and lack of competent editing

    Original, longer version of complaint by Tanbircdq
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Alssa1 appears to be continuously WP:WIKIHOUNDING Garageland66 on British political pages. Alssa1 also appears to be adding content which isn't sourced from WP:RS and removing content which is supported by WP:RS.

    Harrasment

    "*No As above, WP:COMMONNAME. @Garageland66:It's only a controversial claim amongst self-identified "Communist(s), trade unionist(s) and anti-austerity campaigner(s)." Its existence in the Labour Party is not denied."

    • Then continued a couple of days later on 21 May here:

    "You don't get to ascribe your interpretations to a WP page like that..."

    • Then continuous highlighting of Garageland66's editing history to discredit him started here:

    "@Garageland66: furthermore I feel I have to make an accusation of WP:NOT HERE because of this edit your political opinions as to what makes a "Israeli advocacy...organisation" is totally irrelevant to any discussion."

    • The editor goes onto other talk pages (the Eton College talk page) against other editors where they've had no previous involvement here:

    "Familiarise yourself with WP:NOT HERE."

    "It's concerning that Garageland66 thinks it's acceptable to label an organisation as a "Israeli advocacy" group simply because it uses a definition of anti-semitism he doesn't like. I note from his block log that this not the first time he has engaged in edits that could be described as going against WP:NOT HERE; he clearly is not learning..."

    "I really wouldn't make accusations of edit warring given your history and your recent WP:NOT HERE edit."

    "Reverting edit by repeated WP:NOT HERE editor Garageland66.]"

    • Then going onto the talk page to make the same statement here:

    "Again, you are not in a position to have 'suspicions' of anyone given your history and your repeated WP:NOT HERE edits."

    "Take it to talk, it's already been discussed there. It's removal was done by a someone who has made a series of WP:NOT HERE edits."

    • Now back to the talk page again the following day on 22 May here:

    "You've actually been banned for a series of WP:NOT HERE edits."

    "... Perhaps you'd like to explain why you think they are not WP:FRINGE? We don't include fringe groups simply to provide a 'neutrality' that fits in with your previous WP:NOT HERE edits."

    • Further comments here:

    "What you seem to fail to grasp (among other things) is that your "analysis" is totally irrelevant to wikipedia."

    • I made a general warning without appearing to single anyone out here

    "I also would urge editors to be WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and not use talk pages as WP:BATTLEGROUND. Ad hominem comments about editing history and repeated accusations of WP:NOT HERE is unhelpful. If you've got any personal issues, take it to ANI not here." The editor acknowledged receipt of this here.

    • However, this didn't deter the editor reverting back to old ways on 11 June here and here.

    "To be honest, I don't think Garageland66 will ever accept a page that criticises his espoused political viewpoint as neutral. As a cursory glance of his talk page history will show, he's quite adept at engaging in numerous edit wars when his views are not implemented." "I love how every time you come up against a definition for anti-semitism you don't like you instantly assert that the source is a "well known advocate for Israel". You did this for the ADL in this edit. Please remember that WP is not here for you to forward your political viewpoint."

    • Today, Garageland66 even kindly asked here:

    "Alssa1 please note WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF".

    • To which Alssa1's response was here:

    "...Rather than telling others to note "WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF" why don't you note WP: DGF?"

    Incompetent editing

    With the edit summary "Previous edit was not original research. In fact, it constituted WP:V which therefore makes it legitimate to include." Edit warring it back into the article when RolandR removed it here. At the same time removing sourced content from Sayeeda Warsi, Baroness Warsi's article here and the Conservative Party (UK) here.

    The editor ignored WP:BRD and continued to WP:EDITWAR with Nonsenseferret here and here.

    Summary

    Considering Alssa1 has been an active editor for at least nine years I think this behaviour is very unbecoming and inappropriate for the encyclopedia. The repeated violations of WP:CIVIL, lack of WP:AGF and use of talk pages as WP:BATTLEGROUND, particularly against Garageland66 which I can only deem to constitute WP:HARASSMENT and shouldn't be tolerated.

    I'm sure the editor is more than aware of Wikipedia guidelines and policies so I can only assumed they've either adopted a WP:IDHT approach and edit from a WP:POV by adding content which isn't sourced from WP:RS and removing content which is supported by WP:RS or they aren't WP:INCOMPETENT. Tanbircdq (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tanbircdq: If you want more than a very small chance of resolving... whatever it is; I suggest that you try to express your complaint concisely... say less than 100 words with 3-4 diffs to support it. Also, please specify what kind of action/resolution you are looking for. I really doubt anyone is going to spend the hour or so it would take to dig through the wall of text.
    My best advice is to pretend you have 60 seconds to convince someone, verbally, that there is a problem what you think should happen. Clarity and brevity are essential to resolving issues here. Jbh Talk 23:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Garageland66 has displayed WP:IDHT behaviour on Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, promoting the theory that evidence of antisemitism in the Labour Party prior to 2015 doesn't seem to exist multiple times this month, but ignoring requests from both me and Alssa1 to find reliable sources that discuss this, and then returning to bring up the same point again in a new discussion. Alssa1 is right to say that it's your responsibility to find sources that meet the WP:IRS and WP:NPOV requirements, but Garageland66 refuses to do so. Iffy★Chat -- 08:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If Garageland66 has displayed WP:IDHT behaviour then this should be addressed directly with reference to previous discussions. Bringing up Alssa1's right to say that it's Garageland66's responsibility to find sources that meet WP:IRS and WP:NPOV requirements appears to be a disingenuous strawman attempt to deflect the overarching point here regarding the continuous disruptive personal attacks not the point of contention regarding the content. I feel there is no justification in Alssa1's interaction with Garageland66 over the past few weeks. I feel Garageland66 has displayed quite a lot of restraint in not retaliating at repeated provocation which a less an editor may have done. Tanbircdq (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Jbhunley, thank you for your advice, I realise it was far too long, if the above is WP:TLDR then below is a concise summary of all the key points into two separated headings:

    HARRASSMENT

    Alssa1 appears to be continuously WP:WIKIHOUNDING Garageland66 on British political pages. Alssa1 has accused Garageland66 of WP:NOT HERE at least seven times on talk pages and edit summaries:

    Alssa1 accusing Garageland66 of WP:NOTHERE: here and here.

    Making reference to the Garageland66's editing history and WP:NOTHERE: here, here and here.

    Further accusations of NOT:HERE in edit summaries: here and here.

    Alssa1 made a what appears to be a unfounded WP:NOTHERE accusation against another editor here.

    After I put a general warning being put on the page here, which Alssa1 editor acknowledged here but has still continued with the PAs here and here.

    Even after Garageland66 highlighted WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF here, Alssa1's response was to basically deflect the issue back to Garageland66 with an accusation of WP:DGF here.

    Considering Alssa1 has been an active editor for at least nine years I think this behaviour is very unbecoming, inappropriate for the encyclopedia and clearly disruptive. The repeated violations of WP:CIVIL, lack of WP:AGF and use of talk pages as WP:BATTLEGROUND, particularly against Garageland66 which I can only deem to constitute WP:HARASSMENT and shouldn't be tolerated.

    Given the fact this has been highlighted to Alssa1 twice which appears to have been ignored, I'd like an admin to issue a formal warning that if this continues strong action will be taken in the form of a topic ban from these articles. Tanbircdq (talk)

    INCOMPETENT EDITING

    Alssa1 also appears to be adding content which isn't sourced from WP:RS and removing content which is supported by WP:RS.

    Alssa1 claims to be aware of "WP:IRS and WP:NPOV requirements" here but added a YouTube video as a source to push a POV on the George Galloway page here. Tried to WP:EDITWAR it back into the article when it was removed by RolandR here whilst at the same time removing sourced content from Sayeeda Warsi, Baroness Warsi's article here and the Conservative Party (UK) here. Despite a talk page discussing being started about content on Momentum (organisation) page here. Alssa1 ignored WP:BRD and continued to WP:EDITWAR with Nonsenseferret here and here.

    I'm sure the editor is more than aware of Wikipedia guidelines and policies so I can only assumed they've either adopted a WP:IDHT approach and edit from a WP:POV by adding content which isn't sourced from WP:RS and removing content which is supported by WP:RS or they aren't WP:INCOMPETENT.

