Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Unserefahne and Vietnam

Unserefahne has been repeatedly warned about non-wiki editing, yet continues their WP:IDNHT behaviour and refuses to communicate at all. A few examples:

• Changing Confucianism to Ruism, mostly in categories, e.g. [1] and [2]. Here is a look at the contributions to categoryspace.
• Renaming stuff based on their own way of translation, e.g. [3], instead of sourced translations.
• Stressing Vietnam's Chinese history by changing names for Vietnam into Annam (which, as far as I can tell, is mostly used for Vietnam during Chinese rule) and de-disambiguating Vietnamese language into Vietnamese.
• Adding explicit Tables of Content, columnising tiny reflists into 4 columns and more, summarized in this diff.

Pinging others who have tried to contact this editor: @CWH, DHN, Diannaa, Favonian, MPS1992, Ser Amantio di Nicolao, and Yodin:. --HyperGaruda (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

This morning the user did another cut-n-paste page move, in spite of warnings from two admins not to do that any more. Coupled with the lack of any effort to communicate with us or respond to our concerns. I have blocked for one week to start and if the problems continue after the block has expired I expect a longer or indefinite block will occur. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I was going to do it myself if I ran into any problems today. The one that struck me was his repeated insistence in changing "women poets" to "female poets". --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that the deleted article Nguyễn Thụy Đan was a vanity job. If the picture on that page was to be believed, Unserefahne is a teen-aged guy, or at least young enough that I thought "Don't Bite the Newbies." But I agree that the limits have been reached and exceeded. ch (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

To a point, I am (was?) in agreement. The problem is that he never seemed to want to engage - three or four of us posted warnings on his talkpage, and I for one never received any response. I'm not sure anyone else did, either. At the very least this will hopefully wake him up to the fact that he needs to respond to people. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this! :) ‑‑Yodin^T 22:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Changing Vietnamese to Annamese

I am not sure what to make of this. Is it some sort of a POV or is it an honest mistake? I noticed the editor tries to use Annamese almost everywhere, even in newly created articles such as this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I suspect a POV of some sort. It's obscure (based on some Vietnamese history), and not the common name (I have never heard a Vietnamese person refer to themselves as "Annamese"), but he wants to use it everywhere. I don't fully understand what this means to him. He has more than one wording he feels compelled to redo. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Now socking

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

@CWH, DHN, Diannaa, HyperGaruda, MPS1992, Ser Amantio di Nicolao, and Yodin: Sockpuppet created to evade the temporary block, now upgraded to indefinite. Sorry for being a day late with the update. Favonian (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• Least you weren't a dollar short, I hope. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

And the block evasion continued under an IP address, until it was also blocked earlier today. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

De-linking Wikipedia

172.56.33.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) & 172.56.0.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (IPs resolve to T-Mobile USA, a mobile/ISP) have been mass-removing links to or mentions of Wikipedia. Individually, a few of these edits may be defensible (and I have left some unreverted), but collectively they appear to be a breach of WP:POINT or worse. Appears to be the same editor discussed at User talk:Johnuniq#User:Judtojud (therefore; ping User:Johnuniq), some of whose IP addresses were recently blocked by User:Laser brain for disruptive editing on BLPs of people connected to Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

This [4] information may be related. I left the information a few days ago but haven't followed up on whether the information was useful or not, or related to the user Judtojud.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC))

A few days ago I also noticed an IP removing redlinks from dab pages with the argument, "if it hasn't got an article, it doesn't need one." Don't have the diff, but it could be this editor. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Add 172.56.32.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 172.56.33.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to the list. I reverted most of their edits as unconstructive before seeing this. Woodroar (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• The IP is obviously Judtojud who is a returned user with knowledge of old wikidramas (see the link to my talk page in OP). Apart from making a POINT, there has been some ugly trolling of female editors–or perhaps it's not trolling which would be worse. I have noticed several 172.56.x.x IPs who are the same user (recent example). Johnuniq (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The user has several interests:

• Works through articles that link to Wikipedia.
• Removes some mentions of "Wikipedia", or unlinks Wikipedia, or changes that link to English Wikipedia, or removes {{Wikipedia}} navbox.
• Fascinated by old wikidrama and wiki pioneers (I've seen a mention of Angela Beesley).
• Creepy interest in female editors.

Some of active IPs:

• 172.56.0.2 172.56.0.11 172.56.0.13 172.56.0.23 172.56.0.37 172.56.0.43 172.56.0.61 172.56.0.106 172.56.0.111 172.56.0.126 172.56.0.131 172.56.0.153 172.56.0.169 172.56.0.187 172.56.0.196 172.56.0.200 172.56.0.210 172.56.0.214 172.56.0.217
• 172.56.1.143 172.56.1.159 172.56.1.204
• 172.56.32.54 172.56.32.131 172.56.32.252
• 172.56.33.4 172.56.33.109 172.56.33.137 172.56.33.160 172.56.33.171
• 208.54.64.146

Each of the following links show 172.56.0.0/16 contributions since 2016-10-13 (the last month). Only click if you really want a look and a long wait.

• X!'s Tools
• contribs need "Allow /16, /24 and /27 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions forms" gadget in Special:Preferences and browser scripting enabled

Johnuniq (talk) 07:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Before seeing this, I blocked 172.56.0.0/18, who I'd first seen messing around on Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident, which is ironically on my watchlist due to vandalism that lasted a long time. I was inspired to do this by a certain diff linked near the end of User talk:Judtojud's talk page. Also pinging David Eppstein (talk · contribs), who has had dealings with this user. Graham87 08:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I support the indef of Judtojud (talk · contribs), thanks. As mentioned, the interest in female editors is very creepy, as was the poking of David Eppstein (that's the "adds text naming the editor to a guideline" link at my talk (permalink). Johnuniq (talk) 09:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The poking of me was merely a pointy response to my reverts of his earlier edits to the same guideline, which changed it in ways that I felt needed a discussion and consensus. But I agree that his interest in female Wikipedians came across as creepy and that he acts like a returned user. The block is probably best. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Binksternet#Unsourced_claim may also be relevant relevant. Ping User:Binksternet. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I am now convinced that the 172.56 IPs are Judtojud, and that Judtojud is a returned editor familiar with Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Prof. Carl Hewitt evading his ArbCom restrictions

I don't know whether I'm supposed to post this here at ANI or at some ArbCom page, but our friend Professor Carl Hewitt has been violating his ArbCom restrictions in several ways, for a few weeks now.

• Hewitt is restricted from editing article pages
  • Hewitt edits the Actor model article
• Hewitt is restricted from making personal comments: "He may not engage in personal attacks or make personal comments about other editors."
  • September 11, 2016. To Arthur Rubin, "Unfortunately, you got it wrong in your statement above by confusing the hypothesis and conclusion of my correct statement"
  • October 26, 2016. To Binksternet, "It looks like you have not acknowledged the one-sidedness of the current presentation in the article. Nor have you acknowledged that the current sources in the article are not reliable."
  • October 26, 2016. To Binksternet, "Unfortunately, it looks like you are dodging the issue..."
  • October 26, 2016. To Binksternet, "Unfortunately, you are still taking sides against the subject of the article while pretending to be neutral..."
  • October 26, 2016. To Binksternet, "...Binksternet has sharpened his attack on the subject of the article."
  • October 26, 2016. To Binksternet, "So, I am commenting your current tactics and not you as a person..."
  • October 28, 2016. To Binksternet, "...your Wikipedia biography attack on Professor Hewitt."
  • Oct 31: "The current wording in the biography represents a continuation of the attack initiated by Charles Matthews that resulted in the hatchet jobs by Kleeman and Ayers..."
  • Oct 31: Binksternet has sharpened his attack on the subject of the article
  • Nov 1: "... the attack initiated that Matthews perpetrated..."
  • Nov 1: "...the attack initiated by Matthews..."
  • Nov 1: "If Kleeman has any integrity..."
  • Nov 8: To Binksternet "...your participation has not been 'neutral.' In all fairness, you should declare that you are taking positions against the subject of the biography."
• Hewitt is restricted from making repetitive suggestions "if they do not find consensus".
  • Oct 21: posting to personal links at https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr about Actor model
  • Oct 21: posting to personal links at https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr about Logic programs
  • Oct 24 posting link to "Corruption of Wikipedia"
  • Oct 24: posting link to "Letter to Wikimedia Foundation"
  • Oct 26: posting link to "Corruption of Wikipedia"
  • Oct 26: posting links to "Corruption of Wikipedia", and "Letter to Wikimedia Foundation"
  • Oct 26: posting links to "Corruption of Wikipedia", and "Letter to Wikimedia Foundation"
  • Oct 27: posting link to "Corruption of Wikipedia"
  • Oct 27: posting link to "Corruption of Wikipedia"
  • Oct 27: posting link to "Corruption of Wikipedia"
  • Oct 27: posting link to "Corruption of Wikipedia"
  • Oct 30: Inconsistency Robustness for Logic Programs
  • Oct 31: posting link to "Corruption of Wikipedia"
  • Oct 31: posting links to "Corruption of Wikipedia", and "Letter to Wikimedia Foundation"
  • Nov 5: posting link to "Corruption of Wikipedia"
  • Nov 6: Repeated links to Proposals for article on Incompleteness theorem, Proposals for article on Ordinal numbers, Proposals for articles on Actor Model, Proposals for article on Logic Programs, and Edit Requests for Biography of Carl Hewitt.
  • Nov 8: Repeated links to Proposals for article on Incompleteness theorem, Proposals for article on Ordinal numbers, Proposals for articles on Actor Model, Proposals for article on Logic Programs, and Edit Requests for Biography of Carl Hewitt.

This shows that Prof. Carl Hewitt has edited an article in mainspace against restrictions, has made personal comments about other editors against restrictions, and has reposted links that have no consensus. Binksternet (talk) 05:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• Paging David Eppstein. EEng 06:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, I find his arguments at Talk:Gödel's incompleteness theorems (and archives and /Arguments subpage) repetitive and tedious as well, although I don't think the case is as clear as the diffs above. But I'm too involved there to take any administrative action. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I just wanted you to be in the loop since you're familiar with the, um, situation. EEng 06:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
• Basically, after a brief period of being on his best behaviour, Hewitt appears to have reverted to type. The diffs above represent violations of his restrictions, in some cases blatant ones, so I have blocked him again. If anyone feels this should be changed to an arbitration enforcement block then feel free to take it to WP:AE. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Are there any RSs documenting his dickish behavior here so that a description of them can be added to his article? EEng 10:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Please don't. Rubbing people's noses in it is just bad form. Guy (Help!) 11:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I was mostly joking, but there comes a point, and this is an extreme situation. If it's in RSs then it's a something to consider, subject to UNDUE of course. EEng 19:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

P.S. To my astonishment, it turns out RSs actually have covered his WP misbehavior! EEng 09:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• The ArbCom restrictions imposed upon prof. Hewitt are pointless to me. The restrictions shall be unconditionally revoked.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • And another problem-editor in mathematics weighs in. For context: Vb's primary interest appears to be in larding up Stevo Todorčević with as much praise of his accomplishments as he can find. Todorčević's accomplishments are actually significant but Vb's writing does Todorčević no credit. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
• Meh. I don't think the "attack" on me above is really an attack; it's a little pointy, but seems only to be a statement that I'm wrong about what he says. (Since he uses (IMHO) nonstandard notation, he might be right.) However, his attacks on Binksternet (sp? copied from above) and repetitive references to the same paper to support multiple edits, are adequate to show he doesn't understand or is unwilling (or unable) to comply with his restrictions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Point of order... I didn't characterize that as a personal attack. I listed it as a personal comment, which is part of Hewitt's restrictions. Binksternet (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm upset that I didn't see this filing before User:JzG's ridiculous block. Carl Hewitt is the subject of a wikipedia article containing content he disagrees with. He's stated multiple times on the page that he disagrees with it, and User:Binksternet has been right there to uphold the letter of the law and ensure that our article is as negative as possible. We've used a news article written by an upset journalist from many years ago to keep content that was clearly wrong on the page. Where is BLP? Where is IAR? Where is some freaking compassion? Why do you care so much Binksternet? I just don't get it. Instead of being worked with, Carl Hewitt is being worked against, on his own page! What encyclopedic purpose does Binksternet's list of Prof Hewitt the wikipedia user's dirty laundry on Carl Hewitt the mathematician's article serve? Guy remove your ridiculous block and lift the outdated, draconian regulations. Who knows, maybe a world renowned mathematician might be more inclined to help our project if given some support? Or are we ok with insulting experts plodding along and letting angry journalists with an axe to grind be the source of our content? Mr Ernie (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm only interested in preventing Hewitt from making up his own rules on Wikipedia and unduly emphasizing his work and influence, the exact problems that led to his being banned and blocked ten years ago. It was in 2005–2006 that Hewitt demonstrated his disruptive behavior. That's when "compassion" stopped being part of Wikipedia's treatment of Hewitt. Binksternet (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• Do we really have a Wikipedia article on someone that includes a separate section on how he was blocked on Wikipedia? Written by a now indef-blocked troll a few weeks ago, but now defended by others? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the first person to add a section about Hewitt's difficulties with Wikipedia was Daira Hopwood, an editor in good standing, who brought the section into being on January 4, 2009.[5] At first, the section was about Hewitt's criticism rather than Hewitt being blocked or topic banned. Within a few hours, Jitse Niesen, another good editor who became an administrator, added the fact that Hewitt was banned from Wikipedia.[6] So don't remove the section solely because you believe it was created by a disruptive user. Binksternet (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

First, not even close to the same thing. A section on "Criticism of Wikipedia" is not the same thing as a "Blocked on Wikipedia" section. The section I removed was the work of a banned troll, not Daira Hopwood or Jitse Niesen; their sections were nothing like this one. Second, it appears there hasn't been a section about his relationship with Wikipedia in the article since about 2010 (or, if there was, it didn't last long). --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this removal and looking at the history and talk page, I'd suggest that it might be best if Binksternet didn't edit the article or talk page. One gets the strong sense of someone with an ax to grind. Probably said that poorly. But given this is the subject of the BLP that Binksternet is arguing with, I'd prefer a lighter touch here. Hobit (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

A lighter touch is perfectly appropriate for novice editors who don't know the ropes. Hewitt is a manipulative veteran who made thousands of sock- and meatpuppet edits after he was blocked, and who wrote his own "Criticism of Wikipedia". My "axe to grind" is only the wish that Hewitt be held to his ArbCom restrictions. Some axe. Binksternet (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I've bumped into him over and over for years. He's here to promote himself, grind his axe, and settle old scores over perceived slights, and there's no hope of that improving after all these years. EEng 09:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Did you see Ruud Koot's reference from July 2009?[7] Link rot prevented me from finding it directly but I chased it down in the Wayback Machine to a PDF stored in a university department of computer science in Belgium.[8] It's a May–June 2007 newsletter for programming theorists and it contains two pieces arguing against Hewitt's viewpoint, one from Robert Kowalski and the other from Luís Moniz Pereira. (In it, Kowalski refers to another piece I haven't seen, written by Kowalski a few months prior in the same newsletter.) Kowalski talks about Hewitt being topic banned, and he discusses the poor state of a few computer programming articles on Wikipedia that had been skewed by Hewitt. Finally, Kowalski suggests setting up an expert panel to determine how to present their topics most accurately on Wikipedia. Pereira says in his piece that Kowalski is correct in pointing out the inaccuracies of Hewitt's work on Wikipedia, saying in one case that it's "clearly wrong." Pereira says "science should come before marketing and the building of artificial walls", and he agrees with Kowalski's idea that topic experts should work together in a local wiki to compose the proper text about logic programming, and then bring the collaborative text to Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'd not seen all that nor been fully aware of the history. That said, it might be time to let someone else deal with him. Looking at the talk page, it feels very adversarial from your end. Hobit (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry/tagteaming/POV pushing/filibustering at Singapore

• Wrigleygum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Shiok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Warpslider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There are a bunch of accounts of dubious origin who are constantly tag-team filibustering any change to Singapore and are intent on keeping a puffed up version of the article which somehow magnifies the good but hides anything negative about Singapore and the government. It has been going on for months and I am very suspicious that these are meatpuppets/sockpuppets. However, the main problem here is the Status quo stonewalling and tag team edit warring to preserve their version of the article. I have been trying to deal with by opening RfCs. But I cannot open an RFC for every single sentence or phrase. At this point, these accounts (which are almost SPAs) are essentially treading WP:NOTHERE territory and are wasting a lot of time.

Possible sock/meatpuppetry/SPA activity

I first became aware of this at this RFC I started. I noticed that 2 accounts User:Panacealin and User:Warpslider

• User:Panacealin newly registered account whose first edit was to vote on the RFC
• User:Warpslider After an edit on 29 June 2010, their next edit was on 11 July 2016 where they voted on this RFC at Singapore. Someone came out of hibernation after 6 years to vote at an RFC? They also followed me to another page where they had no prior edits.

Socking/Tag Teaming

User:Shiok has previously edited Singapore (a few edits) and User:Wrigleygum was the one who originally added all the puffery. Today this sequence happened.

• by Wrigleygum 16:19, 13 November 2016
• I revert 16:21, 13 November 2016
• Wrigleygum reverts 16:28, 13 November 2016
• I revert 16:29, 13 November 2016
• Shiok reverts 16:36, 13 November 2016

I am very curious that Shiok came up all of a sudden to revert me, within a span of a few minutes? (Not sure if there is some offline collusion going on)

It is also worth looking at the this diff where Wrigleygum says here are 3 editors here who do not share your POV. Discuss or just bring it to ANI (emphasis mine). I'm not sure who are the 3 editors. At the point of revert, the discussion for this issue was going on here and at no point were there 3 editors not sharing my POV. I wonder whether this was a mistake or were there actually 3 editors? Note that, Shiok's revert happened after this and Shiok had not commented on the talk page either. I wonder where did 3 editors come from and how did Wrigleygum know there were 3 editors? Offline?

All of these accounts have a strong tendency to support each other's ideas. For example, in this current RFC Shiok posted a link and later Warpslider replied I spent some time listening to the 'Collapse of Trust in Government' video link by Shiok. It is a panel discussion at a conference on Challenges in Government. As an example of countries with high Trust by citizens, Singapore was the first country mentioned by the panel and a number of times in the discussion. This is a clear endorsement for the country and there was certainly no Singaporeans on the panel or audience.

Note that I'm not the only one who suspects socking/meatpuppetry. User:Nick-D suspected the same here on my talk page.

I had previously brought this issue to ANI. See User:Wrigleygum and issues at Singapore, although the thread was archived. I was also myself brought to ANI by another suspicious account which suddenly woke up from hibernation.

Based on the above, I am seeking a PBAN as the first step for dealing with these accounts. If these accounts are really sincere about contributing to the encyclopaedia, then it is time for them to demonstrate good faith by sticking to the talk page and not editing the article itself. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Curious? -> On Sunday, I had edited Singapore's lead earlier in the day so I saw that you had deleted the nicknames, wavered on reverting but stayed logged on, did other work. Previously (25-Sept-2016), I had stated my views to keep the nicknames. I was alerted when Wrigleygum posted his reply after midnight, just like you but your reaction was just 2 mins on both your reverts. So despite keeping a low profile, I took a stand. Shiok (talk) 04:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

At the Nickname discussion section, there is Wrigleygum and the IP editor arguing with you. The third editor referred to by Wrigley is probably myself - but if he is referring to another person, that will be 4 editors against your POV to remove. I stated here - "The nicknames should stay as it's written up in the media on a regular even daily basis and readers may wonder why our country is known by that." -Shiok (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

By posting this malice, my guess that she has exhausted her arguments at the [City-Country Nicknames debate], since she did this ANI shortly after, rather than spending her time discussing content. It expose her true character under stress. I won't spend more time than needed. Each time she plot similar stunts, I will repeat paste what I wrote at SG talk previously:

• "Lemongirl942, none of what you said above to "sow the seeds of doubt" bear witness and repetition does not make it so. Especially for WP:Consensus, you have been contradictory and bending it to suit your purpose. I think the few contributors here has actually been accommodating, or maybe intimidated. You have been talking about your experience over other editors, maybe too much it makes one feel invincible, and occasionally you should re-read Wiki principles: [Experience] - "No editor has more authority than any other, regardless of prior experience. Edit count and length of time that has passed since your first edit are only numbers"

Also, what you said recently in talk and edit summaries (I only checked for last few days) - "Stop your POV pushing, or I will make sure you get blocked", "Consider this a warning..you are pushing yourself towards a block" - sounds exactly like the examples quoted at WP:THREATEN - "On Wikipedia, personal attacks are not tolerated. In particular, it is unacceptable to threaten another that some form of action that cannot or will not likely be taken will occur. When editors make threats like these, and the environment becomes hostile, the victims, especially those who are new are scared away from Wikipedia altogether. (Note: posted at Talk:Singapore by Warpslider on 13:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC) ).

—Warpslider (talk) 06:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

You are POV pushing and edit warring. You are an SPA with very few contributions. You do not understand the policies. You removed the tag but didn't justify why. All of this is disruptive. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

This is what an established editor said to you:

"Leaving the POV tag on the article permanently is not an option. See Template:POV#When_to_remove. William Avery (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)"

The Template use says: When to remove

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:

1.There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.

2.It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.

3.In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

It could have been removed with condition (3). When you put up the tag, one whole month passed without further discussion, and you continued to block all editors trying to remove it. I would say that's malicious. Wrigleygum (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

When you put up the tag, one whole month passed without further discussion, and you continued to block all editors trying to remove it. Really? That's a pretty serious allegation. Are you claiming that I didn't attempt to discuss? Are you claiming that there was no discussion on the talk page when the tag was removed? Really? I mean I see this and this RFC going on. On what grounds are you and your fellow SPAs justifying the removal? Please show your diffs. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

This tag was for the Step-1 section. It should have been removed after a month without discussion, else you go to the 2nd, 3rd.. points with no ending. Every article will be forever changing, you can't justify having a TAG on the article forever.Wrigleygum (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Continued edit warring to remove the POV tag about the lead

Warpslider and Wrigleygum are now edit warring to remove the POV tag (diff1, diff2) which I placed because the parts of the lead are undue. This is precisely editing against consensus. This is despite a previous RFC was closed by Drmies as There is broad though not unanimous consensus that the lead needs to be trimmed, and that the statistics are overdone. and also a current RFC where apart from the above 3 SPAs and a dubious IP, every single experienced editor has agreed that parts of the lead were undue. I am seeing a behavioural problem here, so I am strongly suggesting a page ban. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Great, it continues. Now a couple of the SPAs are tag teaming to remove it. See diff. Can someone please do something? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

You are refusing to discuss with 3 editors who are against you putting up the Tag, violating WP:Consensus.

Yes, the RFC closing summary reads "There is broad though not unanimous consensus that the lead needs to be trimmed, and that the statistics are overdone". What to trim? It will be by Consensus correct? Does trimming refer to just the stats or everything? One editor does not determine that. Certainly not by yourself alone Wrigleygum (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am sick and tired of discussing with a bunch of SPAs. Did you look at Template:POV#When_to_remove? Can you honestly justify any reason for removing the tag? There is already consensus that stuff in the lead is undue. Which is why I have tagged the article. Why do you continue to tag team and remove it? This is status quo stonewalling. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Shall we agree you are not the only one to determine what to remove? Wrigleygum (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed PBAN for the above mentioned accounts at Singapore

• Support as proposer. This has been going on for too long, almost 5 months now. I didn't want to do this, but a PBAN works well here. If they are serious about improving, then they can still propose changes on the talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Need eyes at Shirish Kunder, please.

