Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

SwisterTwister (September 21)

Ignoring consensus

SwisterTwister (talk · contribs) has recently completely disregarded consensus regarding the Majesco (insurance software company) article. The user redirected the article twice after consensus at the AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majesco (insurance software company) (which the user created as the nominator) was for the article to be kept. The user's edit summary when redirecting after the keep result stated (Diff), "Not independently notable and convincing, PLEASE, no restoring unless you have talked to me about it". A user undid this, and then Swister reverted yet again on 24 August 2016 (Diff), stating in an edit summary, "Completely unexplained and also violating my request at talking to me first".

The user is blatantly ignoring and disregarding other user's opinions at the AfD discussion and the consensus that occurred there. The user is also acting inappropriately as an authority, stating that other users must discuss the matter with him first, and that the user who later reverted was "violating my request", despite that the actual consensus was for the article to be retained. This really, really needs to stop. This is a blatant disregard of community consensus in favor of the user's own subjective opinion, and demonstrates a seriously problematic lack of respect for consensus on Wikipedia.

These types of ongoing problems of stating orders to other users, editing at too fast of a pace, as well as other issues such as not following proper procedures and ongoing I didn't hear that types of behaviors, were recently addressed in part at a very recent ANI discussion Here, and at other discussions Here, Here and Here, but the user continues to edit problematically, at an overly fast pace, and in manners that ignore consensus. Normally I would discuss this with the user, but they have stated in the past that they don't want to communicate with me, so I am left with no choice but to take this to ANI to request community input. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• Northamerica1000, -in regards to consensus, not the redirects- has any of this happened since the discussion closed above on the 20th September? if not then I'd oppose any action being taken until we see what they do post previous thread discussion. From the diffs I've seen this is all pre-last discussion. That you came to notice these transgressions post previous discussion is unfortunate, but, WP:AGF and see if the lesson has been learned. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The most recent direct for the Majesco (insurance software company) article occurred on 24 August 2016 (diff), six days before the most recent ANI discussion was initiated. I did not notice this while the discussion was occurring. I do not view this as double jeopardy, though, because this matter was not brought up at all in the recent discussion, and this further demonstrates an ongoing pattern of disruptive editing. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I fear this is an overeagerness to restart a thread which apparently only consists of one apparent concern, and stating that they had no other choice but to come here is not entirely true, they could have used the talk page. Even if this had not been mentioned at the previous thread, there's nothing to suggest any other such activities since August 24. As it is, I hardly remember that article and I clearly have not touched it since, but I'll note the AfD was closed before I could even comment and note those sources were still unsatisfactory. I suggest the anyone commenting here look at both of our recent contributions, whereas my PRODs were being considerably removed despite large details and extensive concerns, but they were simply removed without actually listening to the PROD concerns. As it is, I have not only attempted my best to fatten my PRODs with information, but to also attempt my best to even visit Wikipedia, so I have to fear there's some form of overpersonal behavior again. I'll note this all was triggered after Tony Gilippi where I redirected because it largely showed he was best known for BitPay, and I explicitly noted my concerns again along with WP:AGF. SwisterTwister talk 14:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Could you explain 2 things for me? First, you say "I'll note the AfD was closed before I could even comment", when it was relisted twice and open for 3 weeks. What do you mean? Secondly, you say "but to also attempt my best to even visit Wikipedia". I often have difficulty understanding what you write - I think others have mentioned that, too - but here I genuinely have no idea what you are trying to say with that phrase. -- Begoon 15:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I had not commented at the AfD sooner because I hoped others would actually care to comment before that; as for the last comment, the simple meaning is that I have even not cared to come here to Wikipedia as often recently. SwisterTwister talk 15:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. So not "before you could even comment", then - you chose not to comment. Rather different in meaning, but easier to understand. If your other comment means that you are disillusioned because of criticism, I can understand that too, and sympathise. I think one of the reasons this keeps coming up is that people feel, rightly or wrongly, that it never results in a proper dialogue where you discuss concerns and agree to address any valid ones. Do you think that is a fair assessment, or am I wrong? I think it's often frustration that causes these long discussions, pushing for sanctions, born from a feeling that constructive dialogue has failed. Generally everyone ends up happier when both sides engage openly, and productive compromises are reached. -- Begoon 15:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