    I think it's right that this should also be noted so should this editing behaviour continue action may be taken by banning Alssa1 from these pages. Tanbircdq (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It takes far less time to check Garageland66s block log and contribution history than it does to read the walls of text above. POV-pushing, IDHT, edit warring, tendentious editing, misleading edit summaries, POV-railroading... Mildly surprised that they [Garageland66] haven't already been topic banned from Politics-broadly construed. Neil S. Walker (talk) 12:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry that you don't have the time to examine the actual point of this report. Are you saying an editor with a previous history of being blocked remains stigmatised with this (in this case over six months ago), therefore, is fair game of being abused with extreme prejudice?
    I'm still waiting for anyone to provide their opinion on Alssa1's actions rather than joining in the WP:WITCHHUNT to discredit Garageland66 which is what Alssa1 has been doing at every given opportunity for the past three weeks here. Tanbircdq (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    in this case over six months ago Well, that last block duration was 6 months... Neil S. Walker (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I just explain that the 6 month block was for edit-warring on the Eton College page not on any political page. I've done my time. I've learnt my lesson. I now have the right to edit. I've done nothing wrong and there has been no suggestion that I should be blocked again for anything I've done. I treat other editors courteously and feel that this current issue is because of differences of opinion. This is inevitable among editors and differences should be dealt with amicably on the Talk Pages. Garageland66 (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've been aware of a situation at Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party for some time, though I haven't followed it in great detail. The article is a WP:COATRACK filled with pro and anti-Jeremy Corbyn material only tangentially related to the titular subject. I expect there are multiple editors problematic enough at that article to be sanctioned; it would take me 2-3 hours to determine this for sure. Based on a quick look at the talk page, Tanbircdq's comment appears to have some merit; most of Alssa1's comments are acronym soup claiming Garageland66 is WP:NOTHERE without any real evidence to support that, or any constructive participation in discussing how to improve the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment without going into further detail I would remind @Alssa1: and the others that accusing an editor of being NOTHERE repeatedly, outside a sanctions discussion and without evidence to back it up is very likely to be seen as a personal attack and, should it be repeated, I am reasonably confident an administrator would sanction you for such. Jbh Talk 16:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Alssa1: diffs or knock it off, @Garageland66: Sources or knock it off, @Neil S Walker: Fix your signature, it violates WP:SIGLINK. You have an extra space between the colon and the N. It wrecks bots. Also, we expect a little more investigative effort than counting lines in the block log.---v/r - TP 17:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:87.102.116.36

    Hi, is it possible for an admin to look into this this user, 87.102.116.36. I've noticed that he has an issue with articles particularly concerning the European Union, and after having a look through his edit history, appears to accuse anyone and everyone of having WP:COI conflicts. Here's his latest rant on Nuclear power in the European Union, which is still standing as a clean up notification on the article:

    'Piss-take' (Partisan, possibly Irish Republican) map self-supplied by the article-creator in 2008 with his own arbitrary, unique or pedantic definition in order to specifically single out Northern Ireland as some sort of 'All-Ireland nuclear-power-free zone' (resulting the Isle of Anglesey, the Islands of the Outer Hebrides and of the Inner Hebrides, Orkney, Shetland, Ceuta, the Balearic Islands, Corsica, Rügen, Öland, Gotland, parts of Stockholms Lan, Slovene Istria and the Prekmurje region all shown as having declared themselves as 'independent nuclear-power-free states', despite being integral parts of the United Kingdom, Spain, France, Germany, Sweden and Slovenia respectively); the Isle of Man wrongly included despite having always been formally considered as being outside of the EU (or even the UK).

    The edit is a few days old and still standing. I was led to his case by finding this on the European Court of Justice talk page following an archival of talk page notification:

    [2] "Only the versions of the documents published in the ‘Reports of Cases' or the ‘Official Journal of the European Union' are authentic. The other documents available on the Institution's website are given for the purposes of public information and are subject to amendment." So, basically, it can be legally-speaking false or factually misleading or incorrect! Nice legal disclaimer here (such as this one [3])! The original assertion was inserted by one editor [4], on 1 February 2009, completely unsourced anyway! You are just a (paid) EU civil servant public-relations (PR) spin doctor with NO background or education in law! Stop wasting MY time here, I am out! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 12:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

    His edit history demonstrates similar behaviour. I'm not sure if an official warning has been given, but it might be an idea, along with, obviously, a revert of his contributions on Nuclear power in the European Union. Luxofluxo (talk) 05:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    He has a point, to a degree, in that I'd agree the map at File:European Union map Nuclear Energy Countries.png is shit. Fish+Karate 08:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be so, although the article does provide an explanation in the picture description and someone with more knowledge on the subject may be able to say why it was done like that:

    European Union countries (contiguous land mass) employing nuclear energy for electricity generation are marked in orange. Those without nuclear power stations are shown in pale blue (including islands belonging to countries that do have reactors but no presence on this island).

    However, the point remains that the wider behaviour of accusing everyone he's in conflict with of having a COI and leaving clean up messages like that deserves a warning. Luxofluxo (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    His behaviour is to say the least unimpressive, but the map is genuinely bad so I have just deleted it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Jonathan. Glad to see it wasn't just me. Luxofluxo, I absolutely agree the behaviour is not helpful. Are you aware that you don't need to be an administrator to discuss this with the user - you can find their talk page at User_talk:87.102.116.36. You can find a list of templates at Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace, or just talk to them like they're a normal human being. Fish+Karate 10:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Bizarre edit summaries / hounding on 13 Reasons Why

    I reverted User:TimmyAU twice over the removal of production info in the lede of the 13 Reasons Why article. His response has been simply bizarre, as can be seen in the following edit summaries:

    • here - "Chaheel Riens" is clearly a character from a book and not a real name: you are distorting articles for the purposes of advertising and not a real person
    • here - added citation qualifying description whilst defending integrity of wiki by calling out false name of marketing assistant using character name from Alan Dean Foster's novel, "The Man Who Used The Universe"
    • here - cleaned up coding dirt whilst watching interaction and attempted intimidation from marketing assistant using false name from obscure old novel to hide fakenews activities
    • here - minor paragraph edit: have placed a 48 hourly alert on my iphone to remind me to check the aggressive edit-warring of the falsenamed promoter of brand names not directly relevant to the wiki article and especially not appropriate to the initial search summary on Google
    • here - every48hrs: abridgement of linguistic reference to recordings to unify millennial generation with previous generations: watching you, fake novel character, every 48 hours
    • here - linguistic abridgement: researching in depth the influence of a certain fake contributor's name and articles affected and possibly corrupted with advertising

    I have no idea what to do about this - I don't think ignoring it is appropriate. Are they personal insults or accusations of paid editing/COI? I'm pretty certain they come close to hounding, but, well - it's just weird. Editor informed. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's another one: clarifying character name by adding surname: finding lots of interesting contributions from fakenews contributor with 9 years of history: lots and lots of interesting ads embedded in wikis
    Seems to be making small edits to the article, purely so they can comment on my contributions/identity as they do so. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Chaheel Riens - Have you tried creating a discussion on the article's talk page and pinging the user? Have you tried discussing the content dispute with the user directly? I'd do these if you haven't already - create a new talk page discussion and ping the user, then leave a message on the user's talk page and point them to that discussion. Let me know how this goes. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is apparently what it's about. I'm going with the OP's description of "just weird".--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Bbb23 - Yeah that is a bit... interesting... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the Teahouse, I've directed the user to go read WP:AGF until they understand what the problem is. Oshwah's also right: you could have started a talk page discussion to explain things more thoroughly than an edit summary would. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the changes to the article that concern me, it's the edit summaries, and the apparent belief that because my name is taken from a novel that makes me ineligible to contribute, and the insinuation that I'm a promotional editor: fake contributor's name and articles affected and possibly corrupted with advertising, fakenews contributor with 9 years of history: lots and lots of interesting ads embedded in wikis. and intimidation from marketing assistant. Accusations such as those are no longer the province of a content dispute, surely? Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hah! consider the source. I'd not let it bother me.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Does anyone think Timmy needs a PAID or COI warning?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not immediately seeing why. If anything, he's downplaying corporate involvement. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Those actions are a failure to assume good faith, which has not been explained to him until just now. If he refuses to understand WP:AGF's application to this, then I'd start considering further accusations to be personal attacks. Once I see what his response is to me telling his to "read WP:Assume good faith until you understand the problem here", then we'll have more to go on. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chaheel Riens: I've left a message on TimmyAU's talk page explicitly spelling out the situation as it applies to him, just in case he doesn't check back on the Teahouse or misses the point of my post there. I've added the article to my watchlist. If he continue accusing you of being some sort of "fake account marketing assistant" or whatever, I'll treat it as a personal attack. I could imagine that his argument implies that WP:UNDUE might apply, which is why I'd be happy to see some discussion on the article's talk page instead of just in edit summaries, but I'm not immediately thinking of a developed form of that argument that I believe so I'm not gonna expect it.
    Until there's further action from anyone involved, I'm not seeing anything to be done at this point. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, with regard to this edit summary from TimmyAU "clarifying character name by adding surname: finding lots of interesting contributions from fakenews contributor with 9 years of history: lots and lots of interesting ads embedded in wikis" I would like to ask him to provide oh, let's say five examples of when I've embedded ads in links for promotional purposes. Even if this wasn't about me, I'd be interested to see what the results were, and what were considered to be promotional editing. I must be pretty good if I've gotten away with it for nine years... Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Slow cooked edit warring

