Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

Repeat topic ban violations by Instaurare

Instaurare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has again violated his topic ban from LGBT-related articles by nominating List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-LGBT hate groups for deletion and this edit. He has previous violated this topic ban, documented here and here. At some point, this topic ban needs to grow some teeth so that Instaurare will stop violating it.- MrX 03:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised you remembered these things from 4-5 years ago, because I didn't. Instaurare (talk) 03:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Bullshit.- MrX 03:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh? Instaurare (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Instaurare: Since the AfD is heading for keep, could you kindly to not comment any further, and file an official appeal for your topic ban at WP:AN, which is still being logged in place? Alex Shih^Talk 04:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I closed the AfD as "no action" since its initiation was improper from the start. Thought SNOW likely would have been the outcome given more time. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Someone violates a topic ban, and, instead of enforcing it, we recommend they file an appeal? That seems... out of place. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 04:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that, considering there have been previous violations, and I don't believe that the editor has forgotten about the ban (which is irrelevant anyway), I believe a block is in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but for a topic ban that was placed in 2012 and never officially enforced despite of previous possible violations in 2013 as indicated by the diffs here, I would like to stay put for the next move of this editor. In the meanwhile, pinging @HJ Mitchell: for more information. Alex Shih^Talk 05:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it was never enforced it should be enforced now dammit. --Tarage (talk) 06:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

One can't simply "wait out" an indefinite sanction until people forget about it. At the very least, unless you find out from HJM that the TB has been lifted or has run out, the editor should receive a reminder that it is still in effect, and a stern final warning that any future violation no matter how far in the future from now will be met with a substantial block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Fair enough, final warning has been issued. Alex Shih^Talk 07:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll just leave these here for further evaluation of the behavior patterns of this editor: SPI of NYyankees51 (his account before renaming, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion ("NYyankees has engaged in an exchange that suggests a battlefield mentality"). I don't think a warning is sufficient, but I'd like to see what Harry Mitchell says. Mojoworker (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks because they won't get their way

• 24.253.207.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• A few diffs [1], [2], [3], [4]
• Despite several attempts to explain what personal attacks are, about reliable sources, etc.

—PaleoNeonate – 23:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment It's been going on, with one long break, since at least July 30 on my talk page, from more than one IP address. On my talk page, I've been deleting the attacks, because they're disruptive, personally insulting, and have a "wall of text" repetitive style. July 30: [5], [6], [7]. 2 September: [8]. 3 September: [9]. Those are ones on my talk page.

On the talk page of User: Doug Weller, 30 July: [10], [11]. 31 July: [12], [13].

On the Talk: Nephilim page, 30 July: [14], 1 September [15], [16].

On User talk:24.253.207.88, 1 September: [17]. On User talk:24.253.207.96, 1 September: [18], 3 September [[19]]. Both of these user pages are filled with various editors trying to get the IP editor to become civil. There has been no success so far. Alephb (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Additional note: It appears however that the POV edits to Nephilim have ceased for now so I didn't ask for protection at RFPP yet. —PaleoNeonate – 01:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

We've had two instances of IP vandalism on Nephilim today. I don't know if that's enough to reconsider page protection, but I thought I'd update the issue. I have no way to know whether there is any connection between the matter at hand and those. Alephb (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Matter Involving me and Alpehb

To whom it may concern,

I thought I would give you some data to consider.

1. I stated to Alpheb on his talk page, that I was not intending insult, nor was that which I stated unfounded ( having no basis, or merit, i.e a lie) and I clarified each point he brought up and back my statements with evidence that came from his statements to me. I stated the truthful facts, rather liked , or not.

2. I, also, told Alpehb: "As stated before, and state once more, don't message me and I will not respond. Had you not sent your statement that required an answering response, I would not have pursued the matter any further. It was you who initiated the dialogue, not I. If you don't like what is said, don't initiate.

Again, as stated, I would not have gone any further then the edit and the matter would have been dropped, had you not started the matter with your message to which I responded with the truth that is backed by the evidence given.

You don't want to hear the truth, or anything that I say, then don't message me and I will not message you. (the embolden parts were not part of the original communique, but add here to bring your attention to).

This was said and meant.

I give this to you to show where I stand.

On another matter concerning the article Nephilim, which started everything.

The verse in the article stated: "When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. Then the Lord said, “My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown. — Genesis 6:1–4, New Revised Standard Version"

This verse is given as reference for a quote in the article that states: "The Nephilim /ˈnɛfɪˌlɪm/ (Hebrew: נְפִילִים‎) were the offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" before the Deluge, according to Genesis 6:1-4 of the Bible." (again embolden by me to bring attention to areas).

I ask how can this statement be true, when the verse states that the nephilim were already on the earth by the verse, when the offspring was born? So, if the nephilim was not the offspring by the verse, then how can the statement given be accurate and true?

Again, I state, it is up to you staff to consider the matter and act on it, or not, Just don't contact me expecting a response on the matter, for I have said all I am going to say on the matter. It is up you to deal with it, or not.

I would not have even stated all this that went on after I made an edit that was deleted had I not got a message that required a response. It would have ended at the edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.207.96 (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2017‎

Just to clarify -- are you saying that you stand by the comments you have made in the diffs above, such as referring to other users as "scum," "control freaks," "liars," and comparing an edit to a rape? Your defense that you simply want to be left alone is belied by the continued posting of personal attacks on other users' talk pages, even after repeatedly being warned not to do so, starting over one month ago. And as for the business of the Nephilim, this is not the right forum for discussing content disputes -- those should be handled elsewhere, such as on the appropriate talk pages. Here at ANI, we are not discussing whether or not your opinions about the Nephilim are correct; we are discussing an ongoing behavioral issue in violation of WP:PERSONAL. For our purposes here, whether you are ultimately correct or not about the Nephilim simply isn't relevant. Alephb (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with what Alephb said above, adding: civil and proper communication is important on Wikipedia as this is how we form consensus including for content disputes. Accusing other editors of bad motives and of bigotry because they do not agree with a proposed edit (which is usually on policy and reliable sources grounds), is not constructive. —PaleoNeonate – 16:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• I just came across this thread, and it sure looks to me like the IP is a classic case of WP:NOTHERE. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Alephb (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of User:Thetruth16

Over the past year, User:Thetruth16 has been editing the following articles related to former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos and his subsequent downfall:

• Ferdinand Marcos
• Benigno Aquino Jr.
• Corazon Aquino
• Jabidah massacre
• Conjugal dictatorship
• Martial law in the Philippines
• History of the Philippines (1965–86)
• Philippine presidential election, 1986
• People Power Revolution

He adds content to these articles and uses sources to tilt the article's neutrality to be "pro-Marcos". Here are some examples:

• In the Philippine presidential election, 1986 article, he tilted the neutrality of this article by reiterating that both the ancestors of Benigno Aquino Jr. and Salvador Laurel (Benigno Aquino Sr. and Jose Laurel) both collaborated with the Japanese during World War II. This fact does not fit in this article, since the topic is about the 1986 snap elections. (see 1)
• In the same edit history, this editor added the fact that one of the computer technicians that walked out of the Comelec count, Linda Kapunan, is connected with the Reform the Armed Forces Movement, and indicated that the walkout is planned by RAM, discrediting why the walkout happened in the first place. (see 1)
• In the People Power Revolution article, this user added a statement that the one that issued Benigno Aquino Jr. the fake "Marcial Bonifacio" passport is linked with the Moro National Liberation Front, and at the same time, reinforcing the sources that Marcos declared Martial Law because of communist insurgency and the Moro uprising. If you read the whole article, it made it look that Aquino is being linked with communists and Moro rebels. (see 2)
• In the Benigno Aquino Jr. article, he reiterated that Aquino's father, Benigno Sr. was a Japanese collaborator during World War II. It also claimed that Aquino did support the Moro rebellion and "rubbed elbows" with the Communist Party of the Philippines in the 1970s. (see 4)

If his edits got reverted, he immediately challenges whoever reverted his edits to counter everything that he had put up there and he uses the WP:Reliable sources as his shield so that his edits won't be easily removed. He uses sources in such a way that it will favor his "pro-Marcos" ideology. Many users have already complained about his editing behavior and this user got blocked twice for edit-warring. See first and second ANI report against this user. Recently after removing most of his edits, he reverted it back to his version of the article.

There was also a proposal to impose a topic-ban to this user since the his edits are getting too disruptive to the neutrality of the article mentioned above. Please check if the edits itself adheres to WP:NPOV and a topic-ban or a block can be imposed for this user. Thank you. -WayKurat (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Let me tackle the issues raised point-by-point:

• It was Marcos who said that the opposition party collaborated with the enemy when they questioned his records in fighting the Japanese during WWII: http://articles.latimes.com/1986-01-23/news/mn-28079_1_war-record. Benigno Aquino Sr., Ninoy's father, and José P. Laurel, VP candidate Laurel's father, were leaders of the KALIBAPI that supported Japan during WWII, as you can see in the KALIBAPI article.
• I didn't state that as a matter of fact, I said some believed and I cited this Manila Standard editorial: http://manilastandard.net/opinion/columns/virtual-reality-by-tony-lopez/141677/setting-the-record-straight-on-edsa-1.html%7Caccessdate=August%2030,%202015. It would be better if the contribution is attributed to the author, still this warrants rewriting and not deletion.
• In the article Rashid Lucman, you can see that Rashid Lucman issued the passport named Marcial Bonifacio and the same person founded the Muslim separatist group. Rashid Lucman's son himself said that his father sent young Filipino Muslims to train in Malaysia and these guerillas formed part of the MNLF: http://www.philstar.com/letters-editor/604043/will-noynoy-aquino-be-hero-muslims-mindanao
• I addressed the issue on Aquino's father being a Japanese collaborator during World War II above. And there was a picture of him being arrested by the Americans which you deleted /censored. Ninoy's links with the communist rebels are supported by multiple verifiable sources and definitely not my point of view: http://www.manilatimes.net/the-ninoy-aquino-i-knew/31974/ and http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/198820/news/specialreports/ninoy-networked-with-everyone-reds-included

As you can see above, all the contributions you deleted (which I reverted) cited reliable sources and are verifiable. We have a content dispute here yet you keep on raising about my conduct Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Focus_on_content, current and past, while you yourself have deleted a large swath of cited content without discussing first contrary to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete, which says that "the burden of establishing verifiability and reliability rests on those who are challenged about it, there is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten". Content disputes are better discussed in the talk page Talk:Benigno_Aquino_Jr but it seems like your preferred route in handling content dispute is to delete, and to report to admin after your deletions got reverted. Thetruth16 (talk) 12:05 pm, Today (UTC−4)

@Thetruth16: Do not post in the middle of other people's posts, post after their post. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

These two diffs linked to by OP are concerning because their edit summaries bear little to no relation to the actual changes. That tactic is common enough among WP:TEND editors that I believe there should be a section added to that page on it. @WayKurat: Did you mean to include a different link in your second point? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: The second point covers this edit. Thetruth16 reverted back his edits on September 2016 then added the "Linda Kapunan" information with it. Also, take note of the sources he gave on this edit. It is all self-published. He replaced it with a "more reliable" source after I have pointed it to him. -WayKurat (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

All the sources I gave above supporting my existing contribution are definitely not self-published as per WP:RS. If they are, I wouldn't mind part of my contribution being deleted. But what you did was you deleted everything that I edited even if there are multiple reliable sources cited and this violates Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete. Thetruth16 (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thetruth, please stop saying that I am "censoring" your edits. I am pointing out that since you have started editing here, all of the Marcos-related articles' neutrality are now tilting "pro-Marcos". Please also stop shielding yourself with Wikipedia's policies. A lot of editors have already pointing out that your edits are mostly pro-Marcos and anti-Aquino and you are using Wikipedia policies on reliable sources to protect your contributions. Let other editors and administrators check the neutrality of your edits. -WayKurat (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

WayKurat I added the contribution stating that Ninoy Aquino has links with the communist / muslim insurgents and this is properly cited with reliable sources, does it really matter if this edit is pro-marcos or anti-aquino? And isn't deleting this well-cited contribution considered censorship? Following your argument, contributions citing reliable sources should be deleted/censored if they don't speak in favor of Ninoy Aquino since they tilt the article to become "pro-Marcos"? @Ian.thomson: Thetruth16 (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

In my experience, Thetruth16 has been editing the above articles in the original post in a skewed manner, especially in phrasing to favor Ferdinand Marcos and to demonize Marcos's opponents. He has been a disruptive editor and has been blocked twice. His edits have been highly disruptive to the mentioned articles. It looks like he is at it again at the Benigno Aquino Jr. article, demonizing Aquino who was one of the stuanchest opponents of Marcos and is considered a hero in his home country. -Object404 (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that we sweep these reliable sources under the rug just because they might "demonize" Ninoy Aquino, just like what WayKurat did by deleting well-sourced content without discussing his deletions at all? Does these sources from national newspapers and TV all deserved to be censored and not mentioned in Wikipedia? http://manilastandard.net/opinion/columns/virtual-reality-by-tony-lopez/141677/setting-the-record-straight-on-edsa-1.html%7Caccessdate=August%2030,%202015, http://www.philstar.com/letters-editor/604043/will-noynoy-aquino-be-hero-muslims-mindanao, http://www.manilatimes.net/the-ninoy-aquino-i-knew/31974/, http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/198820/news/specialreports/ninoy-networked-with-everyone-reds-included.

And deleting without discussing or even trying to rewrite just like what WayKurat did isn't disruptive? And restoring the deletion is? Talk about double standards. How about https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete? Also, Your comment pertains to your previous experience which has already been dealt with and not in this current issue.Thetruth16 (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

You keep inserting content which is off-topic and unrelated to the article & its subject, such as "Malaysia had financed a secessionist movement in Muslim Mindanao led by the Moro National Liberation Front to undermine Philippine interests." specifically to make the subject look bad. -Object404 (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

It was for context, since earlier in the article different sources have mentioned that Ninoy was supportive of Malaysia's cause in its dispute with the Philippines on Sabah. I do understand your point that it can be deleted to make the paragraph more coherent. Also, I can see though that you have retained the more than 90% of what WayKurat has deleted/censored. Thetruth16 (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thetruth is more than ready for a NOTHERE block, and this discussion is not giving me any reason to think otherwise. WayKurat, thank you for bringing it here; I know these reports are time consuming, but they are worth it, if only for the record they establish. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: as you can see above, all the 4 examples WayKurat brought up have been refuted. So you think that these 4 should have been censored/deleted? If they have to be re-written in an more neutral tone, other editors should be rewriting them over time consistent with Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete. However, some of the facts that WayKurat has been trying to censor/delete are hard to refute, like Aquino's links with the communist insurgents which can be verified by multiple sources throughout the article. Thetruth16 (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah no I didn't see that. The problem isn't even so much the factuality, partial or complete, of some of the things you thrown in--it's the verbosity, the edit warring, the synthesis, the POV. And the talk page behavior. Did I mention the edit warring? Drmies (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Per WP:EW, I understand that reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. And the policy in question here is Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete. Also, I would have preferred to discuss content dispute in the talk page Talk:Benigno Aquino, Jr.; however, as you can see, WayKurat failed to respond on the points I raised in the talk page (and even above), focused on conduct and instead of content contrary to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Focus_on_content, resorted to mass deletions (even if everything is consistent with WP:RS) and finally reported me to admin while he himself is violating Wikipedia rules. Thetruth16 (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thetruth16, I did not respond to your disputes to stop this edit war and as I mentioned above, let the other admins and editors here check the neutrality of your edits. As I have noticed on your editing style, you keep on adding this kind of information and if someone challenges you about the neutrality of these, you will give them the headache to check every edit you make if its neutral.

From day one, that is what you are doing here, even since you have adding questionable information anonymously using an IP address. And to think to some point last year that you used blogs and self-published sources that are also being used by those pro-Marcos Facebook pages and websites, that already set the tone of your editing style. To reiterate what Object404 was saying, your edits villify Marcoses opponents and at the same time you glorify their achievements. -WayKurat (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

If you want to let other editors check the the contributions you deem non-neutral, then why did you Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete. You could have created a discussion in the talk page to gain consensus, which you didn't. Also, it's moot and academic if I used sources that didn't comply with WP:RS last year - it wasn't aware of the guidelines then, and these all sources have all been removed. I don't even know why you have to bring this up now that all the remaining contributions and sources very much comply with WP:RS and WP:V. Thetruth16 (talk) 04:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Drmies:. As of this moment, Thetruth16 is reverting back his version of the articles mentioned above, more than 24 hours after the his edits were removed. This somehow bypasses the WP:3RR rule. -WayKurat (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk about double standards? Didn't you WayKurat delete my edits more than 3x? Didn't you violate Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete? Just now Object404 did a review on my edits on Benigno Aquino Jr. and Philippine presidential election, 1986 and way over 90% of what I contributed that you've censored/deleted have been retained. Besides, all the 4 points you raised above have been more than adequately addressed.Thetruth16 (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I did not "retain" your edits, Thetruth16. I just haven't had much time to review the articles above nor edit them with which your biased edits have been very damaging to their form and are a big headache. -Object404 (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

"Headache" is a good word to use here. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Object404 Good thing that you understand this Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete, which says that there is no need to immediately delete contribution (which are well-sourced, but you argue as non-neutral) that can instead be rewritten as necessary over time, unlike WayKurat who just deleted/censored everything that doesn't speak favorably of Aquino (including his links to the communists) even if they are from reputable sources. Just so WayKurat is aware of the relevant Wikipedia policy, I'll put them here verbatim just so he/she won't keep on violating it: "The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias." and "Especially contentious text can be removed to the talk page if necessary, but only as a last resort, and never just deleted." Thetruth16 (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• My suggestion is that any time an account is created with the word truth anywhere in it, that a separate shadow copy of the wiki be created just for them. Their edits will affect only that copy, and only they will see that copy, with their edits. They can edit away for years without bothering anyone, and without getting blocked. Everyone's happy. EEng 16:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• • Good idea. {{re|Thetruth16)) ""Especially contentious text" can be deleted if appropriate, you are wrong in thinking it is against policy, there is no policy forbidding that. Essays aren't policy. Doug Weller talk 18:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Let him edit at Wikipilipinas, and join the hundreds of Wikipedia vandals that have been banned here. -WayKurat (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
      • So you can violate Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete, censor and delete relevant and verifiable contributions without being questioned? Thetruth16 (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
        • No, so you won't tilt Wikipedia's neutrality and push whatever advocacy you have behind these edits. -WayKurat (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Noted, but don't forget that the text in question here are verifiable and are all from reliable sources. As you can see in the 4 examples above (and rebuttals), assertions and verifiable facts are being censored here just because they are not pro-Aquino. Did you see that the photo of Aquino's father being arrested by the Americans was deleted and links to the WWII Japanese collaborator party Kalibapi was also deleted just because it doesn't fit the 'good guy' narrative that WayKurat is trying to espouse? Thetruth16 (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not the usage of WP:RS that's the problem with Thetruth16's editing, it's his style of editing and wording which is biased towards glorifying Marcos, making him look innocent and demonizing Marcos's opponents. -Object404 (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