User:SwisterTwister, I have defended you more than once, but this just keeps going on. First of all, I subscribe to Begoon's comments and line of questioning. Second, I sense an attitudinal problem in your comment that, after the AfD (in which you did not participate) was closed, "those sources were still unsatisfactory". The consensus of the AfD was clearly that the subject was notable and the article should be kept because the sources were satisfactory. So, sorry, but you're wrong and had no business redirecting. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• As for the articles listed, they were sound considering I explicitly mentioned them, and I well could have nominated them for deletion, but considering this user as it is has followed me too closely after any time I nominate something for deletion (See both contribs logs again), it is not accurate to say Deborah Moore satisfies the actors notability for "significant roles" because IMDb itself actually lists no major or longterm works, there was only a few casual characters. Listing another article of apparent concern to them is here where they apparently note I removed contents (which I removed since they were unsourced, even note the obvious CN tags, and were not contributing to notability, and I then added the only thing that actually helped for notability which was WorldCat). SwisterTwister talk 16:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it is hard to follow some of the back-and-forth here. So I'm going to state what I think I've read. If I'm correct, there's a problem here that needs to be addressed. ST nominated an article for deletion. Per consensus, the result of the AfD was "keep". ST contends that the close was improper. So ST turns the article page into a redirect.

If I've got that right, this is behavior that severely undermines the assumption of good faith that is essential to our collaboration in creating an encyclopedia. It merits some sort of administrative action - admonishment, at the very least. If admonishments have not worked in the past, more robust action is called for. David in DC (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed, it's the purpose of WP:DRV to determine if a close was improper. If this is about Majesco (insurance software company), then there was over two months between the AfD and ST's redirect, in which case a new AfD would be more appropriate. ST's admonition not to restore without permission, however, is highly inappropriate. That situation is a bit stale, though. Tony Gallippi, on the other hand, is more recent. ST shouldn't have restored their unilateral redirect once it was made known that there was disagreement over it, per WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT. clpo13_(talk) 17:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• This is completely unacceptable behavior. The AFD discussion even closed as a unanimous "keep". If you don't like a consensus, you start up a new discussion in hopes of finding a new consensus, not bludgeon your way through it, hoping no one notices. (Not to mention, there is no formal requirement for anyone to "consult with him first". You can't just make up your own terms for others to follow, especially when you don't have a consensus in your favor.) Very disappointing, especially since I feel its almost impossible that he doesn't know all of this already, considering how experienced he is. Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
• (EC) For transparency, I will note that the claims of "I had no other choice than to start an ANI because the user says No to my messaging of them" is not entirely true, I requested the user not message me because their messages were becoming over personal arguments and large criticisms of any of my contributoons (there were noticeable threats of ANi, once simply because they disagreed with merges), as shown by this currently. Thus, because of these past messages, I would awake to "You have 15 notifications from User" and "You have 15 messages from User", something that became tiring as it continued (and, essentially, the messages still in fact continued later). Therefore, any concerns this user had, there was the available option of the talk page. SwisterTwister talk 17:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, you've already said most of that. I think what people were hoping to see, rather than you just mainly repeating that, was an actual response to the points made by David in DC, Clpo13, Sergecross73 etc. Points such as

  "This is completely unacceptable behavior. The AFD discussion even closed as a unanimous "keep". If you don't like a consensus, you start up a new discussion in hopes of finding a new consensus, not bludgeon your way through it, hoping no one notices.",

  "this is behavior that severely undermines the assumption of good faith that is essential to our collaboration in creating an encyclopedia.",

  "ST shouldn't have restored their unilateral redirect once it was made known that there was disagreement over it",

  "ST's admonition not to restore without permission, however, is highly inappropriate.",

  "Not to mention, there is no formal requirement for anyone to "consult with him first". You can't just make up your own terms for others to follow, especially when you don't have a consensus in your favor.".

  If you think these comments are wrong, you should explain why - if you think they have some merit, you should explain how you will address that. As I said above, I think most of the frustration comes from a perception that there isn't a productive dialogue, and it might help if we stayed focused on actual complaints. -- Begoon 02:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• As someone who leans way more inclusionist than ST, I don't want to lose an AfD participant who is 1, more deletionist than I, and 2, expresses those views sufficiently civilly as to maintain the discussion (i.e. without resorting to sarcasm, name-calling, etc. that drives participants away). I think civilly-engaged opposing perspectives lead to some of the most rigorous analysis of entries and sources on the site, and I value that a great deal. As DGG put it at a previous ANI, I really do not want to "win arguments by removing an opponent;" I believe that would degrade the encyclopedia.

Trouble is, things like overruling consensus by fiat also seriously threaten the process of building an encyclopedia: I mean, if we can't trust community consensus at AfD or as established in policy will be followed, why bother to contribute input to it at all? Of course, everyone will make honest mistakes about labyrinthine policy here, but it's important to acknowledge when that's happened so it's clear you're not intending to mislead (e.g. here).