Need other admin eyes at Shirish Kunder, please. I became aware of this article at WT:IN after an editor complained that an IP editor was engaging in some non-neutral editing. The IP editor was adding stuff like here where he thinks that opening a biographical article by slamming the subject for only being notable as the husband of a famous Indian actor. Sparing you most of the details, while there were problems with excessive puffery in the article, this guy seems to have an axe to grind with the subject, as the user's edits shifted the tone of the article to the other end of the extreme. He has on several occasions drawn attention to the "free" aspect of the subject's short film, which just comes across as disparaging of the subject:

• "'Kriti is a short film that is freely available on the Internet, and not commercially released."
• "It released on 22 June 2016 on YouTube, and can be viewed without paying for it." (This one was resubmitted here.)
• And "a Youtube freebie"

These edits just seems so bizarre considering everybody knows how YouTube works. Now, on the one hand, maybe this would be a content dispute, but given the user's other behavior like this sarcastic editorial crap that expresses doubt that the subject attended a screenwriting course and that the subject "supposedly worked as an electronics engineer" and this which introduces the odd choice of "He is a stay home husband while Farah works in Bollywood" it all seems like negative POV to me. Since the user has threatened to have my admin privs removed I'm deferring to one of you guys. I think the article should be semi-protected for a while until this guy starts discussing edits, but I don't get the sense that there are any others willing to discuss at that article, and if he does discuss and nobody responds, would it then be okay for him to add this POV crap to the article? Regardless, someone needs to educate this guy on appropriate tone. I tried, but he wasn't receptive. Here are some of the IPs associated with this guy.

• 2602:30a:c7d7:e590:b9ed:60fc:8c13:6a78 (most recent)
• 2602:30a:c7d7:e590:cd0f:c1ce:ea01:602f
• 2602:30a:c7d7:e590:9108:1c42:84b8:2815
• 64.134.45.10
• 64.134.99.207
• 64.134.98.57

These can be substantiated based on behavioral evidence if need be. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks here. This was in response to my edit summary where I explained that a primary source (the film itself) could be used as a source of information like a person's credits. The user had already been reverted here by editor Blackcurranttea. I see that Ian.thomson has semied, so thanks for that, Ian. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb is using his admin privileges to justify his behavior. Let us look at this carefully:

The short Kriti was released on Youtube as a freebie, as opposed to movies or content on youtube that require payment. That is a fact. not valueladen, emotionally charged or slanderous in anyway. Stating that seemed to incense Cyphoidbomb. Given that Cyphoidbomb is somewhat of a movie critic, based on wiki history, it seems like Cyphoidbomb was to conceal this fact. Movies around the world are released as commercial venture and box-office collections is one measure of success. When a movie is available for free, with no way to account for unique views or viewers, then the numbers of views are suspect. Again this is something that Cyphoidbomb wishes to suppress.

Cyphoidbomb conflates ip ranges in a variety of geographical locations to assume it is the same person. This however can be excused because Cyphoidbomb more likely is an Indian who has no clue about the geography or internet providers in other countries. Cyphoidbomb also makes an egregious mistake in assuming the language is male, thereby introducing sexist labeling which is against neutrality of wiki or more Scientific journals and journalism. Having made this error once, Cyphoidbomb is likely to this with others.

A film can be used as a primary source for the credits about the film. This is correct, but then the primary source such as the wiki page about the film, or information about the film does not provide for promos designer, water boy etc etc, then how does one verify that information. Rather where did the creator of the page, and Cyphoidbomb come upon that information. A PR release, personal communication, how? So yes those parts were reverted, that is not disruptive. It looks like folks with accounts or "privileges" can revert, block, "semeid" (or whatever) and then call in the cavalry for assistance.

Cyphoidbomb also uses personal attacks, yet when pushed back, will allege that it was not personal, and in fact Cyphoidbomb is the one being attacked.

I am not interested in memberships or other cult like behavior as it does help me in any way. Wiki pages are often the first result of a google search, and are used by media organizations in thirdworld countries, therefore care should be take to prevent the placing of false information and protection of biases. It seems that the peer review process has broken down in this instance.

Strongly recommend "sanction" against Cyphoidbomb or revoking privileges for sexism, bias and manipulative editing behavior. Thank you2602:30A:C7D7:E590:3580:BFC1:F87D:E73 (talk) 12:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The place to discuss content is on the article's talk page, as I have told you numerous times,[9][10][11] yet you have continuously failed to do so. Your accusation of sexism is absurd. 90% of Wikipedians are male, so it is statistically justifiable to assume that you were male. If you're saying you are not male, I have no problem addressing you using female pronouns. No personal attacks were made against you, and if you think there were, feel free to indicate them with specific examples, rather than with unsubstantiated conclusions. Describing your logic as flawed is not a personal attack, it's a description of a flaw in your argument. As for the rest of the screed, I don't think that anyone who scrutinized your edits at that article would confuse some of those changes as innocent introduction of facts, because of how anti-Kunder they come across as. 99% of the videos on YouTube are free, yet for some reason you want to unduly draw attention to the one short as being a "freebie"? Ridiculous. It would be poor writing at best. "The hamburger on the 99 cent menu cost 99 cents." It's worthy mentioning here that you encountered similar pushback from editors at Rajdeep Sardesai over some contentious edits you made, which resulted in another ANI report against you, and a range block being issued. How many times will other more experienced editors have to tell you that your edits are not consistent with community guidelines before it starts to sink in that your behavior might actually be the problem? Is that even a possibility? You need to discuss proposed changes going forward. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion going nowhere quickly

There is a move discussion at Talk:Battle_of_Passchendaele#Move_suggestion which, as will be obvious to readers, is not progressing well. Involved editors are me (DuncanHill (talk · contribs)), Keith-264 (talk · contribs), Iazyges (talk · contribs), Alansplodge (talk · contribs), Resolute (talk · contribs). I believe it has reached a stage where intervention by admins and other experienced editors would be helpful. There is some related discussion at User_talk:Keith-264#November_2016. I will inform all editors mentioned of this thread, and shall also link here from the article talkpage thread. DuncanHill (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't seem necessary. I've crossed with this editor before, and this time should go the same as in the past: Keith makes a proposal, it is roundly rejected, he pouts, lashes out, everyone moves on. We're already on step 5. Resolute 00:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Things appear to have been handled poorly on both sides, as far as I can see. I see no reason for administrator intervention. Consensus doesn't appear to be developing. I recommend walking away from the discussion, as you've already said your piece. If an editor moves against consensus, then return. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I added the {{Requested move}} header to the thread, which creates an entry in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions. Most likely this will avoid the need for any admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

No need for admins here. This can be closed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Possible Legal threat

Editor Tom27jr has left a comment on the talk page of article Bishophenry that could be interpreted as a "legal threat". The comment is at [12]. reddogsix (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The comment was later deleted. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

That's not a legal threat anyways... lol :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Why is this person deleting what all the updates? I corrected the page and added works the bishop has done an he reverted the page before my updates. I posted websites and etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom27jr (talk • contribs) 02:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Tom27jr: You added affiliated websites, not independent ones (as is required by the general notability guideline). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Those websites are not affiliated websites.. those are his websites paid for by him being that both wedsites are for companies organized after the episcopal model and the companies have him as sole member of the corporation as bishop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom27jr (talk • contribs) 02:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Tom27jr: "websites paid for by him" -- that is the ultimate definition of affiliated. You need sources (like newspaper articles or academic books, not just random websites) that were made by people with no connection to him or his church. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

See this is how I know user:reddogsix is being unfair for whatever reason. A picture that I own and paid for he tag for copywrite violation. I paid for the photo and its my photo.... I can upload all of them because they are my photos

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Archbishop_Thomas_Henry_Jr.jpg

This is a shame.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom27jr (talk • contribs) 03:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Tom27jr: So you admit that you are Thomas Henry Jr? Then you do not need to write an article about yourself at all. If you are notable, someone else would/will write an article about you. If you write it, it goes against our policy against using Wikipedia for self-promotion. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The original edit was a clear legal threat. Since then, every post Tom27jr has made in this thread has shown bad faith and apparently a failure to understand our policies regarding copyright, etc., and even the definition of the word "affiliated". He has not retracted his legal threat. He should be blocked from editing until he explicitly states that he has no intention to "contact the incoming administration and have people blocked from the United States". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• I have speedy deleted Thomas Henry (bishop) as WP:CSD#G11 blatant advertising. As RHaworth's First Law states - you need to wait until somebody else without any conflict of interest decides they want to write about you and independently starts writing the article off their own back. I think that'll do for now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, if our good bishop is smart he'll come back at you with Matthew 5:15 ("Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick, and it giveth light unto all that are in the house"). EEng 10:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay EEng, don't move! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

LOL. Wacky Brits. Wikipedia:Comedy noticeboard. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Rajdeep Sardesai

Rajdeep Sardesai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Sardesai's page has always been a frequent target for vandalism and BLP violations. Take a look at the page log. There's this specific incident which they insist on keeping and portraying "the correct side" which they usually source to polemic websites, so there's not much problem cleaning it up.

One persistent IP 2602:30a:c7d7:e590:4038:8bd9:cde:89a7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (dynamic IP, this is the latest) took more steps and has fetched citations, I've pointed out that they may be misrepresented on talk. Also has discarded my initial warning post about the BLP policy and other guidelines, saying the usual accusation of me trying to suppress this incident (start on my talk initially) etc and hasn't made any policy/guideline-based argument besides the vague NPOV.

Here's the diff and discussion is at Talk:Rajdeep_Sardesai#New_York_incident. The last statement is the contentious one and possibly misrepresented. The source doesn't make that assertion, rather admits it's a "he said, she said" case and neither does his blog apology. I prefer consider the whole incident as not relevant enough per the old discussions on talk.

I'm more concerned about the possible BLP violation here than the IP editor's conduct but cannot do anything till the editor stops reverting and accusing. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay I guess it's resolved now. A bunch of editors have reverted this addition to which the IP fought back and started harassing. Turns out this IP (latest 2602:30A:C7D7:E590:3580:BFC1:F87D:E73 was causing trouble to others as well (particularly Cyphoidbomb at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Need_eyes_at_Shirish_Kunder.2C_please) and has been range-blocked for that. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ugog Nizdast: The editor was making a point at Shirish Kunder to note that the subject was slapped by actor Shah Rukh Khan. He did the same thing here. Part of his behavior seems to revolve around denigrating and emasculating subjects he dislikes, calling Kunder a stay-at-home husband, noting that he's only notable for being married, that he's been slapped, that sort of thing. Other behavioral tics include demanding admin oversight in his edit summaries, leaving diatribes on talk pages, accusing editors of being a shill for the subject when he himself is editing out of negative POV, and then oddly demanding apologies. I would not be surprised to find he had a lengthy SPI history. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Indeed. At first, I thought the usual BLP attacker who's a newbie at editing. The demanding "admin oversight" or "ANI interevention" in the summaries really made me worry about the SPI history possibilty; only an experienced troublesome editor would know such terms and use them like that. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Jeffrey Epstein

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

---

Please could someone lose the previous edit and semi-protect this article. Thanks.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I deleted the edit and protected the page for 2 weeks. Let's see if that helps. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Canvassing

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

---

The Never Hillary article was nominated for deletion. The nominator, Scjessey , canvassed two other places to draw up support at only two places that would swing towards a deletion [13] and [14]. BlackAmerican (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

How is that canvassing? Posting at the Hillary Clinton page would get the attention of those people who edit the Hillary Clinton page, not just those for or against her. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

He didn't go to any other page. Not to the Trump page. Not to the Bernie page. BlackAmerican (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Of course he posted about it on the Hillary page. The article is about Hillary. And by no means everyone who posts there is a Hillary supporter. MelanieN alt (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

P. S. I notice that the complaining party here had previously posted a notice asking for help with this article at the Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders talk pages. So it had already been called to the attention of the editors at those articles. (And, interestingly, not at the Hillary page, suggesting that there is a POV intent behind the creation of this page.) MelanieN alt (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• +1 - Yeah this isn't canvassing at all - The editor had posted a link on the talkpage to an AFD discussion which is the correct thing to do, This probably should be speedy closed and the nom should read WP:CANVASSING. –Davey2010^Talk 18:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Editor threatened edit warring

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

---

An editor User:Dkendr, after being told policy precludes non-linked trivia on a page, threatened me with edit warring should I not leave his edit there. This is a threat and I would prefer it if the user was informed that these are not allowed on Wikipedia. I have already informed him that I intended to report him. Llammakey (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, for fuck sake, he's accusing you of edit warring, saying he'll "escalate" the matter (i.e. report you) [15]. Even if he said, "I'm gonna edit war", for God's sake does every little spat need to come to ANI? EEng 19:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I explained why I reverted him here. He then threatened me. I even re-added the trivia to the article even though its against the Military history guideline on popular culture. The issue isn't the spat. It's the threat. Something admins are supposed to deal with. But sure, curse me out with abusive language because I'm trying to prevent intimidation. I'm the bad guy here. Llammakey (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Llammakey: - Doesn't appear to be an admin as far as I can tell from his minimalist user page. Ubcule (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Of course I'm not an admin. One more time: he didn't threaten you, but said that if you revert again he'd "escalate this as an edit war.", meaning he'd report you to someone, which is not a "threat" (lame or baseless though it may be). Two or three reverts isn't ANI-worthy. For God's sake just deal with it, or contact your friendly neighborhook admin, or take it to DRN. EEng 21:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

When all the lower DR forms have been deprecated and discontinued, there's only one stop on the DR train when people think there's an urgent and immediate need for admins to jump in and "save the day". Hasteur (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Low-level but repeated de-piping of links by anonymous editor

Someone editing via IP 50.100.178.173- and almost certainly from 50.101.16.172 before that- is repeatedly and unhelpfully messing about with piped links. You can see what the problem is at User_talk:50.100.178.173.

They've been notified that such edits are counter to the MOS, notified again with a (hopefully) helpful explanation of what the problem was, given a final warning and still continue to engage in these changes, with no explanation or justification.

It's probably not worth doing anything about the most recent incident (even though that came *after* a final warning that further examples would be treated as vandalism). However, what do you consider the most appropriate course of action with this user if- or rather, when- he/she does this again? Ubcule (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

User:God's Godzilla

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

---

God's Godzilla (talk · contribs), despite being extensively warned by multiple users, does not seem willing to heed the messages on their talk page. They've been informed about overlinking, inappropriate external links, and linking to copyright-infringing content, the latter of which creates legal issues for Wikipedia. I think they've been given enough final warnings, it's time for a block until they show that they are willing to abide by Wikipedia's rules and communicate with other editors. Opencooper (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

So am I banned or not very vague here... — God's Godzilla 00:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Not yet, an admin is the only one who can block you and if they do, they'll post a message on your talk page. In the meantime you could provide a defense for yourself here if you so wish to. (though I'm not sure how you'd excuse ignoring all those talk page messages) Opencooper (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• Are there any available diffs that show the alleged pattern of disruptive editing? I am seeing some messages and templates on GG's talk page. But most appear to be what I'd call low level stuff. One level 4 warning is there. I'm not saying there are no issues here, clearly there are. But I'd gently point out that this is a relatively new editor who has been here for only a few months. If someone looked at the first few months of my editing, I suspect they would cringe. I know I would. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Sure, here's are some recent examples: overlinking, inappropriate link (to game skins), and linking to copyright-infringing content. A large part of their edits are overlinking which seems innocent in theory, but since they're not actually looking where the links lead, other editors have to clean up to disambiguate them (notice all the bot messages) and in many cases they lead to the wrong articles. The external links violate our external links policy and are often times copyright violators like the "watch full video" link in the diff. Even if these were low-level, the disruption is clearly causing editors to issue them warnings and you'll notice that I and several editors tried reaching out with personal messages beforehand. Being new is a reasonable excuse initially, but ignoring the pleas of editors shows they're either not here to collaborate on an encyclopedia or for whatever reason, lack competence, neither of which can be addressed if they keep editing as they please. Opencooper (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I assume that the user is a child and doesn't quite grasp proper use of wikilinks and disambiguation pages. The bigger concern it the lack of communication which suggests that the disruption won't stop until they are blocked. Their response above is rather obtuse.- MrX 01:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

User created a number of redirects, some seemingly just to create a wikilink. Most were deleted. GG should have gotten a level 4 warning long before my placement the other day. They seem to be just bubbling over the threshold of persistent disruptive editing by making just enough correct edits.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• @God's Godzilla: I am an admin, and I want you to tell me in clear terms why you're acting the way you are and why you're been ignoring the suggestions of these experienced editors. If you don't respond to this request within a reasonable time, it is entirely possible and indeed likely that you'll be blocked for disruption. Katie^talk 01:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @KrakatoaKatie: One that's a threat (on your lower sentence), and 2 yes I'm well aware of my disruptive editing thanks to an message I just got my own talk page, okay (I'm awaiting a response, la no need rush or anything, just waiting) — God's Godzilla 02:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
    • It's a warning, and your reply is a real case of IDHT. You've just now received a message about your disruption? You have two and the oldest is 24 hours old. Yet you continue your overlinking and refuse to change your signature as users have asked you to do. We're using up resources and time to fix your mistakes. Last chance before I block you myself, because I'm really beginning to wonder if you're able to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. Katie^talk 03:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
      • @God's Godzilla: Generally speaking people leaving you messages are willing to work with you to help. Being responsive and having a non-confrontational attitude will help you have a better experience. Prodego ^talk 03:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
        • Though I've just been talking (and still am) with User:Marchjuly about it and this regarding my non-hyperlinked user page or talk page derives from the fact that I don't know how to edit my user signature anyway, so I'm kind of at a disadvantage there, as for the rest of information Thank you — God's Godzilla 04:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• @God's Godzilla: Use four tilde's ~~~~ to sign your posts. Blackmane (talk) 05:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: Alas, they're continuing to pursue the same types of edits [16] [17] [18], with the last one linking to copyrighted content. Opencooper (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I've warned this user twice about inappropriate and copyrighted external links to YouTube, etc, and they never acknowledged the problem. Seeing Opencooper's links above, my AGF has run out. I hoped this user could become a good contributor, but I just don't see that happening. Seeing that this discussion is ongoing and I'm a little involved, I will not block, but I feel the issue is at the point that a block, even a long one, is warranted. It has become one kind of inappropriate behaviour after another. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Opencooper: The last diff you gave shows a citation being added to an article. Pretty much all links in citations are to copyrighted content. Could you clarify how you think this is a copyvio and simply not a bad citation that should just be removed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The distinction here is that the copyright is being infringed, meaning that the website hosting the content does not own the rights to it. If the studio itself hosted the full videos or they were in the public domain, they'd be perfectly fine. (see WP:COPYVIOEL) As for whether it was a misguided citation, possibly but in the past they've added these links to the external links section, and if you see their talk page they have been informed of the issue. Opencooper (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC

Thank you for the clarification. Now, a bit of clarification on my part. I am aware of WP:EL#cite_note-copyvio_exception-1, but was editing from my phone at the time and did not want to check the link using it. For reference, I did post at User talk:God's Godzilla#Links to YouTube, etc., so am also somewhat aware of the type of links the editor has been adding. FWIW, I also have no problem with the block KrakatoaKatie just issued, especially since the inappropriate edits continued even though the editor was explicitly warned about them above by KrakatoaKatie and others. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Blocked one week for copyright violations. It's been explained repeatedly to him and he won't stop, so let's give ourselves a break today. Katie^talk 00:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Calvin999's grudge against me

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

---

Calvin999 (talk · contribs) has been reverting my edits, whether directly or indirectly, for doing exactly the same things he himself has done in the past. I reverted him two weeks ago on the Telepathy (Christina Aguilera song) article for changing a source that had not updated (even though he claimed it had, Billboard did not and does not update until later that day), and since, when I edit any article within his scope, like the Dance Club Songs or Dance/Electronic Songs articles, my edits are reverted, even though I am doing the exact thing he did. For instance, on November 8, Calvin999 updated the Dance/Electronic Songs article here, changing the Billboard reference even though the chart was not updated at that time, and did not refresh until later in the day. Then, earlier today, even though I provided an extra source to back up the claim it is currently number one on Billboard's newest chart issue right next to it, he indirectly reverted me for the exact thing he did last week, then performed another edit to make himself the person who updated it properly.

Not only this, but he has also continously reverted incremental changes I have made to Telepathy (Christina Aguilera song) (because it is an article he has tried to promote to "Good" status), then he comes onto my talk page to attack me and claim I am policing him and acting like I OWN the page (instead of making minor improvements). I have warned him not to message me again, as he does not do it in a constructive way since we had a large disagreement on his own talk page, where I asked him to source every instance of a claim he makes on an article (and was the original reason I reverted him). I feel it is hypocritical and he is targeting me for the same type of things he has done. I pointed this out to him in an edit summary, but he again wrote on my talk page that it was actually hypocritical of me to do what he had done and complain about it, which, even if it made sense, does not negate the hypocrisy of his own actions. I'd like to point out he has been blocked multiple times, including once for his reverts and grudge against a now-banned user, and it seems I am his latest target. I'd like him to stop the hypocrisy and reverts against me for the exact things he has done himself, and I feel he will do not stop targeting me unless his behaviour is brought to his attention by someone other than myself. Ss112 03:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I know I posted here just yesterday on a separate issue so admins may be inclined to think I'm complaining about a(nother?) frivolous disagreement, but this user has hypocritically attacked me and apparently will not stop any time I edit an article they patrol. I'm sure Calvin999 will excuse himself and instead place most blame on me when he returns later, so I'm going to let admins be the judge of this one and stay out of any further attack on his part. I just want his grudge to stop and to stop being targeted by him when I make the same type of edits he has made in the past but am now being targeted for. Ordinarily I would avoid the topics they edit, but this would feel like I am condoning their behaviour and I already edited said topics before running into problems with this user after heated disagreements. Ss112 03:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• I will not claim frivolous, Ss112, but I will say that I'm seeing frustration. Is there any possibility that a fresh examination will yield more productive results? Tiderolls 08:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Honestly, I'm not interested in looking into what looks like a string of content disputes between two users who don't get along, in a topic area I'm not remotely interested in. I won't do what so many others do when such a situation comes along and propose a frivolous IBAN. I also won't do what I know one particular user (named in this thread) would do in such a situation and immediately place the blame on the party I happen not to like. But I will say that having problems with Calvin999 is quite common (he has gotten away with open harassment in the past, including reverting good-faith edits because he doesn't like the editors), so regardless of whether Ss112's other recent complaint has merit, we shouldn't assume this one is frivolous. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: I suspect I might get accused of "hounding" based on the above. I don't monitor Calvin999's talk page or contribs. I posted here as a regular ANI contributor who happens to have had prior interactions with one of the parties. I'm not interested in the substance of the dispute, and I don't want to try to figure out if Calvin999 has been doing to Ss112 what he did to me last year. I posted here because there was some question about whether the OP was being frivolous, while I know based on past experience that there might very well be substance to this complaint regardless of whether the other thread may have been frivolous. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I'd welcome an IBAN. I have no interest in Calvin999's doings elsewhere on Wikipedia, and I don't want him to contact me on my talk page, see any further good-faith reverts of me by him or for him to address me in any further edit summaries. I admit, Tide rolls, there definitely is frustration, but as Hijiri has said, good-faith edits being reverted because Calvin999 doesn't like me is what seems to be going on here, because he previously did exactly what he indirectly reverted me for earlier today. I would also stop any doings on my part if he would. Also, I know nobody else can see it, but Calvin999 has also taken to "thanking" me for edits he obviously wouldn't be too pleased to see, when I reverted him on my talk page, and mere minutes ago for my earlier notice on his talk page of this ANI discussion, as some kind of one-upmanship. Ss112 09:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ss112: Be careful what you wish for. We all think an IBAN will help us when we are being hounded, but the hounds always find ways to get around the IBANs, while those who report them wind up getting blocked because "how did you know he mentioned you on his talk page/reverted your edits/suddenly started making a bunch of edits to a lot of articles linked to one you just edited?". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I take this with a pinch of salt. You reverted me two weeks ago because I added a source that was due to auto-update within 15/20 minutes for a chart update, saying it wasn't updated yet and therefore unsourced. You did the same yesterday (source still isn't updated) so I reverted the it back to what is currently sourced, then changed the footnote to one that actually has the update in a different source. The charts on Billboard haven't updated to the 26 November yet, so that is unsourced to change it say so. Therefore, you are in fact reporting me for reverting what you reverted me for two weeks ago, except this is a different time with a different source. You have persistently trolled and nitpicked my edits for weeks and keep accusing me of things that you keep doing yourself. You won't let me post on your talk to discuss something, yet you communicate with me through your edit summaries (which you're not supposed to do), so how am I meant to discuss/talk/resolve with you exactly? You deny me the right of reply. I completely and utterly fail to see where I have "attacked" you. I haven't been verbally abusive or anything of the sort, demonised you, or insulted you (if you are interpreting this as such, then that is your misinterpretation). How about on "Telepathy" when you got the spelling of 'blond' wrong and I reverted you. You reverted me saying I was wrong, then you self-reverted because a Google search had shown you to be wrong, yet you didn't concede that or apologise. You accuse me hypocrisy and personal targeting, but I think the kettle is calling the pot black here, because you've done it to me multiple times. You've even trolled other edits of mine on other articles, saying I have no right to update Billboard articles because you've never seen me edit them before (on the contrary, I have done for years). Do you think that is acceptable or okay? I'm flattered that you think I have a grudge, but unfortunately you are mistaken. I won't accept full responsibility because you're accusing me of what you've done yourself, so the report is somewhat baseless, but in order to move on I'll accept half of the responsibility for good faith.