You are shooting the messenger? So you could as well blame the reliable sources - editors in the national newspapers, photographers, and TV - for any revelation that makes Marcos looks innocent and that demonizes Marcos' opponents? And editing for the opposite - sources that demonizes Marcos is totally fine? It's the reliable sources' POV and factual revelations and not mine. And censoring everything, including Aquino's association with the communist rebels and his father's association with the Japanese in WWII, just like what WayKurat notwithstanding Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete is the way to go? Thetruth16 (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

No, but you keep Poisoning the well. An example of Thetruth16's biased wording style to make Marcos look good was his initial insistence that it was only communists and leftists who were the main targets of Human Rights Abuses during the regime of Ferdinand Marcos, when in fact thousands of innocent civilians were the victims of torture, murder, mutilations, etc. He even protested the usage of the word "innocent" to describe the innocent victims, which can be seen in the article's history logs - [20]. The section has since been sort of balanced. -Object404 (talk) 06:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, don't use this forum to argue and discuss about content, since this has already been dealt with. At that time, other editors questioned the word "innocent" as well, and one editor even said inTalk:Ferdinand_Marcos#Human_rights_abuses_section.3B_initial_sentence that the word innocent you inserted is "too vague, not to mention emotionally loaded." And when you said that you'll dig up more sources, those are the facts", RioHondo said that this statement itself is problematic. And weren't you told to mention the name of the authors whose opinions you presented in as facts in Human Rights Abuses? See, you accuse me of being biased, but many other editors here Talk:Ferdinand_Marcos#Human_rights_abuses_section.3B_initial_sentence get a sense that you yourself are biased. Thetruth16 (talk) 11:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

So you're saying the thousands of falsely accused human rights victims were not innocent? -Object404 (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I never said that. Of the tens of thousands of accused victims, there are accused victims who are innocent and there are accused who are't innocent, nobody knows for sure. Many editors in Talk:Ferdinand_Marcos#Human_rights_abuses_section.3B_initial_sentence who got a wind of your editorial bias pointed out that it's wrong to say that all the accused are innocent which you stated in your contribution. Thetruth16 (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

Given the facts stated above, the attitude towards other editors and editing style of this user, I propose that he will be topic banned from Ferdinand Marcos, the listed articles above and any other related articles. Please advise if you concur. Thanks. -WayKurat (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• If you wish to make these Wikipedia articles one-sided and censor all WP:RS sources that editors like WayKurat and Object404 find contrary to their spin, then go ahead. They want to make it a black and white, good person or evil person, and nothing else in between. People can still learn through other means anyway if other Wikipedia editors insist to censor creditable sources per WP:RS that don't portray Marcos as evil, and Aquino as a saint. There'll be no discussion and everyone's life would be easier. People will never find out that Aquino was linked to communist rebels through Wikipedia and they'll instead find it through other reliable sources. Thetruth16 (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support I have had some of the Marcos-related articles on my watchlist for a long time since noticing a problem at a noticeboard. The original problem was resolved but I have seen Thetruth16's enthusiastic slanting of a couple of articles over an extended period. Johnuniq (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Thetruth16 has been quite a problematic editor. -Object404 (talk) 10:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Two.25.45.251

I'm going to go out on a limb and request some sort of clemency for Two.25.45.251 (talk · contribs), who has been blocked by Favonian as a sock of the Best Known For IP. The Long-Term Abuse page is here, and the registered account has just been added to it. So far as I know, this is the first account this editor has ever registered. He's been a long-time determinedly unregistered editor. His edits have been mostly gnoming, with emphases on removing POV (notably for a long time, the phrase "best known for", hence the moniker) and on fixes to statements about science. Note this edit summary by Ritchie333 on that LTA page, a couple of weeks after he created it: "this one has never done actual WP:VANDALISM as such". The "long-term abuse" consisted of edit warring and incivility when he was reverted. There is a very long story here, including numerous AN/Is (many, possibly most, started by the person himself objecting to being treated as a vandal). During my adminship, I was part of an effort with Drmies (I believe it was my idea) to get him to stop being uncivil and thereby break the cycle of his being blocked and then blocked again for block evasion. I remain convinced that his article edits are not merely well intentioned but overwhelmingly good. However, the effort failed (although he's been noticeably more civil since), and he was community banned in January 2016 after this discussion at AN.

Most recently, it was his blocking by Winhunter and complaint here that led to a case that is currently open but on hold at Arbcom. During that discussion, Berean Hunter revealed that he had been contacted by the IP's employer and had advocated the editor take the standard offer, beginning with registering an account.

The editor's statement at the Arbcom case request—or that of the recently registered editor now blocked for being the BKFIP—is here. I had noted some of the statements the editor quotes, and the one calling him a vandal particularly saddened me. This person has wound up community banned despite not being a vandal, and to my mind that is at odds with our purpose here, and calling him a vandal because of the existence of an LTA case page, or even because he is community banned, an unforgiveable looseness of terminology. Whatever we do about uncivil editors, whether registered or not, we must not throw around terms like "vandalism" if the edits don't justify use of the term.

This editor has been community banned, and the administrative corps generally follow comunity consensus. But it seems to me that he has a right to make a statement at the Arbcom case, regardless of bureaucracy, and that he also deserves credit for finally doing what many people begged him to do, and registering an account. Can any of the experienced editors here suggest a way forward, if it's only letting his statement remain at the case page and transcluding further statements from his talk page? I do feel this person is owed far better treatment than, say, Willy on Wheels: he has not edited "for the lulz" or to push a point of view, and if he's ever vandalized, I've not seen it. Nor, as I say, do I see him being seriously uncivil in recent edits, although I may have missed it. I defer to the wise folks here; I'm out of ideas. (And I'm now going to notify everyone I pinged. I won't notify Winhunter; anyone who disagrees with that judgement call, go ahead.) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment This user specifically stated they are not Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. I have only limited experience with the LTA we call "best known for ip", but what experience I have shows that this person routinely attempts to actively deceive administrators during unblock requests. If this user is indeed "best known for ip", they are doing the same here, too. This is said without prejudice; I cannot tell if they are the same person. Is it not the case that this user could make a statement to Arbcom via email? If it is not the case, I would endorse unblocking a talk page solely for this purpose. I believe Yngvadottir is not suggesting we lift the community ban, and so I make no statement on this point. --Yamla (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment Even if they aren't the BKFIP, they are clearly admitting to evading a ban here: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=798719426 Keep them blocked. --Tarage (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Yngvadottir is not disputing block evasion. I haven't looked at the case, but it seems the question raised is whether, assuming the editor was "only" uncivil but not harmful to articles, the response was proportionate, and whether evasion of an unjust block would be excusable. (As I said, I haven't looked at the case; I'm only trying to clarify for myself and others what the argument is about.) Samsara 01:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment If this user wishes to make a statement on the Winhunter case, they can do so by email to arbcom-l, or they can email me and I will copy it to the case page as a clerk action (assuming that the content is not in violation of policy). GoldenRing (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as one of the many, many, many blocking admins. BKFIP's song and dance has for years been that their "good" edits ought to wholly excuse any possible misbehaviour, of which there has been plenty (see WP:BKFIP, I'm not going to repeat the laundry list). So this account claims they're not the same person, well so have nearly every one of the IPs listed on the LTA page, and the editor has admitted in the past that our list is "massively incomplete". They've behaved in exactly the same manner as BKFIP: angrily objecting to a series of "good" edits being reverted and then edit warring into a block, resuming the edit war when the block expired, lashing out at anyone who didn't agree with their "good edits" justification, and swearing they're not BKFIP. I have zero doubt that they are, and BKFIP is an editor who WP:TE and WP:CIR could have been written about. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

That being said, I fully agree that we throw around the term "vandal" much too liberally. BKFIP has never been a vandal as far as I'm aware, but certainly a tendentious and disruptive user. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• What are you opposing?? The question was "can you suggest a way forward"? So you're opposing any solution? NE Ent 01:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm opposing the proposal to offer this editor clemency. I also don't believe there's any way forward that doesn't force administrators to tiptoe around an editor who admittedly has no interest in even trying to get along with others and collaborate, and has a history of causing major drama whenever there's any hint of a need to discuss their edits. I'll add more below in a bit. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• I had an interaction with BKFIP a couple months ago, and based on that, I am not terribly hopeful that we can find a solution here besides the ongoing on whack-a-mole with their IPs. I found that they were completely unwilling to admit that there was even a possibility they were wrong. Even if they were correct about the content issue (and I do not believe they were in this case) such an attitude makes communication very difficult. So mark me down as pessimistic. That said, if we wanted a way forward: with sockpuppeteers, we generally ask for them to sit out a block of a certain length, and then appeal, upon which the standard offer usually includes an unblock and some restrictions. We could try the same thing here; ask them to sit out a six month block; appeal thereafter; if they don't use IPs in the meanwhile, unblock them, but place a 1RR restriction and possibly a civility restriction (yeah, I know those work too well). I can't really come up with something easier than that. Vanamonde (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

(Responding to remarks and suggestions above, not just to Vanamonde93, but parking here for neatness' sake.) A 1RR has been tried in the past. As to civility restrictions, as I say, my impression is he is much more civil now, but the community's patience has been exhausted and a ban is a ban. I'm not asking for it to be reversed because I'm clearly way outside the community norm here; I believe I was the only one arguing against it in the ban discussion, which I linked above. But WP:CIR?? This editor writes excellent English and his edits are overwhelmingly good, including demonstrating a grasp of science I wish I had. (Not all, however. I've been on the receiving end of a tongue-lashing from him myself for not agreeing with all his edits.) He very much had a point about knee-jerk reverts—until he was banned. There may be developments in the case of which I'm unaware; in particular, I see an Arb making statements about him baiting admins into blocking him, and I have no idea how his editing history of which I'm aware can be construed that way. What I see is someone with a laudable addiction to improving the encyclopedia and expertise we can use, who has a terrible temper and sufficient mastery of the language to sling stinging insults, but who has (in my estimation) come increasingly close to keeping a civil tongue in his head in accordance with community norms, and has also worked with us by finally registering an account, for which I think we should afford him some modicum of allowance. Maybe the suggestion to e-mail Arbcom is a start, thanks. Maybe the arbs will also allow the statement he already made to be restored? Yngvadottir (talk) 05:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

There is certainly a common community antipattern of the form "make reasonable good-faith edit, get reverted/templated/blocked/otherwise mistreated, overreact with incivility, get written off as a disruptive vandal". This case may have started out that way, but I don't think it's a great fit for that pattern anymore; it now looks a lot more like "make edit likely to prompt inappropriate reverting/templating/blocking/etc and use that overreaction as an excuse to stir up drama". But arbcom does have a way of making everything look worse. If you think you have a better way to approach this situation, I certainly won't stand in the way. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I think there is no harm in restoring his comment to the Arbcom case. I know "Banned means banned, goddamit!" but what have we got to gain by censoring his views? He is a party to the case and we should put his opinions up - we don't have to agree with them. Asking him to email arbcom sounds like a pointless dog and pony show, when we actually have the statement already in our archives. More specifically, I would revert this edit but the page has been full-protected so I guess it would be "admin abuse" to do so. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Paging @Amortias: who protected the page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The page(s) were protected as no case has been opened and as such no evidence should be being submitted, if and when the case is officially opened and evidence is required this may be included (it being presented by a blocked user may need to be dicsussed seperatley) until then the pages should be left as the are. If the committee wish to have this included they are free to include it themselves as tehy can overrule any clerk action, anyone who wishes to have the information added to the page is free to request it from the clerks or lodge a a request to the committee via e-mail or at the arbitration noticeboard. Amortias (T)(C) 12:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

That removal also included two sections added by IPs, some or all of which material has now been added to my talk page. It doesn't belong there and goes into things I know nothing about, because I don't know anything about the other banned user mentioned in the removal edit summary, although I did at one point know a lot about the BKFIP case. It's only his statement, under the registered account I named in the section header, that I would ask to be restored at some point. At what point is also above my pay grade. @Opabinia regalis: thanks, and maybe you do know when it should be added. I suspect you are confusing two cases, but as I say, I may have missed more recent developments. I would also not have removed talk page access; venting after a block is expected; but since he's banned, he's not going to get unblocked, so presumably that factored into Huon's decision. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I've had very limited wiki-time lately, so I wouldn't be surprised if I were confused (but if you're thinking of Vote X, no, I've got those two straight. I think. ;) The case is in suspended animation for the time being, so my preference would be to leave it alone for now and sort it out later if and when WinHunter returns to participate. For the time being, the post is in the history and not going anywhere. In any case, if some sort of alternative resolution is going to be reached here, I'd rather see it emphasize improved future behavior than focus on past events. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for Two.25.45.251

Anyway, we have actually made some significant progress, as this user has now created an account. That means they are accountable in one place, rather than jumping IPs and evading blocks (which is the real problem). So, taking Yngvadottir and NE Ent's suggesting of "a way forward", I am going to propose the following solution:

1. Unblock Two.25.45.251 - call it an amnesty. This means drawing a line in the stand and saying "right, we're starting again". I'm going to forget about any blocks I have pulled; conversely nobody else is to bring them up. It's in the past - forget about it.
2. All edits go on that account - no IPs, no sockpuppetry
3. If they post to a noticeboard saying "Admin 'x' lied about 'a', 'b' and 'c'" - leave it. Rebuke it factually if you really need to say anything.
4. Anyone who is not absolutely sure of what's vandalism and what's good-faith, read User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to vandalism first, and recuse totally from taking action
5. If you have to revert this editor, leave an edit summary that can be defended later (eg: "see note on talk page [link]", "consensus from other articles is that this is okay for these circumstances, sorry, will discuss on talk in a minute") - NO TWINKLE, NO HUGGLE
6. Any genuine cases of edit warring that are grievances by other editors, go to WP:AN3 and follow the usual procedures
7. Do NOT block without consensus here

The basic idea behind this is that I feel admins as a whole need to set an example and show we are unscrupulously fair and beyond suspicion. Quite frankly, I feel like bloody well indef blocking the next person who makes an incorrect vandalism call on this user, but I suppose we've got to AGF that people think they're doing the right thing even when they're not.

If we don't do something like this, this dispute is never going to end - ever. How many years has it been going on? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you Yngvadottir, Ent, Ritchie. I agree with most of what Ritchie has to say, maybe all of it. How long? At least since 2011. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oh dear. This is the first edit to that editor's talk page not left by a bot. I have never seen an IP address that started with the word "Two". The warning was placed by an account which had been active for three days, allegedly; it is funny how Two.25.45.251 just keeps putting fingers on sore spots, wittingly or unwittingly. Drmies (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I never said that the username looks like an IP address. The AntiSpoof MediaWiki extension won't allow you to create accounts without any letters (at least in the version I use on my wiki). Therefore, someone could attempt to register an account and deceive it to look like an IP address by simply changing one of the numbers to spell out that number in words. For users who aren't very familiar with how accounts work, that account could look like an IP address at first glance. Also, I must note that when my actions were mentioned at ANI, I was not notified and was only aware after going though the inappropriate reverts by Drmies of my good-faith edits. Pillowfluffyhead (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Pillowfluffyhead, you have had an account for four days. You need a lot more clue before you start getting involved in issuing warnings to anyone about anything. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, yes, please, Ritchie333. I hope it works. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose an unblock or clemency. Just within the past six weeks or so, this editor has:
  • Written this edit summary.
  • Denied being the Best Known For IP editor, including in the unblock request of the account I declined. I don't think there's any genuine doubt they are that banned editor, is there? In that case, we're all agreed they're a habitual liar.
  • Evaded the ban plus a block.

They could probably fly under the radar and improve grammar if they were able to collaborate with others. What gives them away, time and again, is their superiority complex (I'm not using that lightly, but as Vanamonde93 said above, they are incapable of considering that they might be wrong, and simultaneously they belittle and insult all who disagree with them; not admitting that they're always perfectly right must be a sign of inferior intelligence) and their inability to work with others or deal with opposition in a civil way. I see no indication of a change, no commitment to a change, no recognition that their past behaviour was problematic, not even a recognition that their past behaviour was theirs. Do we need copyeditors this badly that we're willing to subject editors to this kind of abuse? Huon (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Huon, the principal difference now (as I think Berean Hunter mentioned on the last ANI thread) is that his employer knows about his history on WP, and as I understand it has "had a word". That's why he's now finally got an account, and it also gives me some confidence that if he tries socking or IP block evading again, he's going to end up getting his employer collateral blocked again, and get another disciplinary action. I apologise for being vague about this as the full context of this is stuff I've been told in private by BH, but I do believe circumstances are now different. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: The employer knows about what history, exactly? The one Two.25.45.251 denies is theirs? Do you find that claim credible? If circumstances are now different, surely Two.25.45.251 has acknowledged that their past conduct was inappropriate and committed to a change in conduct towards other editors? I seem to have missed that; all I saw was "I have only ever made good edits" and "I get more satisfaction out of responding viciously than I would out of responding politely". Is that inspiring confidence in you that we'll see a change? (And to Boing! said Zebedee: Yes, it is fair to hold them to those statements of 2011 when there's no indication of a change of mind or a change of attitude. Did you see any of that? Where?) What the proposal will do is make it much more difficult to enforce civility standards down the line; if some unwitting admin were to block them unilaterally for their next piece of viciousness, I foresee them not addressing their own conduct but claiming the mantle of victimhood.