    Over use of 'era' in headings. Until recently the edits have been far enough apart not to trigger 3rr warnings, but it's an issue when it drags on for weeks, entails numerous notices, and includes edit summaries such as these [22]; [23]; [24]; [25]; [26]; [27]; [28]; [29]; [30]; [31]; [32]; [33]. At any rate, calling this edit warring doesn't quite do it justice. Several editors have attempted to engage in conversation, and the response has been to repeat an unsupported claim: [34]; [35]; [36]; [37]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Investigating... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is definitely edit warring by definition and the spirit of the rule - you don't have to violate 3RR in order to be edit warring. 3RR is just a bright-line rule to "draw a line in the sand" and give editors a guideline that, if violated, will almost always be seen as edit warring and any resulting blocks applied viewed as justified and appropriate by the community. This user has engaged in this behavior between two other users over the last few weeks; (s)he's reverted the article in a repeated back-and-fourth manner and in-place of following dispute resolution protocol and hasn't discussed it on the article's talk page (none of users involved have done so) - that's edit warring... the number of times that it occurs in a day, week, whatever doesn't matter. Anyways... instead of blocking, I went ahead and applied full protection to the article in order to nudge everyone involved to discuss the various disputes on the article's talk page, and warned each user recently involved in the dispute. If the disruption continues after the full protection expires, let me know and I'll be happy to step in and take things further if needed. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Problematic edits by Altamimi579

    Altamimi579 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is edit warring on Hotat Bani Tamim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and to some degree on Racism in Saudi Arabia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Adding unsourced content / name change on Hotat Bani Tamim claiming it is "obvious". Will not discuss on talk pages nor user talk:Altamimi579. Has been blocked before for edit warring. EWN archive Altamimi579 Jim1138 (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Investigating... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, clear case. The user even continued reverting the article after being left a warning on their user talk page for edit warring. I've blocked the user for 36 hours for this (extended to this duration due to recently being blocked for the same issue less than a month ago). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like the user added a new talk page discussion soon before I applied the block. For the record, I'm open to unblocking the user if they create an unblock request and agree and promise to stop editing the article until the discussion reaches a consensus or successful close. Pinging Altamimi579 so the user is aware of my response here. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The source left on talk:Hotat Bani Tamim was a blog. I replied indicating it was wp:NOTRS Jim1138 (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Jim1138 - Cool deal; at least a discussion is started and awaiting the user's response when either their block expires or they request an unblock and agree to the conditions I outlined both here and under the block notice left on their user talk page. Hopefully the user will chose to discuss rather than cause more disruptive behavior ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    "Best known for IP"

    First of all, I apologise for my very poor technical approach while filing the report, I am very dumb at doing these I'll admit it. The IP described as follows (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Best_known_for_IP) has returned with a new address, and in the ONLY (so far) article we have a beef in, Quique Sánchez Flores, they continue to taunt me in their summaries. This time, they upped the ante by removing references that I had just added just to reinstate their version, on the grounds that my English is bordering on the pathetic (see diff here https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Quique_S%C3%A1nchez_Flores&diff=845874914&oldid=845815780).

    Don't know if anything else is needed in this report, but I will provide it upon request. NOTE: User:Mattythewhite, also familiar with the situation, redirected me here; also, please note as this person says in the main article about them (or is mentioned to have said in the form of a diff) that they get/got tired of people randomly undoing all their work so they resorted to antagonizing because it amounted to the same as being courteous. I am the one trying to reach a compromise in the wording of Mr. Flores' article and adding new refs (I don't even go near the other articles the person works on), they are having none of that and blanket revert! Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked the IP for 36 hours for disruptive editing. Whether or not this user is the "Best known for IP" LTA can be ignored given their recent edit warring, reverts, and inability to respond appropriately to warnings. If the user is found to be this LTA, any admin is free to update or change the block I applied; no need to ask first ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Erpert: you closed this discussion. Does that mean you've examined the evidence and decided that this is not the "Best Known For" IP? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I misread something, Oshwah indicated that s/he examined the evidence. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 16:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It might have been my fault for not responding clearly (and if that's the case, please accept my apologies). I looked at the edits by the IP and determined that a block was justified for disruptive editing and I stopped there. I did not examine or compare the IP user's edits to try and associate them with the "Best known for IP" LTA and make that determination. I wanted to leave that part for someone else whose more familiar with this LTA than I am to make that determination, or for others to state that the block imposed was good enough... one or the other :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reverted the close. This discussion is obviously not done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    NinjaRobotPirate - Sorry if that was my fault; I tried to indicate what I did but it may have gotten misinterpreted due to me not being clear. I didn't mean or want to dump this discussion off in the middle like that - I just thought that someone would be around that's familiar with this LTA and could quickly identify this IP user as one of them. It would be my luck that I'd spend time diving and investigating this only for someone to go, "Oh, yeah! Easy peasy - definitely him..." and call it out in a snap. I'll be happy to investigate and determine if this IP user is this LTA if what's what is wanted... just let me know. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I understood what you meant, but I guess you never really know how you'll be interpreted. I'm not really an expert in identifying socks of this IP, but I know we have some around here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    NinjaRobotPirate - Cool deal; if this sits unresolved for bit longer, I'll take a dive and figure out what the deal is. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know that I'm an authority, but I've tangled with BKFIP before. Edits such as this and this, coupled with the generally belligerent attitude suggest that this is indeed BKFIP, but given that the number of edits isn't large, I'm not 100% certain. Vanamonde (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Vote stacking concern

    Note: A related discussion has been opened on the WikiProject Conservatism talk page. –dlthewave ☎ 15:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This is definitely not an issue for ANI. If there are concerns, they should be discussed on the project's talk page or the appropriate place. No administrator actions are warranted here... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I may be way off base here. I ran across something I haven’t before seen: the WikiProject Conservatism talk page here. The page contains eight RfC notifications and some other discussion notifications. Indeed, this is the nature of 11 of the 18 sections. Perhaps this is entirely innocent. An RfC is designed to draw additional editors to a discussion. But, this project looks more like a club for conservatives. Whatever the intent, RfC notifications posted on this page could result in swaying consensus by selective notification. On its face, this looks like chronic canvassing. I’m not asking for any sanctions, just voicing a concern.