Added (more has been posted since I started writing). You are now complaining that I thank you for posting an ANI notice on my talk page. That is hypocrisy as you have thanked me for posting on yours. You're the one who communicates with me through the summaries and you have reverted many of my good faith edits. I've extended an olive branch, it's up to you if you take it. If not, I tried.  — Calvin999 10:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Even more: This edit. I forgot to update the access date, so instead of Ss112 just changing the dates, he undoes my edit and then re-updates the chart position and the access date. Why? What was the point? That is contention and making this situation worse. Seriously, and I'm the one being reported?! That is provocation and bordering on OWN. I've tried extending an olive branch which has been ignored and I'm still being trolled and provoked. What a joke.  — Calvin999 10:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

And another. Communicating and being rude through edit summaries. I forgot to update the access date, big woop. Is that cause for you to unnecessarily revert and then update again? Is it so people think it was you who updated the chart peak? Are you annoyed that I updated a few charts positions, because we all know I'm now allowed to edit Billboard topics because you'd never seen me edit them before, according to you. You're making this so much worse and these couple of edits are completely your fault.  — Calvin999 10:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

It annoys me when people cannot update accessdates, yes, and now it appears you're trying to update a few Hot 100 peaks before I can. Always update accessdates; it's important and otherwise misleading, like, "I accessed this peak on November 8". No you didn't. I haven't seen you adding Hot 100 peaks in the year and a half I've been doing it, no. I am busy at the moment and I will reply further later, so you're expecting me to reply here within some set time-frame nobody agreed on. Ss112 10:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, you're peddling this lie that Billboard was going to update in "15/20 minutes" after you updated the date in the chart section on "Telepathy". You're trying to lie to me, when I know the time Billboard updates. I checked the source when I reverted you, it had not updated. You're trying to pull the wool over people's eyes because you think they're unaware of what time Billboard updates. Billboard only updated 35 minutes ago, and the individual artists' chart histories most often lag behind that. This is absolutely not extending an olive branch. Ss112 10:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Then just edit the article by changing the date. Why pointlessly revert and cause tension? So I'm not allowed to update peaks, am I? I've been updating peaks and charts and info for the whole 8 years I've been on here: I edit and improve music articles. So just because you haven't seen me do it in the time you've been doing it (your fault, not mine, because I have been), you think only you are allowed to? That is WP:OWN right there, ladies and gentlemen of ANI. The only two times I have ever forgotten to update two digits and you're on me. If you wanted to be conciliatory then you would have just updated the date, not un-do and re-edit. You don't need to educate me about access dates. You are really undermining your own report now. You just went the complete wrong way about that when you could have made this so much better. If I was going to lie to you, Ss112, I wouldn't try, I would just do it. You are now accusing me of lying. I know it hadn't updated, but I knew it was within 15/20 minutes. And 15/20 minutes after you reverted me, it did. (That was about 2 weeks ago, not today). You did the same last night, so what is your point, huh? Someone in the 400 most active Wikipedians should know better and lead by example.  — Calvin999 10:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

To send you a message telling you it's important to do. You're acting as if I did that to target you; I did it to several other IPs just before too. I haven't seen you updating Hot 100 peaks right after they update in the past one and half years. That was all I said. Not that you can't do anything, or don't do anything related to music articles. That's not ownership. I'm simply questioning why you are doing it right now after I reported you to ANI when I haven't seen it in the past 1 1/2 years. Also yes, you did lie. I know the time Billboard updates, and you're trying to claim it updated within 15/20 minutes. When I checked it 9 or so hours later, it still hadn't. You're lying because you think you can get away with it. Every time I talk to you, you attack me, as you're doing right now, and try to turn everything around on me and say I don't know what I'm talking about. Now you're saying I've undermined my own ANI report. Hijiri has said you've done this to them, and months ago, when I had zero interest in the matter, saw you do it with MaranoFan on several articles. You're a repeat offender in this regard. I'm letting admins decide from what I reported you for in the first place, because this is going nowhere constructive. Ss112 10:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Through an edit summary, again. I don't need to be told, I've been filling out references for 8 years. A-ha, me and several IPs, because me and an IP are so alike and uniformed. Thank you for the insult. If you haven't seen me update peaks then who's fault is that? Certainly not mine. It's coming across like only you are allowed to do so, by unnecessarily reverting me in order to change a date. Just change the date in a minor edit, you should know that. And that is bordering on OWN. This is where you're wrong: I'm not doing it "right now", I've always done it. How do you not understand that? Why do you care so much? Because you want to do it? Because you want your name as showing that you done it for gratification? Anyone is allowed to update peaks whenever they like, it is constructive and welcomed. No, it isn't going anywhere constructive now thanks to you still continuing to revert me when you had no just cause to. I tried resolving it but clearly you don't want to and want to continue this.  — Calvin999 11:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

"You have persistently trolled and nitpicked my edits for weeks"?? On what articles are you talking about? I haven't edited anything else outside of Dance-related articles or "Telepathy" you have that I know of. Any admin who chooses to look at your hypocritical edits to with attacking edit summaries on the articles I mentioned above and through your history will see this is a continued thing for you and I'm just your latest target. This discussion was doomed from the moment you came on and made it far more TL;DR, so now an admin will close thinking it's a content dispute when it isn't. It's you reverting me for things you did yourself. It's harassment, plain and simple. You don't like me and so you target any edit you see of mine on articles you patrol. Ss112 11:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, those articles. If you keep on believing that you haven't done what you're accusing me of I might end up believing it myself, it's got that ridiculous. You started reverting me a few weeks ago and following my edits, not the other away around. That was harassing. I couldn't make an edit without you changing it within minutes, and clearly I still can't because you reverted my chart peak updates instead of making a minor edit. I doomed this thread? Denying me the right of reply again? I neither like nor dislike you: I don't know you. Keep on getting it twisted. It wasn't me who reverted the chart update in order to change the date, so I don't see how I'm harassing you.  — Calvin999 11:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

You didn't specify any articles. I think you're mainly talking about "Telepathy", the only article I reverted you on besides my talk page before today. I do not care at all to follow your edits, and I repeat, I'm pretty sure any admin looking through our histories will see I haven't edited any other article besides "Telepathy" or Billboard Dance articles you have recently. I can't deny you the right of replying here; I just said you made it TL;DR. Even if I had've not reverted you earlier on those articles and made a minor edit, you would still claim I'm "policing" you, which you did after I edited "Telepathy". You're so intent on trying to absolve yourself of any blame; you also probably think none of your blocks or users' grievances with you are your fault either (as you proved just below with Hijiri). I'm sick of this back-and-forth with you, seeing you direct edit summaries at me (as you did before mine on Dance/Electronic Songs today) and interacting with you at all. You have nothing constructive to say, you never tried to "extend an olive branch" whatsoever, you just tried to turn everything around on me. I'm done with you, and I really hope you back off of what I do, even on articles you edit. Now I really will let an admin try to scan through this to make heads-or-tails of this pointless exchange. Ss112 12:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I just said in my previous reply, those two articles. If you had of just changed the date as a minor edit saying "Updating date" or "Correcting date", I wouldn't have cared, because it would have been a valid and correct edit. But to revert both instances with the summaries "Please update accessdates.????" to then change the peak position back to what I had already rightly and correctly updated it to so you could change that as well as the date was plain wrong and completely not necessary. It has proved most inflammatory because of your action. Can't you see that undoing/reverting those edits was the wrong thing to do, when all you need to do was click "Edit" and change the two numbers for the date, and save it as a minor edit? You reported me, and I'm replying to what you're saying, it will undoubtedly involved 'back-and-forth,' or would you rather me just not reply at all or defend my right of reply. "I'm done with you, and I really hope you back off of what I do, even on articles you edit" that is a personal attack, a threat and OWN. I did try extending an olive branch in my first post here, but you ignored it.  — Calvin999 12:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

"I'm done with you", meaning "I'm done with interacting with you", is a personal attack? "I hope you back off of what I do" (as in, stop indirecly reverting me or directing summaries at me) is a threat? At no point have I insinuated you cannot edit said articles; I asked you to back off of my contributions to them. What are you talking about? Seriously. Ss112 12:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Hijiri88, you don't like me because I reviewed a GA by CurtisNaito and you hate him, (so I was made guilty by association on your part). Again, I don't take your comments too literally, either. You can't say you don't want to work out if this report has substance and then proceed to say it probably does based on previous experience when you know nothing about this report. I don't bother you so why you always have to get involved and hound me I don't know.  — Calvin999 09:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't like you because you posted a string of extremely hostile attacks against me (including one instance of criticizing me refusing to edit-war with you!) after I said that you had passed a GA review without looking at the article's sourcing. This is only the second time you and I have interacted at all since your last attack against me 13 months ago, and both of these were when your disputes came to ANI -- how exactly is this "hounding"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Because you was hounding me. The fact that you've still got those diffs on tap shows you're holding a grudge and haven't moved on. You have a history of battleground and behavioral blocks. You have interacted me, not the other way around. You don't want to drop the stick, that's why you're commenting here.  — Calvin999 10:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Because you was hounding me. Citation needed? Seriously, you and I have interacted twice in the last thirteen months, and on both those occasions your name showed up on ANI right below a thread I was commenting on. The fact that you've still got those diffs on tap shows you're holding a grudge Of course I still have those diffs on tap, because I know every time your name shows up in my watchlist and I comment, you're going to try to rewrite history (again) and I'm going to need to set the record straight (again). You have a history of battleground and behavioral blocks. Citation needed? I've received three mutual blocks for mutual violation of mutual IBANs, one (brief) block for a technical violation of what counts as a VALIDALT, one block because technically my commenting on you seven months ago counted as grave-dancing because you had already been blocked, and two mutual blocks with CurtisNaito for my dispute with him (the blocking admin later admitted that CurtisNaito was the primary party at fault). That's seven over the course of an 11-year Wikipedia career, and all but two being more than 13 months ago. You've been blocked five times in seven years, which is roughly the same. I don't care about that, because I'm not the type to throw other users' block logs in their face without looking at the context. You have interacted me, not the other way around. No, you initiated our first interaction, and you were extremely hostile about it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

To comment about your post on Ss112 talk page, Hijiri88, when did I ever say I wanted this discussion shut down? I didn't. I simply pondered why you get involved in anything to do with me, when I never get involved with anything to do with you because it doesn't matter to me. Also, to say that the Music topic is littered with deplorables who terribly source is somewhat of a sweeping statement, and one that could arguably be applied to anyone in any topic given there is evidence, but not everyone as most are the antithesis. You say you don't want contact from me, but I've never contacted you since that nasty business with the History of Japan, you're the one who commented here about me. Saying that is annoys you when you see my name in your watch list could be at seen as at least bad faith, and at most a personal attack. If you don't want contact with me, refrain from talking about me too. I didn't realise I was so worthy of being discussed on other people's talk page, but it's not a distinction I care much for.  — Calvin999 12:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

when did I ever say I wanted this discussion shut down? Re-read my first comment. All I said was that this thread shouldn't be shut down solely because it's the OP's second thread in X number of days. You responded by saying that "I don't like you", "I hate some other user". I'm not going to defend my personal opinions about a topic area I don't edit in, and that kind of content discussion has absolutely no place on ANI anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

To Calvin999: Now you're stalking my talk page too. Who's stalking who now? There was no reason for you to look at it. Don't stalk my talk page or follow my contributions, Calvin, do your own thing and stop reverting me for stuff you did yourself. That's all I ask. Ss112 12:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• To any admins reading this thread: Please close this, it's going nowhere. I'm sorry for my part in this rambling, TL;DR thread. I should have stayed out of it after my initial post. I'm no longer calling for an IBAN (as I have been informed this would result in me being blocked if I point out any future harassment or Wikihounding), just a warning to Calvin999 to cease indirectly or directly reverting me, directing edit summaries at me, or trying to contact me. I will also do this, even though until seeing his edit on said article earlier today I was ready to forget all about interacting with him. Also, I'm asking for him to not follow at my edits or my talk page, neither of which I have done to him at all and have no interest in doing. Ss112 12:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • You need to take your own advice if you expect me to do so also. Remember that you've (wrongly) reverted me twice today, I haven't reverted you at all. Please don't threaten me with a warning like that, I haven't been interacting with you prior to today. Saying you was ready to forget about this is very nice and all but you didn't act on it prior. Actions speak louder than words. I said in my very first post here that I was willing to accept half the responsibility with you, as you have been at fault for the same things, but you systematically ignored that and proceeded to unnecessarily provoke me by making those two reverts when there was absolutely no need to. If you want to be mature about this, my talk page is open. I won't automatically revert what you have to say. Of course, you need not say anything should you not desire to. I'm not fussed either way. Good luck and happy editing.  — Calvin999 15:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• Just to repeat my periodic call that Wikipedia simply drop all coverage of footy, professional wrestling, porn stars, and music genres and chart positions. That would reduce traffic at ANI by 30%, and no one would care about the lost "content". EEng 15:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems like my bid to get that No 1 grunge metal song, by the ex-football-playing wrestling porn-star, to FA is doomed to fail, then? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Calvin999 and Ss112: The best thing for all concerned is for you both start ignoring each other right here and right now. Stop talking. Stop trying to figure out who wronged who first or last. Just drop it and move on. No conditionals, no 'yes... but' just move on. If one gets annoyed by the other ignore it and move on. See WP:DGAF. Jbh^Talk 16:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • We've already resolved.  — Calvin999 17:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Ltbuni repeatedly, blatantly canvassing

On four pages related to far-right Hungarian politics, Ferenc Szaniszló, Romani people in Hungary, Magyar Hírlap and the Petra László tripping incident, Ltbuni has posted on Norden1990's or Koertefa's talk pages requesting help in conflicts, and often received the help they've requested:

• Yesterday, on 13 November, Ltbuni posted on Norden's talk page asking for help at two pages, Ferenc Szaniszló and the Petra László tripping incident. Norden promptly came to Ltbuni's aid at Ferenc Szaniszló.

• On 25 October, Ltbuni requests that Koertefa help them at Petra László tripping incident stating, "I don't want to start an edit war." This is practically indistinguishable from asking, "will you please edit war for me so that I can have my way without breaking 3RR.”

• 21 August, Ltbuni requests Norden's help at Magyar Hírlap, writing "Look at the controversy section?" Norden promptly replies that they will, and does. Ltbuni also posts at Koertefa's talk page, requesting help on this and another article, and complaining about me and Der Spiegel. Koertefa promptly replies favorably, and gets involved as well. The unsourced and offensive WP:OR about Roma immigrants that they added, basically a long excuse for hate speech that can be found nowhere in reliable sources, remains in that article.

I first encountered this particular Hungarian editing crowd after I wrote the wiki article on Szaniszló, where I wrote a meticulous survey of news coverage on him at the Talk Page. Eventually we had a dispute resolution, found here DRN, which also includes a very long review of RS coverage. The article remained stable for over three years, until Ltbuni removed the description of Roma as “discriminated against” (following "ostracized" of The Independent and The New York Times), calling this language "malicious" and false.

Content issues aside, I’m shocked at the brazen character of Ltbuni’s WP:CANVASSING, and also surprised that Norden and Koertefa indulge it (they don’t always help edit war, but they also never warn Ltbuni to stop). I have a suspicion there may be much more of this going on for many Hungarian political topics, but these recent incidents are clear enough. After Thucydides411 warned Ltbuni above canvassing, their response was unapologetic: more or less "bring it on." I think all of them should be warned, and Ltbuni deserves some sanction - they’ve been around since 2011 and should definitely know better. Lastly, Ltbuni has repeatedly declared that the international media is unreliable and instead favors their own interpretation of reliable sources [19][20][21][22][23] (all diffs from the last couple days), and this strongly suggests they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. -Darouet (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC) Update - this has been going on far longer, as I note in my reply to Koertefa below -Darouet (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@Darouet: Some of the diffs you given above are not in English. Has this editor been informed of WP:SPEAKENGLISH. Can you provide a translation for what is being posted since you seem to be able to understand Hungarian (I am assuming that is the language being used)? It might make it easier for others to determine if any action needs to be taken if they knew what was being posted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly:I had already translated them on my Talk PAge, in response to M. Darouet's friend, Thucydides411 - th hey work together, (s)he simply did not want to present it to You. Nota Bene, Darouet knows that they are on my Talk Page, since (s)he posted below it...I wrote: Could You please take a look at this or that TALK page - I find it biased etc. What is Your opinion? or something like that. LOL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ltbuni#Canvassing --Ltbuni (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I don't speak Hungarian. In this case the talk section titles, references to me or the sources I've used, and immediate follow-up editing, all make the general gist of the canvassing obvious, though I've used google translate to try as best possible to follow. I can post google translate links tomorrow if that's helpful. -Darouet (talk) 05:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

It appears from User talk:Ltbuni#Canvassing that Ltbuni is more than capable of discussing things in English, so perhaps he/she will comment here and explain the posts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but as I know WP:SPEAKENGLISH does not apply to personal pages. There are some non-English text even on you page. Bye, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I need some time to refresh my memories. First, I find it malicious what Darouet is doing: one sided edits. I have already translated and explained what I wrote on the Talk page of the Articles, and on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ltbuni#Canvassing. He is always sensible to sources, why did not he link it? Second: I offered him dipute resolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ferenc_Szaniszl%C3%B3#Dispute_resolution - which he refused, and denounced me.

Regarding Ferenc Szaniszló: The whole article was a Political Soapboxing. It gave undue weight to a specific event (Mr. Szaniszló was given a medal, then he gave it back), and its only aim was pushing a certain political view of his, proving that the conservative Fidesz-gvmnt has close links to "neonazi Jobbik". Under the pretext of collecting Reliable sources, Darouet has now a list of links on the Talk Page, to promote his view, that the Jobbik party is neonaczi. Apart from the fact, that He can not speak Hungarian, so he must rely on the judgements of those journalists, who can't speak it either, we must keep in mind, that the article itself deals with Mr Szaniszló. Darouet added the story of a rock singer, some archeologist, long contemplation over the nature of Fidesz, its close links to radical Jobbik, the sufferings of Roma, the uproar of the US -Embassy. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferenc_Szaniszl%C3%B3&diff=566210814&oldid=566210742 As You can see on the Talk Page, I was constructive, tried to upgrade the article. His responses were mostly political manifestos. BTW, as I have already explained it on my Talk page, Norden1990 and I were not on the same side regarding this article, I deleted his edit, he reverted it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferenc_Szaniszl%C3%B3&diff=735470868&oldid=735469085 Strange, that Darouet did not mention it in his "indictment", because I have already explained it to him on my Talk page days ago.... The tip of the iceberg where this whole "administrative" issue began, was the point when I linked the Romani People in Hungary article, which deals with the WHOLE situation of the Romani, and I removed the "who facing discrimination" half-sentence from the Ferenc Szaniszló article.

And as I have already explained it at least two times to Darouet, not the language ("they are discriminated") was malicious, but the whole context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ferenc_Szaniszl%C3%B3#.22Discrimination.22_a_.22malicious.22_term.3F. Strange enough, that wherever Darouet is in trouble, Thucydides411 turns up, uses the same language, , accusation etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltbuni (talk • contribs) 10:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

To be continued...

Petra László tripping incident - Yeah, there was a debate over she tripped or not. Since the mainstream media was biased, as I proved, and she now has an OFFICIAL document, (proving that she did not) from the Hungarian Judicial System, I found that strange that in the lead we claim that she tripped, referring to CNN and other stuff, which "somehow" forgeted to report with what she was indicted, and also omitted the facts which ruin the picture of an innocent refugee (He was fired from his job!), so I took a look at the Talk Page, and found that only THREE persons were interested: Amin, Norden1990, Ltbuni. Since Norden had some administrative something with Amin, I guess he was blocked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Norden1990#3RR_.40_Petra_L.C3.A1szl.C3.B3_tripping_incident I found it appropriate to call Norden's attention, that he/she could come back. No one else was interested in this article. Neither Darouet, nor Thucydides411. Only three of us, one is blocked or something. Whom on Earth should have I notified?

And I can not follow the argumentation of Darouet. International media can not be wrong? So it is a crime to add other point of views? They finally got those Weapon of Mass Destruction in Iraq? Darouet suggests that "there is something going on in the Hungarian Politics-articles", and Ltbuni is a "promoter of hate speech", is "canvassing" - Are these the manifestations of the Good Faith? Or simple libelling? Which of my edits was not underpinned with data, heh? What is more, we have an edit war in the article Romani People in Hungary. From the "Edit History" it is clear, that the eager-beaver editor, who happens to share my oppinion is User: Borsoka. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romani_people_in_Hungary&action=history Where did I ask Borsóka to help me, with the abovementionned articles? Remeber, I am blatantly etc canvassing!

The following problems occured in the Articles:

Petra László: She OFFICIALLY DID NOT TRIP, the lead was misleading, suggesting that she did - now, it is neutral. I brought up sources. Reliable ones. No one can deny that. I brought examples which proved media bias towards Hungary, as well

Ferenc Szaniszló: Why is it relevant in an article on a journalist, to add that the Romani people face discrimination - I deleted it, but also linked the whole article, dealing with Romani

Romani People in Hungary: is it appropriate to insert FACTS that lead to violence against Romani? Even the murderers of Romani kids confessed that they decided to kill Romani after the mentionned crimes Why on Earth is that irrelevant? So instead of deleting the content I disliked, I tried give neutral title to the content: Beforeward it was: Romani crimes against Hungarian and another one was Hungarian crimes against Romani or something like that. I proposed: Violence between the two population. Then I was accused of being some nazi shit. I offered dispute reolution, Darouet declined, and kept on insulting me--Ltbuni (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

And sorry to waste Your time, but I simply did not get answers on the Talk Page from Darouet, just insults, and Darouet refuses the Dispute Resolution with me as well... One must see this as well. And I refuse the canvassing thing: I could not be sure whether Norden1990 is on my side (we disagreed), and I did not invite someone, whom I should have (Borsoka), finally, I tried to reconcile the opponents. Take a look at the articles, please, and help to write them in a Neutral manner.--Ltbuni (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

And finally, we really had a dispute resolution - but not on this specific sentence I questioned.--Ltbuni (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents: the issue seems exaggerated to me. It looks like Darouet has some disagreement with Ltbuni (probably a content dispute) and (s)he wants to use this ANI discussion to put pressure on him/her. Even if Ltubi's behavior could be classified as canvassing, the right way should have been to point this out to him/her, and not to immediately run here in hope to get him/her punished. Darouet's bias is evident even from the way (s)he presented the issue. I agree that probably it would have been better if Ltubi launched an RfC instead of asking specific editors, but that better option should have been suggested to him/her. I deliberately don't talk about content related questions (like whether those articles really connected to far right or which sources are reliable), since those questions only obscure the situation and preferably belong to the related articles. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Koertefa: Why didn't you explain to Ltbuni that canvassing is prohibited? It actually appears you've been encouraging this behavior. Ltbuni asked for your help at Victor Orban in 2015, and while I don't think you helped him, you encouraged his behavior and made no mention of canvassing. KIENGIR (currently blocked) also asked for your help on an Austro-Hungarian page where he was edit warring with Hebel in 2015, and though it's hard to know exactly what you replied, you don't make a note about canvassing.