It's generally agreed that being right is not an excuse for edit warring, because edit warring is still disruptive even when you're right. I don't think being right should be any more of an excuse for this pattern of "viciousness", for exactly the same reason. People who are unable to comply with the fourth of our pillars should be just as unwelcome as those who can't comply with the first or second. Huon (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps one could ask them if they have changed their views since 2011? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

They deny being the same person and assert they only ever make good edits. Do you find those assertions credible? Should we ask them whether they have changed those views since September 3? Huon (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to email you with what I know about this user, but the general gist of it is "stop this or you will lose your job". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I support the principles behind Ritchie's proposal; but I just do not see the justification in this case. Is this an editor so much of a net positive that we can cut them as much slack as is being proposed here? We have block evasion, incivility, edit-warring, and just plain being difficult. Now I'm willing to forgive some of that in the belief that by registering an account the user wishes to start afresh, in a sense. But Ritchie seems to be proposing to effectively place the community under some restrictions with respect to this editor, and apart from prohibiting sockpuppetry (which is prohibited anyway) allow them to do as they please. Now those restrictions are not bad ones, and really (apart from the point about twinkle) should apply everywhere. But I for one am not happy accepting them back without safeguards to prevent this from degenerating again. In particular, I would want a 1RR restriction. Also, it may be a good idea to restrict them from following up an article talk discussion with diatribes on user talks; that is specific, and enforceable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanamonde93 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't really understand this train of thought. The point isn't "slack", it's figuring out the least-disruptive solution to the problem. And the result, hopefully, would be subjecting editors to less abuse. I admit that "no blocks except by consensus" thing sticks in my craw a little, because I can think of much more deserving editors who fell into that "get blocked for being rude about being unfairly blocked" trap and never got an offer like that. I guess trying something like that is an investment in the future good-but-volatile editors who might benefit from a similar plan.... Well, I still think the first post is an AGF overdose and this is a lulz problem, not a poor self-control problem, but I can hope to be wrong. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Opabinia regalis: Maybe "slack" is the wrong word to use; but heck, if you were rude and disruptive tomorrow, another admin could block you without coming here first. BKFIP has been remarkably disruptive in the past, but but we need consensus, on ANI, before blocking them? I can't get behind that. My proposal was very specific: if we think they can contribute positively, unblock them, and restrict them from the worst of their previous behavior: edit-warring, and posting angry messages on user talk pages. 05:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as currently written. I feel we need a 1RR restriction, but that's not a deal-breaker for me: what is is placing certain restrictions on anybody who deals with them, as I've said above. Strike points 6 and 7, and I could support. Vanamonde (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
• I support Ritchie333's proposal, as I see it as offering a decent hope for a disruption-free future. The thing about Two's employer knowing about the problems does offer us something that is different this time too. Also, with an account, it will be clear that there will be plenty of eyes on Two's editing if an unblock is granted, and equally clear that a return to old habits will almost certainly result in an effectively permanent indef block. We potentially have something good to gain here, for relatively low risk. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  PS: I've added a "Proposal" subheading above, to make it easier for people to locate what is actually being proposed - I hope Ritchie333 doesn't mind. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - I made a bolded "oppose" comment further up the main thread but since there's an actual proposal here now, restating my opposition. I applaud the effort to find a way forward but there are many parts of this I don't like, and so this comment is long. For one, I don't know why this editor and not any of the other dozens of banned users who "make good edits" but don't work well with others. I'm fine with amnesty for editors who show that they recognize why they were blocked and make an indication they'll try to avoid those actions in the future, that's what we have the standard offer for. This editor has not done so at all, in fact they've outright said they're going to keep right on with everything that gets them blocked and banned because they think they get what they want anyway (paraphrasing from [21]). Furthermore, with the nature of their IP-hopping and "good edits" they could get away with evading this ban for a very long time if they didn't always fall back into the same pattern of drama whenever anyone reverts them for anything, and as such I don't have any faith that trying to limit them to an account is going to be of any use at all, even if we assume they've changed their mind about their stated intention to evade any block they disagree with (which you'd think, and they've demonstrated, is every block). BKFIP has made these sorts of assurances before to escape a block, and has broken their promise each and every time. Even so, I'm all for second* chances and would probably support this or at least stay out of the way, but this proposal also puts unusual restrictions on every editor who interacts with BKF, requiring everyone else to jump through hoops to avoid crossing an editor with a short fuse and long history of antisocial behaviour. Sometimes our fellow editors get things wrong, like calling constructive edits vandalism or mistreating IPs - we can deal with those on a case-by-case basis and we should, but part of editing here is being able to deal with people disagreeing with you from time to time, especially when you're right. BKFIP won't or can't, and it's not in the project's interest to make special rules for editors who are this dysfunctional, no matter how good their edits are. I'm also not pleased about the message this sends that if you persistently evade a community ban long enough that it just goes away.

If there's a way forward for this editor, it starts with them respecting their ban and sitting out for six months, and then demonstrating that they have any intention at all to avoid the situations that have led to their past blocks. I don't believe that creating an account that's as close to an IP address as you can technically make demonstrates any intention at all for that to be their only account going forward, and besides, creating an account has never been required and isn't now. It's not just the ban evasion that's a problem: the core of it is the user's negative overreactions at the drop of any hint of trouble that needs to be addressed, and they could have been doing that just as well as a dynamic IP over the years. Instead of looking to improve, we have yet another round of the aggressive edit summaries and revert warring that led the latest IP to be blocked, all of which occurred before they were identified as BKFIP (it originally had nothing to do with ban evasion); had they responded more appropriately it's likely nobody would have ever made the connection. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Re "they've outright said they're going to keep right on with everything that gets them blocked and banned because they think they get what they want anyway (paraphrasing from [22])" - is it really fair to condemn someone for the rest of their Wikipedia existence for something they said back in 2011? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Nothing that the editor has done in the intervening six years suggests that their statement is any less true now than when they wrote it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

No, of course not. NE Ent 02:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you're missing what I'm getting at. There are two sides to this; you've covered the edit warring and incivility, but every time he has complained about being reverted for "vandalism", the other party has also been in the wrong - that's why we've got an Arbcom case in cold storage right now. So, my plan is to take the "incorrect vandalism revert" part out of the equation, and see what we're left with. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, but that's just not even close to the entirety of the problem. BKF doesn't just respond poorly when they're mistakenly called out for vandalism, they respond poorly whenever anyone challenges them over anything at all. Take for example this discussion: this resulted from BKF editing a section to remove what they perceived as copyvio, while one editor disagreed with removing some important parts from the article's lede and another disagreed that the existing text was copyvio in the first place. All three editors had valid concerns, but rather than discuss and come to an agreement, BKF angrily insisted that their opinion was infallible and insulted the other editors' intelligence until their IP was blocked. In that instance the other two editors tried to address BKF's concerns, nobody called BKF a vandal, nobody reverted an IP just because it was an IP, it was just a simple content dispute that set BKF into meltdown mode. And yeah, that was two years ago, but once again I've seen nothing to suggest BKF has tried to improve at all, and the latest incident suggests to me that the pattern is ongoing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Procedural Oppose I think that Arbcom and/or the WMF need to be directly involved here. Also, we're discussing an editor who has stated in writing they aren't BKFIP (I'm unsure whether they are claiming to be the same user as 2.25.45.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). Power~enwiki (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I search for laughter in life. "Procedural Oppose" is pretty damn good. Thanks. -- Begoon 06:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Rather like "unscrupulously fair" in the first post. That made me laugh. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support Ritchie's proposal entirely, and thanks to Yngvadottir for bringing this here. Let's look forwards rather than pick at scabs. If this fails it'll be easy enough to fix, but if we don't even try, then I'm disappointed in "us". -- Begoon 01:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Well quite. If he reverts to type he'll be indeffed soon enough. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

And if he doesn't then we gain an experienced, valuable editor. Honestly, this seems like a "no brainer" to me, and an opportunity to put stuff behind us, where it belongs. There's literally nothing to lose, and lots to potentially gain. I'd be very proud of "us" if we took this no-risk "chance" here, however it turns out, and somewhat disappointed if we don't. -- Begoon 05:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Contra Yngadottir (who I admire very much anyway), I thought BKA was a terrible editor from the get-go, making lots of what could be called good-faith edits under AGF, but which made the articles worse. I'll leave the policy questions to the wikilawyers but I think the project is better off without BKA. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

You could always just log in and tell us who you are, but I'm aware of the deep irony that suggestion might invoke in this case. -- Begoon 03:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose His edits aren't always an improvement, yet he reacts the same way with abuse and hostility. The excuse that people revert him "because he's an IP" is hogwash, its an excuse that he was given and he has latched onto with great gusto. In reality he's simply trolling and any decent edits that get made are purely incidental. Really if you've ever been unfortunate enough to come across one of his none improvements you wouldn't be thinking of unblocking this guy. WCM_email 09:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

And BTW they've been behaving like this a lot longer than 2011, I first came across this editor back in 2007. WCM_email 09:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

10 years ago? Go figure. There's a certain sort of dedication there, for good or ill. -- Begoon 10:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

He likes to create drama, I bet they're loving the attention. WCM_email 16:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: I have to take issue with your assessment. It is possible that I am indded assuming too much good faith, as Opabinia regalis suggests, but I'm not the only one who has spoken up here and elsewhere saying that the majority of this person's edits are good. Perhaps you are confusing him with another IP editor, or perhaps you're thinking of one particular emphasis he's had with which you disagree, such as regarding "best known for" as POV? Otherwise, I find your assessment puzzling and think the imputation of bad motives to him inappropriate. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm definitely thinking of this IP editor and comments like this Censored, Censored Censored You dopy little Censored, "wee curry monster". I've seen several threads started by him at ANI, which I would definitely class as trolling (but of course they're difficult to go back and find due to his IP hopping). I would just like an environment where you can discuss edits in a reasonable manner, without some foul mouthed troll gobbing off when someone has the temerity to disagree with him. I am really bemused that you think this guy is somehow an asset to the community, can you point to some particularly brilliant article he's penned? A little copy editing is not worth the grief and drama this editor creates. WCM_email 17:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Wow, 4 f-bombs and a "retard"? And all 2011? That's not very bad at all, and it's very old news. As I said above, he's genuinely been more civil in recent years. I'd say you're about quits with the "foul-mouthed troll" above, but I admit I'm at the extreme edge here, and I admit, my mother wouldn't like him. But this is a writing collaboration, not a vicarage tea or even a business. Yes, I do think his editing is a net positive. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Not just the f-bomb, in 10 years of editing, I've seen some stupidity but never felt the need to refer to another editor as a dopey fucking cunt. Funnily enough not even my old rugby team would consider that sort of language acceptable. So do I take it from your remarks you don't feel that editors can expect discussions to be civil? It certainly seems that way. And I don't think his editing is a net positive, I think its been a time sink for years. WCM_email 19:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

As I say, it's regrettable he called you a fuck and a retard in the last link there, but you're going pretty far back for your examples and he stopped cold with the "c-word", to my knowledge? I think there's a bit of a false dichotomy here. I don't agree 100% with all his edits; he's told me off for not doing so; I don't think he's our best copyeditor, but he's damned useful to the encyclopedia (I see more editors elsewhere in this thread judging his edits as generally good than sharing your opinion of them, and I'm particularly concerned because he has a good knowledge of science, and I for one don't), and I don't define incivility by lists of words that you're not supposed to say on TV. To my mind, calling an editor like this a troll is as bad as dropping an f-bomb, and snideness is vastly underestimated in its effect on the editing environment. But I'm not the person to decide this. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

As it happens, I'd forgotten the guy admitted to getting his kicks abusing other editors I get more satisfaction out of responding viciously than I would out of responding politely". WCM_email 17:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Not what they said: I get more satisfaction out of responding viciously than I would out of responding politely, and the end result is exactly the same. It's very, very depressing to see how reasonable, sensible people like yourself became the minority. Believe me, if you were the majority, I would not be viciously slagging off anyone. (Emphasis mine.) NE Ent 17:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Discussion continues, but slowly, and meanwhile the editor has talk page access revoked and therefore can't even make a statement to be reported here. That seems unfair to me. May I propose restoring talk-page access as a bit of WP:ROPE or a gesture of good faith on our own parts? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, I've seen this editor break every promise they've ever made to be civil to other editors. WCM_email 17:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

While the thought behind the proposal is good, I'm neither for it nor against it because it won't matter.

• Within Wikipedia, there is a group, I'll use the term Chaotic Good loosely, who believe the most important thing is the encyclopedia. Therefore, any edits that improve it should be allowed to stand rather than systemically reverted because of who made them. (This becomes especially sticky when the edit fixed a WP:BLP problem.)
• There is also a Lawful Good group who believes the most important thing is the encyclopedia. Therefore, any individual whose actions continually impair the function of the project needs to be firmly discouraged, regardless of any positive edits they may make.
• Neither good has a plurality and both have logically reasonable positions. Of course the two views are incompatible, so we muddle along on a case by case basis.

The are two possible outcomes to this discussion:

• The consensus is against (current trend). Well, that's the status quo the Wikipedia community can argue about for another decade.
• The proposal passes -- the idea that we can get the entire community to abide by 3, 4 and 5 is unsupported by historical evidence, and what happens when it doesn't?? Does that then excuse BKFIP's subsequent behavior? Secondly, it's only a matter of time before there in an accusation of sockpuppetry -- it's hardly a unique phrase e.g.[23] and there are like a billion English speakers. The idea that every writer is a special unique snowflake that can be identified by any minor edit is ludicrous, and of course there's the possibility of a agent provocateur troll deciding to stir up trouble. Regardless of whether BKFIP follows the proposed rules, someone will decide they're not.

The sensible thing to do would be to take the WP:RBI approach -- as that page points out "In the past we have neatly categorized vandals and constructed shrines for them on Wikipedia." Well, the past is present: I mean the guy even has their own shortcut WP:BKFIP. We should leave the good edits, revert the bad, short term block any IP with excessively poor behavior. Delete the shrine. And take some Wikidryl. NE Ent 21:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

User: 36.72.55.141

36.72.55.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) based in Indonesia has made a mass of edits today. The edits to BBC News (TV channel) and all other BBC date entries are vandalism and I have reverted them. I'm not qualified to comment on the numerous other changes - although they do appear to be incorrect. Should this user be blocked?

He seems to be messing with dates, should I revert the rest of the changes? —JJB^ers 12:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Probably, I just haven't the time to check all the "edits". Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted them all where they hadn't already been reverted. Regarding a block, the user is long gone now. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. David J Johnson (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

He hasn't gone away, still meddling with dates, so I've blocked for 31 hours. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Odd "<" editing

Over the past few days I've run across many instances of someone replacing all the left brackets (<) on a page with the unicode characters for the symbol: & l t ; . (Apologies; can't get it to show up correctly here without spacing.) This results in broken refs, messed up punctuation, and sometimes a pretty unreadable page.

Examples can be seen at Triple bond and Peshawar cricket team.

This always comes from an anonymous user, and every time that I've checked, it has been that account's only edit. A large proportion of the pages seem to be on Indian topics, but I don't know what percentage of wiki articles fall into that category, so maybe that means nothing.

The character replaced is almost always <, occasionally &, and once >. Also, very rarely (maybe 2 in 50 times), an edit summary is given, such as recently at Shani Prabhava.

I'd love any insight as to why I keep seeing this. (And if this is not the proper place to report this, please correct me - this is not my area at all.) Let me know if there's any other info I can provide that would be useful. Thank you! Jessicapierce (talk)

I'm not sure there is much that can be done at the moment. The two examples you gave were by two different IPs. Thanks for the fixes though. WP:AIV is available should the problem become more widespread. Mjroots (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

In only one of your examples was the edit "that account's only edit". Two of the IPs already had multiple edits to a variety of articles. If you examine each accounts' other edits, you can see whether they were constructive or not, and if not, revert the edit(s). If there is a pattern, then warn the user (see WP:WARN for some sample templates), and if necessary, report them at WP:AIV. If there is continuing vandalism to a single article by multiple IPs or an IP-hopper, then you can request semi-protection of the article at WP:RFPP. -- Softlavender (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I've seen this, too. I chalked it up to some browser bug. I suppose it could be vandalism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the replies. My fault, re the "only edit" thing - although I gave poor examples here, I assure you the vast majority of this has been from IPs with only one edit. This is what led me to think it isn't vandalism, but an error/bug/mystery. No big deal, just thought I should report it. Jessicapierce (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The problem sounds like the character entities fooling either the user's browser or the internal (Wikimedia server) wikitext parser into not recognizing what were intended as html-like formatting tags, sort of like a grammatical hypercorrection. I'd AGF and communicate to the person that they're causing problems rather than solving them. If it gets out of hand, an edit filter could intercept the changes. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I have also seen this multiple times while on RC patrol. Tornado chaser (talk)

Disruptive editing by User:Motorsporteditor

After receiving a final warning for removing an AfD template from Josh Tibbetts (diff 1), stating that they would be blocked if they did it again, they did exactly that, removing the AfD template from Sam Cartwright (diff 2). I've already reported this to AIV, where I think this report correctly belongs, but was declined first on erroneous and then procedural grounds (diff 3, diff 4). Additionally, this editor has engaged in other general disruption (diff 5, diff 6) and made personal attacks against User:PlyrStar93 and myself (diff 7, diff 8). I think a brief block is called for here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Contant Stalking by User:Sir Sputnik

The AfD template I removed from Josh Tibbetts and Sam Cartwright said I could do so once some changes were made. I made those changes and removed the tags yet User:Sir Sputnik continued to try and remove the page and remove my account. I feel like a temporary block should be put in place for bullying. User:Motorsportbattles 7:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Motorsportbattles, AfD templates say no such thing. As a matter of fact, they say directly the opposite. You may be new here, but the editors frequenting this board are not. That is an entirely disingenuous defense. Care to try again? John from Idegon (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Motorsportbattles: You wouldn't be having this problem if you weren't repeatedly creating articles on footballers who fail our notability guideline. If you don't stop doing this, you may eventually find yourself back here with a request for a new article topic ban, which I would fully endorse – at the moment you're just wasting other editors time by forcing people to go through the AfD process. Number 57 11:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked. The name seems to be Motorsporteditor, as per Sir Sputnik's report, not Motorsportbattles, which they confusingly sign as. The timestamp is wrong too.[24] Motorsporteditor, please sign using four tildes, (~~~~), then it'll come out right. People need to be able to get to your page by clicking on your signature, and to ping you — the pings by John from Idegon and Number 57, won't have reached you, simply because you signed the wrong name. Anyway, I think Motorsporteditor needs a block right now for disruptive editing such as this, and I've given them 31 hours. Bishonen | talk 20:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC).
• This user is not at all new. They have been here since 2014 and much of their editing has been unconstructive.Tvx1 14:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Orlando IP rangeblock needed

Indeffed MusicLover650 has been creating sock accounts and also using various IP addresses from the area of Orlando, Florida, including lots of IPs assigned to the regional school system. The pattern shows activity during the week but not the weekend. Today was particularly trying, with seven different IPs showing up. Can we get a rangeblock on the following? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Involved IPs

• Sep 5 168.184.241.191 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Sep 5 168.184.243.172 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Sep 5 168.184.243.213 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Sep 5 168.184.249.34 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Sep 5 168.184.251.165 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Sep 5 168.184.252.183 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Sep 5 168.184.253.1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Sep 1 168.184.247.54 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Sep 1 168.184.244.47 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Aug 31 168.184.245.111 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Aug 31 168.184.250.160 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Aug 30 168.184.249.22 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Aug 30 168.184.243.63 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Aug 30 168.184.243.249 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Aug 29 168.184.251.20 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Aug 29 168.184.249.69 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Aug 29 168.184.247.208 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Aug 25 168.184.240.142 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Aug 24 168.184.245.236 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Aug 23 168.184.241.59 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Aug 22 168.184.247.108 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