    Note: If there is like activity in any other “side” of any contentious area, I would be equally concerned. O3000 (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know about votestacking, but that seems like a forum disguised as a talk page. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 15:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just like to note that Winkelvi, the editor who posted most of those RfC notices, sought to get a third editor involved in a content dispute between the two of us on the Diamond and Silk page (Winkelvi repeatedly removed reliably sourced text which corrected false conspiracy theories that D&S were pushing).[38] This appears to have been done to get the third editor to assist Winkelvi in the content dispute or find something sanctionable about my behavior.[39] The third editor, Lionelt, had early that day frivolously sought to get me sanctioned, which is why Winkelvi contacted the user.[40] I consider this to be an example of canvassing, but my understanding of Wiki policy and precedent on this precise subject is admittedly poor. Is it canvassing? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a project page, not unlike Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. AN/I is the wrong venue for this discussion. Take it to the project TP where its members can explain how WikiProjects work. Atsme📞📧 16:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been going on for a few months, so it's not surprising to see such abuse of our dispute resolution processes again. There is a transparent effort underway to co-opt WikiProject Conservatism and form an association of editors who hold the same POV. As far as I can tell, it involves email, gratuitous barnstars, and certain editors showing up at various content and conduct disputes in which they have otherwise been uninvolved. Anyone paying any attention knows that there are approximately four bad actors in this scheme. I'm not sure what can be done about it.- MrX 🖋 17:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I've noticed that happening in American politics articles for years. Certain admins always show up at the right time, AE complaints get filed with pile on supports, etc. It's not against policy for editors to independently follow each other. It's only against policy to coordinate off-wiki.--v/r - TP 18:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting that there is a note on the project page saying "This project does not extol any point of view, political or otherwise, other than that of a neutral documentarian." I guess that means it could include people who don't hold right-wing views and are interested in the project because it helps them check up on potential NPOV matters. That's surely how the rest of us should make use of it. Deb (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly what it has always been. Unless you have evidence of collusion to skew Wikipedia articles. We all know Wikipedia leans left in political articles; not right. Even Jimbo has commented on this before.--v/r - TP 19:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, there are editors who are members of that project including DGG, myself, SPECIFICO, Carrite, Binksternet, etc. who profess no political persuasion so attempts to pigeonhole anyone as something we're not is inappropriate. Atsme📞📧 19:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. Even Jimbo said it, so it so must be true.- MrX 🖋 20:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take an authority over an editor who gets engaged in a lot of heated disputes in the topic of American politics assertion without evidence anyday.--v/r - TP 21:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Every time I've notified a project of an RfC or discussion at an article talk page, it's always been at every project listed on that same talk page as "...of interest to the following WikiProjects". I've done it several times with various RfCs and always with every project listed at the talk page. My only intent has been to get as many voices in the RfC as possible, nothing more. If doing so is considered "vote stacking" or canvassing, it's news to me. If that's indeed what it is, I'll discontinue doing it, but it should be stated that I was completely unaware that it would be against policy. It seemed logical to me that editors involved in the projects listed at the article talk page would be interested in commenting at an RfC concerning an article where a project has an interest. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair the first point on WP:Canvassing under appropriate notification is "The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion." PackMecEng (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well yes, but it goes on to say: "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions." The editors on that page have ardently supported the same POV both in article TPs and drama boards. O3000 (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    On what basis are you saying project conservatism are just a bunch of POV pushers? Seems like a charge you should try and show rather than just assume. Plus looking at the member list it seems fairly diverse, even our friend SPECIFICO is a member. PackMecEng (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm talking about that one page. I really am trying to avoid discussing particular editors as I'm not looking for sanctions. O3000 (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the reminder of policy on canvassing, PackMecEng. Link to the section is here [41] I'd like to further note that the policy also states, "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions...Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief". Which is exactly what I have been doing. I always copy and paste the same message each time I have done this at project pages, just changing the link to the discussion and name of the article, of course. The messages I left today stated, "RfC at Richard B. Spencer - There is an RfC at the Richard B. Spencer talk page found here that members of this project might be interested in taking part in." Polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief. And in today's instance, placed at the following project pages: [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    PackMecEng beat me in posting this point. The projection is high with the ASPERSIONS about using email and any thinking that there is a conspiracy in using the top method listed under appropriate notifications. Members of a public wikiproject and watchers of its talk page may not hold the views of that project, but rather want to collaborate on coverage of that topic. Big difference. --Netoholic @ 20:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Isn't this the purpose of Wikiprojects? Natureium (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    SNOW CLOSE - every WikiProject ever created would be subject to this argument - the OP needs to stop-breathe-think about what exactly is being suggested here. It's a time sink...but of the highest quality among time sinks, if that matters. 😂 Atsme📞📧 20:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing I enjoy about the Conservatism Project is the handy newsletter that members receive on our talk pages [51]. SPECIFICO talk 20:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they got the color right. O3000 (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. Yellow is the new red.- MrX 🖋 20:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I found the article on Andrevan to be in particularly poor taste. Since when do we issue newsletters talking about editors by name along with sanctions? Maybe it’s just me. O3000 (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Best practice is to announce an RfC to all wikiprojects listed on an article talk page. Avoiding the appearance of vote stacking isn't that difficult folks.- MrX 🖋 20:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, many people are aware that there are strategies to avoid the appearance of vote staking. Thank you for reminding us.--v/r - TP 21:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that admins are going to find anything to use admin tools for here. I've watchlisted the project almost since its inception, and editors there should be aware that there are a lot more people looking at what they post, than just those who actually comment. If you look at the edit history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/References, it started out as a listing of a lot of sources, a significant number of which were extreme-right non-RS that were listed as though any good editor would find them useful to cite. There's been a history of the project as a gathering place for editors who are enthusiastic about present-day conservative US politics, as opposed to simply wanting to make sure that we have well-written content about all forms of conservatism all around the world and in all periods of history. A lot more of the discussions are alerts about how some conservative content is being presented unsympathetically, than alerts about pages where the conservative perspective needs to be balanced by a liberal one. But there's no bright line here: it all ends up as content disputes about POV, and there's nothing wrong with having an opinion on one side of such disputes. The problem to watch out for is if an editor makes a career of only adding pro-conservative content and removing opposing views. More editors should take a look at Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and if an editor lists a discussion at WikiProjects, the best practice, and the best way to avoid being accused of canvassing, is simply to put a note on the discussion page, disclosing that those notifications have been made. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • SPECIFICO - that handy newsletter (to which I don't subscribe but have seen on the TP of others) is first-class entertainment...BIGLY...first-class...nothing even comes close...it's amazing...and it often contains credible material we should not discount (if we are truly looking to abide by NPOV, BALANCE & WEIGHT). Our WP projects are especially handy at AfD, for those who are not aware of how that works, ask a knowledgable admin, keeping in mind that they are all knowledgable so I'm not showing "favoritism" to only the knowledgeable ones. On a lighter note, (excuse my Tumpism), but I have to tell you...you haven't lived if you haven't been watching the Ultra Spiritual Life videos - amazing entertainment - BIGLY - have never seen anything like it. Atsme📞📧 20:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This is stupid. Sorely tempted to close this. --Tarage (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Users repeatedly adding false information to Informal Talks page

    Pages: Informal Talks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Please refer to the list below:

    1. 203.232.213.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)}
    2. 123.115.61.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    3. 61.98.217.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who's been vandalising since 2016)
    4. 태현 정 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Since the creation of this page, some users have repeatedly added false (sometimes ridiculous) English names for the representatives. As the names are often unknown, I do not include them in the page, but some users have repeatedly added false ones without sources for fun, despite me leaving messages on their walls many times. Some names I know are obviously fake, either because it's the name of a celebrity, or I know the actual name of the representative, but just haven't added it to the page.

    Examples of some of the edits

    1. Link I know for a fact 李越's English name is not Dean as I previously found his actual name on a university website, but haven't added it to the page yet. Reference
    2. Link
    3. Link This user decided to change from one fake name to another, this time to "Berlusconi", the name of the Italian president involved in a sex scandal
    4. Link Changing from one fake name to another
    5. Link

    There are many more edits, but it's too many to list.

    Some earlier examples:

    1. Link From Jan, 2018
    2. Link From Dec, 2017
    3. Link July 2017

    While they are different users, due to the consistent editing style (of adding false, sometimes ridiculous names), I am almost certain they are the same person. This has been an on-going issue for a very long time. I have left messages on their walls many times, in particular (61.98.217.150), but they have never responded. I previously reported this issue 2 years ago. Please refer to [52] It ended up in the page being semi-protected.

    Please help me with this issue by either blocking the users or protecting the page. Thank you for your time!PurpleLights123 (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to admit, the Ma Ding/Martin Gaye (Marvin Gaye?) thing is funny, but, yes, this is disruptive. I would advise page protection due to persistent vandalism, which can be found at WP:RPP. —Javert2113 (Let's chat! | Contributions) 17:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added semi-protection to the article for a few months in order to stop this. Whether or not the edits are true is the wrong way to look at this; it's whether the edits are referenced that's important. References are how we verify that changes being made to article content are accurate and true, and the contributions to the article in question clearly lack these additions. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Also, if the user comes back with a number of different accounts/IP addresses and makes disruptive edits again, what can I do? PurpleLights123 (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Block of Wilhelm von grundwasser

    This showed up at AIV, and I blocked indef. If somebody says they're a banned user, they get blocked. That said, I'm posting this here as an FYI. There is no hint who User:Wilhelm von grundwasser is. — Maile (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Maile66 - Your block is fine. A self-admission of being a blocked or banned user like that is enough to warrant action on the account. If they wish to explain, they can file an unblock request and we'll hear them out - no big deal. In fact, you beat me to the punch by only a minute or so ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Maile66 and Oshwah: Thanks for the quick resolution earlier. I debated whether to put that at AIV or here, instead, but figured it would probably get actioned quicker there. Home Lander (talk) 03:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Home Lander - No problem; that's what we're here for :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:BALKANS

    Reported users are confirmed sock puppets and have been blocked. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. Max Legrottaglie97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)}
    2. CarloMagno96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    3. Gothius90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    There is a requests for arbitration involving Macedonia and some closely related topics, especially in these sensitive topics. However both these users (who might be socks to User:A. Katechis Mpourtoulis) have been indiscriminately editing, without talking to other users, going against general consensus on these topics, just doing EW and pure vandalism. The pages edit were protect, to no effect. No ammout of talk, multiple users reverting and warnings have worked.