It looks like you've actually been encouraging this for a very long time. Your very first edit to the Szaniszló article immediately followed Ltbuni's request for your help at your talk page, and your favorable reply. Ltbuni canvassed you twice for three more articles that April and September (you encouraged him in one case, didn't respond in the other).

There are many more instances where Norden or Ltbuni ask for your input, and it's hard to know without deep research whether these are all instances of edit conflict, or if they are asking for your editorial advice in acceptable, non-conflict situations. However, it's clear that in the many instances I've detailed, Ltbuni came to you knowing that you might agree with them in an edit war. If you ever did respond you encouraged them, and sometimes you helped.

I don't edit on Hungarian topics daily. When I do, if encounter some conflict, I want to be sure that the conversation which evolves is not prejudiced by directed, non-neutral recruitment of nationalist editors. In this case, you have been encouraging blatant canvassing in the context of editing conflict over Hungaration nationalist topics. I think this is really harmful to Wikipedia and I wish I had the time to look more closely at the extent to which this is happening beyond Ltbuni. -Darouet (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I came across this editor yesterday at the László article following a related post at the Teahouse by Amin. At least in that instance, a lot of the problem was failure to WP:AGF, which led to a lot of frustration and killed compromise. We seem to have come to an amicable solution after a day or so and may actually be having productive discussion now.

Since this seems it may be a thing across articles and users, I would be in favor of a careful explanation of canvassing policy, and a warning to avoid the appearance of edit warring behavior for the foreseeable future.

Certainly it takes two to edit war, but Ltbuni seems to be the common thread, and they are an experienced user and should certainly know better after five years. TimothyJosephWood 13:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: see my reply to Koertefa above, and have a look at Koertefa's talk page. It seems there's a lot more of this that's gone on - more even than I can have time to fully investigate. -Darouet (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it's fairly well covered in a clear strong warning, with an understanding that future violations will almost certainly result in sanctions. TimothyJosephWood 17:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Did I call You names? (nationalist etc) like Darouet keeps doing with me? Was I ready to accept Your version? Did I brought up arguments? And, with all due respect, I think the common thread are Darouet and me - when he/she noticed I don't accept one of his/her edits, he/she intervened in articles which are - according to him/her - out of the focus of his/her interest ("I rarely edit Hungarian articles...")--Ltbuni (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

You've been openly canvassing for years, and there is still zero indication you understand that it's a problem. -Darouet (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

And we have this latest special for today... Since I have only some 300 edits in English Wikipedia, and I only edited some 6 or 7 articles, I think I am a bit far from being a nationalistic, hate-speech promoter as you kindly call me...--Ltbuni (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Your accusations are meaningless without diffs. -Darouet (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

QED --Ltbuni (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

My original posts have 26 diffs. -Darouet (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

My favorites quotes:

"Hungarian editing crowd",

"about Roma immigrants' (????) that they added, basically a long excuse for hate speech' that can be found nowhere in reliable sources, remains in that article. "

"calling this language "malicious" and false." - The context was that...

"I don't want to start an edit war." This is practically indistinguishable from asking, "will you please edit war for me so that I can have my way without breaking 3RR." - or simply it means that You have better command of English, and greater expertise on Neutral language...

"Repeated failure to understand something so simple - e.g. why a prominent media personality attacking a minority is related to discrimination, but not musical talent - strikes me as a major WP:COMPETENCE problem. Even if you didn't understand this yourself intuitively, newspapers, which are the basis of our content, are doing it for you, and even those have no impact on your understanding here." - woow, I've never been called stupid this kindly...

"I also believe it's not a coincidence that Norden and Ltbuni request the removal of the term because they don't believe the Roma are ostracized, and believe the media are wrong" - Yes, that's why we did NOT delete the discrimination section in the Romani People in Hungary. No, we don't think that media is wrong - we just say, that there is a phenomenon called media-bias. So just because it is on the net, it does not mean that it is true. Please, stop reading in my thoughts thnx!

" I don't edit on Hungarian topics daily. When I do, if encounter some conflict, I want to be sure that the conversation which evolves is not prejudiced by directed, non-neutral recruitment of nationalist editors. In this case, you have been encouraging blatant canvassing in the context of editing conflict over Hungaration nationalist topics." - You are my next hero, seriously!!!! I love You!!!--Ltbuni (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I said that you added hate speech (from a primary source) to Magyar Hirlap, and stand by that and all other statements you've quoted. -Darouet (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Getting back to the issue, because this not the place to hash our content disputes, Ltbuni, do you understand why policy forbids editors from purposefully recruiting others whom they have reason to believe will join a content dispute on their preferred side? Do you understand that this applies regardless of whether you are right and someone else is wrong? TimothyJosephWood 20:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes I do. But as I mentioned above, I dispute that I was canvassing. Why didn't I notify other editors (Borsoka), who was on my side, and had participated in the very same edit war? Borsoka could have strenghten my position! Why did I call Norden1990, who deleted my edits? Koertefa got a barnstar for being neutral in disputes, that's why I called his/her help, because with Darouet one can not talk calmly. Just look above, how he/she treats people who don't share his/her oppinion! And why did I drop both Borsoka's and Norden's version in the Romani people in Hungary article, if we were canvassing?--Ltbuni (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

So no, you don't understand what canvassing is, and still think it's OK. Koertefa does too, if the last three years of diffs on their talk page mean anything. -Darouet (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not talking with You, man. I am waiting for Timothy's answer. --Ltbuni (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Let me rephrase this, do you understand that, regardless of your intentions, notifying users with whom you have a history on contentious topics, appears to be a form of canvassing and is not permitted. Do you understand that from this point forward, having been notified of this in no uncertain terms, if there is a content dispute that requires outside opinion, you will seek that outside opinion, in the most neutral way possible, through one of the following methods:

• WP:Third opinion
• WP:Request for Comment
• Appropriate notice board such as WP:NPOV, WP:ORN, or WP:BLPN
• Or posting on related WikiProjects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Hungary

This is not a special sanction; this is the normal process that all editors, including myself, must seek input through from time to time. This is the way to do it correctly. This is the way you will do it from this point on. TimothyJosephWood 20:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

So, if I have a problem, and the other user keeps insulting me instead of responding, I can not ask for Dispute resolution, like I did? I read that it was appropriate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Ferenc_Szaniszl.25C3.25B3_discussion

And Where can I denounce Darouet, for insulting me, as Hate speech promoter/ nationalist editor crowd and other libelling stuff (see above)? This is totally NPOV, no good faith etc.--Ltbuni (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, is also a way of seeking outside opinion. However, DRN is also sometimes a cumbersome and lengthy process, and if another user declines to take part in that process, you have these other options of seeking outside input on the article talk. Again, these processes are in place because contacting editors with whom you have a history, especially on contentious topics, can be, or can be seen, as a form of canvassing, and are not conducive to resolving the disagreement. TimothyJosephWood 20:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

All involved can probably use a review of WP:CIVIL, a reminder to act like adults. Also, since this is apparently lost on everyone, accusing someone of hate speech (a crime in some areas), and libel (a form of litigation), may be construed as a legal threat, which is taken seriously. Please all review policy at Wikipedia:No legal threats, and consider this a warning to that effect. TimothyJosephWood 20:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: I apologize to all, especially Ltbuni, if I gave them the impression that Ltbuni personally had engaged in hate speech. I was referring to Ltbuni's addition of a long quote to Magyar Hírlap of text from Bayer that was universally condemned by global media outlets. I am not a lawyer, and I do not believe that a reasonable interpretation of my comment would be characterized as a legal threat. However, if I am wrong I will gladly eat humble pie and retract my use of that term, even to describe Bayer's text. -Darouet (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Please note that Bayer, whose text I described as hate speech, has caused his paper to be fined for hate speech in Hungary: BBC source. From the BBC: "Journalist and activist Zsolt Bayer is best known for his xenophobic views and close ties to the ruling party of Prime Minister Viktor Orban... He also writes a regular column for conservative pro-government newspaper Magyar Hirlap in which he frequently makes anti-Roma, anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim comments, often couched in extremely crude terms. The US Holocaust Museum says his statements are as extreme as those emanating from Hungary's racist, ultranationalist, and xenophobic Jobbik party. His newspaper has twice been fined by the state media authority for publishing articles deemed to constitute hate speech. In 2013 he wrote a vitriolic piece about Roma, and in 2015 he said all refugee boys over the age of 14 were "potential terrorists"." -Darouet (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

And how about the tone? I find Darouet's tone libelling, as it was libelling on the Talk Page, as demonstrated. What can I do? What if I see that he is doing POV pushing, and soapboxing, as he/she did so - lacking Good Faith?--Ltbuni (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I think, meanwhie You responded. So it seems to You, that I was canvassing?--Ltbuni (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that it is a bad practice because it results in exactly these types of situations. TimothyJosephWood 21:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

And how about Darouet, who accused me of criminal charges?--Ltbuni (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I think most, if not everyone involved has certainly violated WP:CIVIL, and probably said something that could be construed by a frisky admin as a legal threat, so it's probably in everyone's best interest if we move on with our lives.

I think it's also important to note that ANI is not in the business of taking sides in content disputes. So if anyone is hoping to get the other party blocked on a technicality so they can win an argument, they are going to be disappointing. TimothyJosephWood 21:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Ltbuni: of course, you can also ask for Dispute Resolution, but in general (contrary to what some editors might suggest) it is not prohibited to notify individual editors, e.g., if they have a known activity of the involved topics (e.g., who have made substantial edits to the article in question or to articles with similar topics), participated in similar discussions in the past, are experts of the fields, who directly asked you to inform them, etc. The important thing is that the editors should not be pre-selected based on their opinions. I assume that you contacted me because of the former points (e.g., that I have some knowledge about these topics, made several edits to related articles and explicitly asked you to notify me in controversial situations) and not because of the latter one, since you had no guarantee that I would agree with you. My comments to Darouet and Timothyjosephwood are that: please, assume some good faith: not everybody who contacts another editor is canvassing, not everybody who edits a Hungary related article is a nationalist, not everybody who edits the bio of a right-wing politician is a radical, etc., even if he/she does not agree with you. The important thing is to discuss the issues and seek a consensus. Let's try to be more open towards each others points of views. Ciao, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 21:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I don't feel that I made a mistake,or something.Thanks anyway. The bias and the tone of Darouet still shocks me. He floods now the Talk Page of Magyar Hirlap, with administrative rules, just to decontextualize an excerpt of a journalist, presenting him as a kind of monster. Yes, Mr. Zsolt Bayer is not a nice person. But even he does not deserve this treatment just because international media does not cover every word of his, and citing the whole citation gives "undue weight" and would be "original research" and so on. I don't edit Hungarian articles because I am a "nationalist-crowd :) or "hate-speech promoter" or whatever, but because I have extra knowledge on these topics. Mr. Darouet replaces the gaps in his knowledge with his conviction. And that is no good, he relies on his "international, reliable media" and sweep away the context, how things sounds and works here. Anyone, Timothy, just take a look at the Talk Page, and remove the content the way he proposes! Totally the opposite result!--Ltbuni (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I think that Timothyjosephwood is right that we should let it go. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 22:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Reading through this thread, I have to say that I do not see WP:CIVIL violations from all sides. I see most people behaving civilly, but I also see Ltbuni significantly overreacting to perceived slights and unwilling to acknowledge Wikipedia policy on canvassing. FWIW, I think Darouet's contributions to the relevant articles and on the talk pages are very constructive, consistently going back to the reliable sources and making an effort to reach compromise. I certainly don't have that level of patience when I wade into these sorts of contentious subjects, which is a reason for my contribution to Wikipedia not being greater than it is. I strongly believe that a warning to Ltbuni is required, and that if they continue to disregard canvassing policy afterwards, sanctions are issued. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Darouet,

(1) You have to always inform the one you mention in ANI discussion, why didn't you warn me?

(2) What you wanted to express with this "currently blocked", what goal you serve with this? You want to influence the discussion? How does it come here (anyway, the case is disputed and controversial and is being investigated, but it is not the subject now.)

(3) Without any intention to involve in this discussion I am confident that KœrteFa {ταλκ} is a very important member of Wikipedia regarding also his contributions/work with also Hungary related matters, and in emerging issues with high importance or against anti-Hungarian vandalism attempt we also ask help editors with more experience

(4) The Austria/Hungary related debates were resolved near 3 months, since then with the user you mentioned we are correct partners in editing with mutual respect since finally we understood each other, an extraordinary troublesome modification happened and we always struggle for truthful and professionally historical content! Koertefa's reply became so late that I even noticed more months later, he seemed inactive in Wikipedia and he did not even involve himself to that "incident". I don't even know why he should inform me about any "canvassing", I know what it is, and noone then considered any canvassing regarding this then.

(5) Please do not involve me anymore unnotified in any incident that anyway I am not belonging to. You could have just present the diff you debate without mentioning anyone who does not belong to the current incident's topic thus you are unable misuse my name/situation to influence something I have no business with! Thank You!

PS: I did not even read what this incident/discussion is about, I just read those fragments where you mentioned me, nothing else I have reacted. Even better do not even answer to me here if you have any such intention, do it on my personal page!(KIENGIR (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: I didn't mention you in my original report, because I hadn't realized that you'd also (unsuccessfully) canvassed Koertefa. When I did mention you later, it was only once, and I tagged you so that you'd know you were mentioned. I assumed you would face no consequences for a single instance of canvassing. -Darouet (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

- I am sorry that you did not reply in my personal page, maybe I was not clear enough?

- Please avoid such statements that I would "canvass" Koertefa, that time the user I debated with expressed his concerns on possible canvassing, but what you refer was not regarded by anyone canvassing (not even a suspicion of that) and I did not wrote anything because I would be afraid of any consequence of that. Also in the future, if any i.e. troublesome edit would appear in an article, in case we may notify other users who have an expertise on the subject.

- Please be careful regarding relocating other user's comments. Thanks(KIENGIR (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC))

You wrote to Koertefa and to Fakirbakir asking to "PLEASE HELP" you at Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867), and 10 minutes later your edit to the article led to 11 reverts in 2 days (an edit war), where Fakirbakir helped you, until Ritchie333 protected the page. That is classic WP:CANVASSING in the service of an edit war. If you don't think that's canvassing, can you describe what canvassing is? -Darouet (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

(1) - Every complain that time was investigated, an noone were judged or found guilty of canvassing, or similar, everything was in the service of against a blatant disruption attempt. BTW If you have read what you refer of: Appropriate notification - Editors known for expertise in the field/Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article

(2) - I warn you again, stop involving solved happy end cases - I read the title, nothing more - that not any means belonging here

(3) - do not even answer to me here if you have any such intention, do it on my personal page! + I am sorry that you did not reply in my personal page, maybe I was not clear enough? -> Which of these two are not understood, as I see you are a first level English speaker, should I try French or you prefer other langauges? If you wish to communicate with me, feel free to wite on my personal page, there we may discuss and answer of all your questions, I am intending to finish here! Mercy!(KIENGIR (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

Actually it appears you canvassed 3 editors in that instance [24][25][26], and while Hebel complained, I am unable to find any investigation or judgement of any kind. Can you link that?

I understand your request for me to comment on your talk page only, but will continue to reply here: I think it's important to keep a record of the diffs in one place. But I will leave a note on your talk page about policy so that in the future, you can avoid canvassing, or solicitation that could lead others to suspect canvassing. -Darouet (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry that you did not understood - the 4th time - that I won't continue discussion with you here. I just repeat that you have failed to grasp unfortunately:

- Every complain that time was investigated, an noone were judged or found guilty of canvassing, or similar

- I warn you again, stop involving solved happy end cases - I read the title, nothing more - that not any means belonging here

Nota bene:

- "in the future, you can avoid canvassing" -> please stop defamation Appropriate notification - Editors known for expertise in the field/Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article

- It appears to be you are "canvassing" cases, users that have no connection to the subject here and with such you want influence your report on others that has not any connection with any good faith. Moreove, you can totally ignore anything regarding that Austria/Hungary related incident, since it is a closed case, in the approx. due three months everything was checked investigated, punished, sanctioned, consensused what was needed or possible and all participants since then with a good faith and mutual collaboration are developing articles, the best and most beautiful outcome after any incident possible.

- On my personal page we can continue discussion, there you may have more answers, but prepare if you still do not finish and continue here (or just you mention me again), I will regard it as a harassment and willfull personal persecution. I have no business or involvement with the current incident, moreover as you should know every incident has to be investigated on it's own, so you better concentrate on the current subject, not closed cases, not even the real life there is two trial on one case that has been already trialed, with such acts you are just enweakening your position and arguments here on the current case - I still did not read and I won't do that -, so finally leave me in peace out of this!(KIENGIR (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

There's really no point in these walls of text. I think the diffs speak for themselves: there's a group of editors who often notify one another when they get into content disputes, and then come to one another's aid. What we really need here is for an admin to evaluate the messages listed above, to evaluate whether or not they constitute canvassing, and to issue any appropriate warnings or sanctions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

No, there are more points that the other party does not get, he tries to involve and influence the subject with cases, editors that have not any connection to the current subject. Yes, admin's should evaluate, as in the "admin input" section it has been already requested, but not anything that has already been outdated and closed. Bye.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

Admin input

I would appreciate input from admins who have actually looked at those canvassing diffs (last few months, and going back to 2013), and at Ltbuni's and Koertefa's continued insistence that canvassing was not, and is not a problem. -Darouet (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Alexis Ivanov's User page

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

---

Following the recent ANI thread [27] concerning Alexis Ivanov I am concerned to see KrakatoaKatie listed as a 'Future project' on their Userpage, especially considering how they weren't happy with the original outcome. I'm hoping (and AGF that) there is a reasonable explanation and this can be closed off quickly, but I'd like an explanation from Alexis on this, as listing someone's name as a 'project' on your userpage looks very much like a borderline violation of WP:NPA. Mike1901 (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I read that thread, but refrained from commenting. It was extremely ugly. Their having added her after being explicitly told by a half-dozen users that they need to drop the WP:STICK (or, implicitly, be indefinitely blocked) doesn't bode well. I have removed it.[28] Technically, I don't think simply having her name on a list of ill-defined "future projects" is a violation per se, and so technically I may have been out of line by removing it, but Alexis should definitely explain what it meant before re-adding it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Floquenbeam provided a warning to Ivanov that he was to stop pinging Katie or harassing her at her talk page, and the response has apparently been to list her as a "future project". That comes across as a thinly-veiled threat, although it's possibly just an indication that Ivanov is entirely unable to drop the stick and stop harassing Katie. Either way, this is well out of hand. I propose a six-month block. This will be the third block Ivanov receives for personal attacks or harassment, and if this one doesn't sink in, the next will simply have to be indefinite. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Assuming we either don't get a response from Alexis Ivanov in a reasonable period of time, or the community feels the reason given is insufficient to justify their actions, I'd agree with the above course of action. (That said, I wouldnt be particularly opposed if it's felt that the block should be enacted regardless - I'm just interested in what Alexis' justification is, as it seems very odd). Mike1901 (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

(correcting above typo in ping and re-signing) Mike1901 (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I've posted the question more explicitly on their user talk, but I agree with Mike1901. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I have been inactive lately with my disaffection so sorry for the late reply, but I think you are blowing this way out of proposition, future project means future project. Maybe opening up a new ANI with a better case and report. I don't even know who any of you guys are, Katie's bodyguard ? I just posted a username so I can be reminded in the future, nothing more. How is it a threat? If you want it to be removed, it has been already removed by someone who tampered with my page, and I of course I can't object I will anger many more people. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Look, Alexis Ivanov, forgive and forget. This is not worth pursuing, you're on a path that could lead to another even more extended block. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - you must appreciate, however, that putting her name in the 'Future project' section on a publicly-viewable talk page when you've been explicitly told not to get involved with her directly by Floquenbeam is going against the instruction given to you? At the moment, it's likely you're heading towards a block, so I'm giving you an opportunity here to get the community to reconsider. Mike1901 (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know writing a username constituted a form of ping. When I ping someone I open a bracket with the word ping in it, slash the username, so I didn't intentionally violate any rule, it has been already removed, so I'm not sure what you still want me to do. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

No, you didn't ping her, but that wasn't what you were instructed. You were instructed not to bug her, and in my view adding her to your userpage in what could be seen as a negative manner would come under that (regardless of whether you thought she'd find out about it). I'm sorry, but after hearing your responses, I'm moving to support BU Rob13's proposed action. Mike1901 (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't bug her, I used my userpage, project subsection to categorize my future project so I can be reminded by it, in cases I forgot. The name has been already removed by another user. Of course you support a block. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Support Block: Combining the previous two blocks, how thin my patience was drawn reading all of that last ANI, the fact that Alexis was chasing something that couldn't happen anyway (I believe (s)he wanted the other editor in what led to their block, to also be blocked when Alexis was blocked?) perhaps suggesting WP:CIR could come into play even, a continued lack of justification to the list (to be reminded in the future? Why? Answer that please) , and WP:ROPE , I'm on the fence between the proposed Six Months, and Indef, WP:AGF keeping me on Six Months, everything else telling me we should look at the ol "three strikes you're out!" used in Baseball (is it baseball? Eh you get my point.)

For the record, my only communication with Katie previously, was to give her Wikilove because I got the feeling she could use some with the ANI in question (plus she had CU'd for another ANI at the time, so gave her it on two counts.) MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 17:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• The reply here is not great. The issue isn't the pings. The issue is the blatant harassment after the community clearly endorsed Katie's actions. We don't need a "more detailed report" on Katie's block here, and the community was quite clear that you needed to walk away from that issue. The response just makes me more certain a six-month block is appropriate here. I could be persuaded that indefinite is more appropriate, but I generally prefer to try a long-term block before jumping to indef. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Is six months long enough?