{{blockcalc}} results: All within the range of 168.184.240.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 23:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorted 21 IPv4 addresses: 168.184.240.142 168.184.241.59 168.184.241.191 168.184.243.63 168.184.243.172 168.184.243.213 168.184.243.249 168.184.244.47 168.184.245.111 168.184.245.236 168.184.247.54 168.184.247.108 168.184.247.208 168.184.249.22 168.184.249.34 168.184.249.69 168.184.250.160 168.184.251.20 168.184.251.165 168.184.252.183 168.184.253.1 Total affected Affected addresses Given addresses Range Contribs 4096 4096 21 168.184.240.0/20 contribs 3072 512 3 168.184.240.0/23 contribs 256 4 168.184.243.0/24 contribs 512 3 168.184.244.0/23 contribs 256 3 168.184.247.0/24 contribs 1024 6 168.184.248.0/22 contribs 512 2 168.184.252.0/23 contribs 1414 1 1 168.184.240.142 contribs 256 2 168.184.241.0/24 contribs 1 1 168.184.243.63 contribs 128 3 168.184.243.128/25 contribs 1 1 168.184.244.47 contribs 256 2 168.184.245.0/24 contribs 128 2 168.184.247.0/25 contribs 1 1 168.184.247.208 contribs 128 3 168.184.249.0/25 contribs 512 3 168.184.250.0/23 contribs 1 1 168.184.252.183 contribs 1 1 168.184.253.1 contribs 399 1 1 168.184.240.142 contribs 1 1 168.184.241.59 contribs 1 1 168.184.241.191 contribs 1 1 168.184.243.63 contribs 1 1 168.184.243.172 contribs 64 2 168.184.243.192/26 contribs 1 1 168.184.244.47 contribs 1 1 168.184.245.111 contribs 1 1 168.184.245.236 contribs 1 1 168.184.247.54 contribs 1 1 168.184.247.108 contribs 1 1 168.184.247.208 contribs 64 2 168.184.249.0/26 contribs 1 1 168.184.249.69 contribs 1 1 168.184.250.160 contribs 256 2 168.184.251.0/24 contribs 1 1 168.184.252.183 contribs 1 1 168.184.253.1 contribs 21 1 1 168.184.240.142 contribs 1 1 168.184.241.59 contribs 1 1 168.184.241.191 contribs 1 1 168.184.243.63 contribs 1 1 168.184.243.172 contribs 1 1 168.184.243.213 contribs 1 1 168.184.243.249 contribs 1 1 168.184.244.47 contribs 1 1 168.184.245.111 contribs 1 1 168.184.245.236 contribs 1 1 168.184.247.54 contribs 1 1 168.184.247.108 contribs 1 1 168.184.247.208 contribs 1 1 168.184.249.22 contribs 1 1 168.184.249.34 contribs 1 1 168.184.249.69 contribs 1 1 168.184.250.160 contribs 1 1 168.184.251.20 contribs 1 1 168.184.251.165 contribs 1 1 168.184.252.183 contribs 1 1 168.184.253.1 contribs

• Practically no collateral issues, so rangeblocked for a month. Black Kite (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Black Kite. Interested parties can see a history of this disruption at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/MusicLover650, a new LTA page. Binksternet (talk) 02:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Black Kite, User:Darryl Dwight Howard Warren Richardson was operating from 2607:FB90:0:0:0:0:0:0/32, a range blocked by Graham87 as, guess what, the Home of the Dog/Rapper vandal. Woof! Drmies (talk) 04:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Aha! Good to know. These two vandals do have a lot of intersections, since they both edit rapper biographies. I changed the LTA case pages to match your finding. Binksternet (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Pillowfluffyhead and User:Ronhjones

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

---

Hello. Quite by chance, I have noticed some very odd behaviour from this user, an associated IP, and an administrator who responded to the user.

Firstly, observations about the user:

• The IP address 24.91.248.60 and the user are one and the same. See User talk:24.91.248.60 and User:Pillowfluffyhead
• The IP's very first edit was to WP:AIV - see Special:Contributions/24.91.248.60. This indicates that the person making the edits is not new to Wikipedia, though under what username or IP they edited previously, I do not know.
• The user seems mostly concerned with reporting other users. I do not see any contributions to articles other than reverts, many of which are clearly inappropriate.
• The user has made accusations of vandalism which are entirely without basis: [25],[26],[27]
• The user has made several incorrect accusations that usernames violate the username policy: [28],[29],[30]

Based on these observations, I believe that this user is not here to build an encyclopaedia, but seems entirely or almost entirely dedicated to disruption.

Secondly, regarding the administrator.

• The IP, one day after their first edit, made a series of 16 reverts of edits made by another anonymous user, claiming "block evasion".
• At 23:00 on September 1, they left a message accusing the other anonymous user of sockpuppetry and vandalism:[31]
• At 23:01, they posted at WP:AIV:[32], offering only "LTA" by way of explanation
• At 23:04, User:Ronhjones blocked the other anonymous user for three months: see [33].

I find it astonishing that an administrator would take at face value a spurious AIV post by an anonymous editor, and without any further checking or analysis of the situation (that I can see; three minutes seems insufficient for there to have been any though), apply such a long block.

I am posting this here because a) I think User:Pillowfluffyhead's edits and behaviour deserve significant scrutiny and b) I think User:Ronhjones behaved entirely incorrectly in this incident. Thank you for your consideration. 60.90.97.250 (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Just want to point out the AbuseLog that triggered the block, which turned out to be a false positive edit by Anonymous44. I have no comment on the behavior of either editors. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• I dropped a few problems on Pillowfluffyhead's talk page; you can see them here, just before they reverted me saying "RVV" and without addressing the problems. GB Fan noted problems too. We should really have more people overseeing these Recent changes patrollers, maybe. The whole affair with the IP/Anonymous getting blocked would have been more clear earlier had it not been for this irritating habit of blanking the talk page. They did the same here after a comment or two from Kudpung--"hostile" remarks, apparently. Well, we're dealing with an editor whose every edit needs to be weighed carefully. Moreover, I am not convinced that this account, and the aforementioned IP, constitutes the entirety of their career here. I hope they'll be commenting here; if not, we should consider putting them on some kind of notice: this is too many screw-ups, and they're not innocent ones. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I have concerns about FPH's edits too. See [34] I also agree that the IP is unlikely to have been the user's first experience with Wikipedia. Meters (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• While I'm not known for beating about the bush, my comments could hardly be regarded as hostile. In fact I'm actually very supportive of new users who are trying to be genuinely helpful but just not getting it right. That said, this user, whose edit count under this account demonstrates very little experience (and that's what matters here - I haven't investigated further), should not be patrolling new pages at all. In fact they barely even qualify for vandalism patrol. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

BTW, SoftBank is an internet provider in Japan and may pozsibly be offering VPN services. Just thought it might be worth mentioning as 60.90.97.250 only began editing yesterday. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• The edits done by the IP were all unsourced. We do not just block because someone reports at AIV, we look at the last few edits. Lots of IPs report other editors at AIV, that is not unusual. You cannot use an edit count of an IP to see if they have been here before - there are way too many dynamic IPs in the system, they may well be a very experienced editor who just wants to edit as an IP - there are plenty that do. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say there was anything wrong having previous experience under other IPs. I was just agreeing that to me this appears not to be a brand new editor, making what I interpret as apparent competency issues more concerning. If they don't have previous experience then it is inexperience rather than competency, but either way they should should be dissuaded from reviewing. Meters (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

This is all a bunch of garbage and I'm not going to comment here further. You are all entitled to your opinions and I am entitled to mine. I am never going to be a content creator, as that's not my strength. I've seen several admins get promoted at RFA without being content creators. Heck, if you guys want to block me over this nonsense, be my guest. I'm going to keep doing what I am best at until that time comes (if it comes). Pillowfluffyhead (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• If anybody has evidence indicating what connection there might be to an older IP or account, the place to report is SPI, and if not then it's not terribly productive to keep bringing it up here; we can't do anything about it without evidence. As for the current issues, PFH, there's no requirement to create content and people contribute to the encyclopedia in many ways, but when a number of experienced editors are trying to give you advice about how what you're doing is not correct, you should at least try to take that advice. Saying you're just going to keep doing what you're doing isn't a good way to participate here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

So User:Ronhjones, you blocked an editor for three months because their edits were "all unsourced"? Your claim is false: many of the edits included sources, eg [35][36][37]. Even if it were true, where in the blocking policy is there any support for your action? If you want material to be sourced, you request a citation; you don't block the editor who added it. I do not think what you've said here is any kind of explanation for what you did. In the three minutes which elapsed between IP1 posting at AIV and your blocking of IP2 as a result, exactly what did you do to appraise yourself of the situation? What part of the blocking policy did you consider justified your action? 153.231.201.93 (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Your claim, 153 etc., is belied by the fact that {{uw-unsor3}} and {{uw-unsor4}} warn the user that persisting will result in a block. Nyttend (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Given that the user was adding references in their edits, how is your point in any way relevant? Which claim of mine is belied by it? 153.231.201.93 (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

There were no references added on the day in question. One edit changed the subject name by one letter, often that is regarded as sneaky vandalism.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronjones (talk • contribs)

There were references added on the day in question. I posted the diffs. I cannot find any edit which changed the subject name by one letter. Perhaps you can post a diff. At the moment you've falsely claimed that the user's edits were "all unsourced", then falsely claimed that "there were no references added". I hope it's not a third false claim.

I do not understand why you haven't given a clear explanation of your actions. You're being extremely evasive here, and that troubles me. I hope you might in the end answer the questions I posted earlier: In the three minutes which elapsed between IP1 posting at AIV and your blocking of IP2 as a result, exactly what did you do to appraise yourself of the situation? What part of the blocking policy did you consider justified your action? Do you intend in the future to block anyone for three months based on the AIV postings of an anonymous troublemaker? 153.231.201.93 (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Clearly, User:Pillowfluffyhead is not here to make an encyclopaedia. Their single response to this thread confirms that. I remain troubled by Ronhjones, who blocked someone for three months without doing any basic checks of the situation, and has not given a clear explanation of their reason for doing so. Is anyone else bothered by that? 153.231.201.93 (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• I wish to remain uninvolved as much as possible in user disputes (and as such rarely participate at ANI), but I wanted to note that I have blocked Pillowfluffyhead due to some of their recent edits (e.g. [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]). My block was made before I discovered this ANI thread and was not made because of any discussion here; I blocked because I saw vandalism that needed to be stopped immediately. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @K6ka: Suicide-by-admin? GAB^gab 00:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• I've left another message on Pillowfluffyhead's tp. That block would have come sooner or later anyway. They are a very young user and probably don't realise that Wikipedia is important stuff. I think we can close this now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• Pillowfluffyhead said that his computer was hacked hence the vandalism. Subsequently the account has been indeffed as it has been compromised. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• I deleted the attack vandalism from the Pillowfluffyhead user page and applied Full Protection, indef to the page. — Maile (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Edit warring on United Firefighters Union of Australia

On United Firefighters Union of Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The following three seem to be edit warring over a wp:content dispute. The article needs to be PP at the least.

• Firefighter83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Atriskboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NSWFire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jim1138 (talk) 06:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jim,

Atriskboy and myself are not edit warring with each other, it appears we are both reacting to constant vandalism of that page by user NSWFire and a static IP address user - FF83 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefighter83 (talk • contribs)

(Non-administrator comment) The article certainly needs a few extra eyes, since it appears to be a massive fustercluck. No comment on who's right and/or wrong. Kleuske (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello. It's rich to call what I have done vandalism. It is true that the UFU is currently carrying a $200,000 + debt arising from the split of all members bar three, and it is documented in their annual report. They have also received much formal criticism for their continued defence of members who have been found untrustworthy. However, I am happy to split these subjects off into a second page - perhaps called "United Fire Fighters Union Australia - Controversies" to keep both the peace and to avoid accusations of white washing. NSWFire (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I see that Firefighter83 has now deleted the subject matter previously agreed to be factual, branding it opinion. I strongly urge that it is resumed, as it relates closely to the history of the current publicity. NSWFire (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

There appears to be no such agreement, as I stated in my edit, your addition reads as an opinion piece or press release and therefore is not an appropriate addtion to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefighter83 (talk • contribs) 04:42, September 7, 2017 (UTC)

Full-protected indefinitely, and then re-full-protected for three days because indefinite was a mistake. Nyttend (talk) 05:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the content until the edit warring issue is settled. Both Firefighter83 [43] and NSWFire [44] have continued the edit war after being given edit warring warnings. Both appear to have broken 3RR after the warning. I support edit warring blocks for both. Atriskboy stopped editing the article after the warning and did not break 3RR, but was edit warring on this article and the related Country Fire Authority. All 3 very likely have a conflict of interest in this issue. .

There is alsonow an SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NSWFire concerning a new account User: Ethicschecker that was created eight minutes after the edit warring notice and has now edited the article. [45] [46].

Country Fire Authority is part of this mess too, with a number of SPAs in common, and several other SPAs active. Meters (talk) 05:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm generally not fond of handing out blocks when several people have been warring at one or two pages; easier to protect the page, and if the users are otherwise good editors, it avoids creating their block logs. If you think that blocks would be better than protections here, please explain your reasoning. Of course, disruptive sockpuppetry, if proven, is good reason for sustained blocks on all accounts involved. Nyttend (talk) 05:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know that blocks will solve this any more than temporary full protection will (unless an admin actually makes a definitive edit). The parties do not seem to be able to work this out. 3rr violations after an edit warring warning are a definite bright line issue, and this ANI was an edit warring thread so that was my take. My comment was made at almost the same time as the protection. I would have looked at things differently if the article had already been protected.

We have a big mess of SPA and apparent COI editors who have taken their union infighting to the Wikipedia pages. Meters (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing at Kathi Darbar

Bhagirathkamaliya has just returned from a second block for vandalim/disruptive editing at Kathi Darbar, and is already edit-warring there to include the same unreferenced content as before. The editor has had numerous warnings, but has never acknowldeged one – and indeed has never posted on a talk-page – so there doesn't seem to be much hope that a polite explanation will cause any change in behaviour. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Escalated the block to 1 week; but I think by this point indefinite is probably appropriate also. Alex Shih^Talk 15:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

This particular one may be linked to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kjp007 but I don't have time to look deep now. Also, when it comes to these caste pages, it'd be helpful if a {{Uw-castewarning}} is left for the user along with the first warning as it'd avoid the need for ANI etc. —SpacemanSpiff 15:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Considering this (User:Aniruddhbhaidhadhaldhadhal) and this (User:Bhagirathkamaliya), yeah maybe. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• DoRD, do you see anything with your special CU glasses that I don't? You ran it on that master before... Drmies (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It's not impossible that they're related, but except for being located in the same geographic area, they don't match technically. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Request block of User:Johnvr4