I see ST has really taken on board previous feedback about elaborating his views more fully at AfD, and I greatly appreciate that responsiveness. I am hoping that will be true here too, and if I may, I'd suggest it'd go a long way, SwisterTwister, if you also verbalized that you hear the concern and plan to adjust accordingly. As I say, it's been easy to notice the change in AfD comments, but for things that happen outside of regularly checked venues like AfD, unless you say you hear this and will do things differently, I think folks will feel continue to feel like checking up is necessary to make sure consensus is being followed...and it's my sense that that feeds the cycle of friction that keeps bringing us back here. Let me know if you think I've misinterpreted, though, or if you have a different idea of how to solve. Thanks all. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• (moved from section below into this section, per request) Regarding ignoring consensus: It's troubling to read on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixpanel that ST called for relistings based on good faith users disagreeing with them[1] -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• This is just as pointless and inactionable as the subsection you created below about his below in regards to his AFD bludgeoning. He politely asked for a relist once. It seems to have (rightly) gone ignored. The end. Stop nitpicking on little stuff, it dilutes the issue at hand, and makes it look like people are just out to get him or something. Does a relist make sense? No. Is this something "troubling" and actionable? Absolutely not. I really think we need an uninvolved Admin to wrap these discussions up. Sergecross73 msg me 18:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• To be clear, I was the one to request 1Wiki8 move this up here. And I take your concern about the need to avoid diluting the issue at hand. I only thought this was germane to the significant issue of respecting consensus. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Rapid redirects

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

---

This user has also demonstrated a pattern of rapidly redirecting articles, often (as denoted below) with only one minute occurring in-between their previous edits on other pages (this requires a cross-comparison with their user contributions, which I have performed), which suggests that a review of sources, involving actually reading the sources (addendum: when applicable), and source searching has not been occurring at all (as suggested per WP:BEFORE and in disregard for the potential of WP:NEXISTing sources that may be available), and that the redirects are being performed subjectively based upon opinion, or only based upon sources present in articles, rather than any type of research. Some of these redirects have occurred up to three at a time within one minute, such as some of those redirecting to the Fear Itself (TV series) article.

• Diff
• Diff
• Diff
• Diff
• Diff
• Diff
• Fear Itself (TV series) redirects: Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff.
• Diff
• Diff
• Diff
• Diff
• Diff
• Diff
• Diff
• Diff: Edit summary, "Restore, still not independently, NO RESTORING please". This edit occurred one minute after a previous prod edit for an unrelated article was performed. It is also inappropriate to state "no restoring" as an order to other users in this manner.
• Diff
• Additional concern: Diff: Blanks a bunch of content, only leaving an edit summary of "add". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• With possibly one or two BLP exceptions (Gallippi & CheapyD), most of those articles you have diff'd above are valid targets to be redirected. Being either unsourced with no reliable independant secondary sources or not notable independantly (eg a song released by an artist that only has standard 'this song was released' coverage). I agree once challenged they should have started a discussion on the talk page, and instructions not to revert what is effectively a unilateral deletion are not appropriate. This also seems to be an end-run around nominating articles for AFD where their nominations have been recently heavily criticised. While at the point they were redirected those articles are less than stellar, a few of them would probably survive an AFD with a little work. This appears not to have been brought up in the recent discussion because that concentrated on their behaviour where articles/editing was subject to group dicussion (AFD etc) rather than the things which didnt go there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