    Examples:

    Coltsfan (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    These accounts are  Confirmed to each other. They are Red X Unrelated to A. Katechis Mpourtoulis.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WP:Casting aspersions

    Issue resolved peacefully :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Would an admin kindly inform User:Doniago that calling another editor "rather tendentious" without providing evidence of such [57] is a violation of WP:Casting aspersions, and if Doniago is unwilling to provide such evidence, [58] the comment should be struck? Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Beyond My Ken - I left Doniago a discussion on his user talk page. I think it sufficiently gets the point across and keeps everything peaceful so we can move on. Let's start from here and see where things go :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment struck, with apologies.[59] Oshwah, thank you for the thoughtful message. DonIago (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doniago: Thank you for striking the comment and the apology. @Oshwah: My appreciation for your intervention.
    Unless anyone else has related concerns that need to be addressed, I believe that this thread can be closed, and the content discussion can continue on Talk:The Swimmer (1968 film). Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    DonIago - No problem; always happy to help ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Richard.sutt and WP:CIR

    I think it is about time now to bring to the attention of the noticeboard the actions and edits of Richard.sutt (talk, contributions), a relatively new (<1 year old) account that has in that time completed over 1000 edits mostly under 20 bytes (Edit count and stats by WMF Labs). I would estimate that of the 1000+ edits, 10% are actually constructive while the other 90% are either copy-pasting text between articles (often unnecessary and unneeded) or fixing errors created during attempted constructive edits (A good example is Chasmosaurinae article history). 43 of the 50 edits shown by default on Chasmosaurinae are by Richard.sutt, and of those 11 had 0 change in article size in bytes, 10 were removing content (largest removal was 251 with an average around 50) and the remainder were adding content (largest addition was 336 with an average around 50). This repetitive addition->fixes->revertion->addition cycle is found on most articles edited by Richard.sutt, and has become a great inconvenience to the regular editors of these articles as Richard.sutt has not once replied to a request or comment on a talk page where we try and assist them in learning proper syntax and recommendations for articles (see Edit stats link above). While not an urgent matter to resolve I will now ping Lusotitan, FunkMonk, Jens Lallensack, MWAK, IronGargoyle, Casliber, Dunkleosteus77, Fanboyphilosopher and Elmidae as individuals who have reverted, tried to talk to, and had an earlier discussion on Richard.sutt. I myself am unsure what actions I would recommend are taken, as WP:CIR is most definitely violated by the edits of this user, but my lack of experience on what would happen (temp/indef block, topic ban or full ban) means I cannot make a judgement. --IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 05:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    My calculus at the moment runs something like:
    +: well-intentioned, clearly knowledgeable in some areas, fair amount of good edits
    -: strongly laced with fatal sloppiness (e.g. that series of edits to WD identifiers starting around here - clearly didn't check a single one), tendency to edit-war about WTF head-scratchers (e.g. [60]), doesn't communicate, cooperate, or take corrections on board one. little. bit.
    It's the last one that makes them a net negative in my opinion. Requiring constant vigilance and damage control on the part of those few editors that know the subject area well enough, and then giving every impression that this state of affairs will continue indefinitely because there's no communication at all, is not a sustainable situation. I'd request a "start talking" block at this point. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not too sure what a "start talking" block is, guessing its a temporary block with a warning to start talking with other editors once lifted, but I agree with the pros and cons pointed out by Elmidae above, Richard.sutt has made several constructive edits, but these are overshadowed by the fact that we have to monitor every single edit daily (there have been upwards of 30 recently) to ensure that templates aren't broken or grammar incorrect or information too trivial. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 22:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Richard.sutt has replied for the first time on a talk page, so there may yet be hope. However it will take time to see just how effective communication with this editor is. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 06:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Dream Focus repeatedly insinuating that I have a mental illness, etc.

    Dream Focus (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly questioning my mental state and refusing to retract these comments despite repeated warnings. I have been placing the warnings directly beneath the attacks in question rather than on his talk page since I'm banned from the latter. I can't imagine how anyone could consider remarks like the following to be acceptable.

    Quotes and diffs of "you are insane"-type comments
    • of course everyone is secretly out to get you, even the prime minister of Japan[61] (this one's weak, but given my unfortunate history of being accused on-wiki of "paranoia", this is difficult for me not read in the same light)
    • There has never been any evidence of any keep spamming no matter how many times certain self deluded people keep claiming it as such.[62]
    • I ignore anything you say on your user page, since you are out of your mind, always playing the victim and convinced everyone is out to get you.[63]
    • [in response to a request to strike the above] Not going to happen.[64]
    • Will someone please click on the link he provided [in reference to the diff immediately above] and tell him he is blocking out reality?[65]
    • As for your questionable mental state, I would really like others to weigh in on this. Does anyone else believe everyone is out to get him when they disagree with him, or is he just imagining things?[66] (note that this was in response to a very clear, unambiguous "dude, you're going to be blocked -- take the hint; I'm being very careful to give you every out that I can, and you'd be stupid not to take them" final warning[67])
    • ignoring your crazy nonsense as always[68]
    Inappropriate personal remarks that are not about my mental state

    He's also been making less egregious but still clearly inappropriate remarks like

    • Still stalking me? Have no life at all do you, just obsessed with someone who dared disagree with you, and got to follow them around bothering them nonstop. [...] you just determined to repeat the same bullshit lies every chance you get.[69]
    • Ignore Hijiri88 and his ridiculous lies. ... I also find it ridiculous someone can go to a Wikiproject they hate just to insult it constantly and spread lies every chance they get.[70]
    • You whine about stopping the personal attacks but then insult me with that idiotic lie.[71]
    • Of course you only know found yoru way here because you are still stalking me[72]
    • Kindly stop insulting people with your constant lies about the project or anyone who dares disagree with you anywhere on Wikipedia[73]
    • Do you deny you want to destroy the ARS? Have you not stated multiple times in various places you want it deleted? That's not hyperbole, that's fact.[74] (note that I actually requested a diff in support of the claim that I "stated multiple times in various places I want [the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject] deleted" two weeks ago and DF has ignored this request despite making similar claims that I'm "not interested" in ARS.[75]

    He also has a habit of misquoting Shakespeare in a manner that implies either he is accusing me of hypocrisy (in which case he has misunderstood the quote) or he believes attacking other editors in this manner is a core part of his personality, to which he must remain true.[76][77]

    Addressing "following" claims, and the reason this editor probably should have been indeffed before I ever came in contact with him

    What's worse is that he's continuously accusing me of hounding him (in some of the diffs above, and especially here), when in fact what happened was I noticed, based on his actions on an article to which he followed me,[78][79][80] that he is a serial plagiarist, and checked his contribs to see how deep went the rabbit hole: it's pretty deep, but he has continually denied that it constituted plagiarism, even denying that he used a copy-paste function as though that made it better, despite there sometimes being no alternative explanation. And the only places I followed him to that weren't related to copyvio (the above "yoru way" diff related to an incident in which he clumsily copied obviously plagiarized text onto Wikia in order to "rescue" it from our deletion policy) were AFDs he chose to promote via the "rescue list".

    Normally, editors who repeatedly violate copyright and deny any wrongdoing even after multiple warnings get blocked on those grounds alone to prevent the further plagiarism that appears almost certain to happen, right? So what we have here is an editor who shouldn't even be allowed contribute to the encyclopedia because of the risk of copyvio, harassing other editors and questioning their mental state: I really can't see how this editor has not been blocked for this yet, with the only explanation I can think of being that TonyBallioni (my traditional go-to for copyright issues) and his talk page watchers are too "involved".