Johnvr4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would like to request a block of User:Johnvr4 under WP:NOTHERE. To quote User:Nick-D in March this year, Johnvr4 "doesn't seem interested in working collaboratively to develop neutral and appropriate encyclopedia articles. ..I believe that a block would be justified by [his] repeated attempts to create articles which are unreliable and inability to listen and respond to the concerns which multiple editors have raised about them .. . Fundamentally, I don't think that Wikipedia is an appropriate location for the stuff [Johnvr4] want[s] to publish, or that [his] approach to doing so is in line with Wikipedia's collaborative ethos." (User talk:Nick-D#U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan's southern islands). Johnvr4 is repeatedly trying to create articles which are severely biased against the U.S. government's view on things, and distorts sources to do so. This was raised at the original Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Red Hat by User:Moe Epsilon, in regard to a reference which was distorted [47], at User_talk:Johnvr4#Air_defense_interceptors.2FGenie, and at U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan over the reasons for removal of nuclear weapons from Okinawa (partially due to a perceived vulnerability to terrorism, which Johnvr4 repeated tried to downgrade from the article). He also is repeatedly unable or unwilling to recognise a consensus formed against him [48] and has recreated his preferred version of deleted content three times in his sandbox after an MfD was closed against him (see User talk:Johnvr4#Red Hat content, and further advisory by User:RoySmith (User talk:Johnvr4#Recreation warning). Another example of concerns about his editing style came from User:AustralianRupert at [49]. This user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia in line with WP's principals, and I kindly request that he be blocked from further editing. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support Power~enwiki (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support for now I'm still not fully done reading below, so I'll put this in for now. —JJB^ers 01:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Additional comment: at [50] Moe Epsilon said: "You have only edited a small handful of article topics and I can't look through your editing history and find an example of you making major changes to an article and then not having a major dispute on the talk page. Your contributions have either been deleted outright, reverted partially or debated upon heavily. That is concerning. I told you back in 2014 that was concerning because I took a single reference you supplied, which was used several times in your writing, and it wasn't factually accurate according to what the references said." which again is another indicator of the problems this user causes. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Please pardon my interruption but I'd like to inform this discussion of Wikipedia:Requests_for_history_merge#New_requests forOperation Red Hat where the history of the text that User:Moe Epsilon once accused me of "cooking up in my spare time" as a reason for AfD as well as Bucksohot06 assertions about it in MfD, DRV, and here will soon be visible again. those editors and others had been told very clearly the assertion he continues to put forth about submitting that text is untrue. Buckshot06 restored that very text. The restored page history will make those misrepresentations apparent despite his stated opposition to restoring it.Johnvr4 (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Sincerely regretful support from an involved party. I actually sort of like John. My second discussion with him on my talk page indicates that he can carry on a concise and non-bludgeoning discussion when he chooses to. He was very polite about accidentally referring to me as "he" instead of "she", and came to my talk page to apologize about feeling like he'd villified me/dragged me into this mess. I genuinely don't think John is being intentionally disruptive just for the sake of causing problems. I think if we could get him to edit about anything else that he didn't have such a strong passion for, he'd be a great contributor. I think the problem is that he has such an obsessive passion for how he sees Red Hat/weapons deployment/related topics that he gets complete tunnel vision and blocks out anything that contradicts his own view of the topic and our policies here. He gets frustrated that we can't see what he sees, leading him to produce ever-lengthier posts trying to convey his point but instead alienating his intended audience in the process. I don't know that there is a viable alternative to blocking, possibly save a broadly-construed topic ban for anything related to Red Hat/weapons deployment/similar. But I admit I have doubts as to whether that would be effective or merely a postponement of a block. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if my comment here is appropriate but I am OCD and spectrum. But not just on any one particular issue. I also have some nerve damage, adrenal tumor that jacks me up, and I nearly failed typing (sorry for the typos- I'm disabled). I would consider myself an expert on the material simply because I have read every reliable source I had cited (there were like 250) and did not synthesize if I had to use a public domain report or lesser primary source until a better one is found. Numerous times I have suggested to simply follow our sources or allow addition of a new ones as a compromise to end every dispute. However, that literally never ever happens with said editor as I have documented repeatedly. I was/am frustrated, mouthed off a bit too. To nearly everyone. I was actually shaking after it was nominated and then deleted. I apologize again.Johnvr4 (talk) 05:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - I've taken a look at a randomish sampling of editing over the last few months and don't feel that a NOTHERE argument applies. Obviously, there is some less than optimum pugnacity with the editing, but this appears to be a good faith editor adding sourced content. Carrite (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I actually hatted a discussion on PMC's talk where Johnvr4 was going over oard, but he came back and had a reasonable conversation. I'm not convinced that the very WP:INVOLVED Admin is correctly asessing this situation. We don't have to follow the US Govt view of things and accusations American is editing against American seems hard to believe. Perhaps BuckShot06 needs to lay off Johnvr4 and Nohnvr4 should edit other topics. Legacypac (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Having followed this since the original AFD, I can safely say this is probably the eventual route that will have be taken. If he is not blocked, then a topic ban will definitely need to be implemented, broad-construed to prevent him from working on anything related to Operation Red Hat and military-based articles. John has a very hard time communicating concerns and actually addressing problems with his content, and this is a long standing issue. @Carrite: I feel like John is here to add sourced content as well, however his content is misleading or synthesized at times, and several editors have addressed that. It's a problem that goes back to the days of him first editing five years ago on the same topic. His behavior hasn't changed much and his problematic content went from being on the main articles to his sandboxes, which he has attempted to write for four years now with little to no improvement to follow Wikipedia standards (which is what the MFD was about). If John is not willing to take a topic ban and edit other topics, then this has to be the route to take because he is so engulfed in this behavior around these topics that it is now disruptive. I only support a block now because the few times I saw John edit outside his usual few articles, it ended up in content disputes as well and having content disputes this frequently is toxic. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Can't support the NOTHERE assertion as I don't feel anything has been presented to support it. Let's start by removing the useless stuff from the equation, the discussion on Nick-D's talk page can be succinctly summarised as "NOTHERE block and be done with it". This is not really helpful to this discussion. Provide me with a reason to support the NOTHERE assertion that does not stem from a NOTHERE assertion. The AfD from 2013 is unhelpful because, while it demonstrates (possibly) incompetence or poor source utilization it doesn't do anything even close to demonstrate NOTHERE (not to mention it was four years ago). Then there's the discussion on John's page (User_talk:Johnvr4#Air_defense_interceptors.2FGenie) that eventually boils down to, the sources don't use the word interceptor therefore don't use the word interceptor. Everything else was cleared up by quotes from the actual sources, or at least appears to have been based on Buckshot's response; [t]hanks for these. Clearly inteceptor isn't referenced. I will remove the words 'interceptor' etc, ... , and substitute with 'hydrogen-bomb-armed'. I mean this discussion if anything is demonstrative of the "here" part of NOTHERE. Then, last but not least, I'm actually presented with a concern that could be addressed. So let me address it; recreation of a procedurally deleted article that has undergone deletion review that supported the original deletion closure is valid grounds to argue disruptive editing. Please don't do that again. Sometimes, you'll have to accept that your work is not suitable for the encyclopaedia. Now, I'm going to take a moment to address something that was sort of brought up tangentially, but, isn't the central concern. Concern: I find that Johnvr4 has a problem maintaining composure and civility when discussing (or arguing) with other editors. This is not helpful to them or others. For example, the discussion on Johnvr4's talk page that I mention John actually asserts that they will edit war for their preferred version because of perceived incompetence on the part of Buckshot06. Evidence; ... I'll keep putting it back in. An edit war will ensue and your failure to read sources or discuss until now...and assertions (like those above) about the alleged lack of a similar passage in sources will be your huge problem. In conclusion, I don't see NOTHERE as presented, but, I do see civility and composure issues that may need some form of addressing. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The 2013 AfD is actually highly relevant, as JohnVR4 has kept trying to recreate this article (in various forms) despite the concerns raised in the AfD and its result, and the many subsequent discussions. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
    • If I may interject, the appropriate link to that discussion is here :Air defense interceptors/Genie The argument was whether the Interceptor came directly from the original source I used- clearly it did yet the other editor would not acknowledge the obvious fact that the word was in that source despite thanking me for sources. I sort of citation bombed him with sources that quote F-100s, with Nukes, Genies at Naha on Alert as well as most of the WP main pages that also had it because he was being so absurd. And we are here talking about it now simply because he said a word is not there in that source. But it is and always has been. It was an Edit War and that concern was 100% his absurdity and I warned him to never ever try to fight anyone over that point. Yet that is precisely what he did today! Please please explore it further! And look at the reverts made that are contrary to reliable sources. He's done that exact same thing multiple times while stating in MfD that I never improved or condensed any material from my sandbox! That main space material was moved from my sandbox. Johnvr4 (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
      • The context for the quote and my prediction of an edit war was in response to Buckshot06's threats and actions to keep removing our very highly reliably sourced content: "You need a source for nuclear-armed interceptors standing ready for scrambling on Okinawa, and until you provide that, I've remove the paragraph again. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)" I hope that addresses (or characterizes) Mr rnddude's concern.

I thought I was pretty nice about it in warning him given the wall I was beating my head against by simply continuing to even interact with that editor. The full quote was: "...Do not make me pull out quotes! I don't have time for such silliness. No one does. If you cant or won't read the sources, I'll keep putting it back in. An edit war will ensue and your failure to read sources or discuss until now...and assertions (like those above) about the alleged lack of a similar passage in sources will be your huge problem. So I'm going to formally warn you now. Stop and review the sources that you've said you already reviewed. If you had done so, we would not be having this discussion!". Johnvr4 (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC) 20:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC) I have only just remembered that Buckshot06 deleted that very source on Mar, 20. Johnvr4 (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Huh, you're right. It's clear as day on the 1981 CDI article. I had missed it both on your talk page and in the article; During the late 1950s and early 1960s the F-100 Super Sabre served as a primary interceptor. On top of that the Mindling/Bolton source explicitly states that F-100s were present at Okinawa and were nuclear arms equipped. That said, content is an issue that two people can mutually resolve if they are willing to discuss. Content problems shouldn't be the reason we are here. There are better ways to deal with these kinds of issues than outright edit-warring too. One, you can ask for a WP:3O. Two, you can withhold the material and discuss on the talk page (this was done, both at your talk and at the article talk, so kudos for that). Three, if need be, you can do and RfC. I've found a section (argument really) that I'm going to go read through. I am getting more lost, rather than less, as to what the issue actually is. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support Block. JohnVR4 is essentially a single purpose editor whose contributions are focused on adding inaccurate and POV pushing material. This includes material which is not supported by the citations provided, as well as cherry picking material and developing large articles which are nothing but WP:SYNTH - to such an extent that they can't even be reduced to stubs. As noted in the post at the top of this discussion, multiple interventions by a large number of editors in good standing have not been successful in persuading him to change his ways or even seriously acknowledge that his editing is problematic. I think it's fair to say that the editors who have been involved with JohnVR4 have exhausted their patience with him. As he is not editing Wikipedia in good faith or in a collaborative way, he should be blocked to prevent further edits which post misleading information and disruptive conduct. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are clearly problems here, but I'm convinced that JohnVR4 has good intentions and genuinely believes his additions are beneficial to the encyclopedia, and is not deliberately trying to push inaccuracies and POV (even if that might at times be the result). As such, I don't see that WP:NOTHERE is applicable - "Difficulty, in good faith, with conduct norms" is given as a specific "not not here" example. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

  Just to add, I think a topic ban would stand a better chance of consensus, if someone were to propose one with an appropriate scope. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:NOTHERE is for users who come here purely to troll other wikipedians. While his edits/comments might cause problems, this is a good faith editor, who needs to improve some aspects of his editing. Perhaps a short topic ban, so he can learn to edit well on subject that he isn't closely connected to might help. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. (involved editor) In one of the last interactions with Buckshot06 (when I thought we parted ways) I left him this message[51]: "...We just seem to bring out the worst in each other and only produce long discussion with out agreement, and embarrass each other then feel bad, over human errors. I tried to explain to you myself numerous times that our sources need to be looked at closely. The fact is that three other editors also looked at that concern and could not have missed it then failed to point that out to you when you asked, probably did disservice to both you and to I. We unnecessarily wasted a lot of time on this. The way I have interacted with you since was a direct reflection of my frustration in feeling that you are also difficult to work because you refused to look at the sources to verify content. If our paths cross in the future I hope that the interaction will be constructive and fruitful and not at all like many of our previous interactions. Peace. Johnvr4 (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Unfortunately, as one might note, what I had suggested and hoped is not even remotely what has happened since. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Conditional Support - Having had a look at Johnvr4's edits I have to agree with Nick-D that "JohnVR4 is essentially a single purpose editor whose contributions are focused on adding inaccurate and POV pushing material." However the discussion here shows that he is eager to continue as an editor on wikipedia. My proposal would be a topic ban for all nuclear weapons and military in Japan related articles; with an additional warning that any further disruption of wikipedia will result in an immediate block. noclador (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hounding of JohnVR4, userspace and main space submissions by Buckshot06

Buckshot06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Buckshot06 and I have longstanding, heated and unresolved content disputes. He has characterized the disputes as me creating Fake articles and has made numerous baseless policy concerns in talk and recently at Miscellany_for_deletion/OpRedHat as well as to support his arguments in discussions. I have responded to his faulty assertions here:DRV JohnVR4 user spaces and at my talk page. His near-pathological misrepresentations take walls of my text to explain away and as a result my concerns are ignored most recently at WP:Deletion_review/Log/2017_August_30. He has repeatedly threatened to Mfd my userspace draft that was actively being edited 1.5 hours before he nominated it over obviously ridiculous concerns or assertions (such as those he raised in the previous section). His assertions are easily disproved in discussion, diffs, quotes, sources, and every other available method to Wikipedia editors.

Despite my numerous pleas, Buckshot06 repeatedly refuses to read or acknowledge majority and minority opinions in cited reliable sources and then battles over text based upon his strong views and advanced degrees instead of reviewing the reliable sources (especially the newer ones) or opening a content dispute where our issues should be publicly resolved rather than being reverted or deleted outright or having an edit war. He then accuses me of not listening or a plethora or other dubious accusations. I wanted to work together and have asked for help but is is clear that Buckshot06 and I cannot see eye to eye and never will. We have decided to stay away from each other and he has now apparently followed up on a second one of his past (and also ridiculous) threats by opening the above section. This is the third time he has Accused me of an Anti DoD/US stance without the slightest merit and he does not seem to realize that I write from a reliable and documented source standpoint and most importantly, I am from U.S. a military family, from the U.S., which I still support (despite our country's current regime embarrassment). I take I great offense at his third anti-Us accusation (I warned him about it before) as well as his accusation that my thousands of edits were all in bad faith and do not improve Wikipedia -which he has already contradicted in his own words more times than I can count.

That editor has near-pathological pattern of misrepresentation including in his misleading explanations of the links he provided in the above section. On the advisory by User:Moe Epsilon- For example, one editor User:Moe_Epsilon at the [AFD] fabricated a concern about my editing and claimed "I cooked something up." Then that editor made all types of other ridiculous assertions that are disproved by a source (plus the ones already mentioned) which I added only minutes before Buckshot06 deleted the entire sandbox4 draft just this week! The Diffs that were deleted (which I cannot see because I am not an administrator) would prove that I did not write that passage- but there is no just way to see it now since all the diffs are gone. (Well not just yet anyway...Wikipedia:Requests_for_history_merge#New_requests) The diffs would prove that Buckshot06 himself put that nonsense that got the page deleted right back on the main space and abused all of the sources he cited.[52] Note also that Buckshot06's POV version of Operation Red Hat is missing most of the majority and minority viewpoints in every single one of the sources he has cited.

I owe User:Moe Epsilon a bit of an apology. to clarify all my previous comments, he in fact did not accuse me of writing the night move passage at AfD. That was the false assertion of an IP editor. I sincerely apologize for any representation that connecting Moe's comment of cooking stuff up and the faulty concern that I submitted the passage about moves of chemicals at night. Sorry for that mix up Moe. Johnvr4 (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

On the advisory by User:RoySmith- User_talk:RoySmith#Ignoring_of_views_at_DRV, Administrators noticeboard#Closure_review_DRV_of_JohnVR4_userspace_Sandbox_drafts

BuckShot06 makes various entirely merritless claims which I've already disproved to him. In the examples he provided he has fiercely contested moves from my sandbox and is still actively contesting them which proves his main issues with me is a content dispute where he wont acknowledge what a reliable source says (and Note his totally disproved POV complaint) but more importantly his assertions that my sandbox draft where the material is coming from has not been improved nor condensed are utterly absurd: Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan#Terrorist_threat_and_weapons_removed_in_1972-_Apparent_POV and here: Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan#Air_defense_interceptors.2FGenie

Other highly relevant links would be:

1. User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Operation_Red_Hat_Suggestion_Comment
2. User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Operation_Red_Hat_again
3. WP:Articles_for_deletion/Operation_Red_Hat,
4. User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_19#Operation_Red_Hat,
5. User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_19#Userspace_copy_of_Red_Hat,
6. User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Operation_Red_Hat_Suggestion_Comment,
7. User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_22#Draft_review
8. User_talk:Nick-D#OP_RED_HAT_ongoing_issue_notification
9. User_talk:Nick-D#Red_Hat_material_move_to_MK.2FSEARCH.3F
10. User_talk:Nick-D#U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan.27s_southern_islands
11. Deleted message
12. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_137#Massive_2-part_Okinawa_draft
13. "Every one of these concerns are real, now, and valid" deleted comment. (re:this discussion) 12:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

#User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_22#Draft_review Prior to condensing sandbox In response, to these comments I received, I had thereafter moved out about 1/3 of the sandbox content as well as the reduced the scope then split the remainder in User:Johnvr4/sandbox in half.

Note these exchanges among others: "When I file the AN/I over your WP:OR, WP:PRIMARYSOURCES reliance, WP:POV, WP:OWN, WP:SYNTH, and battleground reverting editing, you will be notified, in accordance with policy. In my considered opinion, you should be writing research pieces for publication that allow you to state polemics, not trying to operate on a site that is supposed to be neutral. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)"

"...Given your threat of an apparently inevitable pending ANI, why don't we just file that ANI case right now over the use of sources, edit warring, and POV on this page? Per your assertion, can you show me in this article any of My OR, or an incorrect use of primary sources, POV, OWN, or Synth? These unfounded assertions are going to be looked at under a microscope. Have you forgotten the main section to this sub-section? It is titled: Terrorist threat and weapons removed in 1972- Apparent POV ? Johnvr4 (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)"

Also: "...I remain baffled about how I could be 'cutting you out' after pleading with you immediately above to edit the mainspace article. Your options are twofold: remain editing only your userspace draft, which is not really what a userspace draft is for, or actually get involved in the mainspace. Please engage with me, here or elsewhere, to tell me about well sourced issues which ought to be in the mainspace article, and we can get them in there!! Not every connected issue that you write about in your userspace may end up in the mainspace, but I can certainly see there are issues you write about which ought to be mainspaced. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC) [53]

"I've already said how I believe most of what you have left under Red Hat actually belongs under 112 (or possibly under Project Deseret), and I've laid out my reasons, none of which are invalidated by further things you've said, or by the Chemical Weapons Movement History Compilation, as far as I've scanned it so far. But never mind -- I will cut straight to the chase. Would you prefer I start a WP:MFD (miscellany for deletion) discussion on your preferred, but disputed, version of the article in your sandbox, in line with WP:FAKEARTICLE, not in six months as I had intended to propose, but now? Then we'll get this cleared up sooner rather than later. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)"

1. Project 112 Was moved out from my sandbox three days PRIOR to his demands! Project 112 move from sand box on March 16, 2017
2. Deseret Test Center Was moved out from my sandbox three days PRIOR to his demands! Project Deseret move from Sandbox on March 16, 2017
3. U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan Was moved out from my sandbox two days PRIOR to his demands! U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan Created from my sandbox on March 17, 2017
4. United States military anti-plant research Was moved out from my sandbox one day PRIOR to his demands! United States military anti-plant research Created from my sandbox on March 18, 2017
5. Project MKUltra Was moved out from my sandbox one day PRIOR to his demands! Project MKUltra move from Sandbox on March 18, 2017
6. 1968 Kadena Air Base B-52 crash Was created from my sandbox 12 hours PRIOR to his demands! Created from sandbox on March 19, 2017
7. Japan and weapons of mass destruction Was moved out from my sandbox four days after his demands! Japan and weapons of mass destruction move from sand box PRIOR TO March 19, 2017

Last, Buckshot06 himself moved material he knew to be from my sandbox into another namespace WP:ARTICLE one day PRIOR to his demand.

Most importantly, "I note you've already started breaking down your inputs into smaller chunks, after the long discussion with me at Mark Arsten's page, but please think about the rest too!! OR, POV, and sourcing errors (like trying to keep pure allegations in the article) destroy your credibility when you're trying to contribute here!! Buckshot06 (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)"[54] Johnvr4 (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I sincerely that hope the above exchange with him entirely clears up the total and absolute absurdity of Buckshot06's assertions in nominating my draft for deletion FIVE MONTHS TO THE DAY after his ridiculous prior threats to MfD the draft. All endorsements in support of his entirely false assertions are faulty and his abuse of the noticeboard processes (both MfD and ANI) is now shamefully exposed. (bold for emphasis)

I ask that Buckshot06 be stripped of his administrative privileges entirely, Be sanctioned for purposeful untruths, Leave my userspaces alone, and be prevented from causing further disruption, redevelopment, or improvement to Operation Red Hat with the administrator rights he has been granted. His behavior includes: WP:HOUND

1. The 4+ year assumption I am acting in bad faith
2. locking that page
3. Deleting the PageHist
4. Restoration of the exact problems that caused an AfD
5. deletion of mass amounts of reliable sources and relevant text
6. Purposeful misrepresentation of facts in discussion, reverts, rollbacks, nominations and noticeboards
7. harassment hounding

I may have difficulty responding in a timely fashion due to a hurricane in my location) Johnvr4 (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• To deal with the central request immediately, Johnvr4, Arbcom is the only place where you can ask that Buckshot06 be stripped of his administrative privileges entirely. That is unless Buckshot voluntarily hands them in. Arbcom has a five hundred word limit for case requests (your wall is significantly longer than this), however, I strongly recommend against trying to get ARBCOM involved as they will deny this request on procedural grounds. Instead, your time would be much better spent, getting rid of as much of the assertions or irrelevant material as humanly possible. Very few people are going to be willing to spend their time reading 12k bytes of material. Whole articles have been written with less. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Understood. I will reserve making that request for now. Since the DRV closure review was closed. Must I recap all in this forum and can both requests be open simultaneously? Thank you John.