I wonder if an indef block is not called for. Katie's original block was met with a sarcastic attack[29], and then as soon as it expired there was that whole mess (and more sarcasm[30]), and now that they have been blocked again the response was yet more sarcasm.[31] Alexis clearly isn't learning, and there's pretty good evidence that we're just going to wind up back here a few days after the block expires. I say the block should be extended to indef per the continued sarcasm and the lack of repentence, and the block should only be lifted if Alexis indicates (after no less than six months if you like) that they have understood what they did wrong and show an indication that they will change. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• I'd be supportive of an Indef one. I gave reasons in the last (now archived) section. MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 15:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Is the user already blocked for six months? If so, extending the block would be punitive. In American football, this would be known as piling on. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Robert. Post block venting is something that has become the de facto norm and something that is generally ignored. Let's all move on from this and stop picking at the scabs before they've even started to harden. Blackmane (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I think six months was a bit excessive. They were pissed and handled their block completely wrong, but I don't think that it should have escalated to six months, much less indefinite just for that. However, I'm probably in the minority opinion here. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The user was blocked for 1 month back in early October for personal attacks and harassment, which was after coming off a two block in January, which was after coming off a one week block back in November. All for harassment. So six months for the same behavior continuing right after they came off the block is not excessive. What length would you have blocked for, exactly? Valeince (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: @Blackmane: @Jauerback: This was in response to something the user did after they were blocked for six months and the main thread above was closed. They just came off a one-month block and immediately started making trouble, leading to a six-month block. The signs that they would make trouble once their block expired (a sarcastic attack against the blocking admin) were there during the one-month block, but good faith was assumed and the block was allowed to expire. The exact same thing has now happened after the imposition of a six-month block, so it seems counterintuitive to assume that the same thing won't happen again in six months' time. At any time during a hypothetical indefinite block, Alexis could appeal, indicate that they know what they did wrong and regret it, and say they will make a sincere effort to change, and the block would likely be removed; the same is true of the current six-month block. The only functional difference is that by not indeffing we are saying that, whether or not there is any indication that they will change, the block will automatically expire in six months' time. So by not indeffing, all we are doing is inviting more disruption later. If Alexis hadn't responded to the current block with a sarcastic remark, and if this weren't exactly the same as last time, I would not be saying indef, as I would assume six months is enough time to cool down, but they have given every indication that once the finite block expires they will either leave the project by not editing anymore anyway, or continue with more of the same. They already had two separate chances (the one month block and the few days between the last ANI thread and this one) to cool off by themselves without directly stating that they have cooled off, and they wasted them. Now it's time they directly expressed a desire to reform. Indefinite does not mean permanent. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. To use my American football analogy, the comparison should then perhaps to the player who has been downed insulting the referee, which will result in being sent off. (Being sent off is rare although not unknown in American football, and is more familiar to American sports fans from baseball, where it is common.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri, you are proposing extending a six-month block to indef because the user responded "Good job." upon being blocked? Really? kcowolf (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

What I think Hijiri is getting at is that, in the past year, this editor has earned almost 8 months worth of blocks for the same repeated behavior. There hasn't been any indication of the editor making any effort to even acknowledge that the community had cause to block them, let alone trying to change that behavior. I'm not exactly advocating for an indef block (mostly because I'll bet good money the editor will just end up blocked again in 6 months and 1 week or less), but it's a legitimate suggestion that deserves legitimate consideration. Should we spare ourselves and this the drama of going through this again in six months, or do we owe this editor one last chance, whether we believe they'll take it or not? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Kcowolf: Well, yes, but you're missing the part where he said the same thing to Katie immediately after the last block and then caused two separate hubbubs about it immediately after the block expired, as well as the part where I (accurately) pointed out that the only difference between between a six-month block and an indefinite block is that a time limit is just encouraging them to do the same again. You are interpreting the block punitively rather than preventatively, so that you take the difference between a six-month block and an indefinite block as being about the seriousness of the "punishment" in proportion to the "crime", and trying to extrapolate why I was not opposed to a six-month block at first but now say an indef would be better whenthe only new "crime" was a bit of sarcasm. This is wrong: the difference is about whether we can trust them to change after a certain amount of time has passed without actually owning up to what they did. I think we can't, but it's not clear whether you agree or disagree, because you are arguing against something entirely unrelated.

MjolnirPants: Yeah, that's about right, although I am not looking at their block log past October. I think three explicite statements that one does not intend to change (and one more after a six-month block is put in place) should be enough for an indef, regardless of how long the disruption went on earlier.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I think a six month block is well within administrator discretion to the point that I don't think it's appropriate to change it. Like I said originally, I could be persuaded to support an indefinite block. I can not, however, be persuaded to support altering a long-term block after it's already been placed. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's down to a matter of opinion as to whether it's worth changing block settings to avoid a possible future situation six months down the line. You don't appear to disagree with me that there is no indication of a desire to change. I too still hold out some degree of hope that in six months' time when the block expires Alexis will have learned their lesson. I just think the probability of this not happening is too high to take an indef off the table. I respect your opinion, but I think we will have to agree to disagree. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Just gonna point this out. Do with this as you will. MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 17:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that. I think the "oppose"s are aware that indef was a feasible option, but also think that since six months was within an admin's purview, and so extending the block now would be "punitive" if not based solely on the actions of the blocked user since being blocked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

FSU articles edited by FSU students

• Florida State University College of Arts and Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

After encountering this draft advert today [32], I'm wondering if students are being tasked to add promotional copy to Wikipedia, and whether the school ought to be contacted. I'd also appreciate more eyes on the college of arts and sciences article. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Notified McKenna at FSU Publications due to the mention of the FSU publications draft. --Finngall ^talk 17:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see the history of the draft in question before it was deleted. Were there multiple accounts working on it or just the one? If we can find out a bit more, I'd be happy to reach out to the instructor, but to based on the [limited] information I've seen, this seems more likely to be a marketing/pr/social media staff member rather than student work. Could be mistaken, though. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Without outing anyone, the draft was written by a student, a writer for one of the student papers. As luck would have it, I just came across Doak Campbell Stadium in recent changes, another FSU article being filled with promotional lather by a COI account. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

What I'm getting at is that if I've stumbled across these three examples by happenstance today, there's a good chance that FSU students or marketers are working on many more such articles. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Block for User

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

---

I would like to bring to the attention of the Administrators to imply the needed ban/block on user of IP Address

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:176.205.45.205

His edits in the Page Abu Dhabi Indian School are with the use of unparliamentary language.

Denver| Thank you and Have a nice Day! (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Denver20: , in the future, if your concern is simply an IP Address or User that vandalises, please take the matter to WP:AIV , as the ANI Noticeboard is for more complex issues.

As for the IP, I have a college lesson in five, can someone else take a look? Thanks! MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 17:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Nothing really to see here. As for ANI, WP:NOTHERE. In the future, you should report vandalism to WP:AIV for faster response, but I don't see anything actionable, at this time. There was one edit that was vandalism, but the IP then made an additional edit removing that edit. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Wheel-warring and other issues over NPP userboxes

Vanjagenije (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently wheel-warred against me over the deletion of three userboxes, {{User Newpages with Twinkle}}, {{User wikipedia/NP Patrol2}}, and {{User NP Patrol and RC Patrol}}. With a fair amount of trepidation and a hope that this won't get out of hand, I'm submitting this to the community for review. Here's a timeline.

Kudpung deleted these three templates as per WP:G6 on November 1st, claiming that they were deprecated by the creation of the new page reviewer user right. He further explained his deletion at this discussion on my user talk.

Between November 6 and November 8, I undeleted the templates for multiple reasons. First, there was never community consensus that editors without the "new page reviewer" right could not continue to patrol new pages in the sense of reviewing, tagging, and improving them. In fact, the original RfC closed with a statement that there was consensus to implement the technical change of creating a new user group as described, but that there was significant opposition to a tangentially-mentioned proposal to restrict how editors without the right could patrol pages by altering Twinkle. Second, Kudpung did not remove existing transclusions of these templates, resulting in well over a thousand user pages with red-linked templates. They were showing up at this database report. Some of my deletion log entries mentioned the transclusions, but they all clearly mentioned that the deletion was not uncontroversial.

Immediately after I undeleted one of the templates, it was taken to an MfD discussion, which you can find here. It was eventually speedily kept because the nominating IP was socking, but prior to closure, four different editors were in agreement that the userbox should be kept. Note that the one delete !vote was later rescinded without being struck; see the final comment. It seems clear to me that there was an emerging consensus to keep this userbox, and it seems highly unlikely, given typical MfD turnouts, that this userbox would have been deleted in-process at this discussion.

On November 13, Vanjagenije re-deleted {{User Newpages with Twinkle}} as "deprecated", citing WP:NPR. He also deleted {{User wikipedia/NP Patrol2}} and {{User NP Patrol and RC Patrol}} citing the two TfDs Kudpung opened before deleting them without discussion. The closures of those two TfDs were merely bot messages citing the previous G6 deletions. Vanjagenije did address my concern about outstanding transclusions, I suppose, but he did so by removing upwards of 1,500 transclusions from user pages without discussion. He did this using AWB at rates sometimes hitting as high as 50 edits/minute, which almost certainly violates our bot policy, especially when used for undiscussed edits and in such high volumes.

On November 15, I noticed this and messaged Vanjagenije on his user talk page. You can read our entire interaction at User_talk:Vanjagenije#Uh. When originally asked about the undeletions, Vanjagenije stated he believed I only objected due to the existing transclusions, but this doesn't parse, given the messages of "uncontroversial" in my deletion logs. Vanjagenije also edited {{User Newpages with Twinkle}} before deleting it, including reverting his own edits, so he presumably should have noticed that the template had been nominated to MfD and kept in the page history.

After multiple messages, he undeleted the three templates with a rationale of "no consensus", but he continues to refuse to self-revert his removal of all transclusions of these templates. In fact, he even continued removing transclusions of related templates even after our discussion.

I should note that removing the transclusions of the userboxes was submitted as part of the original RfC about the new user right in addition to other changes such as removing functionality from Twinkle for those without the right, but those things were never discussed much and largely dropped after facing significant opposition. The final closure was very clear that they were finding consensus for the technical implementation of the user right, and that all other changes were outside the scope of the RfC.

I had really hoped that all of this could be resolved amicably as a mistake caused by not looking at the deletion log before deleting, but I can't justify reverting 1,500 edits wiping these templates off user pages without discussion before the community. I'm at a loss as to how to proceed here, between the wheel-warring, disruptive editing, and violations of the bot policy. I submit this to the community to act on appropriately. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Ummmm..... If a user does not have the new page reviewer right they do not do "New Page Patrol" the defining task of which is marking new pages as patrolled. Jbh^Talk 19:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I frequently do some forms of new page patrol without marking the page as patrolled, such as tagging with BLP PRODs. New page patrol can be done perfectly easily without the new user right, the only difference being the page will not be marked as patrolled when tagging for maintenance or CSD, etc. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

See WP:RCP, WP:PATROL, Wikipedia:Help desk patrol, Wikipedia:AfD Patrol, Wikipedia:Random page patrol, and WP:PRODPATROL as obvious counter-examples of the notion that patrolling refers only to the "mark page as patrolled" button on Wikipedia. We can argue definitions, if that's really what you'd like to do, but you can see the MfD for many reasons why this userbox may be appropriate (including use cases for the new page reviewers) and you can see WP:NPP for a plethora of patrolling actions that do not require marking as patrolled. Moreover, that's not the issue here, as I see it. If the community discusses this and finds that they want to delete the userboxes, fair enough. If an administrator overrides the consensus at an MfD to implement their preferred outcome, not so much. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

As I understand, the main issue with the templates is that they add users to Category:Wikipedian new page patrollers, and the concern is that with the new user right the two categories could cause confusion (the user right is at Category:Wikipedia new page reviewers). The removal of the category from the template could be removed easily, but it won't work for existing templates, as many seem to be substituted. The removal and deprecation of the category and/or template from user pages where it already exists would be more difficult, and would require someone with AWB or a bot. Edit: I see Vanjagenije has begun doing this with AWB. However, making so many changes like this without discussion is disruptive and also could violate WP:UP#OWN. Pinguinn 🐧 19:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Not only begun, but finished, from what I can tell. Around 1,500 edits in total. Note that the category you mentioned above is at CfD currently; see here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• First of all, there was no wp:wheel-warring and I am offended by this section's title. I (re-)deleted those template that were restored by BU Rob13 believing that transclusion was the main issue. After Rob left a message on my talk page, I promptly restored those templates (after one message, not after multiple messages as he suggests above). It is also not true that I made all those removals against consensus. First of all, the page WP:NPR says: Most patrollers will notice that New Page Patroller userbox will have soon disappeared from their user pages[33]. At the top of this page, there is a message "This page contains information about the New Page Reviewer right, relevant policy and guidelines. Changes made to it should reflect consensus." Now, Rob argues that the page actually does not reflect consensus, but that it was somehow hijacked by Kudpung. Maybe so, but then it's not my fault. Before I removed those transclusions, I was advised to do so by Kudpung (here), who is also an administrator. So, I made those edits according to WP:NPR and after consultations with another admin who was heavily engaged in the process of reforming new page patrol. I did all this in good faith believing I was helping Kudpung who made a great effort to reform new page patrolling process and make it more efficient. I still believe that those templates should have been removed from userpages. All those templates directly link to WP:NPP, a page about the new "New Page Reviewer" user group. And those users do not belong to that usergroup. What I did is akin to removing administrator userbox from non-admin users' pages. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm trying to wrap my head around this. Did you miss the MfD? Do you think it relevant? And wouldn't it have been less invasive (and easier) to change the template to not point to the usergroup page than deleting it from user's pages who can be assumed to want it there? Also, as I understand the bot policy, your mass removal seems like a violation of our bot policy. I don't have a firm sense if the outcome is right or not (though my instinct is that one shouldn't be editing other's pages without good reason and I'm not sure that existed here), but I do have worried about the process. Hobit (talk) 03:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
    • @Hobit: I didn't see the MfD discussion. There was no tag on the template talk page about it. Also, other two templates were tagged with "under discussion" templates. Both discussions were at that point closed as "delete" (see here). Rob undeleted both, but didn't bother to remove the tags or re-open the discussions. He just undeleted with a comment "Transclusions remain; also, not uncontroversial". I saw that and thought it looks strange. Since Rob left the tags and left those discussions closed as "delete", I (mistakenly) thought that transclusions are the main concern. So, I thought that It is OK to delete them after transclusions were removed. Actually, all this started when I noticed that {{User wikipedia/NP Patrol}} userbox has disappeared from my user page. After looking into the matter, I discovered that it was blanked by Kudpung [34]. I discussed it with him (here) beacouse I thought it was wrong way to settle the issue. Blanking the template and leaving it transcluded looks odd. So, I offered to help by un-linking from user pages that transclude. The template remained blanked for 10 days, and Rob didn't even comment it. Now I wonder if he thinks it was better idea to leave the template blanked. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
      • I think it's clear that my opinion is the userboxes should remain until such a time as there's consensus to remove them. You've stated that this was essentially all a big mistake and misunderstanding, but surely that indicates the mistake should be undone. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
      • It seems like a reasonable mistake, though I still have some bot-related concerns. That said, my understanding is that you aren't willing to undo it all, but I'm not able to figure out why. Could you explain? Hobit (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

        I think I already explained above. A userbox about a user right that is placed on a user page of a user that does not have that right is misleading. What is the benefit of such userbox? We don't allow non-admins to place admin userbox on their page, why would we allow this? Vanjagenije (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

        • Because there is no consensus at this time to remove it? And if anything, the consensus has gone the other way. Listen, either you made a mistake by doing this or you didn't. Pick one. If you made a mistake, you should undo it. If you didn't, you should explain how you can justify A) making these changes with no consensus behind you and B) making high-speed edits to many many people's user page without consensus. Further, doing so, now that you understand the original undeletion, there is a strong argument that you are engaged in a wheel war and violated bot policies. Not sure what ARBCOM would do, but it seems like a silly thing to have to justify there. Hobit (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
          • Let's not say the "A" word. No-one wants that to be a thing here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

          @Hobit: I never said I made a mistake in removing those transclusions. You just keep saying that I acted against consensus, but that is not true. Consensus means arguments. I stated my arguments, and you haven't even tried to refute them. I still haven't heard any argument why is it useful to tag userpages of non-patrollers with patroller userboxes. If your arguments are stronger, I will revert my edits, no problem. But I would like to see some real discussion, with arguments, not with threats and accusations. You keep citing the MfD as a source of "consensus". That MfD concerns a userbox that says "This user is a new pages patroller with Twinkle". More than 90% of the transclusions that I removed were those of {{User wikipedia/NP Patrol}} and {{User wikipedia/NP Patrol2}}, which are different than the one discussed at the MfD. I propose we create a discussion (maybe WP:RFC) regarding the issue, and discuss whether userboxes should be removed from userpages of non-patrollers or not. If consensus supports keeping them, I am ready to revert all my edits. Once again, I claim that I acted according to WP:NPR, a page that is a product of consensus, and after discussing the issue with another admin. The claim that I acted against consensus is simply not true. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

          My argument is that this was discussed at MfD. People there felt it should exist. I see no reason why someone can't say that they patrol newly created pages using Twinkle if that's what they do. You removed that from their page on your own without asking the users or seeking a wider consensus, which seems like a violation of WP:UP#Editing of other editors' user and user talk pages. You did so in an automated way. Both of those things require that you have consensus ("Contributors intending to make a large number of assisted edits are advised to first ensure that there is a clear consensus that such edits are desired." There was no such consensus. In fact, as far as I can tell, what little discussion there was came out supporting people being able to have that template on their page. So I have both process related objections (not following BOT policies, not seeking permission or wider consensus before editing someone's page) and specific to the content (at the least the Twinkle templates are reasonable to have and I don't see any justification for removing them). You removed the templates because they were deleted. They aren't deleted now, so folks should be allowed to have them until and unless they are deleted (via an MfD discussion I'd think). Does that make sense? Hobit (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

  Whatever the MFD discussion the Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right is excruciatingly clear "The existing NPP userbox will be deprecated and users will be notified by newsletter (in preparation) that they can reapply"^(emp.mine). Nothing in the RFC close can be read as exempting that part of the proposal. Jbh^Talk 03:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

  Except the part of the close that explicitly states "There is clear, community-wide consensus for the technical changes proposed, namely, for restricting the "patrol" permission to a new "patrollers" group (as well as bots and administrators) and for this group to be grantable and removable by administrators" and goes on to state that other things were outside the scope of the proposal, including the Twinkle changes listed in the same section. Not a single editor used the word "userbox" anywhere on the page, indicating it wasn't discussed amidst the more pressing proposal of a new user right. We don't delete an entire class of userboxes without notification on the userbox pages themselves, any MfD discussion, or even compiling a list of the userboxes for review. And hey, we actually had an MfD that closed as keep. Maybe Callanecc and L235 can clarify whether their closure of Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right included consensus to expand WP:G6 to include all templates mentioning new page patrolling outside of those "officially" for reviewers, whatever that means in the context of a template. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

  The RfC Proposal specificly stated

  It is proposed therefore to ensure that users are suitably experienced for patrolling new pages. This user right would bring it inline with the requirements for the WP:AfC (see WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants), and the systems for according minor user rights such as rollbacker, template editor, page mover, etc. (see: Requests for permissions).

  Note: Not proposed here: The numerical and experience qualifications for users to be authorised to patrol new pages. This will be determined in a subsequent RfC if this RfC gains consensus, and as such is not up for discussion here.

  Patrollers who have effected 200 uncontested patrols between 27 March 2015 and the date of consensus (if any), and who have a clean block log will be grandfathered into the right.

  The right will be requested at Requests for permissions in the same way as all other minor rights are granted by admins.

  The existing NPP userbox will be deprecated and users will be notified by newsletter (in preparation) that they can reapply.

  and, as was noted in the close, explicitly did not ask a question about Twinkle although, again as mentioned in the close, many respondents misunderstood and thought it did. All the close did was reaffirm and clarify that. It does not matter if 'not a single editor mentioned userbox' it was in the proposal, the proposal passed. The time to object was at the RfC - since no one mentioned it then the proper reading is no one registered an objection. Jbh^Talk 05:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• I was notified of this ANI (out of courtesy, not through obligation) so I think it might be at least appropriate for me to say something. The something I would say is what I wrote in the middle of the night on my talk page in this thread which if anyone is going to read it, I would recommend reading it properly. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Just a note that I read this. Seems like no one is really at fault, but I'm unclear on why those changes aren't being undone. Hobit (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I think it's key to understand what went wrong here. When you see a series of deletion log entries on an article and the rationales don't make perfect sense to you, or when you find the situation "confusing", as Vanjagenije stated on his talk page (as a result of my failure to delete the TfD notices, which was an oversight on my part), the appropriate thing to do is ask the administrators who've taken action on the page what is going on. I don't think my log entries were unclear, but even if they were, it seems not only sensible but mandatory to discuss the reason that an administrative action was reverted before reinstating it. I'm only interested in a restorative justice approach to this situation – restoring the transclusions – rather than assigning fault, but it's important to understand how to avoid these sorts of mistakes in the future. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• I was not notified of this ANI, though I took a little part of this. (See original MfD discussion.) IMHO, I think its totally fine to keep these as I read BU Rob13's comments on the MfD. I think those are enough reasons to keep these userboxes. (yes, I know. I have one on my userpage, but that's not gonna stop me from deleting it off my userpage.) I did agree to keeping them deleted because of WP:G6, but after I read Rob's comments on the MfD, it swayed me to the keep side, as you can see in the discussion. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 06:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

And apparently I can't spell people's names correctly. It's way too late for me right now. Fixing and re-signing. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 06:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• I read this thread with rather intense bemusement. Such bureaucracy, such fence building....over a userbox. Sitcom writers would have a hard time coming up with something so absurdly humorous. Let's be clear here; there is a new user right called "new page reviewer". This right does not prevent people from patrolling new pages, since any user has access to Special:NewPages. Thus, anyone can be a new pages patroller, and only some people can be new page reviewers. Since this right came into being, my job in patrolling new pages has been made more difficult, since the bit about "Yellow highlights indicate pages that have not yet been patrolled" is wrong, as it no longer does (a significant oversight of the people who implemented this restrictive bit). Nevertheless, I am still a new pages patroller. I have been so for many years, and have conducted hundreds of manual patrols. I've tagged more than 300 things for speedy deletion, with an accuracy rate near 99%. I don't really care what some group decides to call themselves, and what rights they decide to accord themselves. I don't care they don't trust me to have this fancy new right. I do care that some vague group has decided that I supposedly am no longer a new pages patroller. Sorry, that's flat false, and will always be flat false. Sure, I can't review pages anymore; I'm not a 'reviewer'. But, I am a patroller. I don't do userboxes, but if I did I likely would have one that stated I am a new pages patroller, as that is entirely accurate. This notion that some vague group gets to control what people have on their userpages over something that ANY user can do is just stupid on the face of it. Whatever damage was done needs to be undone, and whomever was responsible for this (I really don't care who) needs a trouting. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Hammersoft: I appreciate your work, but unfortunately, you are currently not a patroller (see Special:ListUsers/patroller). Also, your claim that you "don't really care what some group decides to call themselves" shows your lack of respect for discussion and consensus. We had a large-scale community discussion about the issue (here) and consensus was reached to implement new user group. I am also not happy about this change, but I would never say that I don't care about consensus. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
    • False. I am a patroller. I have been for many years, doing patrolling work that this new "reviewer" right does not prevent me from doing. I will continue doing it, as policy permits me to do so. I am not a "reviewer". Please maintain appropriate terminology. You are putting words into my mouth. I did not intend any disrespect towards any group. I simply don't care what group calls themselves what. Not caring <> lack of respect. I care for the project, period. If some group wants to accord themselves a new right that prevents me from doing the work I do in as efficient a manner as I was able to do it in the past, so be it. I will continue to do the work anyway. I will continue to call myself a patroller. I will continue to tag articles for speedy deletion, improvements being needed, stub tagging and more. None of these things are prevented by the new reviewer right. Until such time as any other group passes more technical changes that prevent me from doing these things, I will remain a patroller. If you don't like it, the proper action isn't to forcibly change people's userpages without their foreknowledge. The proper action is to get consensus to deny people the ability to patrol pages. That wasn't denied by any recent RfC. What was denied was the able to mark things as "reviewed". I am not a reviewer, and don't claim to be, just as I am not an admin and don't claim to be. I am a patroller. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

While we're on terminology problems, it should be noted that

• Wikipedia:New pages patrol should be renamed, or related parts separated into Wikipedia:New pages review
• Special:ListUsers/patroller should be renamed to Special:ListUsers/reviewer, especially since when you're on that special page, it lists users with the "New page reviewer" right, not a (non-existent) "patroller right".
• NPP terminology needs to be identified as separate from NPR, rather than conflating the two terms.
• Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard needs to be updated to separate into two noticeboards, one for patrolling and one for reviewing. Right now, they are conflated...with resulting confusion.

The issue here is that the idea of "patrolling" has a far broader definition than just being able to mark a new page as reviewed. There are many types of patrolling (files, changes, vandalism, new users, etc.), and even just new pages patrolling is different than the reviewer right itself. This isn't simply a matter of semantics, but a rather far more important and far reaching one. Even the term 'review' or 'reviewer' by itself is potentially problematic; witness Special:Log/review. Confusion caused the problem we're here at AN/I about, and it's far from isolated. Witness Wikipedia:User_access_levels#New_page_reviewer which says that users in this group have 'patrol'. This is false, as the right is "new page reviewer". The term should be properly identified as "new page reviewer", and only in that way. I would not at all be surprised to see a group some day soon called "new file reviewer", as that is something that is sorely needed. There may certainly be others. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

A path forward?