    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that I didn't hunt down all the diffs of him receiving warnings over copyvio and denying any wrongdoing (there are probably dozens going back to late February); the reason for this is that this thread is primarily about the personal attacks. If anyone needs more diffs of the copyvio and related denialism, they can be provided. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    BTWs, Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) can vouch for my having discretely (for DF's benefit) and carefully done a lot more sleuthing than I disclosed publicly on the copyvio issues as early as "Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 7:38 PM" (that's how the date stamp appeared in his reply to my email). It does go pretty deep. TonyBallioni (who I suspect probably doesn't want to be pinged on this) can as well, per this. Also this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you added in something new, I'll respond to it. Please look at the proper link User_talk:Dream_Focus#Copyright_warning, not just what he linked to which eliminates a key part of it. Dream Focus 09:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you or Tony retroactively changed something weeks later without updating your sigs, I'm pretty sure I did link the whole conversation...? Rather, your linking to the live version of your talk without noting that it's the result of your having to be warned a second time after blanking the original warnings is what "eliminates a key part of it" Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Some evidence of copyvio; more can be found if needed
    (edit conflict) Anyway, much of the early history of our list of Duck Dynasty episodes needs revdel, and while our Duck Dynasty article is a little more of a grey area as even DF's original version was closely paraphrased rather than directly copy-pasted (Phil Robertson claims to have spent 25 years standing in his dilapidated shed, handcrafting duck calls from the native cedar trees of the swamps of Monroe Louisiana. =/= For 25 years, Robertson said he stood in his dilapidated shed and handcrafted duck calls out of cedar trees native to Monroe-area swamps.; They previously were on the Outdoor Channel with the series Duck Commander. =/= The family has already had some television exposure on the Outdoor Channel with a series called “Duck Commander,” -- our Duck Commander article includes the same closely paraphrased text and has done since DF started it), it definitely is not true that plagiarism has never been an issue with this editor. Particularly interesting is this somewhat pointily edit-summaried blanking of a copyvio tag roughly a week before the copyvio in question was removed. Note that his very rarely making substantial prose additions to articles makes locating these problems on a brief scan of his contribs difficult, but the vast majority of the ones I checked had such problems. This was DF's handiwork, too, as was this; his original draft of Puzzle Puppers didn't include plagiarism, but it had barely two substantial sentences worth of prose, and both of those technically misrepresented the cited sources. The paraphrasing in this article wasn't too close, but it did contain text that had clearly been copy-pasted and then a random chunk of it blanked, so that it misrepresented the source, but had the text not been blanked it would have been copyvio. Here he showed a pretty poor understanding of the "no close paraphrasing" policy, even if the copyvio text itself was not his fault. This contained similar "close paraphrasing", as DF's Bruns states that his property is covered with booby traps, and his neighbors are serious preppers with lots of guns was much too close to Our neighbors are pretty serious preppers, with lots of guns, and there's lots of booby traps on our property. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You deliberately left off part of the conversation. Dream Focus 14:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Shit, you're right. That said, there was nothing "deliberate" about it: gathering page history ranges (as opposed to individual diffs, which would not be as useful in this case) is tough and it's really easy to make mistakes; this is borne out by the fact that the edits I left out actually make you look worse. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Sigh. Taking things out of context. First off, I did not follow him to that one article in question, I simply saw it mentioned, and tried to suggest improvements on the talk page, and then constant arguments erupted from there. He has appeared after me quite a number of times, so yes, was stalking/hounding me for awhile there. Now he hangs out at the Article Rescue Squadron just to insult the project and its members, despite stating multiple times he wants it deleted/destroyed/retired/whatever the words used were. Please read things in context and not his quotes he has given you. He says "Questioning other users' mental states is never acceptable" I then responding "As for your questionable mental state, I would really like others to weigh in on this."
    • The most recent problem had him erasing someone else's post [81] and playing the victim as always. Please read the conversation after that if nothing else. You'll see he follows the same pattern for months now. He shows up at AFD the Rescue Squadron is at, and brings up all manner of random things during the arguments, won't stay on topic. Recently an article I created went up to AFD despite clearly passing GNG Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Puzzle_Puppers and you can see how he rants off the topic, making wild accusations about other things instead of staying on topic. Note I never stated he had a mental illness, please just read what was actually said in context before commenting. Dream Focus 08:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sitush: I know the community is on my side (that ARS's mission statement is noble in theory, but that it doesn't actually do that a lot in practice, and that it sometimes serves to push fringe theories and promotional fluff off AFD, and might be better served by an overhaul of some kind), but I don't want to have that discussion right now. FWIW, I think your main concern is with Indian topics where the promotion of fringe theories can be (and have been) met with discretionary sanctions: making ARS "historical" would not ameliorate that situation as the problem is not really so bad. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. @User:Dream Focus, Leaving aside the matter of problematic editing on either your part or User:Hijiri88's, I think it's clear that your comments are out of line and the excuse about "questionable mental state" being taken out of context is somewhat disingenuous because we can all see the implication in the particular wording you chose to use. You may feel you have had provocation, but the best thing to do in these circumstances would be just to apologise and not do it again. He is then obliged to assume good faith, accept your apology and move on. Deb (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dream Focus definitely needs to tone down the rhetoric. That being said, as an outside observer with no prior background knowledge of the interaction between these two users, it certainly appears as if Hijiri88 was trying to pick a fight on the Puzzle Peppers AfD. He seemed more concerned with discrediting Dream Focus than with actually discussing the article in question. Lepricavark (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lepricavark: If you read my first comment in isolation (as opposed to my later responses to DF's off-topic personal attacks), it's clear that what I was doing was adding to the already-stated notability concerns the observation that the article's creator was clumsy and didn't check. I would have done the same whether I had a "grudge" against said creator or not, as can be seen by my having made a similar comment on the "Wife and Wife" and "Virtues" AFDs. And there's also the fact that carelessly adding junk sub-stubs to the mainspace that contain egregious errors and not much else is also a recurring problem with DF (just not one I chose to focus on in this ANI thread) -- see for example [82]. Anyway, given that much of the evidence against DF dates from as early as February, it doesn't really make sense to call 50-50 based solely on an AFD from a week ago. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an interesting description of your first comment, and I don't find myself in agreement. Dream Focus claimed that the article had received significant coverage, and you responded by observing that he had a different reason for creating the article. As long as the article has sufficient coverage, who cares? His first response to you remained focused on the notability of the article under discussion, but then you brought up an unrelated AfD in an attempt to discredit his argument. It's not hard to see why he was annoyed. Lepricavark (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    How can him being "annoyed" because of something that happened in the last week justify what has been going on for weeks if not months? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not justifying anything. His comments are not appropriate and he needs to change his approach. I'm simply pointing out that in the one incident that I reviewed, you were the instigator. Lepricavark (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The link [83] you mention is an interesting one. Someone post on the Article Rescue Squadron's Rescue List to ask for help, and Hijiri88 starts his standard rant about canvassing nonsense insulting the project saying "most of the contributors here will auto-!vote "keep" while pretending to be familiar with whatever topic is under discussion.", and I tell them to ignore him and his ridiculous lies. Dream Focus 16:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, actually you made the standard rant about canvassing: I had advised the poster in question that since apparently no one on ARS except me reads Japanese, posting to WT:JAPAN (which I also watch) would probably be more effective. And no, it's not the "ridiculous lies" that I was trying to draw attention to: it's your calling me "deluded" almost two weeks before I "annoyed" you on the Puzzle Puppers AFD. Are you just posting as much nonsense as possible in this thread in order to filibuster it so you can get off without a block? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Please read other editors' comments before attacking them like that -- I clearly linked those AFDs because you weren't the clumsy article creator I was addressing in either of them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328: FWIW, I would have apologized for the off-topic commentary at the top of this thread, had I not already decided days earlier to disown it by striking my !vote and walking away from the AFD altogether, but if it helps I should probably clarify that I do regret engaging in it in the first place and will try to avoid such incidents in the future. I was annoyed because of the mental health and other attacks, but that doesn't justify dragging down a content discussion with off-topic personal stuff, and I apologize. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Shit. Didn't notice that you had actually done the one thing I originally wanted to come out of this thread. No reason to argue with someone who did me a favour. The only reason I'm not striking the above is that striking an apology for my own sub-optimal behaviour could be misinterpreted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88: well, that was probably because he did it 9 minutes after that comment. Easy to muddle timestamps that close together, though, especially if you're running in a different timezone to GMT. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bellezzasolo: No, he had done it two hours before I responded, so it doesn't matter which order he did it in. I responded to what I saw here, and only noticed the comment on DF's talk page by accident later, even though both had been made while I was asleep. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88: Really? i feel like I'm missing something here, as the diff you linked was 22:22, while your post was 22:13. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 01:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Shit, you're right. Sorry -- as has been noted elsewhere, I have a tendency to take AGF too far. Still, even if Cullen only issued that warning after demanding I apologize for an incident in which I was the victim, and even if he has been ignoring the evidence that my initial comment was not off-topic (since "the article's creator has a recurring tendency to leave clumsy, draft-level content containing blatant errors, copyvio and more in the mainspace" is not off-topic when the article under discussion is apparently more of the same) ... well, I still should not have gone off-topic on the AFD in the first place. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Where the heck did I demand that you apologize, Hijiri88? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So what did you want me to do if not apologize? Why did you wait until after I had apologized for the one, brief incident in which I dropped the ball in order to warn DF about the personal attacks that were meant to be the subject of this thread, and why have you still not acknowledged that they were not just a reaction to the Puzzle Puppers AFD, even though most of them predate it? Would you have issued that warning had I not apologized? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Where to begin? Let's start with the timing of my warning to Dream Focus. Just as you sometimes sleep, I also sometimes do other things out in the real world. I decided to issue the warning but made that decision while I was driving about ten miles to a nice restaurant for a previously scheduled lunch with my wife. I issued the warning at the restaurant table after placing our order and while waiting for our meal, which was grilled halibut, a Caesar salad, and an average white wine. My decision to warn DF was completely unrelated to whether or not you apologized, and was partly motivated by a comment that Robert McClenon made. I care very little about apologies, although they are nice and I am always happy to offer one. I care most of all about preventing disruption and encouraging better behavior in the future. That I am not always successful in that endeavor should be obvious, but the community gave me the administrator's tools for a reason, and I do my best. I prefer to be concise, though it seems I am failing here. In that spirit, I analyzed your behavior at the Puzzle Puppers AfD, rather than posting a lengthy wall of text about all of your interactions with the other behavior. I encourage you to realize that your wall of text behavior is not in your best interest. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to note, in the context of the above conversation, I found this edit by DF with a personal attack in the edit summary. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 01:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I told him to stay off my talk page, he then ranting about something so I used the edit summary (ignoring your crazy nonsense as always) when reverting him. In context, do you honestly believe that is a personal attack? Dream Focus 01:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Two-way no fault IBAN

    I basically proposed this to the two of you on my own, but it doesn’t appear to have worked, so I suggest we make it formal, not because anyone is at fault, but because it’s better for everyone (yourselves included in my view) if the two of you don’t interact. You both clearly don’t like each other, and I’ve been involved in enough discussions to know that this is just going to be a back and forth, so I’m going ahead and proposing: Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) and Dream Focus (talk · contribs) are placed under a two-way no fault IBAN, subject to the usual exceptions.