• That depends, is Roy Smith's closure in any way shape or form relevant to this specific AN/I case and the interactions between you and Buckshot06. If no, then it doesn't belong here. If yes, then keep everything together in one place. Perhaps leave it until this has been resolved first. I don't think there is significant pressing concern that would prevent you from waiting to ask the question a week from now rather than today. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes I'm not sure how to answer that. and no? The relationship is that Buckshot the editor who nominated my user spaces for deletion and I expand my answer in the section below (with Roy). A now involved editor above strongly felt that the issues were the exactly same thing and closed my request however I went to DRV for specific answers and the were ignored completely. Below, I've asked the closer to reopen the request that I made in closure review. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Closure_review_DRV_of_JohnVR4_userspace_Sandbox_drafts Johnvr4 (talk) 16:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

This thread appears to be the immediate follow-up to a closed DRV thread, itself a follow-up to a XfD thread, itself a follow-up to an AfD from 2013. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The DRV was a followup to the discussion at my user talk, which followed my closure of the MfD (reverted once by John because he disagreed). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Happily confirm Power~enwiki's summary, as well as PMC's note. The MfD was about my last throw to see if Johnvr4 was anything more than an SPA. It appears he has not changed his ways at all, and I do not believe he should be here. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Noting also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure review DRV of JohnVR4 userspace Sandbox drafts. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

This is not a Forumshopping exercise and as Malcolmxl5 notes above, those discussions have been opened in appropriate places (as stated above) where I have already asked for a review of the closure. Around January 5, 2017 I again notified Buckshot that his his assertions and actions re my draft were without merit and his harassment would lead to the possibility of sanctions and my Ignoring All Rules. nevertheless I incorporated his suggestions.

I did IAR and restore following each questionable recent deletion because every assertion he has made in moving to deletion discussions is a blatant misrepresentation of facts which other editors have (unbelievably) echo. [55]. The IAR restorations were immediate followups to questionable deletions but Buckshots06s efforts to ban me from the topic have persisted long before my IAR restorations.[56] I have edited numerous pages that prove his SPA noticeboard assertion are not accurate and that he knows that assertion to be untrue. Baseless SPA accusations by Moe Epsilon were addressed here: [57]. I also edit Electronic music project, Mil history, and others and wrote a nice article on Beacham Theatre as is mentioned on my user page while I took a break from all of controversies I've written about- which Buckshot06 is suddenly and very weirdly fixated on. He stated his purpose was to put a summary on the main space and something about the units and had no further interest. Those summaries he state were his sole purpose in this subject exist on the main space already and have for some time.

As I stated above and will repeat here, this thread is about the constant misrepresentations by Buckshot06 in very recent discussion and noticeboards- including those listed above- resulting in deletions of my attempts to improve WP. Per his previous section this appears- at least partially- to be an immediate follow up to Buckshot06s actualized threat from April 2017 to come here over a prior content disputes and sourcing that he wanted to edit war over, appeared to have gotten got all wrong, wanted to avoid content dispute and still wants to battle over, followed by my April 2, 2017 willingness to also come here if that is this was the forum that he chose to explore his use of that source (plus a list of other sources). Link:[58] I hope this information clarifies rather than confuses.Johnvr4 (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@User:Power~enwiki Please do not close my valid request for a closure review of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure review DRV of JohnVR4 userspace Sandbox drafts unless a particular WP policy requires it. I went to DRV for specific reasons, brought up specific concerns in policy and provided more than adequate proof yet the DRV request was closed by ignoring all of my concerns with out even reading them. That closure without addressing any of those concerns is reason for the request for closure review. I ask that you please reopen the review request that you recently closed if/when possible. Thank you, Johnvr4 (talk) 06:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Johnvr4:--If you feel, that the true evidence that everyone is correct is adhering to your Supervalid beliefs and actions, I'm sorry to state that does not promise you a bright future on our site.And secondly, where this chain stops?You challenged the MfD at DrV.You are challenging the DrV at AN.Prob. iff the AN thread is let to run, a few days after it's clearly foreseeable close, you will be going to _____??I'm also genuinely concerned about the recreation of deleted and deletion-challenged material.That being said I am sorta neutral' about the invoking of ban/block hammer and will take the oppurtunity to sincerely request you to either leave the topic area or put a dead-stop to your disruptive antics.Winged Blades ^Godric 09:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Winged Blades, I was hoping that I would be vindicated, my concerns would be validated, counter arguments would fall apart and be seen for what they were when actual facts were presented. I hoped that each valid concern that I raised in the DRV, and MfD closure would be reviewed since they were ignored in closing it (see comment below). I would hope the drafts would then be restored so I can finish developing them in my sandbox and moving material the does not fit out. Then Id like move the sandbox to my user space and then ask for further community review and publishing on the main space if or when it is deemed ready. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm involved (I closed the recent DRV he started) so I'll not voice an actual opinion here. But, based on what I've seen, Johnvr4 really does need to back away from flogging the Project Red Hat dead horse. It's obvious he's passionate about that subject, but the community has clearly spoken, and he needs to move on. I don't see any good that can come (either to himself, or to the encyclopedia) of him continuing to push his view of that topic. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Roy, your actual opinion you've posted above is based solely on something you stated you ignored completely but you did note WP:STALE applied in closure so that's something. You've ignored my valid policy views and closed the DRV because you didn't want to read it. That closure has not yet been reviewed. How the consensus of the community was reached is just one of issues that you were expected to answer. That was why I came to DRV. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Correct me if I'm wrong, I've read through all the links that were provided above (one of them was a duplicate, FYI) but in a nutshell this is boiling down to:

1. Johnvr4 wants editors to help review the sources, not necessarily all of them but some critical ones.
2. Get back to him on what needs to be improved with regards to how the draft could be improved re sourcing and details.
3. Johnvr4 did not want content to be excised from their draft version. (Something I gathered by this statement I hear your concern and I understand it. I've simply asked you to look past that concern for the time being and discuss with me the other concerns like the primary sourcing and level of detail etc, from this thread.
4. Johnvr4 did not like that fact that an older article was being expanded, incorporating content from his draft. (This was discussed at length, quite vociferously)
5. Most critically, Johnvr4 did not want others messing with his draft.

Does this sum everything up? Blackmane (talk) 05:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes for the most part and thank you Blackmane for taking the time to sort that out. The areas I gathered needing improvement (your #2) are at the end of that #3 thread link. That the Dec. version of the draft was too big was already understood by all (#1).

I would add that I wanted constructive criticisms and tagging of any problematic areas (your #1). I got mass excising (your #3), and being basically shut out of the topic/category (Article was revived a few times) and got what I believed were POV fork solutions instead of improvements to our main space (your#4). At that point I asked for certain editors not to "mess" with that sandbox (your#5).

Importantly, those areas needing improvement and those observations identified in those discussions were being addressed and incorporated into my sandbox (despite numerous assertions to the contrary). Was it a FAKE article, STALEDRAFT, abandoned or did it meet any of the requirements for deletion?

I am a still basically a rookie editor and not an administrator-please help me if I break etiquette or policy. There is a hurricane pending in the event I lose access to power or internet during discussion. Please ping me if a response or action is needed. I have a lot going on IRL. Thank you very much again, Johnvr4 (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Buckshot06 sure seems to have taken WP:INVOLVED actions but it is extremely hard to fight an Admin. Best to protect your self, family amd neighbors in real life. Come back and request a copy of your work be emailed to you. Legacypac (talk) 04:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Buckshot is involved as was explained to him by Nick-D in describing his own involvement nine months ago. That is a reason we are here at ANI.

Quote from User_talk:Nick-D#U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan.27s_southern_islands:

@Buckshot06: From looking at the article's talk page, it seems pretty clear that this is an editor conduct issue rather than a content issue. As it's a long-running issue, I'd suggest that you seek some form of admin intervention regarding John. Arguing about the article's content doesn't appear to be producing results, with material that was identified as problematic years ago and more recently continuing to be posted. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC) Thanks Nick.

What sort of action would you suggest? Do you believe you are 'involved', or can you yourself consider taking action? Buckshot06 (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, a block per WP:NOTHERE or similar given that John, unfortunately, doesn't seem interested in working collaboratively to develop neutral and appropriate encyclopedia articles. Given that I've commented a fair bit on this matter and when it was raised a few years ago I think that I would be 'involved' here. You may want to contact one or more of the admins who serve as coordinators for the military history project ahead of ANI and ask that they look into the matter: my reading is that the underlying issue here is - despite the walls of text - quite simple, especially given all the attempts to work with John by a range of excellent editors and could be handled by any uninvolved admin without a need to use ANI or similar. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

End quote. Apparently, there are or may be a bunch of administrators who are involved that they asked to look into the matter. I don't know. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal concerning JohnVR4

"Johnvr4 is topic banned from contributing to or discussing articles regarding either Japan or weapons, broadly construed, anyway on the English Wikipedia. They may appeal this ban to WP:AN after six months."

• Support NE Ent 19:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support, assuming there will be no consensus for the block. I hope we can convince John to turn his energies to something he feels perhaps less strongly about. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment.I do not understand this proposal at all given the assertions of Buckshot06 already being proven to be bogus. Can we determine the merit of arguments, restore the drafts, then review them to determine whether a topic ban is appropriate? Have I abused the system? Thank you Johnvr4 (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

It does not matter unfortunately. Buckshot06 is an Admin, so unless you can present damning evidence of abusing their position they will not be sanctioned, and even then likely not. You are best served to drop the dispute and edit elsewhere for a while. Defining this topic your way is not worth getting blocked or topic banned over. Legacypac (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I do have fairly damning evidence and have provided those links. I'd like the User space drafts restored right after exactly how and why they were deleted is explored and I want his harassment of me and of my submissions both past and future to end. I would like an agreement from him that that he will review the sources and refrain from fact-deficient assertions when editing this subject or in speaking to or about me. I'm not sure if that compromise can be enforced but that is my very reasonable proposal. If the issue is that two ANIs for similar reasons can't be open at once then place mine on hold. I don't understand the ANI policy but that section has relevant links for the ANI he opened which is slowly getting to the behavior that needs to be understood. (what or who is BRZ that suggested this proposal?) Johnvr4 (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Johnvr4: Put aside your belief in the correctness of your position for just a moment, and clear your mind. Then start at the top of the discussion, skip all of your own comments, and read only the comments by other editors. Do you get the sense that anyone involved in the discussion is supporting your position? I think that if you're honest with yourself, you will see that that doesn't appear to be the case. This is a good bit of WP:CLUE for you that continuing to advocate your position aggressively is unlikely to end up in a result you'll be happy with, and could very possibly result in a sanction placed on you. You have to judge whether it's worthwhile to pursue your goal considering those circumstances. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I think every single editor would agree with me if they simply looked at the differences of User:Johnvr4/sandbox between Dec 2016 and it's deletion this week or the Afd version vs the Mfd versions. Buckshot06, Nick-D, and Moe won't ever agree with me again and many might tend to agree with them simply because they are usually highly wise, accurate, and reliable (I admit I would do that 9 times out of ten for that same reason in most cases) but if editors could please take look at those diffs, all of the assertions about my "preferred" version (vs the newer sources), not condensing material, not reducing scope, not improving, of not putting it on the main space, or of leaving it indefinitely would simply fall apart.

I'm not saying it's perfect by any stretch and it's not even ready for formal draft submission -but it is so close! It's already split into three separate parts for three WP articles and it covers both sides of all the complex issues and is consistent with 177 sources as opposed to the POV current Operation Red Hat that doesn't remotely properly cover the majority points of the 12 of the reference it has had since its recreation. I feel strongly that it simply should not be deleted and that deleting it would be an extreme disservice to the WP project. I just took a 5 month break from this topic and 1.5 hours after returning for a moment to add a new source that addressed Moe's previous concern, Buckshot06 nominates it for MfD with misrepresentations that would take any administrator about 45 seconds to disprove. A Tempundelete of my user spaces would also clear it up. Promptly. Johnvr4 (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

"I think every single editor would agree with me if..." So, you're not going to do as I suggested and evaluate as neutrally as possible what other editors have already said above. Instead, you're going to stick to your personal party line that you are right, and everyone else is wrong, and everyone else would agree with you if they would only think as you do. That's tautologically true, but I'm trying to point you to what is the practical reality here, which is that you are virtually alone, and no matter how many times you repeat your tropes, you're going to remain alone or heavily outnumbered. If you refuse to recognize that, then all I can say is that I hope you enjoy the sanction that is almost certain to be heading your way -- just don't say that you weren't warned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Johnvr4 Can I implore you to read BMK's wise words again and heed his advice? Admins can and have examined your most recent drafts, and nobody here is agreeing with you. It all works by consensus here, even if that consensus is, in your opinion, wrong - I've disagreed with consensus many times, but I have to accept it, and you have to accept it. Simply continuing to insist that you are right and everyone else is wrong, and that everyone would see things your way if only... well, that's an approach that is guaranteed to fail. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you Ken (and Boing!), However, I just took a 5 month break only to find myself challenging the MfD deletion of my User space draft and I am fairly certain it was not nominated or endorsed correctly. The main space article is simply a POV version that was opened by that editor literally during my discussions with him (and Nick) about improvements to my sand box draft. I've incorporated their suggestions in the deleted sandbox version over the last 5 months and the redevelopment was not complete. That is reality. It is undeniable. Assertions to the contrary are factually inaccurate in our present reality.

Ken, those assertions and other content disputes are why we are here and my frustration stems from arguing over content with an editor who wont review our reliable sources. Other commenting administrators (such as Mr rnddude) have confirmed my assessment (in at least one case to date) and any editor who looked at that would likely do the same.

"Admins can and have examined your most recent drafts," They have? Buckshot06 asserts that draft still it has not been improved nor condensed in scope and size and Nick-d says its POV and fails Verifiability. The deleted sandbox had Buckshot06 and Nick-Ds suggestions incorporated between Jan and May 2017. That is a primary reason why I feel their repeated assertions about that draft are so absurd. No one has seemed to even read what I've typed on noticeboards and deletion reviews and I highly doubt they took any time to look at the diffs of a deleted sandbox draft or the sources that used to support it. If they had there would be a lot of examples to support those assertions vs the sources that state what I submitted. If the draft was tempundelete-d during this discussion we could simply look right at the text and sources to see whether the assertions hold water. Johnvr4 (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_22#Draft_review During sandbox draft content discussion between Buckshot06 and Nick-D and I : "I've changed my mind; I've taken the material, retained the material on the core Red Hat CW/BW storage-and-disposal-from-Okinawa-to-Johnson subject, and relaunched the Operation Red Hat article. It still needs a lot of cleanup, but this is an example of what a more focused article, drawn from your text, would start to look like. It is *only* about thing that can be referenced to be referring to anything labelled Red Hat, so please do not start adding other subjects to the article. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC) " Johnvr4 (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

None of Buckshot06's topic versions cover the entire subject and my draft was MfDed 1.5 hours after I added this source that redefines entirely his strong views on relevance to the core topic. New source added: "The report refers to the possibility that in terms of its timing and the location, moving the barrels of Agent Orange from Okinawa to Johnston Island was a part of Operation Red Hat. A statement from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in 2009 referred to military herbicides having been stored in Okinawa during the period from August 1969 to March 1972 and later disposed of in Operation Red Hat. The relationship between Agent Orange and Operation Red Hat is indicated." Please explain. Johnvr4 (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

One more try. Johnvr4, please read and seriously think about WP:DROPTHESTICK. The more you continue to hold on to your fixed position, the more it appears to others that you are fundamentally misaligned with core Wikipedian values, such as WP:CONSENSUS, and therefore the more likely it is that this discussion will result in a sanction for you, and that sanction will be harsher than it might have been if you had only allowed yourself to let things go instead of digging in your feet. Please understand, I'm not talking about right and wrong -- I haven't looked into the complexities of your situation seriously enough to make a judgment like that, and, in any case, this is just on online encyclopedia project, not the North Korean missile crisis -- I'm simply evaluating what's gone on here and the likely response to your intransigence. I think that you have to consider not what you believe to be right, and not what result you desire, but the probable result of this ongoing interaction, and decide if that result is worth your continuing to hold the line. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely hear and understand you Ken. I feel that consensus will be eventually be determined by the quality of the argument put forth but that I just haven't to date presented it in a fashion that can be overcome by a poll of other editors who do not have time to look into the merits of each assertion. It is too complex. I do understand that. I simply want the user space draft restored and have very valid policy reasons why that should have already happened. Johnvr4 (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, your choice. Good luck. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support since a block is likely to fail, and since it is an undesirable outcome anyways. Maybe being topic banned for six months, John can clear his mind and just focus on other topics and helping there. If he is knowledgeable in any other topics whatsoever, he should be able to make positive contributions elsewhere on Wikipedia and let Japan/weapon-based topics go for a while. In the meantime, off of Wikipedia, maybe you can work on the articles on O.R.H. or related topics, personally. In some situations where I didn't want a public sandbox, I used a Word document and maintained wikitext and went from there. That way, John, you can work on bringing the articles up to publication with less conflict once you repeal the topic ban. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Moe, I hope you saw my apology above for my misstatement involving you and thanks for the suggestion. I thought that was what I was accomplishing in user space and that the improvements in my sandbox would speak for themselves. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support As second-preferred option after a block. As noted in my comments above, Johnvr4's editing on these topics does not meet a range of key Wikipedia standards, including WP:V and WP:NPOV, and attempts by multiple editors to provide advice to address this issue have not been successful. Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

There is zero evidence to support Nick-D's statement and much to disprove it. Nick-D was asked here for one example of what he has asserted and couldn't provide one.