I think restoring the transclusions and then immediately holding another MfD is a good idea. The reason we don't delete transclusions before bringing a template to TfD (or in this case, MfD) is because "unused" is a valid rationale for deletion. An MfD is a great idea to get a more "certain" result about this consensus beyond the original MfD, but we shouldn't distort that discussion by leaving an improper view of the extent to which these templates were used or requiring the MfD participants to wade into the background of this mess. These proposed steps would be highly similar to the procedures at WP:DRV, where we revert the deletion of an article while its under review to allow all editors to see exactly what they're discussing. If the concern is the effort of replacing the transclusions only to potentially remove them again, I'll gladly volunteer to remove the transclusions with my bot, if necessary. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem with this is it is a proposal for "another bite of the apple" not a "path forward". As I said above [35] the RfC result was clear and the proposal that passed clearly stated that the NPP userboxes are deprecated and you have not presented any reason for overturning the RfC result other than IDONTLIKEIT. Jbh^Talk 06:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

You've argued that consensus forms when no-one notices or comments on part of a proposal. That is incorrect; it requires a rough agreement of editors. In such a large-scale discussion, we identify consensus through the closing statement, which explicitly restricted the consensus to the technical change of creating a user right. Twinkle was listed in the exact same subsection as the userbox bullet point, which you've stated wasn't part of the proposal. Going farther, if you want to wikilawyer that no-one noticed this bullet point so it has de facto consensus, I can just as easily say that deprecation does not imply the mass removal of transclusions. Deprecation means only that there is a new preferred version that editors are encouraged to use. No-where in the RfC did anyone ever mention removing userboxes from 1,500 user pages. Had they done so, I imagine the reaction would have been akin to the Twinkle reaction. Instead of wikilawyering, though, we should rely on the simple fact that this was never discussed at that RfC. When it was discussed at an MfD (the proper place for discussing the deletion of userboxes), there was unanimous agreement to retain the userbox. I'm all for further discussion, which has been suggested by the administrator who removed the transclusions, but we need to restore the situation to the status quo before doing so. There's also the not-insignificant matter that these controversial mass edits to other editors' user pages becomes more difficult as the pages are edited further, making rollback impossible. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

As to wikilawyering - pot meet kettle. The RfC specifically said that Twinkle changes were not part of the RfC that is why I did not copy that section. Yes - when a proposal is put up, as it was here, silence on an element of the proposal equals consent in an RfC or else there would be endless rehashing - "oh no one discussed this element of the proposal" , "oh not enough people discussed this part" etc. When specific elements of a proposal fail it is noted by the closer. The close was supporting the new user right, that it would be implemented by a process at PERM, that editors would be grandfathered (the specific date range was changed in the second RfC but if it had not no one could come back and say "well, no one talked about the number of edits for grandfathering...". That would have been silly since the criteria had passed already - does not matter whether it was specifically discussed or not by !voters.) and that the NPP userbox would be deprecated - and yes there is a replacement for it the NPR userbox.

As to this MfD you keep bringing up it had what - 4 editors participating? It was also only about the This editor patrols new pages with Twinkle userbox so the broadest claim you can make based on that is that that particular userbox should not be removed from user pages - it has no bearing whatsoever on the removal of the NPP1 and NPP2 userboxes which were not the subjects of the MfD. Jbh^Talk 07:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC) @BU Rob13: Struck... damn I get snappish in the AM... Sorry. Last Edited: 08:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Then why did the RfC closers explicitly note that the consensus was restricted to the technical changes of adding the user group? You know what, I've run out of stamina. I'm surprised that a small group of editors have managed to so quickly erode the "anyone can edit" mentality by managing to forbid editors without a designated user right from even mentioning that they like to help out with new pages on their user page. I'm even more surprised that no-one appears to care, given the complete lack of a response by any uninvolved administrator in this thread. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• I reverted my removals of {{User Newpages with Twinkle}}, the userbox that was discussed at the MfD. I also removed the link to wp:NPP from that userbox [36] as Hobit suggested above (to change the template to not point to the usergroup page...). I agree that I shouldn't have removed that template, as its prime meaning is "This user uses Twinkle". But, the other two templates I removed ({{User wikipedia/NP Patrol}} and {{User wikipedia/NP Patrol2}}) are quite different. Their prime meaning is "this user is new pages patroller". I don't see how discussion about Twinkle template can be relevant those other two templates. I still claim that I acted according to consensus, and I ask for the new discussion to be held and new consensus reached before I revert my other edits. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for doing that. I'm utterly out of time in RL to have time to research those other two userboxes, so no clue if this is enough, but I do appreciate you doing it. May be back to do that research later this weekend, we'll see. Hobit (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Persistent trolling on WAM talk page

Kacperf (talk · contribs) is obviously the same person who has been posting "semi-protected edit requests" to do nothing.[37][38][39] When it was just an IP I didn't feel the need to report it, but ... well, it's also possible that the same person was engaged in unambiguous racist trolling.[40] The account appears to have been created because the person thinks they will get away with this trolling if they have an account, which is a blatant WP:NOTHERE motivation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

BTW, I know someone is going to try to interpret the "Caucasian Month" in a non-racist manner and accuse me of violating AGF. There are only two definitions of "Caucasian" that are not racial ("of or relating to the Caucasus region" and "the language group spoken in the Caucasus region"), but both of those are already covered within the parameters of Asian Month. So the comment doesn't make sense unless it is a racist claim that "there should be a White People Month if we're going to have a month for Asians". IPs and non-autoconfirmed accounts aren't allowed participate in Asian Month anyway, as it is all about creating new articles, so there isn't even any reason why this person would want to edit the page or be allowed participate by making "Caucasian-related" edits. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

So, is anyone gonna block this guy? Or explain why they aren't going to block him? Is Asian Month not a sexy enough topic? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Repeated sexist vandalism

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

---

Can someone have a look at this and do something about it?
FYI, this IP has already been reported in this request a month ago. Lspiste (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Time for a one-week vacation, I think. Miniapolis 23:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

OK and thanks!Lspiste (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Compromised admin account

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

---

They're back. Donald Trump was moved to MediaWiki:Donald Trump and I can't revert it. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Donald Trump has been moved to MediaWiki:Donald Trump by Maury Markowitz and then the MediaWiki article's been protected and then has been nominated for deletion all by the same admin.... I'm not entirely sure whether the account's been compromised or they're just clueless but wanted to bring it here incase it's a hack, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 01:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

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

• If only we could move Donald Trump to MediaWiki such that no one can revert it. At least the damage would be contained. EEng 03:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Requesting block of user

I am requesting that the user Unstoppable . Maniac be permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia, and, if possible, an account creation block on the IP which created the account on the following grounds:

• The user account was created recently, and it's only contributions have been to this page. The user does not appear to be posting from a neutral point of view and thus far has not made any valuable contribution to the discussion. It's edits have been more disruptive than they have been helpful to the discussion at hand.
  
  
• The user account may be a sock puppet account of this user. The user has created other sock puppet accounts before and I feel that it is at least worth an investigation.
  
  

Thank you for considering these reasons. If you have any comments in regard to this request, please let me know. Asm20 (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be best to open a new report for the 'EvanDanielCollett' SPI if you suspect it to be them?

As for the rest, let's see now. 70% (7/10) of edits are to the same AFD, User Page seems like a minor trolling case, knowledge of templates (as made evident by adding {{user sandbox}} to their user/sandbox page. Yep, I'm quite obliged to say this seems pretty WP:NOTHERE to me and Asm definitely seems to be on to something. No comment on the sockpuppet point though, I'm not familiar with the background to it. MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 20:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

"Wouldn't it be best to open a new report for the 'EvanDanielCollett' SPI if you suspect it to be them?" Matticusmadness, if you check EvanDanielCollett's user page, you will see they have already been permanently blocked for new-page patrolling, so investigating them further doesn't seem necessary. I think that the sock-puppet accusation I made is weak at best and I regret making it. I didn't consider WP:NOTHERE in my original post and I appreciate you bringing it up. Here's hoping this gets noticed and something gets done about it. Thanks for your input. Asm20 (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I worded that first part badly I see. But by the by, same end result of 'not taking to SPI'. I've also considered if WP:SPA is in consideration for this one, and nearly mentioned it, but that road kinda brings us to WP:NOTHERE anyway. Whaddaya think, is SPA in hand here too? MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 21:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd say that seeing as though the only thing this account has done other than commenting on the AfD page is editing it's own talk page, and that the posts from this user have been heavily biased toward one side of the discussion, that WP:SPA is definitely applicable here and should definitely be considered by the admins if they ever get to investigating this account. Asm20 (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Editor loosing their cool

Could we get someone to look at User:Hyperforin. Looks like they are deleting content all over. Looks like they are loosing it. -- Moxy (talk) 02:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no further delete in progress. Any past deletes have been reverted. The situation is under control. --Hyperforin (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps best you take some time off ....simply does not look good to see edits like this ..that is to disrupt the project simply to prove a point. Take five pls -- Moxy (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it's best you pick up a dictionary. It's spelled "losing" in this context, not "loosing".[41] It simply does not look good to spelling like this. And if there is anyone who needs to take some time off, it's the user who led me to proving a point. --Hyperforin (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hyperforin: I suggest thinking before you post to ANI, your above comment is not only uncivil but is an attack to other Wikipedia editors. Don't dig your self a hole you won't get out of! --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 02:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Editing to prove a WP:POINT is disruptive. Quite fortunate to not have been blocked for this nonsense. Blackmane (talk) 02:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

So..

• run of the mill content dispute at Performance-enhancing substance.
• edit warring between two other editors there, which leads to a warning to User:Hyperforin by User:Oshwah here.
• In the meantime, I opened a discussion of the content Hyperforin wants to add on the talk page here, and in the course of that discussion I wrote this, saying that the claims Hyperforin wanted to add were extraordinary, the kind of thing one would find in the NEJM.
• In response, Hyperforin:
  • left this beauty of a note on my Talk page, then
  • blanked a bunch of pages, here and here and here and here and here, and here with edit notes all saying "Per Jytdog, if such claims were true, it's NEJM stuff. No NEJM ref for (article) is included. Therefore it's #REDIRECT "
• I warned them on their talk page to not do this and they wrote: "Go to hell. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS DISRUPTIVE!"
• I wrote that i would give them the chance to apologize to the community and promise not to do this ever again, or I would post here at ANI, and in response Hyperforin wrote: "You are a wicked and malevolent editor who only sees things his own way. Go open your silly ANI thread and jerk off to it." and then blanked it.

I don't reckon this is an acceptable response to a content dispute. Jytdog (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours for disruptive editing, which will hopefully give them time to reassess their behavior. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

AIV backlog

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

---

Could one of you fine admin fellows clear the small backlog at WP:AIV? I swear I'm about ready to lose my mind over this IP vandal. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Scjessey (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Bullying editor

Toddst1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has strongly implied I'm a Nazi, and then proceeded to randomly revert my constructive edits on other pages [42] [43] (ironically re-adding material that described AAVE as "ungrammatical" – who's the real Nazi?). The editor has further attempted to bully me by outing me and adding groundless warnings to my talkpage, as well as reporting me to AIV when that clearly doesn't apply. 106.68.149.57 (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Er... not seeing anything wrong here. It looks like exemplary conduct from Toddst1. I would've done exactly the same thing. Also, you should give Toddst1 a courtesy notice to inform the editor of this discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I share the IP's concern. I too have been on the receiving end of this editor's attitude. I've seen much worse, though ... richi (hello) 10:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt: The editor does great work in the vast majority of cases ... richi (hello) 10:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

TBAN for 106.68.149.57

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

Added the above links. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG time. "Please block this user for outing me as a fascist" is a pretty good way to shoot yourself in the foot. These users cannot but bring the project into disrepute, and if it were a named account I would say indef-block like Zaostao or Ellomate, but a TBAN from "ethnicity" (or perhaps "Jews") should be enough in this case. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support Note IP is static, so this is not an unreasonable course of action, if overt fascism can be better demonstrated. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC) 12:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Meh. Removing the section on Jews from from the German American article four times in nine hours with the only explanation being "this article is about ethnic Germans" looks like fascism to me, and this contrasting the article with "other similar articles" that apparently do not mention Jews (while ignoring Russian Americans and Polish Americans) looks like coyly dodging accusations of totally reasonable accusations of antisemitism. Additionally, if this edit from a few days earlier was the same user it looks like a slightly longer-term problem than I thought. Going back through the user's edits is somewhat enlightening, but I have not found a smoking gun: here he recontextualized "scholarly works" as being written by "Jews", which is difficult to defend as just being accurate attribution (it looks more like trying to distinguish "Jewish authors" from the rest of scholarship because, you know, they're Jews and all). But yeah, I guess if we dig through all his contributions and he can provide reasonable explanations for the ones that look fascistic... I guess... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. I really do not see any fascism in the given examples, just the not very unusual conflict about interpreting "Xlandians" as "people from Xlandia" or "ethnic Xlandians". And the "if xxx from a few days earlier was the same user" bit is really below the belt, since the one IP is based in Brazil, the other in Australia. Quick mover? --T*U (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as the bully. I just think this editor is somewhat misguided and was appropriately blocked. If it happens again, maybe we reconsider. Toddst1 (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Continued talk page harassment/edit warring from warned user; request for RevDel

Sorry ANI, I hate to be like the boy who cried wolf here, but User:BlaccCrab was warned just two days ago by Ritchie333 to not edit war on my or any user's talk page and he has continued today, removing a past message, claiming it his right to remove it when it isn't. I have not broken/will not break 3RR, but this is blatant harassment because he still thinks I'm following him because I edit pages on my watchlist he also does. May I also request that his attacking edit summaries be RevDeled? I don't want to look through my talk history to see this. Thanks. Ss112 05:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I removed my own message that was discussing album sales that he was too above me to respond to. How is that vandalizing his talk page when its my own message, what a total joke. BlaccCrab (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• I just visited his talk page to notify him of this discussion, and he blanked a section where I had messaged him (which is his right), but with the attacking edit summary "Power Hungry Pseudo Intellect Sydrome". This is blatant harassment, and a grudge. BlaccCrab has been warned and still continues. Ss112 05:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Funny how theres a 7 paragraph section on your talk page about yet another admin advising you to stop trying to get the last word with editors you argue with (which there are tons of). Wonder why lol BlaccCrab (talk) 06:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Admins have rarely messaged me on my talk page, and I don't know who you're talking about, but Hijiri88 is not an admin. Ss112 06:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Ahh right. So then standard users tell you to stop incessantly arguing and whining with people you disagree with for the sole purpose of feeling above them. Got it. BlaccCrab (talk) 06:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I have given BlaccCrab a week's holiday for edit warring and general failure to get along with others. Although he claims to have retired, I've seen enough diva quits around here to suspect that won't last long. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry User:Ss112, but you are wrong on this point. It's your talk page so you are allowed remove messages if you like, you are technically allowed maintain another user's signed comment even if they want it removed, but it's pushing the boundaries of WP:POLEMIC to do so and your motivations will inevitably be called into question. If you don't want anything to do with this user, just let them remove the comments. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict) By the way, you need to stop treating ANI as a first resort. Believe me: if your name shows up as an involved party in too many ANI threads in a certain period of time, even if you are not in the wrong, sooner or later the peanut gallery will start calling for your head. In this case, it doesn't even matter if you were right or wrong: you were edit-warring, and didn't attempt to discuss the problem before opening a thread on ANI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

"My motivations" for maintaing a user's comment? What could those honestly be? I just don't think he has the right to come onto my talk page and remove his own message that at the time, I didn't have a problem with, and that he was only removing today because he thinks I followed his edits (to literally all of two pages that were already on my watchlist). I don't have any other motivation, so I'm maintaining that right. Besides, that doesn't give him the right to edit war with the user whose talk page it is if they've made it clear they want it kept. I don't care about the user besides not wanting him to harass me because he thinks I care to follow his edits, so I kind of just want this thread closed. Ss112 09:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know what your motivations could honestly be. I do know that what you are doing looks like something another user did to me a while back, and when I posted that on ANI, a bunch of other editors unanimously told him to let me remove my comment per WP:DICK. He too claimed that I was making false accusations that I was harassing him. He might have been right that I was making those claims, and he might even have been right that the claims were false, but that didn't matter, because the issue at hand was that he was deliberately maintaining a reference to me in his user space after I had made it clear that I wanted nothing more to do with him and wanted it removed. This looks like the exact same thing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring on somebody's talk page is absolutely harassment, as is continuing to post after you've been told not to. That's what I took issue with. I don't think it looks exactly like the same thing, and I don't think we can compare situations like this. Sorry Hijiri, but this is pointless now and I have nothing more to say on the matter. Ss112 09:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

No offence to you Ss, but I agree with Hijiri that you shouldn't open too many ANI reports, as Yunshui once told me, "think of ANI as your big red button" (or something in effect of those lines), no comment on anything else, as Blacc has already been sent packing. MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 14:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Unanswered and archived post on User:Motivação

This was archived with no response: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#User:Motiva.C3.A7.C3.A3o. This looks like a clear-cut case to me and would appreciate help. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

(retitled header and post, didn't mean it was a Request for Closure Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC))

Persistent vandalism to disrupt article Narendra Modi’s demonetisation policy

After creation of Narendra Modi’s demonetisation policy, article I have been suffering from persistent vandalism tags and discussions, without been given chance to improve the article , as standalone, there have been tags for lack of notability, and also copying the text. I would request immediate help from administration to check for sock puppetry and vandalism involved in not letting the article grow.Junosoon (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Junosoon: I've looked at the article history and it seems fine. No obvious vandalism has been let through and many editors have been working on it. The talk page too is active. What instances of vandalism or sockpuppetry are you referring to? provide diffs for evidence. Also, have a look at WP:OWN, by saying "my article" and "As the author", it gives an implication that you feel you have special rights to it, which is very much against policy. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, in the edit history, edits by other users , who had tagged the article, has been erased, I suspect at meat puppetry in discussion of merge Talk:Narendra Modi’s demonetisation policy, and nomination and closure of discussion. I have no conflict of interest in topic,all editors were open to edit , I had requested on talk page ,that the article had good scope of standalone.Junosoon (talk) 10:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG: One-week block for User:Junosoon

The OP wrote a terribly-written article and it was proposed that it be merged. The merge received unanimous support from everyone but the OP. Now the OP is accusing the users who came to this unanimous consensus of "vandalism". I am not even going to try to wade through the above mess. (No, ANI is not going to get merged into a mainspace article: don't even try it.) But this is serious disruption, and they don't show signs of shopping. This looks like a WP:CIR problem and might be best-served by an indefinite block, but a one-week block should be enough to get them to reflect on how their actions are disruptive. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. How is this preventative rather than punitive? Junosoon should drop the stick. A discussion resulted in a clear consensus, which they happen to disagree with, but that's how decisions are made on this project. If they don't drop the stick, then their griping will quickly become disruptive, but we're not there yet. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: How is this preventative rather than punitive? Junosoon should drop the stick. Thank you for answering your own question. I will withdraw my proposal if Junosoon says he will drop the stick, abide by consensus, and that this thread should be closed. Failing that, a block to make them drop the stick is hardly punitive. then their griping will quickly become disruptive, but we're not there yet I take calling a unanimous consnsus "vandalism" PRODding ANI as being "there", but I guess it's a matter of opinion.Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose for now The merge seems to be done properly. The discussion was a bit short (in terms of time) but fine in terms of numbers and content. Unless there is evidence of socking, this should be merged. Junosoon needs to drop the stick. If he keeps beating this dead horse, a block will be needed. Hobit (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Junosoon is a 4 month old account. Assuming that they have never edited previously this is very young and rather than beat them over the head with the blockhammer, they should be reminded that

1. Wikipedia runs on policy bases consensus discussions. In this case, consensus was to merge the article. This does not mean consensus cannot change but it is up to Junosoon to the groundwork to convince others.
2. Vandalism has a very specific meaning, see WP:VANDALISM. Accusing others of vandalism when no such thing occurred is a personal attack and persistent accusations without evidence will be met with blocks.
3. Accusations of sock/meatpuppetry without evidence is a personal attack and will be met with blocks.

Having passion for an article is admirable but it is advised not to turn it into some sort of crusade. I recommend that Junosoon create a subpage in their userspace so they can work on it there and that they should seek guidance from some of the commentors in the merge discussion rather than accuse them of bad faith. Blackmane (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose For what this account has done, especially considering that it is a relatively new account, a one week block seems like far too harsh a measure. I don't see the necessity of such a harsh block unless the user further escalates their disruptive behaviour. Asm20 (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose This looks like a WP:CIR problem and might be best-served by an indefinite block – An indef block is way, way too harsh. This user's account is four months old. I don't see how a temporary block would be beneficial either, for the moment. However, I would ask that Junosoon assume good faith on the part of other editors. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 14:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Note I'm noticing that a lot of the "oppose"s seem to be based on the assumption that Junosoon has already retracted their disruptive edits and agreed to stop, but he hasn't edited since I proposed this boomerang block. There is still absolutely no evidence that they are willing to change, and I can totally see this boomerang proposal being overrun by nuanced "oppose for now"s emboldening the user (whose English is not great) and making the problem worse. This is what happened with Pldx1 and Juzumaru. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Compromised account?

User:Zanimum has made some strange edits, including attempting to PROD the main page. I've blocked him as a suspected compromised account. Optimist on the run (talk) 12:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Yup - confirmed on IRC that stewards have already enacted a global lock. Mike1901 (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, (and I just posted about this on Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements), for some reason today curator is popping up on the main page. This is obviously not intentional, but it is confusing that it suddenly started doing that. TimothyJosephWood 13:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

If we believe the account to be comprised, should we not also do an emergency, temporary desysop? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Related discussion on WP:AN -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

As long as the stewards are prompt with the global lock, there's no need to de-sysop. The lock prevents any use of the account. Related discussion on WP:BN. Whether someone deserves to be de-sysop'd for having their account cracked is an exercise I'll leave to others. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Bold suggestion here, but, is it worth automatically activating 2FA for all the Sysops that are, saaaay, halfway, to being desys'd for inactivity? Maybe even six months (a quarter of the time)? MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 14:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Matticusmadness: Can't really enable 2FA automatically, as it needs to be 'paired' with a TOTP client -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: "Okie Dokie Loki! :)" My mistake, technical combobuladoohdahs aren't my thing here. MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 15:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I would just add, not being really technically minded myself, i was kind of hesitant to do 2FA. Then, after seeing the carnage spreading I went ahead and did it, and once you have the app, it is really easy. I don't think we can ever require it, because you have to have a smartphone, but if you do and you have advanced permissions, now's the time to go ahead and turn it on, especially if you've been careless enough to recycle your password. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Just for visibility sake, this guide documents a PC-based application you can use, should you not have a smartphone -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

We can't force 2FA, but we could send out a message that if you are an admin, and you haven't changed your password recently, or enabled 2FA or both, you may be blocked after some date. While I don't think we have a software way to tell that someone has changed a password (I hope) we could ask for a positive confirmation, and failing receipt, block. Might start with less active accounts - it is clear that they have a long list of working passwords, and inactive admins who aren't reading what is going on are going to be the best targets. Actually, there's something else, but per beans, I'll not go further.--S Philbrick(Talk) 03:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Terrible suggestion. At most, temporary desysop in those cases. Blocking would be ridiculous (and not help one bit, as sysops can self-unblock anyway). Fram (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

There's also the issue that we can't really distinguish between sysops whose passwords consist of a twice-weekly rotation of SHA-256 hashs of random pages of the Voynich manuscript and those who figure that their pet's name is secure enough -- and they're both just as likely to say "my password is secure." If we take the word of the former for granted, we're leaving the latter exposed. Whatever we do about the former can very easily unnecessarily inconvenience the former. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

And really, if we need someone using an enciphered Egyptian tomb curse as a password to enable 2FA, then the only means by which they're getting admin passwords would have to be access to the Wikimedia foundation's servers. And if that was the case (which I doubt), 2FA isn't a panacea. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, they can unblock themselves. If they are compromised, and find themselves blocked and then unblock themselves there almost certainly going to asked what the hell is going on, which will achieve the desired goal of letting them know what's going on. If they are a compromised account, and they unblock themselves and don't ask, that's a red flag. I don't think we can do a temporary desysop under our present rules Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Removal_of_permissions so it either needs invoking IAR, or amending our rules. A block can be done without either. I think something should be done; if you want to push for temporary desysop go for it but that sounds like overkill to me.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

"If they are a compromised account, and they unblock themselves and don't ask, that's a red flag. " Well, yes, just like messing with the Main page is a red flag. I doubt they will unblock themselves and then hang around waiting for someone to notice it and do the global lock or desysop. And I don't follow how temporary desysop is not allowed, but blocking for this would be allowed. Blocking admins only because they haven't logged in for, what, 3 months or so, is way beyond IAR: if you want to get support for this, you can just as well go for support for temporary desysop. Speaking as an admin who has had a long period of inactivity in the past, I would be much, much more troubled (disappointed, whatever) by being greeted by a "you are blocked" on my return, than by a "you are temporarily desysopped"). The latter would be fine, I was inactive and admin accounts were getting compromised, so a fine precautionary measure. The former would be insulting. Fram (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Poeticbent deleting other editor's comments from talk page

On the Talk:Poland, user Poeticbent has been deleting comments posted by other users in a discussion about University buildings, and falsely alleging that they are a personal attack, when it was pointed out that Poeticbent's previous comments on this subject matter were not based on merit and could be characterized as unproductive when Poeticbent rather cynically called the picture of the new university physics building a "pool facility". So far Poeticbent has went back and deleted the comments 4 times [44], [45], [46], and [47].