    • Oppose obviously good-faith but problematic proposed solution Primarily because I know from experience that an IBAN will be gamed: even if DF himself does not do so, someone else will bring it up next time I have any kind of dispute with someone (or even when I comment on an ANI thread about a dispute I'm not even involved in -- this literally happened, even though the IBAN in question was also "no fault", but I don't want to provide the link because BEANS). Combined with the fact that IBANs are generally associated with hounding, and DF has been repeatedly accusing me of hounding him (despite the actual definition of hounding), this would not be a good look -- even if it's not me, someone needs to address DF's problematic editing, but he will just be able to point to the IBAN that was put in place the last time someone hounded him. Why can't someone just tell DF that the next time he question's another user's mental health or similar he will be blocked? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Since my nuancing my !vote to "conditional neutral, otherwise oppose" has been split, I'm going to clarify here, directly below my original !vote, that as long as I am not placed under a formal or de facto one-way PBAN on ARS, I have no problem with this proposal. My initial reservations were entirely based on the problem that for the general community "IBAN" means "hounding" and that this could easily be gamed; assuming the "no fault" is clearly placed in the close and the consequent WP:RESTRICT entry, I have no problem with this, but I don't want to directly "support" because both me and DF supporting could lead to a premature close that would dismiss the concerns expressed by the other "oppose"s. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone could use a search engine to search Wikipedia for your name and "IBAN" if they actually cared. You also admitted elsewhere in a previous discussion you had been topic banned before, anyone can search for "TBAN" if they thought it relevant. I don't see how that matters. While some petty obsessed editors may look through someone's contributions just to find minor things that happened years in the past, just to bring those up to try to sway people to their side, and constantly try to paint a negative picture of them, most people hopefully have enough sense to ignore them. Dream Focus 17:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I think DF has been hounding me as much as he thinks I've been hounding him. My edit rate has fluctuated according to real-world circumstances like either job-hunting taking up all my time or a need to distract myself from job-hunting not going well by editing Wikipedia (emailed the closer of the Puzzle Puppers AFD about this some weeks back) and on-wiki stuff like Asian Month and being burned out after Asian Month, and otherwise remained fairly consistent, while DF's edit rate skyrocketed when he started interacting with me (he hadn't made more than 100 edits in a calendar month between September 2015 and February 2018, but since February 2018 has not gone a calendar month without making more than 100 edits, and disregarding calendar months the month-long period during which he was least active was the month I was largely ignoring him, before I made the mistake of PRODding a copyvio nonsense substub he had pointedly created as a POV-fork of an article I had been working on, at which point it jumped back up again), and even though he's a "card-carrying" ARS member (as opposed to my "observer" status) virtually all his edits there in the last four months have been responses to me. This is why I'm most concerned about the proposed "no fault" IBAN: DF has made it pretty clear that he believes my continuing to comment on ARS will constitute a violation of such a ban, as he has been saying for months that I'm only there to harass him, and so will probably try to paint the next time that happens as such even if he violates the ban by responding to me. This is really my only concern with the proposal, which I would supportchange my !vote to neutral in a heartbeat if I thought it would actually stop DF's harassment of me rather than aggravating it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not hounding you because I have more edits when you argue with me, there just more post I have to make. If you weren't around to do that, most of the post in the AFDs and elsewhere I make wouldn't happen. Hounding means following someone around, checking their contributions to pick apart everything they do and call them out every chance you get. Unlike you I have never done that to anyone. Dream Focus 23:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @TParis: I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the proposal you are supporting is supported by DF, apparently as a way to avoid facing the one-way sanction that should be coming his way, while I've opposed it; you seem to agree that my "disruptive behaviour" at ARS has not actually been disruptive, so placing a sanction on me, even a "no fault" one, that I have opposed seems questionable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Experience tells me that one way bans are ineffective. And there is no such thing as a "no fault" two way ban. It's symbolic at best to ease DF's feelings.--v/r - TP 22:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as splitting the blame between victim and the violator in the personal attacks about mental illness. Sometimes, because blocks are preventive and not punitive, the need for a block is missed when the offense occurs, and then what is needed is a warning that the next offense will result in a longer block. Start off by warning Dream Focus that any mental illness comments will result in a one-week block, and do it. No need to split the blame until we have tried a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - while I have some reservations about iBans in general, I'm of the mind that the better of available options is a 2-way. Atsme📞📧 21:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment With two exceptions (Cullen and Atsme), all of the above "supports" seem to note that the disruption is one-sided on DF's part, and yet they are supporting a solution that lets DF off the hook for his disruption and that DF has supported, and which sanctions me while I've opposed it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I’m with TParis, and I am certainly not faulting you for anything and it’s no fault because I am sympathetic to your position. I do think that you and Dream Focus just always clash heads and as Cullen noted, anytime the two of you get together it tends to result in walls of text and fighting. Dream Focus’ actions towards you are wrong, but I also think it’d be best for both you and the community if you didn’t interact with him. Basically the two of you interacting isn’t good and even though his conduct has been worse than yours, I think making it two-way will be easier and better in these circumstances. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @TonyBallioni: If I can be guaranteed that a closer will explicitly state that I am allowed continue posting related to ARS, and to AFDs related to it, that I did not "follow" DF there, and that if DF makes any more responses to my activities there like he has been DF's actions and not my own will be considered to be in violation, then I will change to supportneutral. The problem, though, is that we've got one uninvolved editor having apparently only reviewed the second-to-most-recent incident placing equal blame (and an equal threat of a block) on both of us, and one other citing some unspecified comments by both DF and myself in favour of this IBAN (implying they consider something DF has said in this thread, perhaps the "hounding" claims as they would be the most relevant to an IBAN proposal, to be valid). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure, but I think on balance I oppose because this was a WP:NPA violation by one party and a unilateral sanction (warning or restriction) would seem more equitable. That said, Hijiri88, is definitely a "frequent flyer" here. The point above notes that the source of conflict is the Article Rescue Squadron. I could easily be persuaded that topic-banning both from ARS would be a net gain. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: Actually, in the last six months I've basically been "involved" (as opposed to my just commenting on threads on issues I first became aware of after they were brought to ANI, and those have actually been relatively few of late) in four ANI threads, all of which were large blowouts, but of the four two (the Darkness Shines SBAN discussion and the C. W. Gilmore discussion) were me opening discussions on larger community problems in which I was really a bit player, one (the Huggums537 discussion) involved me having been hounded for some time but doing all I could to avoid bringing it to ANI (the thread was actually opened by Tony, against my wishes), and the fourth is this one. The "frequent flyer" stuff mostly dates to 2015 and earlier -- yes, in 2016-2017 I did make hundreds of ANI posts, but they were almost all "uninvolved". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Fuck it. Not worth it. JzG is one of the good guys -- no pun intended -- and actually one of only two editors so far to fully agree with me on this matter. And, FWIW, probably also right that the project (English Wikipedia) would benefit from me spending less time on ARS. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. In effect, there is really no such thing as a "no fault IBAN". Dream Focus has clearly violated WP:NPA. Sanctioning the victim of such attacks would be wrong. Paul August ☎ 23:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose (Non-administrator comment): per Paul August. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!|Contributions) 00:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If there is no consensus for a two-way interaction ban, then so be it. But I expect that we will then be discussing the misbehavior of these two editors again, probably soon. I hope that I am wrong. I agree that the mental health comments by Dream Focus were egregious. I gave that editor a strong warning about that issue, which they removed from their talk page, which is their right. However, Hijiri88 is far from blameless here. Consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puzzle Puppers, where Hijiri88 argued that it was somehow illegitimate that Dream Focus created an article because their niece liked the game. There are countless reasons that article topics might come to an editor's attention, and no policy or guideline says that an editor cannot write an article about a notable topic when a family member is a fan. Hijiri88 then went way off topic in that discussion, criticizing Dream Focus for a variety of things utterly unrelated to to the article being debated. Consensus to keep the article was strong despite Hijiri88's inappropriate advocacy for deletion. I appreciate that Hijiri88 has apologized above for that conduct. But this dispute was a two way street and I do not believe that Hijiri88 is a blameless victim in this matter. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I would like to point out that that is certainly not the only AFD he has done that to me at. Also he has been insulting the ARS in AFDs since the beginning, as seen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swamp monster, he bringing up unrelated things there and refusing to stay on the topic. I could easily find many other examples if necessary. If he could be made to just stay on topic and not insult the work of other editors, I think a lot of conflict could be avoided. Dream Focus 00:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328: FWIW, I have already apologized for everything beyond my initial !vote, and said initial !vote was not meant to imply that it was "somehow illegitimate that Dream Focus created an article because their niece liked the game"; it was meant to point out that DF's article creation is clumsy and disruptive in general, as can be seen by this and a bunch of other stuff I noticed while looking for copyvio. Several of them he leaves in the mainspace with scarcely two sentences of running prose, sometimes lifted word-for-word from other sources or containing really blatant errors, sometimes both. This seemed relevant because, at the time I wrote it, the article under discussion similarly consisted of nothing but an unsourced description of the gameplay and a single sentence that grossly misrepresented the mixed reviews in two gaming webzines. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dream focus is a special valuable Wikipedian and we need all types, getting on. If you do not have a mental illness, say so simply and once. Dream Focus, stop it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (Non-administrator comment): Honestly this is a rather unsuccessful discussion due to the constant interjecting of the two parties who are supposed to be having their actions judged. DreamFocus is constantly repeating the same point of ARS needing protection from Hijiji, while Hijiri is constantly trying to apologize for their past actions while also blaming DreamFocus for being completely unreasonable. I agree fully with Cullen, both people involved with this have done their fair share of causing issues, most often when they confront each other, which results in going extremely off topic and disrupting discussions. An IBAN would hopefully fix this and stop the editors here from aggravating the situation, and if it is not enough in the future more severe actions should be taken. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 01:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose: I am a skeptic of the cost-benefit utility of IBANs under ideal conditions conditions (some of the same disputes that Hijiri references above helped cement this opinion, although I started to form it many years ago), and in this case in particular I feel that the likelihood the sanction will only create more work for the community is high. In the present case, though I have not looked deeply into the older underlying conflicts, I am not impressed with the conduct of either editor from just what is on display (and linked) here. DreamFocus clearly crossed a line into the unacceptably incivil with some of those comments, and should probably face a short-term sanction if they cannot recognize the matter, try to make amends and assure us that it is not likely to happen again. On the other hand, I think a lot of us on this board are familiar with Hijiri's propensity for claiming conspiracies and hounding against them (which seems to be what DF was getting at, however inappropriately) and for leaping towards aggressive accusations when their conduct is questioned. More to the point of considering the value of an IBAN here, Hijiri can be a little...let's be diplomatic and say liberal in their prosecution of IBANs (of which they have had more than any other user in the history of the project) once said sanctions are established; if there is even incidental cross-activity of these two in shared editorial areas, I feel it is inevitable that this matter will be back here in a matter of months or weeks. That is the reason that I opposed Hijiri's last two IBANs with other editors (well, to be fair, I oppose about 90% of IBANs in recent years), and sure enough, that is what happened. In fact, over the last four or five years, the community has spent more time on discussions regarding Hijiri's IBANs (which discussions number more than a dozen, none of them short) than those of the next two or three contenders combined, I have to imagine. That is not good return on a sanction.
    I do want to note, in the spirit of fairness and clarity, that while some of my comments above are clearly critical of Hijiri's approach to these matters in the past (by way of explaining my strong objection to the proposed "solution"), I have observed a more measured approach in their conduct here on this board and elsewhere on this project more recently, so I think putting them in a position to face their biggest bugbear (an editor they are locked in a mutual IBAN with) is not conductive to continuing that trend and keeping them focused on the content areas where they are most productive. Would I have brought this issue to ANI if in Hijiri's place? Probably not. Do I suspect that this battle of wills is far from one-sided and that Hijiri has put more than his fair share into forming the mutual antagonism? Yes, my observations of them on the project in the past suggest that is probably so. But suspicions cannot sustain a sanction and DreamFocus has failed to present sufficient evidence of behaviour that is as explicitly out-of-touch with behavioural policies as their (DreamFocus') own. Meanwhile Hijiri has provided numerous diffs with regard to DreamFocus' conduct, some of which flies well past acceptable behaviour. So I'd support a short term block against DreamFocus instead, if they cannot make a rapid turn around and make it plain that they understand where they departed from acceptable standards in responding to what they perceived to be harassment from Hijiri. That can be a lesson to them: when you feel someone is acting irrationally or disruptively, there are ways to say that without engaging in PA's alleging mental illness or basic character faults, neither of which is necessary or helpful. Failing further evidence, I do not support a block against Hijiri, and I strongly oppose a mutual IBAN for the reasons described above.
    Further, if an IBAN is instituted, I think it would be a monumental problem to describe it as "no fault"; IBANs by their nature are not meant to ascribe (or for that matter, deny) fault, but are the option we reach for when we hope (usually wrong-headedly, in my opinion) that merely telling the parties they are to stay away from one-another will resolve the tensions; if we had a community finding of fault, it would make more sense to censure the party that was uncontroversially out of line. So trying to create some sort of dichotomy without broader community input on if this is a good idea just does not fly for me. In fact, I'm fairly certain such an approach would take the project's arguably most flawed dispute resolution tool and make it even more prone to another subjective layer of analysis, which in turn will only increase the likelihood that it is counter-effective at resolving the underlying issues. Snow let's rap 02:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Please link to which comments I made you believe are a problem, and please tell me you read the entire conversation in context. I never said he had "mental illness". I just now looked it up and the expression "out of your mind" apparently means crazy, so I regret that expression being used. As for the first one he listed: "of course everyone is secretly out to get you, even the prime minister of Japan", because of the long drawn out argument at Talk:Mottainai#additional_references_for_expansion, they claiming it not a concept and they knew more than the former Prime Minister of Japan, a noble prize winner, and all the reliable sources that were found saying otherwise. So no idea how that would bother anyone. Dream Focus 03:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    SkyQQQ2 posting hate speech