Further, Nick-D and involved editor, admitted that the much older Dec. version of my sandbox was improved and he told that to Buckshot06, (another involved editor), who seemed to be abusing his discretion at that time. "... I'm not sure if I'm following the above discussion, but It would be best to not use the 2013-era text given John's comments on how he's improved upon it and sought to address the concerns over sourcing, etc, raised in the AfD. Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)"

I had improved the sandbox while incorporating their suggestions between Jan. and Mar. which even Buckshot06 admitted elsewhere (at least twice). Yet Buckshot06s asserted at MfD just 1.5 hours after my last edit, that the draft was without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD and Nick-D echoed his statement: "As the material is not being actively edited to address the concerns raised, it should be deleted. ... Nick-D (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)"

It seems clear that both editors knew full well that their assertions at WP:Miscellany_for_deletion/OpRedHat, here, and other place sounded untrue when they wrote them. Their dubious statements have been echoed by several other editors. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Johnvr4: Please stop outdenting every time you respond to something. The proper procedure is to add one more tab (i.e. one more colon, with a bullet counting as a colon) than the comment you're responding to. I've had to fix almost every response of yours here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Johnvr4: Your conviction that everyone will agree with you if only you can find the right way to present your case is causing you to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion. Please stop - this is a community discussion, and not every comment requires a response from you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Implied legal threat, edit warring, content blanking SPA

• Polysci1977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jimmy Dore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Title says it all. User repeatedly blanking content on article claiming "defamatory content". Likely same as IP editor who did the same earlier. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Claiming that material is defamatory is not a legal threat, as discussed at WP:NLT. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jonathan A Jones: I'm having trouble locating that discussion. Can you point me to it? I've seen people treat claims as bordering on legal threats, often citing DOLT. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

See the section Defamation where it says "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat". One could argue over whether an assertion that material is defamatory is a discussion of libel, but I think it's close enough. Having been on the wrong end of legal threats in the past I think I know where most admins would draw the line, and I don't think these comments reach the required threshold. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

You are posting defamatory content, not sure how to handle this, but I have to pursue this now and will keep doing so until concluded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polysci1977 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

You should raise your concerns at WP:BLP/N; the way you are handling things at the moment is likely to end badly. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Polysci1977 has already been warned about edit warring while logged off it seems, and was also advised to either take the content dispute to WP:BLPN or Talk:Jimmy Dore, where similar discussion has been ongoing. The page will be semi-protected for one week for the time being to allow discussions to take place. WP:NOTHERE should be applicable if the same kind of disruptive editing behaviour continues. Alex Shih^Talk 07:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed; my comment was more aimed at lurkers: I learned a lot by reading BLP/N and AN/I for a while. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

User:24.28.5.226

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

---

• 24.28.5.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) persists with long-term disruptive edits despite previous block, and subsequent warnings after a final warning:
• [59] [60] [61]

Warnings since previous block [62]:

• [63] BLP warn
• [64]
• [65]
• [66] final warning
• [67]
• [68]

Attempts to discuss disruption ignored:

• [69] ...

But just persists editing (while blanking talk warnings). Suggest block to prevent relentless disruption, (IP appears static with constant editing pattern - whitespace flipping, dab disruption, BLP violations). (mea culpa forum shop - AIV was wrong venue, as appears good faith, but many editors wasting time undoing almost all edits) Widefox; talk 11:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked. ("Goblin" is a word coined by Alex Jones?[70] Oh, right.) I agree the IP seems fairly static, despite being marked "dynamic" at whatismyipaddress. Blocked for a week. Widefox, feel free to contact me on my page in case they simply wait out the block and then continue the disruption. Bishonen | talk 15:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC).

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

User:Ejbaluyot

Ejbaluyot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), previously discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive960#User:Ejbaluyot creating nonsense articles, is continuing to add nonsense to articles, such as this and this. It is clear that this editor does not have the English-language skills to contribute to the English Wikipedia, and their edits are creating work for other users, so I am requesting a WP:COMPETENCE block. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely, as the editor was becoming a time sink and competence is required to constructively edit Wikipedia. Editor may appeal the block as per normal, and I would welcome their contributions in the future should their quality of edits improve -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 11:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Might want to delete their usrpage as well. It's a fake article in and of itself and is filled with a bunch of self-promotional nonsense. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree, CSDed. Widefox; talk 11:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

POV pushing on Merle Dixon

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

---

I have a feeling it's going to come to this again anyway, so I might as well get started on this now. It could be the same IP user who tried to remove the term "racist" from the article back in October/November, and/or the same person who tried to remove it in January, or just another person who figures "just because you use the n-word doesn't mean you're a racist", but an IP user removed it yesterday calling that a "controversial" opinion, while a new user with the "let me tell you what I'm about" username of "RevertSJW" again removed it while offering their own WP:OR interpretation of the plot. In the first round of this edit-warring, I figure I addressed the problem pretty clearly here on WP:AN/I, so admin Euryalus semi-protected the article to facilitate discussion. I posted some research to prove why that was an accurate descriptor using several reviewers commenting on the character as being racist, and no one bothered to respond. Since there has been edit-warring involved before and no discussion beyond edit summaries, I feel this is more of a behavior issue than a content issue. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 11:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but do we really need an ANI thread about whether a fictional character is racist? Can't we all just get along? EEng 13:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The article's talk page thread is about whether the character is racist. The AN/I thread is about whether the editor(s) removing the word are POV-pusing and edit-warring. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

And my concern is whether, in the grand scheme of things, this is worth bringing to ANI. We have actually racist editors to deal with, actually racist article subjects to deal with. And why don't you go back to admin Euryalus first? ANI is for immediately serious, or chronic longstanding, situations needing many eyes or big guns. EEng 15:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

So... maybe I wasn't wrong after all? :) 73.168.15.161 (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Any lone admin could have handled this. No need for the ANI full-court press. EEng 02:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I have some serious reservations about someone with the username "RevertSJW". That doesn't seem like someone who's here to collaborate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Citation added, problem solved. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Problem not solved, RevertSJW is removing sources, Slate and McFarland, both of which are undeniably RS, RevertSJW is obviously not here to actually contribute. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Materialscientist blocked RevertSJW for edit warring, and I left a message advising RevertSJW to learn how to resolve content disputes without edit warring. Based on that username, I think this is going to end with an indefinite block, though. It basically translates to "I am here to edit war and POV-push". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both for looking into this. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

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

User:FF-UK

I tried this morning to start a discussion with FF-UK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on his talk page[71] regarding some civility issues that have emerged in an active RM discussion, but I see the user reverted my message without comment.[72] The user's posts in the discussion ([73][74], etc.) have been veering into the personal and disruptive, something that I and others have already pointed out in the discussion.[75][76][77] If the user is unwilling to engage on the subject of this behavior, what's a reasonable next step? Thanks for any advice/assistance. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

To be honest I would suggest just keeping calm and ignoring it. With an attitude like that he's going to slip up and get swatted by an admin at some point. His shouting won't carry much weight for whoever closes the move discussion, but there are enough valid arguments on his side that I suspect the whole thing will be closed as no consensus. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• FF-UK has made 21 edits to the move discussion, divided into actually more responses — I make it 31 — responding to and arguing heatedly with pretty much everybody. That's pretty disruptive in itself. I started to count the number of exclamation marks also, and the number of times they accused people of dishonesty, but I got lost. It's the kind of behaviour that discourages other editors, and I have given FF-UK a strong warning. Bishonen | talk 16:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC).
• Update: A closer has now marked the Amazon discussion as {{closing}} while a result is considered — but I see that despite instructions asking participants not edit the discussion, User:FF-UK just posted yet another comment. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation

Copyright violations are completely outside of my wheelhouse. I apologized for brining this up here, but the instructions for filing a new case are cryptic. Since this board gets a lot of eyeballs, can someone please do whatever needs to be done in order to get someone to look at Chester the Molester which may be a cut and paste job from the World Heritage Encyclopedia? Since that appears to be an open source encyclopedia, it's possible that that article is infringing upon Wikipedia. I've not enough experience with it to know. Thanks. That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

No, it's a mirror of us. Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Vwxyz#World Heritage Encyclopedia -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 17:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Problem with a SPA

C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs) a singularly focused account, who has already been blocked once for edit warring is being highly disruptive. 2017 Portland train attack, three insertions in under an hour linking a known extremist and killer to Patriot Prayer, thus by extension to the person Joey Gibson, in my opinion this is a blp violation. PP is never mentioned without the founder of the group being named, I had edited the article so mention of the group, along with Gibson appeared in the same line as Gibson denouncing Christian, along with the fact that Christian was ejected from the rally, so as to avoid any guilt by association, this has been reverted twice [78][79], without being marked as reverts. Gilmore appears to be here to right great wrongs, and for Christ's sake, someone tell him an article on a right wing free speech group does not have to mention Donald Trump in every fecking paragraph, he is bloody obsessed with that. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

And here is his latest edit "One month prior to the stabbing, Christian appeared at the Patriot Prayer right-wing "March for Free Speech" in Portland's Montavilla Park sponsored by Patriot Prayer" Yup PP is now mention thrice in the same para. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Whoever responds to this should also look at Talk:Patriot Prayer for context on both the reporter and reported, here. Funcrunch (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please note the section on (Jeremy) Christian. Please, also do a quick internet search of "Patriot Prayer Jeremy Christian" and see the number of legitimate news articles that link them, thankyou.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I can report that others returned the hyper-links between the Patriot Prayer page and the Portland Train Attack. I do hope the editor will leave them alone this time, for pulling them apart, is to pull both out of context of Portland, Oregon from April until June of 2017. http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/06/jeremy_christians_vocabulary_a.htmlC. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

SlackerDelphi copyright violations

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

---

I noticed that SlackerDelphi (talk · contribs) copy-pasted a block of text from a source without indicating it is a direct quote, at United States presidential election, 2016. I posted a warning suggesting they follow the guidelines at MOS:QUOTATIONS and WP:Close paraphrase. That should have been the end of it.

Unfortunately, they wrote this edit summary, "Removed false information from my talk page."

This attitude gave me reason for more concern. I took a look at some of their recent edits and found this; the content was an exact copy-paste from the NYT source. Another one from here copied into Maria Chappelle-Nadal.

After I posted essentially the above notice at SlackerDelphi's talk page, they used an edit summary to reply "removed the repetition of a lie. I did not violate copyright law. Go ahead and report me. I will not coward to your aggressive and childish behavior. Please stop writing on my talk page."

So here we are. It's too much work for other editors to have to follow this person around, find where they copy-pasted, and rewrite it for them. Phrasing like "I will not coward to your aggressive and childish behavior" suggests an editor for whom English is not a first language, who sometimes resort to copying because writing original, grammatically correct English is too difficult. Whatever the reasons, they have no intention of stopping.

Requesting a block of SlackerDelphi for ongoing copyright violations.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a classic example of someone that is engaged in an edit dispute on a topic United States presidential election, 2016 and he wants to turn it into a crucify the other editor who will not bow down to his version of presenting material on Wikipedia. Yes, I told him to go ahead and report me because I do not feel like I did anything wrong. He just wants to use the administrative processes to shut me up and to stop me from editing a political article. It is as simple as that. If you review the edits that he points to you will see that I attributed each and every one of the sources from where the information was used. I not only provided citations please note that used unquestionable sources such as the New York Times, etc. This is classic battlefield mentality. Have fun looking at my edits. There is not much there. There are no copyright violations, etc. This is just classic fight the guys that don't see the article the way that you do.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I really tried to work with you. I gave you two opportunities to recognize what copyright violations are and to commit to avoiding them. I did not try to "shut you up". I kept your additions to the election article, only adding in-text attribution and broader context. After another editor deleted entirely one of your contributions, I proposed a compromise. There is ample evidence that content disputes are not a problem here, and that your collaboration has been welcomed and appreciated. The problem is the old CTRL-C CTRL-V. Copyright violation is a deal breaker. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I do a fair amount of copyright review work every day. There are several groups of people, all of whom are committing copyright violations, but all of whom deserve some AGF because they simply don't know the rules. These groups include:

A. people who were never taught anything about copyright in school (or perhaps were tuned out when the discussion occurred), and think that if you can find something online, you can use it

B. People who have a vague notion of copyright but think that if they do not see the "all rights reserved" along with a copyright symbol, that the text is fair game and can be copied.

C. People who think that if you include complete citation of the sources, that it is okay

D. People who think that if you include a complete citation and place the material within quotation marks, no matter how long a passage, it's okay

E. People who think that if you copy some material and make a few changes to some words here and there that it is no longer a copyright violation

F. People who think that if they are the original author of the words, they can include them in Wikipedia (this is sort of true, but they need to file a specific permission statement which is almost never done).

None of these practices are acceptable, but in most cases, none of these practices are vandalism; it is simply incomplete knowledge of our convoluted copyright laws. This particular example sounds like group C. Again, it is incorrect but it is understandable that some people might think it is correct so please respond politely, rather than assuming they are trying to slip on over on us.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you're exactly right. You types A-F are a good model, and C is very likely the case here. But what real difference do motives make? If blocks were issued as punishment, then innocent motives would be giving lighter punishment than sinister motives. But blocks are based entirely on a preventative model. I tried multiple times to get them to read WP:CV, MOS:QUOTE and WP:CLOP. Whether they trust my word or not, SlackerDelphi had the opportunity to find out what is allowed and to realize what to do to fix the problem. Regardless of the original motive, the only question is "how do we prevent this in the future?" As long as SlackerDelphi denies there was ever a problem, the only way to prevent it is a block. If they make a convincing case that it won't happen again, and clean up their previous messes, then no block is necessary. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I consider it quite problematic that SlackerDelphi flatly denies the copyright violations without engaging in a substantive discussion of the issues, responding only with combative edit summaries. That seems to be a pattern whenever other editors offer suggestions or criticisms on their talk page - denial, refusal to engage, and page blanking. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the evidence, it seems that SlackerDelphi is in the habit of copying content from cited sources and pasting that material into Wikipedia articles, without using quotation marks. This presents other people's writing as SlackerDelphi's own originally written paraphrase. That is simply not acceptable and I expect that SlackerDelphi will admit that error and abandon that pattern of behavior. Otherwise, a block seems in order. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Just make sure you don't unintentionally tell him that everything will be OK if he stops doing C (above) and starts doing D. EEng 04:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Looking through the history of their talk page, especially edit summaries, makes me wonder if SlackerDelphi is a sock or troll or something of the sort. Certainly doesn't seem to be a net positive. ansh666 08:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

SlackerDelphi is a sockpuppet [80] of NazariyKaminski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), created 58 minutes after his previous sock, MaverickLittle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), was blocked.- MrX 11:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The same pattern of copying text appears in MaverickLittle's edits. [81] => [82]. [83] => [84] --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• That's some loud quacking. Blocked and tagged. Bishonen | talk 19:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC).

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

Repeated disruptive editing by Franciscus14, no communication on their part

Franciscus14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has received a multitude of warnings for their disruptive edits. Most of these edits have involved unexplained removal of sourced content and replacing profile images by poorer ones, both mostly (or entirely even) at BLP / footballer articles. At the same time, there has been a striking lack of communication on their part: as far as I can tell, they have never responded to any warning and they never use edit summaries. Two hours ago, they again removed sourced content without any explanation: link. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the user doesn't know they have a talkpage. Blocked for a week, in the hope that they'll discover it. Bishonen | talk 19:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC).

Rangeblock Request

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

---

• Special:Contributions/2001:8003:6499:A500:*

Full list of IPs

Sorted 29 IPv6 addresses: 2001:8003:6499:a500:99e:59c1:7064:6c5a 2001:8003:6499:a500:1922:f120:2715:4b67 2001:8003:6499:a500:1984:b94:3561:f766 2001:8003:6499:a500:2029:4059:3e93:e31f 2001:8003:6499:a500:2526:3ce2:9f0a:66af 2001:8003:6499:a500:3486:5365:45b9:b9a3 2001:8003:6499:a500:34ce:966d:e87e:71e0 2001:8003:6499:a500:39bd:adfd:d023:7af4 2001:8003:6499:a500:3c4d:92d4:6ce2:a7df 2001:8003:6499:a500:4081:5320:94ff:4cbe 2001:8003:6499:a500:44bf:2fd9:fbb:bb8a 2001:8003:6499:a500:44ee:e484:8c6f:3471 2001:8003:6499:a500:48d6:f1c0:9ffe:a1d6 2001:8003:6499:a500:55de:afd1:f0da:62ac 2001:8003:6499:a500:5885:29a6:6329:93e3 2001:8003:6499:a500:6c0e:e0ad:c3f7:5e20 2001:8003:6499:a500:6c92:f29:66f0:9a58 2001:8003:6499:a500:8095:8a37:7147:7c9c 2001:8003:6499:a500:84a0:d5a4:312e:b234 2001:8003:6499:a500:955d:2cf6:3e2c:7e69 2001:8003:6499:a500:9d51:88a9:a0b9:d96f 2001:8003:6499:a500:a1c2:c9a3:3b27:feca 2001:8003:6499:a500:b198:e05:bf28:9946 2001:8003:6499:a500:d8e9:b1f4:9d80:e962 2001:8003:6499:a500:dcf8:6f9b:1ecb:fb0d 2001:8003:6499:a500:e932:e6ba:61a7:ce11 2001:8003:6499:a500:ec53:eb3a:7452:3087 2001:8003:6499:a500:f0cf:9e99:5314:a37a 2001:8003:6499:a500:fdf1:a8f6:6f42:f578 Total affected Affected addresses Given addresses Range Contribs 1 /64 1 /64 29 2001:8003:6499:a500::/64 contribs

This range has targeted Just Dance articles with subtle vandalism by placing incorrect information where they can. Can we block 2001:8003:6499:a500::/64? — nihlus kryik  (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I see disruptive editing, warnings, four blocks and a failure to communicate over three or four weeks in this range, which is clearly the one user. /64 subnet blocked for two weeks. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5: User has returned under 121.208.243.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). — nihlus kryik  (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Can we add 124.180.240.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to that list as well? — nihlus kryik  (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus Kryik: Both blocked for two weeks à la the range block above. If they hop around a great deal, then protection of the article may be warranted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Scott19982

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

---

Scott19982 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing for about six months, and despite making around 1000 edits, his edits are poor and he is proving impossible to work with. While I and other editors have tried to correct him and guide him in the right direction, he persists in the same frustrating behavior and problematic edits. Specifically:

• He never leaves edit summaries, which means that other editors cannot understand what he is doing without looking at diffs. This is particularly frustrating when he makes many edits in a row. He also makes a large number of soft reverts without edit summaries, which is both rude and strongly discouraged.
• His edits often contain factual errors, as well as poor grammar and formatting like misspellings, missing punctuation, and bad capitalization; even when the information he adds is more or less correct, he does not make the effort to format it properly.
• He indiscriminately removes sources, yet he never adds citations even after repeated requests.
• He often adds text that is factually incorrect, and easily disproven with a quick Google search. Recent examples include adding a state that a railroad does not operate in and replacing a correct end date with a wrong date. Because he does not include citations, verifying information he adds is more difficult.
• He repeatedly misuses a certain parameter in {{infobox station}} despite numerous warnings and reverts (typical example). He has ignored when I have explained to him what is is doing wrong; when reverted, he simply repeats the edit without an edit summary.
• He received a weeklong block for sockpuppetry, yet did not acknowledge that he had done something disallowed.