Also, Poeticbent has been reverting the article page despite the fact that myself and Oliszydlowski agreed that the latest image change is acceptable, with user Oliszydlowski stating: To sum up, I am not against the changes you made and you proved your point so I am not going to revert anything. Best Regards :) yet the only person still objecting is Poeticbent reverting the article page [48], [49], [50], and [51]. I would request that the user is blocked to prevent further disruption to the article page and any discussion that are taking place. --E-960 (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

1. This looks like a content dispute. You are arguing that there is consensus when there's only three editors talking. That does not show consensus either way, so please stop implying there is. 2. Calling another editor disruptive and a vandal is not helpful. 3. You're both edit warring in my eyes, so you'll probably both be blocked to stop the edit war. You both have issues that need to be dealt with. --Tarage (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

This has been going on for years. User E-960 (talk · contribs · count) calls every point of view he disagrees with either "disruptive" or "vandalism". I'm tired of it, and want him to be reminded that attacking other editors during content dispute is not acceptable. Here's just a sample of his attitude. When his poorly-made photo choice was reverted twice (only for the second time by me!) he strikes back: User:Poeticbent, your behavior is disruptive, and quite honestly it comes across as vandalism ... [52] Here's his edit summary: pls keep statement as evidence - no personal attack. — User:E-960 was here before. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive907#Disruptive behavior with ethnic overtones on Blue Army (Poland) Talk Page. Proposed topic ban for E-960 was supported by a number of editors including User:Ohnoitsjamie, User:Nick-D, User:Iryna Harpy, User:Faustian while others suggested that his case needs to be taken to ArbCom. He's a master manipulator with zero ability to work in a cooperative manner. His report (per above) is nothing but a pre-emptive strike, in the hope of manipulating your reaction to his verbally abusive revert war. Poeticbent talk 20:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I count four reverts each today. So you both in blockable territory under WP:3RR. TimothyJosephWood 21:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• Rather than blocking both editors, which was completely justifiable, I've fully protected the article for a week. Learn to communicate and start using the talk page like adults or there will likely be a round of blocks next time as many other admins may not be so gracious. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think that full protection is anything other than a band-aid measure, and I fully empathise with Poeticbent getting caught going over 3RR. E-960 is, indeed, a disruptive editor who is a dab hand at goading other editors and has an abundance of patience in waiting for things to blow over before resuming disruptive editing tactics. This requires more than a temporary solution and hoping it will go away, because it has become evident over the years that it will not. The article has been subjected to serious edit warring and POVPUSH for years, which makes good faith editors very, very jumpy indeed when the same issues and attacks are brought up over and over again after consensus has been reached... and, even given "consensus can change", we are talking about issues over which consensus is not going to change. While this may be over a WP:PERTINENCE issue, not all regular editors can keep up with changes taking place on every article within a couple of weeks, particularly as the edit warring and claims of consensus having been reached have taken place over a couple of days. As regards E-960 using the ANI as a pre-emptive strike, I'm in agreement with Poeticbent. This is yet another attempt to WIN by going through the motions of BRD without actually being interested in the discussion, but only in getting his way. All full protection accomplishes in reinforcing that editors like E-960 can treat Wikipedia as a battleground and be rewarded for it. Make no mistake, Poeticbent and I have had some serious disputes over content over the years, but we do our level best to work out matters in a civil manner, and by holding the principle of NPOV over and above our personal inclinations. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, but then I would ask that someone makes a proposal on what admin action is needed here? Based on the edit warring and 3RR violations alone, E-960 probably would not have gotten a block longer than a week, anyway. Without proposing some sort of sanction (eg. extended block, topic ban, etc.) and a consensus behind it, most likely no other long term admin action will occur. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Before everyone jumps to conclusions, I'd like to say something in my defense, because just as in those earlier instances that are listed above, we have a situation where senior editors have an axe to grind and are trying to take down a small time editor such as myself, and yes, in the past there were differences of opinion on some very sensitive/emotional topics. But, let me say this… I'm being accused of a 'personal attack' because in my reply I said that user Poeticbent's comment was disruptive (calling someone's statement disruptive is not a personal attack), yet on this very talk page user Poeticbent called me "a master manipulator" and in the past filed sock puppet investigations against me, accusing me of being a suck puppet, for no less than half a dozen accounts! [53] Btw, I was cleared of all those accusations. Also, I'm accused of being a 'bully', yet user Poeticbent blatantly reverted my edit, which was approved by user Oliszydlowski, and what raises my personal suspicion of a systemic bias is the fact that this is being totally ignored. Now, user Tarage stated above "You are arguing that there is consensus when there's only three editors talking", well guess what, the discussion was open for over two weeks and it only involved 3 editors, so this is the only input you are going to get, and no WP rules say that you need some kind of a Quorum, just a simple majority of support for your edit. Finally, I'm not sure there is any justification for user Poeticbent to delete my comments on the talk:Poland page, especially by claiming that I made a personal attack, by saying that user Poeticbent's comment was "disruptive" (again, objecting to someone's comment is not a personal attack), this amounts to nothing more then vandalism and slander (since user Poeticbent took down my comment no less then 4 times, and not just this one statement, but the entire comment block), yet everyone currently involved in this incident discussion seems to ignore those facts, and so, we have another situation where a witch hunt is being instigated by the same editors who have an ongoing grudge against me. Yet, questionable behavior by user Poeticbent is marginalized. --E-960 (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

For the record, this is pretty clearly not a circumstance where WP:TPO permits the removal of other's comments (much less four times). Anyone whose sensitive feelings are bruised by words like "disruptive" and "vandalism" is probably not cut out to...interact with people on the internet. TimothyJosephWood 17:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I was kind of hoping that E-960 would give us another example of what happens when he isn't playing the hero. — He is playing the poor victim. Take a look at that investigation archived at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/COD T 3/Archive#13 October 2015. E-960 was found not to be the sockpuppet of User:COD T 3, but suspicion by User:Darouet was quite valid, based on the pattern of constant edit-warring and complete disregard for our behavioural guidelines. E-960 is a notorious disruptor, hence the suspicion of sockpuppetry. I'd like to believe that the Poland article incident is the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back. If we don't do something, we will be forced to deal with E-960 sooner than you think. Calling serious editors who disagree with your ideas "vandals", is an ad hominem attack. Poeticbent talk 17:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

is an ad hominem attack? I'm going to go ahead and channel my inner EEng, and say...get over it. Let's see, yesterday for a CSD nom I was called a stupid white yank bully who don't know shit about other cultures so shut the Fuck up you dumb yank white trash. But I'm an adult, so I somehow continued on with my life. Wikipedia is not a SafeSpace™. TimothyJosephWood 18:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

"[...] channel my inner EEng, and say... "get over it"." That just made my day. That was too accurate and funny! Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 18:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't tell you how proud I am to know I'm seen as a behavioral exemplar. EEng 21:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Since I was pinged: it's true that in general E-960 has a battleground mentality, though I don't think this case - a content dispute over which university deserves a photo on Poland - even ranks with past disruption. I also agree with E-960 that you shouldn't have (repeatedly) removed their comment Poeticbent... even if the comment was annoying. -Darouet (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Treated in isolation, yes, it does look like making a mountain out of a molehill... but, given the broader context of ongoing battleground mentality, any editor will eventually be WP:GOADed into overreacting and seeming to be petty in overstepping 3RR, TPO, etc. There's only so much even the coolest editor can take before it does their head in. Having observers trivialise ongoing behaviour just because they've had no dealings with the editor in question is plain patronising. I note that the same editors can't claim to be so dismissive when it comes to bollocksing on about disruptive editors when it involves them personally. Making noises about being 'bruised' and 'unfit' to an editor who's been around 10 times as long as the commentators have, and whose edit count is greater than the two commentators combined is really extremely irritating. The ANI is not a forum to play around in because it's a venue you can deride others because you're uninvolved. Such behaviour is truly bad form. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jauerback: Given that other editors have probably exhausted themselves working on all things 'election' of late, I don't think this thread is going to take off anywhere other than spiralling further down the 'free for all' fun ride slope. If/when it happens again, it's probably best handled at ARB. The article areas being edited in essentially fall under ARBEE. Thanks for your assistance, and having the patience to deal with this level-headedly. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks via repeated socking accusations

User:Hamlet94 posted to his or her talk page accusing me of socking and falsely stating that he or she had reported me for socking [54]. This post was then copied (including the original time stamp) to two article talk pages [55] and [56].

I left the following on each of the three pages "It is considered a personal attack to accuse an editor of socking without evidence. You have made no such report. Please remove the above accusation immediately." with a ping to the user from each page. [57] [58], [59]

The user responded by reiterating both the socking accusation and the false claim that he or she had reported me for socking, and stating that the or she would not discuss the edits in question with me [60].

I left a level 4 NPA warning since the socking accusations and false claims of an SPI case were not only not removed but were repeated [61].

User responded by changing his or her previous talk page post which has already been responded to [62] and then copying this modified post (complete with the time stamp predating the level 4 warning) to one of the article talk pages [63]. The result was another accusation of socking, another false claim that he or she had already reported me to SPI, and another statement that he or she would not discuss the edits in question with me, all with a false time stamp that predated the NPA warning.

It's obvious from the articles I'm currently writing (see my user page for links) that I don't even live in the same country as where my supposed IP sock geolocates to. I'm perfectly happy to have an SPI opened against me, but continuing to accuse me of socking while falsely claiming to have already opened an SPI are personal attacks. The most recent characterization of me as having an "emotional aversion" to the subject is also a personal attack. I believe this warrants a block.

The user appears to be some WP:OWN issues over the biographical articles in question. Despite what he or she says, as far as I know I have had no previous interaction with this user. The current issue of the suitability of a particular source is being discussed on the talk pages. It was challenged 4 months ago and several users have also questioned its use. Consensus seems to be that we should not user it, at least in its current form. Meters (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Without commenting on the content dispute, User:Hamlet94 either needs to put up evidence of socking and open up a sockpuppet investigation or shut up. Any further accusations without evidence should result in escalating blocks. Blackmane (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

COI, Edit warring, by Factsonlybaby

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

---

Robert Sepúlveda Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (RSj) is being repeatedly cleaned by Factsonlybaby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (FoB) an wp:SPA Who claims to be RSj and here in the ES talks about RSj in the third person. (COI notice) has been repeatedly removing well-sourced content about Robert Sepúlveda Jr. The content is primarilly Robert Sepúlveda Jr's history as a male escort which RSj talks about on the Huffington Post ref. I don't know (nor really care) if the content should be removed or left in. However, I think that someone other than FoB/RSj should decide. Also has added a number of photos of questionable as "own work" which have been removed. Jim1138 (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

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

The article needs to be protected as the user has simply logged out to continue his content removal war. --Tarage (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Linguist111 at WP:UAA

Linguist111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For previous discussion see WT:UAA, sections entitled "clerking" and "Users who have only edited drafts or whatever". In brief, UAA does not have clerks and every time it has come up consensus has been that they are not needed or desirable. However, this user has appointed themselves to the role nonetheless. I have endeavored to explain to them what things non-admins can do that are helpful at UAA, as opposed to getting int he way of admins trying to do the job the community has appointed them to do. His response is that he will continue to act as a clerk, period.

I'd like to be clear that I don't think this user is acting in bad faith, and their reports to UAA have been fine on the whole, but the self-appointed clerking is not being done well and is not particularly helpful The page is called "Usernames for administrator attention", not "free for all anyone just show up and do whatever". So what I am asking of the community is to look into this and either ask them to stop taking these clerking actions, or tell me I'm way off base and everything's fine. For the record, as is this is a large part of our disagreement, every discussion that I am aware of going back several years has reflected a consensus that "soft" blocking of users with blatantly promotional names is an appropriate and desirable response. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• I'll preface this by saying that I also think Linguist has acted in good-faith and don't think any sanction would be appropriate. I do think we should consider whether we want non-admins to "clerk" UAA. Similar to WP:PERM and WP:AIV, I think this is one of the incredibly few admin-only areas on the site. UAA is where editors go to request a block for a username violation. Non-admins can't block, so they can't process those requests, end of. If a non-admin would like to process WP:UAA block requests, RfA is that way. More importantly, I've started seeing more and more non-admins pop up to "clerk" these requests, and some of them have had competence issues. There's no reason to allow that to continue. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

You assume good faith on my part, but I can't say I can do the same for you. You've been very personal towards me during this dispute, with all of these frivolous edit summaries [64] [65] [66] [67], your use of the word "clerking" in speech marks etc.. Not conduct I expect from an administrator. As I said at the discussion at WT:UAA, the users whose username appear promotional, but their edits aren't connected to their username, I engage in discussion with. That's how I've seen it done most of the time. It even says at WP:UAA/I: Promotional violations require indisputable evidence. Do not report a username merely because it "looks" promotional. For there to be a violation, there must be edits or log entries that clearly link them to a particular company, organization, group, product, or website. Also, I feel that blocks, even soft blocks, can deter users; in my opinion it's better to discuss with them because it gives them a chance to get their account renamed quickly. I've seen many users change their usernames after discussion. Anyways, I want to enjoy being on Wikipedia, and the last thing I need is someone behaving this way towards me. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 06:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I have an interest in WP:UAA, as I routinely patrol new usernames looking for promotional usernames. @Linguist111: Many times I see you tag a posting at UAA as "being discussed with user" (Examples: [68][69][70]). Yet, no discussion is taking place at all. A notice has been placed on the editor's talk page, but they haven't responded. A notice on a talk page does not equal discussion. IF the user respond, THEN there is discussion (perhaps). Using the model you've been using for this, every time I post a promotional username to WP:UAA you would deny it, indicating it was being discussed with the user. I always post a {{uw-coi-username}} to the editor's talk page, wait for promotional edits, and then post to WP:UAA for failure to adhere to policy. Since I posted a warning, this would equal "discussion" in your model. Please, don't tag UAA notices as discussing unless actual discussion is taking place. Please. That said, I do see you doing good work such as this. I see no problem with continuing this work, and kudos to you for doing it. @Beeblebrox: while certainly other eyes were needed at this discussion, the discussion wasn't stale. Bringing it here to AN/I was premature, in my opinion. There's no need for any administrator action here. Anyone can appoint themselves to the role of "clerk" there, and that will not change. If someone is doing something incorrectly; fine, let's correct it. Trying to get Linguist to stop is a non-starter when there's good work in play. There's not just two options; that of either yes or no. Specifically address what needs to improve. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: Thanks, and thanks for your input. I understand your point about the "discussion" thing, but I previously thought that the {{UAA|d}} template was intended for use after a username warning was given to the user, regardless of whether they had responded yet or not. If I do see a username at UAA that is not a blatant violation, but requires discussion with the user, what should I do if I have warned the user but they have yet to respond? Should I leave a note such as "I've warned the user" (or use a template like {{AIV|w}}; maybe not as the template says that is for AIV), or just leave the report alone until the user responds? Thanks! Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 16:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• I think we need to see what pattern of edits they make, if it's not a blatant violation. It's possible a warning isn't even warranted if it's not blatantly promotional, though of course in this case they've already been reported, whether there's been a warning or not. I'd continue to observe, and if the edits appear promotional, take the appropriate action to remove the promotional edits and warn the editor. If they continue to promote, then they should be blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• I think both parties have to take some blame for this. Linguist; I'm going to do whatever I like on Wikipedia, as long as it adheres to policy - that isn't a good attitude to go into things with. There are many things that are within Wiki policy that can also be disruptive. For example, anybody can leave comments at AN/I, there is no hard and fast rule for "experienced" users. That doesn't mean that anybody should. It happens that a simple issue blows up into a gargantuan one. Hell I've seen a mildly annoyed administrator get dragged to ARBCOM by other overreacting users. All over an AfD tag to an article. Further; I will continue to decline requests as I see fit - is an even worse response. When somebody tries to tell you that you're doing something wrong or unhelpful, refusing to listen and saying that you'll do things your way is just going to piss them off. Simultaneously, Beeblebrox, edit summaries such as "groan" and "crappy" will get you nowhere with any self-respecting user. It's not an attack or anything, just that, most editors don't respond well to their good faith efforts being labelled as crap. Especially when that's an overblown description of what's actually happening. The biggest beef you seem to have is the use of the discussion template, the other things are apparently generally fine if I read the talk page and this correctly. The best action to take is to give a calm, measured, and well explained response - which some of yours were and some of yours weren't. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Linguist, regardless of the nature of your intent, if the admins active at UAA explain to you that your actions are getting in the way of them performing their work then you need to stop. It doesn't matter if you are trying to be helpful if you are ultimately impeding the work of admins at an administrators noticeboard. As Rob notes above "if a non-admin would like to process WP:UAA block requests, RfA is that way". Surely there are other areas of Wikipedia that could benefit from your desire to help? --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Mr rnddude and Ponyo: Thanks for your responses. I understand what you are saying. My refusal to listen to Beeblebrox pretty much stemmed from the way they behaved towards me. First off, after I disagreed with two of their declines at UAA (one was a misunderstanding on my part, but the other was a "Wait until the user edits" decline on a username that contained an attack on a named person), the user quickly responded with a sarcastic reply [71] and then went onto the talk page and said they were "tired of being countermanded by me". [72] This was where I began disregarding their comments, with the "groan" edit summary, and what seemed like a demand that I stop. When I saw these edit summaries [73] [74] [75] I just wasn't interested anymore. As far as I'm going to do whatever I like on Wikipedia, as long as it adheres to policy and I will continue to decline requests as I see fit is concerned, not a great way for me to respond, but Beeblebrox said that I was placing the "Being discussed" note on blatant violations, while I didn't see them as immediately blatant as there were no edits that matched the usernames, so we weren't seeing eye to eye. And at this point I just wanted the user to leave me alone. As far as other areas of Wikipedia where I could help out, I have an idea in mind, but UAA is the area I enjoy the most. I will, however, from now on, not decline reports as often as I have been but rather stick to reporting usernames and cleaning the board (removing declined requests and moving pending ones to holding pen, as Beeblebrox suggested), while only declining occasionally when a username is definitely not a blatant vio. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 19:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm certain your enthusiasm is, and will continue to be, welcome in many areas of Wikipedia. Regarding your intent to decline reports at UAA, I would suggest that you don't. As with unblock requests, in this case "declining" is an action related to a specific admin action (i.e. you can't "decline" to block when you don't have the ability to block in the first place).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• I concede the point about my edit summaries. Until very recently, I hadn't worked UAA in a few years,and I came back to find that the holding pen was a total shambles. Stale reports , some over a month old, were not being removed, declined reports were put in holding, which is just wrong, and there were piles of reports that no admin had replied to at all and had just been shoved in there to die. I took me several hours to get it cleaned up. I've been trying since then to keep it decent condition, and to show by example how it is supposed to be handled, but these things keep happening anyway, and I suppose it made me a bit grumpy. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok, this is going to be an embarrassing question. We have a holding pen for UAA? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Right here: Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Holding pen RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

It's purpose, traditionally, has been to hold reports for a week if the user has a problematic username but hasn't actually edited, where a name may not be a blatant violation but may be indicitative of an intent to disrupt, or if reviewing admins opted to discuss rather than block. In the majority of cases they sit for a week and are then removed. It's a curious fact that every single day many accounts are created that never make a single edit. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Threat of Violence

Hey folks. Where do I go to report an apparent threat of violence? :bloodofox: (talk) 04:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. More specifically, quit posting here and email emergency@wikimedia.org. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm doing that now. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

TeeTylerToe is abusing the help templates after indefinite block

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

---

TeeTylerToe has been indefinitely blocked, extended from a 6 month block. They're posting the same text walls that contributed to their block. And they're more of the same; rants and "I'm right and you're all wrong". The only thing they can edit is the talk, so they're using the {{help}} (and {{help admin}}) template to "appeal to Jimmy".

1. Diff: [76]
2. Diff: [77]
3. Diff: [78]
4. Diff: [79]
5. Diff: [80]
6. Diff: [81]

I wasn't part of the block discussion, nor am I party to any of the edit disputes. —Hexafluoride ^{Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk} 07:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

This looks pretty cut and dry. Some admin should remove talk page access and close this thread. Hardly even seems necessary to come here over simply messaging the blocking admin. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I tried looking for something like "talkpage abuse", but the guidelines are about someone else vandalizing a talkpage of another user. I couldn't find procedure guidelines for the excessive misuse of help templates. I'll message the blocking admin. —Hexafluoride ^{Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk} 08:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

When the user is blocked indefinitely, just about anything outside of a standard block appeal can be classified as abuse. The reason it is sometimes allowed is because it doesn't hurt anyone. That wall of text is cleafly disruptive, and constantly pinging Jimbo and using the help templates because he doesn't want to make a standard block appeal clinches it. Posting here was not "wrong", but the admin who imposed the block would normally be quicker to respond than some random ANI closer. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to leave the help template there until JImbo answers, which will be on the sixth Tuesday of never. However, if he continues after this one, ping me and Ill remove his talk page access. He's been warned. Katie^talk 12:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

That's reasonable. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

As the blocking admin I'd like to note that I initially prevented talk page access from scratch just to avoid this kind of abuse because TTT has been doing this in the past. The talk page lock was then overturned by Arbcom though, so posting the matter here was formally right. However, "this does not prohibit decline of appeals by any community mechanism or withdrawal of talk page access should problems arise." De728631 (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't know that, so yeah I was wrong to say the OP should just contact you. But if it was overturned by ArbCom, isn't restoring it still outside the purview of ANI? Doesn't it automatically need to go back to ArbCom? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: So should I remove the template once again (which he'll just reinstate right back), or just leave it there till sometime passes? It's just sitting there in CAT:HELP, and he's delusional that someone will actually overturn his block or post the appeal on Jimbo's page. —Hexafluoride ^{Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk} 16:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hexafluoride, you shouldn't remove the template again or even post to their talk page unless there is a policy that requires you too post there. -- GB fan 17:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the {{adminhelp}} templates should be removed. They appear in the adminhelp queue and notifications on IRC. If we're only leaving them up to prove a point, then I think there's another way we can notify Jimbo, via talk page for example, which will never be answered and fall into archive obscurity while removing the adminhelp notices from our system. Mkdw^talk 17:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Question 1: Has TTT used their talk page in a way that is constructive or that could logically lead to an unblock of their account? Question 2: Has TTT used their talk page in a way that is disruptive or that unnecessarily takes up the time of others? If the answer to Question 1 is "no" and the answer to Question 2 is "yes" then talk page access should be revoked. Given the chance of an unblock based on the wall of text is nil and that the help template puts the page in an admin review queue where admins who come upon it have to read through said wall of text, then the template should be removed and the talk page access revoked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this is disruptive. Revoke talk page access. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

Since TeeTylerToe is still at it, posting huge blocks of text that show that he still doesn't get it, and no-one here seems willing to do anything about it without community support, I propose that TeeTylerToe's talk page access be removed, to prevent further disruption and waste of other editors' time. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support per obviously. If the user is making no constructive effort to properly discuss or appeal their block, they shouldn't have access to their talk page. We can leave whatever template it is in place while they can't edit, if there's some reason to think that getting Jimbo's attention will satisfy them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Don't worry about it Ii went ahead and revoked it. Arbcom specified that in the event of any problems that any admin could go ahead and do so, so I did so. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

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

LogicalGenius3 citing a Holocaust denial blog and trying to change WP:RS to support it

Logicalgenius3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

LogicalGenius3 has tried to cite something on a Holocaust denial blog to support claims of his. When this failed, he tried to alter WP:Identifying reliable sources supposedly on (nonsensical) grammar grounds, but really (by his own admission) to let him add primary source based original research (...which would somehow make it OK to cite primary sources on that Holocaust denial blog). He has responded to multiple seasoned editors' explanations for why we don't do this with edit warring, filibusters that somehow remind me of Dianetics lessons, and accusations of bad faith and (ironically) ownership.