    Zapinated. (non-admin closure) TheDragonFire (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Special:Contributions/SkyQQQ2

    User needs a ban and the edit needs a REVDEL.

    By the way - is there a better venue to report users posting hate speech? They've only made one edit so I can't report them at WP:AIV. Thank you --ChiveFungi (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Egregious vandalism such as this can be reported at AIV after only one edit and any reasonable admin will block. I have indef blocked the user and hidden the edit. Thanks for catching this and reporting here. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Egregious personal attacks and other inappropriate conduct by User:Nickag989

    Here is a mere sampling of the deeply egregious, habitual personal attacks made by this user:

    • "Fuck you"[85]
    • "FU and your mother"[86]
    • "Die in fire"[87]
    • "You retards"[88]
    • "You brainless puppet"[89]
    • "You idiot"[90]
    • "You moron"[91]
    • "You're a dumbass"[92]
    • "You jerkass, you still the noobie here"[93]
    • "You fucking moronic jerkasses, I'm fucking done with this bullshit"[94]

    His talk page history reveals sections created by other users with the titles "Being rude to people" and "No need for the name calling".[95] As seen from Nickag989's edit history, he also has a problem with totally unexplained, WP:OWN and WP:JDLI-style reverts.[96] A block very much seems relevant: I'm stunned there hasn't been one yet. 185.51.228.239 (talk) 05:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow... I may be new-ish here, but I have never seen such language used towards other editors by a long-time peer... Perhaps we should wait for their explanation; give them WP:ROPE, but... wow. byteflush Talk 05:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indef Block (Non-administrator comment) Actually, after I took a closer look, no amount of edits could recluse this editor from the PAs they made. If it all happened within a day or two, that might have been a reason to postpone disciplinary actions; however, it seems that it's an ongoing issue with them. So, indef. byteflush Talk 05:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed my mind to just Block. I realized the user has no blocks logged, so probably a shorter block would get them to act civil. If disruption continues, longer blocks are always available. However, I won't oppose an Indef if that's the community's decision. byteflush Talk 06:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed my mind yet again, per EvergreenFir. This is Indef stuff. They can take the WP:STANDARDOFFER when they mature. byteflush Talk 06:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    EvergreenFir (talk) 06:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Support indef block , for the record. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sayin g true but strong suspicion. I strongly suspect the user may be a sock puppet of User:*Treker, who has been indefinitely blocked. The accounts were made around the same time in 2015, compare their edit history, very similar interest both on professional wrestling, editing the same articles , they have also edited each other's user pages a few time. Another suspect is user User:WarMachineWildThing see the very similar "i am semi retired logo on user page" very similar edit history in professional wrestling also you can see that Nickage896 constantly reverts user edits from edits by other users to latest version by User:WarMachineWildThing, just one out of many examples WWE Championship: Revision history, see 500 edits for comparison https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=WWE_Championship&offset=&limit=500&action=history

    Jaco IV

    I have been contacting Jaco IV since Aug '17 about creating articles without sources and many other editors have contacted them on the same topic and also about edit warring [97]. There was a previous block and ANI that I am struggling to find the discussion for. Despite my many messages and other people's, Jaco IV doesn't respond. It has been pointed out that communication is mandatory per WP:CONDUCT and WP:DISPUTE and the importance of sources, but ten months later, there is no response and they have not addressed the issues raised. Boleyn (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=846229287"