He persists in these poor editing despite a large number of requests by numerous users on his talk page. He is no longer a newbie; if he cannot edit better than this after 1,000 edits, than I believe he lacks either the competence or the proper attitude to be an editor. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• I know this isn't contributing to the discussion, but, can I just say that is the cleanest presentation of diffs that has ever been posted to AN/I. I'm going to have to start using it. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked indef. Regards, Swarm ♠ 06:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
• I believe editors misbehaving like this should be blocked for 31 hours ,so they can reflect on what they have done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackW436 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• No, the indef is the right call -- they've never posted to their own talk page [85], never responded to begin caught socking and just waited the block out. An indef gives a last chance to start interacting with the community and addressing its concerns. NE Ent 11:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks and threats by User:CivilRightsandWrongs

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

---

• CivilRightsandWrongs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Several relevant diffs: [86], [87], [88], [89], see history of User talk:Timawesomeness for more.
• Attacks started after this NPOV-related revert: [90]

–timawesomeness ⟨talk⟩ 09:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• • 6 hour old troll account. NE Ent 11:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Indeffed by Maile66. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Niagara (painter and singer)

• Niagara (painter and singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can I get a revdel here? [91] I don't know if this unsourced material is correct but assume that the subject of this BLP doesn't want it published. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Definitely not suitable for revdel, which generally shouldn't be requested here for matters like this, and almost certainly shouldn't be removed from the article. The name has been reliably reported in multiple sources, including the Washington Post. I'm not quite sure that "birth name" is quite the right term, but it's stated that way in many apparently reliable sources. The subject's wishes wouldn't be relevant in this context. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The material was added without a source citation, which is a violation of BLP policy. I see you have re-added it, but only sourced part of it. I have again removed the unsourced material. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

This is not a revdel candidate, in any event. GAB^gab 17:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Wasechun tashunka

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

---

Wasechun tashunka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• There has been a case where she has stated "so while there may be a rapidly decreasing Catholic majority in census figures, the country is officially secular. Either way, I hate Catholics, it makes no difference to me, but this encyclopedia has to be encyclopedic! Wasechun tashunkaHOWLTRACK 18:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)"

She also had other cases where she support Anti-Catholic semitism and religious hatred.

• I request this religious hatred shall not be tolerated due the the horrific History of Irish Catholics in Ireland ,In which I request she will be Blocked for 31 Hours, to think in what she has done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackW436 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@JackW436: "Either way, I hate Catholics, it makes no difference to me" Liar. Why did you lie? 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:480B:1D12:4102:2962 (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG incoming… Robby.is.on (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless anyone objects, I'm inclined to just indef the OP as NOTHERE. GoldenRing (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

JackW436. It appears that you have falsified a quote by inserting "I hate Catholics" where those words do not occur in the original. A block is in order for that behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked them for 60 hours, but wouldn't object to a longer block. GAB^gab 21:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I fully support a short-term block for this most recent silliness (opening an ANI thread on the basis of transparently fabricated nonsense and what amounts to NPA on another editor). However, per GAB's note, it seems clear that a longer block is in order. Just last week an ANI thread (supported by 5+ uninvolved editors) advocated an indef block on this editor. This thread was archived without action - probably because the editor had been blocked for vandalising that very ANI thread, and wasn't capable of active disruption in the hours before the ANI thread was (automatically?) archived. Very soon after the block lapsed (and thread 'died') the disruption continued. As evidenced by this BS. It is clear (punctuated by this most recent nonsense) that JackW436 is unwilling or incapable of constructive contribution. And otherwise NOTHERE to work collaboratively or within the guidelines of the project. Guliolopez (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Oogles, CIR concerns

User:Oogles is an oldtime editor, albeit with a limited set of articles he edits, and who hasn't edited much since 2015 until now. He recently resurfaced on The Devil's Advocate (1997 film)‎ (one of his old haunts) and appears to have suffered a complete mental breakdown. In removing referenced material, he begins with heated personal attacks [92] [93] showing a lack of understanding of what was written, or the chronology of the subjects. He then leaves two incoherent messages on my user talk to that effect, with a chilling header. [94] [95]

After User:Mavriksfan11 chimes in with a WP:3O, what follows is a torrent of incoherence and non-sequiturs from Oogles, in 11 posts all one after the other. After commenting on a grammatical/readability issue that was already resolved, non-sequitur #1: "Have at it, hackles" [96] Confuses ledes with paragraphs again, after having been advised of a difference: [97] Non-sequitur #2 on the identification of an evangelical character: "Granted, she did fuck Satan, I mean Milton, and had a kid" [98] Goes back to the already resolved issue again [99] and again [100] Followed by this incoherence: [101]

After the 3O is implemented, he edit wars to undo it [102] . This is followed by the second torrent of seven bizarre posts. Noting the possibility of ANI should 3O fail, he responds with non-sequitur #3: "Not the article, so no need to edit details like that" [103] Confuses "lede" and "paragraph" again, violates WP:LEAD, and ignores 3O: [104] Non-sequitur #4: invoking WP:OTHERSTUFF referring to a plot point in a different film as analogous to a real-world lawsuit: [105] Non-sequitur #5: "Done with opening paragraph? If so, I'll go to next edit" [106] (talking to himself there?) Followed by this incoherence: "You can inform me on mine, if you want, I won't view it, but have fun with that. " [107]

Sadly, I think we have a clear-cut WP:CIR case here, or at least a WP:IDHT given the ignoring explanations, pointed-out guidelines and the 3O. Ribbet32 (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Just want to point out that the legal threat you allege (using "legal action" as a header) seems to be referring to mention of legal actions in the article, why do you think it was a threat? Tornado chaser (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply I thought it actually was a threat, just that the header, when I first saw it, was chilling and disturbing before I clicked on it and saw what it was. It just ties into the question of whether this user knows what words mean and what our policies are. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

View the actual edits. That's all. Oogles (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

(and I totally wouldn't sue Ribbit, why bother? That was notification of a revert, which I will NO LONGER do in the future. Oogles (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I did't say not to discuss reverts with other users (and I don't think Ribbet32said this either.) Ribbet32 was questioning your choice of words,not saying you shouldn't notify him of anything. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

That's fair, I will no longer notify anyone of anything. I'll just edit appropriately. Can he stop reverting now? OR at least TALK after the FIRST revert? Talk is OK. Why this this film is unique for having the end in the opening - and legal information in it. Oogles (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

No one said to stop notifying users of anything. Do you understand why this discussion was started? As for your defense View the actual edits these edits of yours (and especially this one) don't exactly justify the problematic communication highlighted in the diffs provided by Ribbet32. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

So "especially this one" is where "defenses" (ie: legal defenses) weren't available to WB, INC? Source? Oogles (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

There was no reason whatsoever to call the material you removed vandalism. This is not about article content (of which I'm not especially thrilled by either revision) but your behavior. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The COMMENT part of the edit? That is fair on that. Is that what this is about? Oogles (talk) 01:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

If someone raises WP:CIR concerns about you, it's generally a good idea to see what evidence they're providing and try to understand where they're coming from. You are not helping your case at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I know that. He was all happy about doing it. Does it matter if he "wins" - not really. I'm not trying to "help my case" That would be a case where this 1 movie now has legal information, and spoiler in the opening paragraph - which is bad :) Oogles (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

There is a wikipedia policy that spoilers are ok. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Not even really a spoiler, just something revealed in the last 10 minutes. But what about legal info in lead? How bout we put all that (not true) things in the legal section, then talk about sources? HOWEVER - If the sole issue is claiming vandalism, with that specific word, in a comment - I am guilty of that. With no agenda. Oogles (talk) 01:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The NUMBER of edits seem to be an issue (where, does it really matter, when all inline and hasn't been edited in years?) Anyhoo, I've illustrated "Responsiveness" here too, as I did on the talk page for the edited articles. However, if issue is Ribbit is afraid of me or something lol, guy is on a crusade, and if he wins - I don't care! Oogles (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

99.9% of my edits are from IP, and those are never changed (and me and Oogles never edit same pages) I login when history is important to the edits. Oogles (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

My "crusade" is to expand Wikipedia film articles using references, and when a disagreement pops up, to discuss with the other editor. When someone covers their ears and then goes "DAH DAH DAH DAH DAH" and repeats the same arguments, it hinders the project. I explained my rationale for including information in the lede citing WP:LEAD [108]; you've repeatedly ignored that and repeatedly cited a non-existing rule that a lawsuit has to go all the way up to the Supreme Court to be worth mentioning in the "opening paragraph", regardless of real-world ramifications of a settled case. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

So, as a long time member (and contributor) to wiki - guess the logical thing is put the end of movies in the first paragraph, legal info and no big deal right? Lets just do that for every single movie. Seems logical. Oogles (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

(The above reply is the actual first time I heard him respond to it) Do you have a settlement letter? explaining the exact details of cash transfer? And it wasn't the supreme court. Oogles (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Ramos1990 revert-warring RfC tag, attempting to poison RfC

Hello: I opened an already-ID'd RfC concerning an article and its adherence to WP:POLICY this morning [109], and another contributor has now twice [110][111] added other categories to it (clearly an attempt to distract from the policy issues and confuse/poison any discussion). In a further attempt to do this, he has now just added a new RfC for many categories[112], which will also pollute any discussion and the RfC boards. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone, the RfC that User:ThePromender opened up today (September 9, 2017) [113] is literally a continuation of the the RfC he opened a few days ago (September 4, 2017) over the exact same discussion he started [114] (on September 4, 2017). Perhaps because he is unhappy with the results? Even when you look at this "new" RfC from today (September 9, 2017), he does reference the original September 4, 2017 discussion by clearly stating "For more background and sources, please refer to the conversation just above." and this time he does not include the other two categories (History and Religion/Philosophy) for which he started in the the first discussion see here [115]. All I did was restore the same categories since it looked suspicious that he would make another RfC 5 days later and this time he would only limit the categories for consultation to just "policy" (today) when he originally had "policy, history, and religion/philosophy" just 5 days ago.

To summarize, User:ThePromender's behavior looks very odd since why would he open an RfC on September 4, 2017 which included 3 categories for consultation (policy, history and religion/philosophy) and then close, reopen, and start another one RfC on September 9, 2017 and reference the September 4, 2017 discussion with only 1 category (Policy) this time around? It seems his first attempt (which did include the "policy" category, by the way) was not going in his favor so after 5 days, he is trying again but this time limiting the categories to just "Policy" to try manipulate the outcome. I think the original RfC from September 4, 2017 was good enough since it touched on policy and had the RfC policy category linked. It looks like no one agreed with him that a policy was violated so he is trying again and blaming me..

By the way, I agreed with some of User:The Promenader's suggestions throughout the September 4, 2017 discussion and even encouraged some changes to address his concerns. But apparently this was not enough. Please take note that User:ThePromenader has recently been "warned not warned not to comment on the motivations or conspiracies of other editors without hard evidence to back his claims and to edit collegially, even with those with whom he disagrees." by an admin who closed an ANI on September 3, 2017. [116]. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

This is an interesting interpretation of events, but since during our conversation, Ramos1990, we both demonstrated and agreed that the article title was a WP:NEOLOGISM, I centred the RfC on that WP:POLICY offence. There is no need to go into a content-debate (which would just distract/drown the central point). Come to your own conclusions about the urgent 'need' (edit-warring) to add categories to an RfC that isn't even one's own.

Character 'questioning' is no answer for the WP:POLICY offenses in question (strangely absent from the above comment), but by all means, my entire record is open to all. I have nothing more to add to this.THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Only that now the RfC is about (society and sport?!) everything but the WP:POLICY offense it was opened for. Mission accomplished? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 00:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

No we did not agree that the term was even a neologism especially since it is cited in the 1800s, per your own google search. I mentioned that a few times too and you yourself went as far back as "Pre-WWII" and "Post-1950s" (your own words on its history). Also no other editor agreed that it was a neologism either per google book and scholar finds (used in handbooks, references, textbooks, and even topical dictionaries now). Another editor made the correction on the RfC categories you were not willing to do - make it the same as you had it when you made the first RfC. Also no need to make multiple RfCs when it is about the exact same discussion. Also why make another RfC on the same discussion over the same issues after only 5 days, right under it? Wasn't the first time enough?

Also, User:Redrose64's correction of your RfC categories was correct: here is what the WP:RFC says on the "The "Wikipedia policies and guidelines": "The "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" category is for discussing changes to the policies and guidelines themselves, not for discussing how to apply them to a specific case." I did not know that before. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Why all the selective-reality-interpretive character doubt-accusation sowing (that the accused always feels obliged to answer in case someone 'believes' it)? I'm new to RfC, and I closed the old one because it was badly formatted [117], but we continued the conversation all the same. You acknowledged even here that the term is coined/used by a particular group - that's the very definition of a WP:NEOLOGISM. Articles like that are normally deleted, but it only gets worse from there. Read the entire conversation [118] if you're interested, but this ANI is not about that, but your edit-warring and attempted RfC-distraction-poisoning. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 01:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

PS: I did not know that, either. Like I said, I'm new to RfC. So, since you did indeed think that the RfC would target the WP:POLICY offenses demonstrated, that explains a lot. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 01:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

No I did not acknowledge that it was neologism because it was not and I mentioned that it was found in 1859 per your own list [119]. It is not a newly invented term - even you have discovered a "Pre-WWII" and "Post-1950s" history. A term that has +60 years and more is not a new term, or a newly coined term. The fact that it has a "Pre-WWII" history should be enough. Anyways, no I was not trying to poison anything since you had the "Policy" tag since your first RfC and I never contested it. I thought it was good idea to have "policy, history, and religion/philosophy" and the fact that you made another RfC over the exact same discussion 5 days later and how you removed the "history, and religion/philosophy" made me suspicious and you reverted me when I tried to restore the balance you had made in the first RfC. I have never heard of RfC so I am new to this too. No worries. Apologies if I made any mistakes on my end about it.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Bacardi379 and United Lands Central Security Agency

This user created several articles that I nominated for AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Lands Central Security Agency. Bacardi379 has repeatedly removed AFD tags [120][121] and has repeatedly moved the pages into the Draft: namespace [122] [123] in attempts to evade the AFD process [124][125].

What is the proper course of action here? --Rschen7754 23:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• I've closed the AfD as delete because these appear to be hoaxes (i.e. there are no Google hits for them whatsoever except Wikipedia and mirrors, which given that they're supposedly major companies, roads etc. is extremely unlikely). In the vanishingly small possbility that they're not, they - for the same reason - don't pass GNG anyway, so we've lost nothing. It's very weird, though; the same user has created road articles previously that aren't hoaxes (I've just been checking a few) so I don't know what's going on there at all. Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking care of it. --Rschen7754 00:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I made a mistake

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

---

I tried to add a citation to "Moses" and ended up removing ALL the citations. HELP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigre1313 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Easily fixed - you'd just accidentally removed the {{reflist}} tag which tells it where to place the citations. I've reverted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tigre1313: I placed an invitation for the Teahouse on your talk page, which is a better place to ask this type of question in the future. Enjoy, —PaleoNeonate – 23:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

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

EEng's editing at WT:TPG

My Wikipedia search showed that EEng's first edit to WT:TPG occurred on 27 August 2017.  I asked him to verify this, but he replied that it was wrong, which is theoretically confirmed by the Editor Interaction Analyzer, here.  That one edit aside, the fact remains that he has no experience as a contributor to the WT:TPG page before 27 August 2017, and his dismissal of my question was hubris.

In the ensuing time since at least 1 September, EEng has committed himself to the disruption of discussion at WT:TPG, including personal attacks.  He currently has posted three pictures, one depicting a sex act; one of a dog intended to characterize editors as the dog; and the third a picture of a tool used to remove feces from a human colon.  I tried cleaning up one of his posts of disruption, here, but he objected.  With 2163 edits to ANI, EEng will have few editors here with whom he has not interacted, but I have no previous interaction that I can recall or that the editor analyzer brings to my attention.  A possible new exception is a recent edit to an article I created, at South Coast Air Basin, which may indicate that he has taken a recent interest in my contribution history. 

I request as a remedy the removal of the first and third pictures at WT:TPG and the removal of this post.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

A slightly different issue, but EEng (talk · contribs) has also been behaving disruptively this evening at Murder of Jo Cox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Talk:Murder of Jo Cox, and Ian Gow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). After I challenged their deletion of sourced content (here) and (here), I was accused of "owning" the articles (see here and here), and a dummy edit was even made to accuse me of adding paid for content [126]. I attempted to explain my reasons for reverting EEng both on their talk page and at Talk:Murder of Jo Cox, but was met with instant hostility and an apparent unwillingness to discuss the matter. Furthermore, EEng directed me to an essay it turns out he/she had written fairly recently, in what seems to be an attempt to justify their recent edits. While the essay itself seems sensible enough, essays are not policy, and I believe it was being used in this case as a means to an end. Also, by removing the content they chose to remove, EEng was violating the essay's general principle anyway. This is Paul (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Really? Those are snarky images, not personal attacks. ANI is full of them. You need to drop the stick. --Tarage (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Nothing like a good pile-on to enliven a quiet Saturday night at ANI.

• The idea that an edit I made two days ago [127] to South Coast Air Basin (which Unscintillating last edited in 2011 (!) [128]) is evidence that I have "taken a recent interest in [Unscintillating]'s contribution history" is... well... paranoid?
• How in the world is this [129] a personal attack? (Not my best visual joke, I agree, but I do the best I can with the material available.)
• A sex act? You mean this [130]?? Will you get a grip??? Apparently you either know little of sex acts, or little of differential equations, or both.
• As for This is Paul, I think his statement that I don't believe... that you actually intended to improve this article pretty much tells you what you need to know.

EEng 01:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• I see neither disruptive behavior nor any hint of harassment. I see only EEng's usual visual humor, and a quite reasonable article edit. There is nothing in this complaint to be acted on, because there's no "there" there. I would recommend gentle mini-trouts to Unscintillating and This is Paul, and the prompt closing of this section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• EEng is an otherwise productive editor well known for his strange sense of humor and his propensity for posting ironic images in various discussions. This is harmless in my opinion, and those who do not appreciate his jokes can ignore them. It takes two (or more) to engage in a pissing contest, and when one breaks out, wise people step back and zip it. Taking the petty squabble to ANI accomplishes nothing in such cases. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• All I see here is whinging by Unscintillating and This is Paul. Humor is permitted in discussions, especially when they are pushed to stupid lengths like the one at WT:TPG. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Editing on a couple of beers is never wise, as things tend to seem more important than they actually are. In the case of the article I mentioned, the ball is rolling to sort out some issues it has. However, having not encountered this editor before, I will say I find the posting of such images quite offensive, particularly the Soap suds enema gag. Not funny. Humour is permitted, but in this particular case it overstepped the mark, and he/she ought to be censured for it. This is Paul (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Whinging. Being offended is not a right or a privilege that lets one remove other people's comments. If it's that bad, then remove yourself from the situation or get over it. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Under normal circumstances I would be among those wanting EEng to not post material unrelated to the guideline, but nothing has been normal at WT:Talk page guidelines for several weeks. Severe dead-horse beating (not by anyone mentioned here) has been going on and on and on, with no sign of light other than EEng's offbeat responses. EEng is not the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Johnuniq, you are a gentleman and a scholar. EEng 02:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• This is merely a clash of personalities between a puerile jokester and a humourless prude. Nothing for ANI to get involved with. Reyk _YO! 02:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)