We don't need someone who would make these kinds of blunders editing articles relating to the Holocaust, nor does he need to be making changes to guidelines and policies. At a minimum, he needs a topic ban from those two areas. I've been given the impression that his belief in the superiority of his own understanding of English and logic has caused trouble in other articles, but have not investigated. If his behavior in the topics I have mentioned is reflective on his conduct as a whole, then WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR seem to terminally apply.

As it is, I've had the block menu open in another tab ever since I found out that one of his motivations was citing a Holocaust denial blog (amazed we don't have discretionary sanctions on that topic), but since he is making edits in other areas I figured I should ask for the community's assessment. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

What? But Ian ... there isn't a rise in racism, fascism and antisemitism on English Wikipedia. You must just be imagining this.

Seriously, how often does he make edits that aren't related Jews or Nazis? I'm not seeing a lot. There are definitely some, but are they worth it? His favourite page is Frédéric Chopin, put all he did was edit-war to keep the word "French" in the lead. Next is Albert Einstein, a Jew who fled the Nazis. Next is Technical University of Berlin, alma mater of various Nazis, and his edits were specifically to the notable alumni list's descriptions of them. He made several minor tweaks to Prussian Academy of Arts -- the topic seems innocuous, but he edit-warred and cited de.wiki, so it's not an indication that he's a valuable contributor to the project either. Next Auschwitz concentration camp. Next Battle of Stalingrad. Next Focke-Wulf Fw 190, which is related to the Third Reich but relatively innocuous, but his edits also were not substantial. Next Bauakademie -- no problem, but nothing to write home about anyway. Next 1996 Mount Everest disaster -- no problem, but again nothing substantial. Next Theresienstadt concentration camp. Next Rudolf Höss. Next Otto Wächter. I mean, there is some evidence that if we applied a broad TBAN he might become a good WP:GNOME and correct some formatting problems or spelling errors, but is it even worth it? I'm not seeing why his "edits in other areas" would make you think twice about just blocking him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you find specific edits that would raise red flags if not in the light of the original complaint? And I've never said denied that there hasn't been a rise in fascists on Wikipedia -- in the case you link to, I just did not see any explicit evidence that couldn't be attributed to coincidence (replace "Jewish" and "German" with any other labels and it's suddenly a very different picture, as TU-nor explained). While I'm all for blocking neo-Nazis, white supremacists, fascists, and their ilk and firmly believe AGF is not a suicide pact, we still need to have better standards than HUAC. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I've never said denied that there hasn't been a rise in fascists on Wikipedia Far too many negatives, and it's 6 a.m. here so I literally can't wrap my head around it. Basically I wasn't accusing you of anything. I was saying that when I last pointed out that there seems to be an unusually large number of ANI threads about Holocaust deniers, Nazi dog-whistles, and people denying that white supremacists were white supremacists, and so, people basically replied with "no", and then since then the rate has jumped up again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I think the guy's perfectly competent, Ian, and well on his way to extended-confirmed, which I think is his goal with these insubstantial edits. But he is NOTHERE, and I'd have no objection if you used the block button. Katie^talk 12:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, done. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Good decision, block supported. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• I thank Ian for bringing this obvious disruption to an end and for letting me know about this report. I was the one who initially brought the connection between the denialist holohoax website and his tendentious attempt to add TRUTH into the RS guideline. His last reply taunts me for making that connection. This guy is a very ambitious, committed, and cocky denialist to the point of trolling. Definitely a clear WP:NOTHERE case. Dr. K. 14:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Ian.thomson did a good job noticing this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Highly disruptive IPs - WP:NOTHERE

Quickly pinging Emir of Wikipedia and Smartyllama as they are being affected by this as well. There's a problem IP that has been constantly pinging us all over the place with the sole intention to disrupt. There is actually a particularly long story here, but, I'd rather not give you a 10k byte+ message to try to deal with it. Instead I'll just give a quick summary explanation and some links. For me this started around a week ago after I intervened in a discussion between said IP and Emir that was taking place at Emir's talk page. It took about a full week to get that discussion to shut off; the extremely long and PA ridden discussion is here. If you skim through it you'll notice that the IP has changed numerous times, some key IPs involved here are;

• 2607:fb90:1e07:82d1:0:e:1943:9201 (Most recent)
• 2607:FB90:1E03:77F9:0:47:78FC:3501
• 2607:fb90:1e0a:4ee6:0:30:f809:8501
• 2607:fb90:1e08:b906:0:47:7974:4001

Right now Emir is punching through each of the IP's comments and reverting them. This IP has made no effort to cease their disruption for more than a week. I'm not sure how range blocks work, but, it seems to me that in this case there would be a whole heap of collateral damage. All-in-all, there are a few WP:NOTHERE blocks that I think should be enacted. It would at least kill this disruption for the moment being. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Disruption logs; Emir's talk page, Aga Khan, Template talk:Twelvers, Zaidiyyah, Alawites and my own talk page. I think I counted around 30 disruptive repetitive pinging edits by the IP. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • As an additional heads up - I have intentionally neglected to inform the IP of this discussion as I believe that they will attempt to bring the disruption here. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I support this decision to neglect the information of the IP. The IP has been disruptive for around I month I think now, and in this time they have shown no respect or understanding of the protocols of Wikipedia. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I found some other IP's. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• 2607:FB90:1E0B:E660:0:47:7857:9E01
• 2607:FB90:1E06:637D:0:3C:3594:5F01
• Peter Andrew Nolan (Possible account name)

• (Edit Conflict) See also This discussion, where he basically admits he deliberately disrupted the Doc Love article, adding uncited material in violation of WP:BLP (all of which was quickly reverted by myself, Emir, or others) and pretended to be a supporter of Doc Love in an effort to get the page deleted. The page ultimately was deleted not because of the poor quality but because Doc Love was deemed to fail WP:GNG. Which the IP also doesn't seem to understand, given he's apparently taken credit for the article being deleted. And it's a core part of the Wikipedia process that AFD is not cleanup so if Doc Love were notable, his tactics wouldn't have worked and would continue to disrupt Wikipedia once the article was kept. Smartyllama (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• The IP is now in a massive edit war with Emir on his (Emir's) talk page. Emir is not in violation of 3RR because one of the exceptions is reverting edits in your own userspace, but the IP certainly is. And he was banned for 3RR violations on Doc Love earlier. Smartyllama (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Another notable example of edit warring is on the page of his alleged grandfather Aleksandr Kamensky. Fortunately this page has now been protected. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Non privacy related edit deletion request

(A related request about the same IP bunny).

• I support action against this range. I keep seeing the most hellacious, overt trolling on User Talk:Emir of Wikipedia ... richi (hello) 14:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support Clearly not here for good purposes. Smartyllama (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support - This is why we can't have nice things, Anyway clearly NOTHERE. –Davey2010^Talk 16:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Persistent copyvio by @Abel Gebremariam

Abel Gebremariam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. @Abel Gebremariam was warned by admin @Diannaa about copyvio here.
2. @Abel Gebremariam copy-pasted a lot of text today from encyclopedia.com that hosts content from the Encyclopedia of World Cultures, Copyrighted 1996.
3. @Abel Gebremariam was today cautioned for the second time, and requested to stop this copyvio, here.
4. @Abel Gebremariam continues the copyvio after receiving these warnings. For example, this edit, after the two warnings, is a copy-paste of the same Encyclopedia's entire section on Marriage, Socialization etc, hosted by the same website.

This is persistent disruption and violation of copyvio policy by @Abel Gebremariam. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• I've just undone a copyvio dump by this user at Amhara people. @Abel Gebremariam: You have a choice; you can either stop violating copyright, or expect to be blocked. We take copyright seriously here. You can't just take something you found on the Internet somewhere and dump it here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• I've also stripped out several passages from that article as copyright violations [82]. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Adèle de Reiset

In this request, Adèle de Reiset (talk · contribs) requested an unblock, noting they were caught by a web host. As the user didn't provide an IP address, I denied the unblock request and requested the IP address. Now's where it gets a bit weird. On my talk page, the user is claiming they never made the unblock request. At this point, I'm not sure what's going on. The user appears to believe they didn't make the original unblock request, but (without any prejudice) it's entirely possible there's a communication issue here. However, it's at least plausible the account has been compromised. Rather strange behaviour if someone really did compromise the account, though. So, what next? Perhaps a checkuser check to see if the unblock request came from the same IP address the user's been using? I will inform the user of this discussion. --Yamla (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Nothing really to act on here. The user did provide their IP address, but unless the account is compromised, having the IP address doesn't help. The edit was not made by an IP, but by Adèle de Reiset. Could it be a comprised account? Sure, but why? Why compromise an account with (at that point) less than 10 edits? Also, a checkuser at this point would not be very illuminating, and it would be a fishing expedition anyway. Let them continue to edit. If something else weird pops up, then maybe there's cause for action. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• If Adèle can edit at User talk:Yamla, which is not in her user space, she is not suffering from an IP block, so there is no problem to fix. Making a series of trivial edits at User:Adèle de Reiset/sandbox is a little peculiar and suggests a person trying to become autoconfirmed quickly. Perhaps this is not her first Wikipedia account. EdJohnston (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I can not get a vandalism account blocked at AIV

Below is the copied thread thus far. My guess is that the series of 2601:1014 accounts are coming from students at Arcadia Charter School. And the responding admin is advising me to brush up on what constitutes vandalism. Additionally, another user has removed my comments from AIV. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• 2600:1014:B003:3ECD:443F:9481:4872:B271 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Vandalism, mostly of Minneapolis political articles. Also using multiple 2600 IPs. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Edits are not vandalism. Please ensure recent edits constitute vandalism before re-reporting. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• I'd submit that they're most certainly vandalism. If need be I'll take this to ANI, Ritchie333. See also one of the alternative accounts, 2600:1014:B003:3ECD:1590:46D8:202:D341 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). as well as 2600:1014:B00F:F765:C808:8EF:C8CD:15A8 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• The IP seems to be trying to make the point they think Mark Andrew (politician) is replacing Betsy Hodges as Mayor of Minneapolis. Given we've just had a big election, it doesn't sound like a particularly odd claim to make. By all means go to ANI or AN3 if you want to report a content dispute, but I can't see any clear and obvious rationale that this editor is deliberately making Wikipedia worse. See User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to vandalism. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• For starters, there's no evidence that Mark Andrews has been elected mayor of Minneapolis. There was no mayoral election there this year. Again, look at all their contributions today, as well as those of the other associated accounts. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that was vandalism; fairly obvious vandalism. I've blocked the two IP's reported (Favonian blocked the third yesterday). Ritchie's been on a bit of a crusade recently about AIV reports that aren't really vandalism (which is a legit problem), but if he thinks reporters need to spend more time making sure it's vandalism first, the corollary is the admins need to make sure it's not vandalism before rejecting a report. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I hate crusades. Sometimes. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, it's worth noting that your comments were not removed from AIV because someone thought they were wrong; they were apparently removed accidentally by a newbie editing an old version of the page while trying to report a vandal themselves (a few other comments were removed too). --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I see that now, too, and communicated with that editor. The combination was mildly unnerving, but I took an extra shot of gin and endured. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Just to add, I removed the other comments after the bot on the page removed the report. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem in this case is it wasn't obvious that false data was being added, after spending a few minutes' reading the biographies in question, which are both about politicians in Minnesota, I couldn't work out whether it was anywhere near the truth or not. That's too long, an admin should be able to pick out obvious vandalism in 15 seconds and block. So it wasn't obvious vandalism and needed to come here for a full investigation. Which it did, so all is well in the end. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Ritchie333 it only took me a couple moments to check this article Minneapolis mayoral election, 2013 and to find this Star Tribune article (apologies as the site has an annoying number of popup ads) about the next election to verify the reporting IPs info. Having said that I would mention to the IP that it is counterproductive to get upset with your report being rejected. It is better to go and find the evidence and present it to the admin so that they can better understand why you are making the report. Remember that we are all volunteers and mistakes can happen. Of course, this is just one editors opinion and everyone is free to proceed as the see fit. MarnetteD|Talk 19:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I think expecting all AIV reports to only take "15 seconds" to review is an unfair standard to uphold for all non-admins who have to jump through flaming hoops just to help protect this encyclopedia from disruption. AN/I would be bogged down in quick fashion if all borderline cases were brought here. If you don't have the time to review a complaint there is no harm in leaving the report for another admin to review who may be inclined to dig a little further. If the report sits unactioned for some time it is obvious multiple admins have at least taken a look and have refused to take action; at this point there's a valid cause to decline and advise to take the issue to AN/I. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood, it is a typical average time that I spend on an AIV reports. Take the last diff. Diff shows editor putting the word "poop" in a BLP, and has been reverted. Block. Rinse. Repeat. As Floq said, I hadn't closed the report, it was accidentally deleted by another editor. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Other hints would be that John Roberts is not dead, and Hassan Rouhani is still president of Iran. Perhaps all that was needed was to ask "Are you sure these edits are vandalism? I don't see it myself" instead of making the statement "these edits are not vandalism, please learn what vandalism is". --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Paul August ☎ 19:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Alright, point taken, I templated a regular. Sorry. I didn't quite appreciate that it dealt out that message, and your question above was actually what I wanted to ask. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Your advice is good, MarnetteD. And thanks to all the above who've commented. I do appreciate that it's better to refrain from blocking in favor of circumspection than to block without reservation. However, if my responses were perfunctory, I nonetheless made the point that there were several related IPs up to the same, er, crap. Sometimes obvious vandalism does require an extra minute or two of research, which is what I count on from the volunteers who are administrators--I take that much extra time to confirm disruptive intent before I report. Given Ritchie's replies, I didn't get the impression that offering up diffs would have made a difference. Sneaky vandalism is disruptive, too, and unless we open a new noticeboard for that, I'll keep posting at AIV. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Woah. Of course diffs and a more detailed explanation would have made a difference. Contrary to popular opinion, admins aren't all ogres! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Some of my best friends are administrators. And ogres. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

You've got friends that are 8-foot tall cannabalistic monsters armed with a chainsaw and a sack of grenades? Ouch! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I certainly find it uncomfortable at times. Doorways just weren't built for me. Of course, 2601 is a 6" toad, but they're cuddly.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Masher. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Rather than thinking of admins as 8-foot tall cannabalistic monsters armed with a chainsaw and a sack of grenades, I prefer to think of them as giant cybertanks with no self-awareness "They are simply engines of destruction, doing what they are programmed to do."[83]. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Please remove the edit!

A troll has made blatant insults twoard some Wiki Fa users which needs to be deleted so that others don't see them. Similar edits are done by the IP on the talk pages of several other users. Thanks--Mhhossein ^talk 19:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Since it's written in Farsi (based on what Google Translate detected it as), most people can't read it and there are specific requirements before revision delete can be used. Can you translate this? Blackmane (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

50.234.90.226

50.234.90.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Please revoke his talk page access as he is continuing to make disruptive unblock requests. Feinoha ^Talk 22:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit wow admins are sure fast. I guess I didn't need to make this report after all. Feinoha ^Talk 22:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Asterixf2 and Malleus Maleficarum

Previous discussions:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Malleus Maleficarum disruption by Vami IV
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive936#Disruptive and tendentious editing Malleus Maleficarum
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 130#WP:NOTADVOCATE: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment)
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 62#‎Malleus Maleficarum

User:Asterixf2, who has a 1RR restriction on Malleus Maleficarum and its associated talk page, [84] has been posting warnings on the talk pages of those who oppose his edits.[85][86]

He also has a tendency to post links to those warnings on the Malleus Maleficarum talk page.[87] He has been keeping a log on one onf the users who has opposed him[88] and has attempted to recruit supporters from other pages.[89]

Note: I did not look farther than the last three days, and I did not examine the edit histories of his opponents. If an admin wishes me to do so and report back what I find, I will be glad to do so. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• The users seem to have solved this amongst themselves. Not sure about the timeline in relation to this thread, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• They appear to have resolved the particular point they are disputing today, but it appears to be one in a long string of disagreements and no doubt there will be another tomorrow. Which is fine, of course, but I would really like to see the arguing go forward without Asterixf2 posting warning notices on the other users talk pages when he is involved in a content dispute, and especially not posting links to those warnings elsewhere. In my opinion, that behavior is intimidating and has a chilling effect. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Note
  1. I don't know if this is relevant and I definitely don't want to waste time verifying user Guy Macon. However, I'd like to point out that user Guy Macon was defending one of the sources in this discussion related to Malleus Maleficarum. I must say his arguments were not convincing if not absurd. I will stop short of speculating if this is of any importance. Also, I have the feeling that this user doesn't like me what I first noticed in the discussion in Village Pump mentioned above. I didn't know why but it is true that I was mildly inconvenient at Malleus Maleficarum even before posting to Village Pump. --Asterixf2 (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  2. Also my 1RR restriction is related to the behavior by Guy Macon whose misjudgment was partially responsible for this restriction. I was reverting edits to another user's comment after he completely modified it.[90] --Asterixf2 (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  3. I must say that I have this feeling that I was being hunted for some time. Perhaps those are persecutory delusions? --Asterixf2 (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment
  1. He also has a tendency to post links to those warnings on the Malleus Maleficarum talk page. In this case it was an explanation to my edit summary ( and the permalink was this one. "tendency"?
  2. He has been keeping a log on one onf the users who has opposed him Correct. This is a very recent log started 2 days ago[91] about a user that was in my opinion very abusive (log lacks previous history). The log was blanked when this user started discussing truce[92] (before this ani post). I'd like to point out that this user has put a lot of pressure on me and I must have been very careful not to violate 1RR. If I recall correctly, I have verified policies that it is allowed to keep a log for some time. I don't think that I misinterpreted.
  3. and has attempted to recruit supporters from other pages anyone reasonable would be fine. Probably with this I don't have enough experience. I apologize if there was any misconduct. Clarifying this issue for me should be enough if this is very important. Also I have later modified name section and wording in this post from "blatant propaganda" into "difficulties". However, I consider it comparable to not being able to call hoax article a hoax.[93] Perhaps I should have even more patience for user Ryn78. --Asterixf2 (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment Asterixf2 is also rather fond of making unfounded sockpuppet accusations. As one can see in this thread. I'm not sure I have clean hands here but something has to happen. Asterixf2 simply refuses to engage in collobrative editing. He doesn't respond to comments on his proposals and is somewhat fond of bizzare warnings, that then somehow give them justification to ignore everyone else. We have not resolved anything. They only thing we have agreed on is that I will not remove his bizzare rants and screeds anymore because it is making the talk page near impossible to parse. They will also respond to 7-10 year old posts and call them an "active conversation" diff. This is on top of the near constant refactoring of their own comments. They will change their comments as many as 7 times after they have posted something live. I could provide diffs but a cursory look at their contributions will bare that out. --Adam in MO Talk 23:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

If one person keeps getting into disputes with a bunch of different people over a long period of time, eventually you have to stop and consider what the common factor in all of the conflicts is. "There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!" --Guy Macon (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Reply to Comment
  1. sockpuppet I'd like to clarify that there is no accusation of sockpuppetry. Using multiple accounts is allowed in WP and I simply asked for a simple answer which was refused. Sockpuppetry relates only to inappropriate use of multiple accounts and I have not made such an accusation.
  2. doesn't respond to comments on his proposals Here it must be clarified that Adamfinmo (Adam in MO) is probably referring to this thread where I explicitly claim that I am allowed to ignore a comment. This is because the poster was alerted of the guidelines and due to his persistent failure to respond to my requests of numbering his arguments or to reply in appropriate sections (WP:Talk#IGNORE).
  3. active conversation well if it was recently active then it was. You gave only one of many examples. This article isn't very popular and very old discussions may be still relevant (and this is a historical subject almost without any new developments). --Asterixf2 (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

"Researcher" asking for email contact from supposed LGBT editors

Editor Weiwensg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is leaving messages on multiple editors' Talk pages similar to the following:

Request for 5 minute survey

Hi! I'm a researcher from the University of Minnesota conducting a study on LGBT user contributions to Wikipedia. Would you be willing to answer a short five minute survey? If so, I would appreciate if you could drop me an email at leung085@umn.edu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weiwensg (talk • contribs) 23:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Is this an acceptable use of editors' talk pages? It's unclear how the editor is identifying potential respondents to participate in the survey. General Ization ^Talk 22:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I got their message on my talk page. Not sure if it's legit. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

For what it is worth, the researcher appears to be real. http://myaccount.umn.edu/lookup?SET_INSTITUTION=UMNTC&UID=leung085 --Guy Macon (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. To be clear, I'm not alleging wrongdoing by the editor, just inquiring as to whether this is acceptable Talk page use and/or a violation of any other policy. General Ization ^Talk 22:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not canvassing, perhaps promotion? I have no clue. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Outing could be a possible concern, unless only clearly "self-declared" LGBT editors are being contacted. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

That was my primary concern also, though I figured I'd let someone else point out any other relevant policies. General Ization ^Talk 22:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I have two userboxes that identifies my sexual orientation and plenty regarding my views on LGBT and in all I am categorized because of that. That may the way he's reaching to users. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, I'll point out that the editor has posted a number of these requests on editors' User pages rather than their Talk pages, but this is likely just an error and the editor appears to have fixed several of these themselves. General Ization ^Talk 23:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

All such research in the US must be cleared by an Institutional review board. Count Iblis (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Um, OK. I was primarily asking about Wikipedia policies rather than what sort of review the study might have undergone at UMn. Since we have only the information in the message reproduced above, we don't know what kind of institutional review it might have undergone (if any). General Ization ^Talk 23:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• I thought this had been discussed in detail somewhere before, but there are apparently no guidelines or policies about this, at least none I could find. The applicable information page (which was very difficult to find): Wikipedia:Ethically researching Wikipedia#Surveys and interviews. There is a proposed policy/guideline at Wikipedia:Research recruitment, but it appears to have fizzled out in May 2015.

I don't see how outing is an issue; the researcher appears to be contacting editors who have userboxes that place them in Category:LGBT+ Wikipedians. I'd say caveat emptor, if people feel comfortable replying, they can, and if the don't, they shouldn't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that outing is not an issue. However, it is a bit spammy and possibly a misuse of Wikipedia:User pages. This could well be important research, but I don't like setting a precedent for using talk pages as a kind of mailing list.--Mojo Hand (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a precedent, though. I've seen messages like this posted several times before (sometimes by researchers, sometimes by journalists). --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)