A concern is an ongoing assumption of non-notability sans any research qualifying such actions, based upon the redirects being performed very rapidly (often one minute) after the editor has edited in an entirely unrelated area. It comes across that the editor prefers deletion or redirection from the start, regardless of actual potential notability. Per the rapid pace of the redirects, it's highly improbable that any source searching or consideration of the content for potential merging occurred. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I dont entirely disagree, but its a bit much to rap someone on the knuckles for having a not fantastic AFD record, then also take them to task for doing things (which are perfectly valid at first attempt) that dont require an AFD. The only thing really problematic is the 'dont revert' notices which, unless there is a serious issue like BLP, are entirely not appropriate when you are effectively deleting/removing an article from view. Even if it does actually deserve to be redirect etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Inre Tony Gallippi: First attempt (Diff) and second attempt (Diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I would not place money on that surviving an AFD as an independant article. I just dont think it should be unilaterally redirected without a discussion somewhere, either at AFD or on the talk page. It has plenty of sources but most (if not all) are related specifically to his company. It's something that needs to be explored rather than just 'I'm redirecting this'. I agree after the first reversion it should have either gone to the talk page, or an AFD if they felt confident enough. But the actual first redirect? Having looked at the sources I would certainly entertain an argument he is not independantly notable. I cant fault someone for coming to a more definite conclusion and acting accordingly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The first redirect (Diff) occurred one minute after the editor was working on an unrelated article (Diff, Diff). Is it really possible to read all of those 17 sources in a minute or less? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Inre IClub48: First attempt (Diff) and second attempt (Diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I'm inclined to agree with OID on this; a lot of them look like valid, good-faith edits; drawing conclusions from the amount of time between a user's edits is not a good idea, especially when tabs allow people using most modern browsers to make a bunch of edits over the course of an hour and "save changes" on all of them at the same time; in this case, we don't even need that assumption, because anyone can look at sourcing problems over any length of time without having the edit window open. Also -- again? The last (very long) thread on this user just closed (because it had died down for about a week, mind you). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your points. As I stated atop, normally I would discuss this directly with the user, but they have stated in the past that they don't want to communicate with me, so I am left with no choice but to take this to ANI. The rapid pace concerned me enough to post here, rather than ignoring it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• It's another example of SwisterTwister's less than stellar deletion activities, in this case, avoiding the creation of XfD discussions which have been heavily criticised. I'm unconvinced their reasoning concerning notability is sound, having looked at some of their AfC work recently, so I'd suggest we simply prohibit them from creating redirects for notability reasons for 6 months and move on. Nick (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Proposal 1

In light of the recurring threads about SwisterTwister which by and large seem to be focused on his unconstructive approach to judging deletion, I propose that SwisterTwister be banned from turning pages into redirects for 1 month. Pwolit iets (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support. I know my support is already acknowledged but I wanted to clarify my reasons for the proposal. Mainly, it pains me that so many quality editors are having to spend time cleaning up after SwisterTwister. So all-in-all when an editor ignores consensus and clogs discussion pages with unreasonable and sometimes even incoherent rationales, I think it is a disservice to a wide variety of editors, including content creators who are discouraged, thread closers for obviousreasons, administrators, who clean up after him, and newbies who end up confused. All-in-all, SwisterTwister also strikes me as slanted too strongly in favor of deletionism almost to the point of being unreasonable. I believe that the benefit of such a ban is three-fold, firstly ST being temporarily more timorous will hopefully him being more reflective and subsequently more constructive; secondly, we will have less quality articles vanishing into thin air and thirdly, there will be less wok for editors that inevitably clean up after him. Pwolit iets (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• You have been here for a couple of months. How do you know SwisterTwister so well? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support per above. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 05:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment (or question). The example that started this thread is pretty stale. The Tony Gallippi article is more recent; any other examples to show a pattern among recent edits?--Mojo Hand (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - This user has gone from reviewing issues, to AFD issues, to CSD-tagging issues to now redirecting issues .... I'm beginning to wonder if topic banning them from Reviewing, CSDing, AFDs and Redirecting would be a good idea but maybe I'm being OTT here, My point is there's now been 5 threads on this user this year alone and it doesn't seem like these threads are going to stop anytime soon. –Davey2010^Talk 21:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per below - My above comment was OTT and rather bad faith, Anywho a stern warning is the best solution imho. –Davey2010^Talk 22:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose on principle. Ironically, it seems to be one rapid-fire anti-Swister thread after another here. If there are genuine ongoing concerns with this user's behaviour, an RFCU would be a better idea. If we keep carrying on like this, with one ban proposal after another, eventually the only people with the patience to keep participating will be a small core of his most fervent opponents. Who will end up getting the ban they want through the "consensus" of being the only three people to put in a vote. Reyk _YO! 07:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Reyk: Just a note that WP:RFC/U no longer exists. It was closed down on 7 December 2014. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - This thread stems from issues that took place prior to the previous thread that just closed on this page. While I know redirects weren't a major part of that thread, it seems prudent to hold off to see if ST took something away from the previous thread(s), and wait a little while (assuming nothing egregious) before opening another one (with newer diffs). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time premature. There's only been two isolated incidents that occurred in July and August with the most recent examples only dating September 21. There's nothing longstanding to suggest that formalizing via sanction is absolutely necessary at this point. For the time being, what needs to happen is ST receive a formal warning not to continue. If ST does not heed it, then sanctions would become necessary. All things considered, I'd rather a voluntary agreement than a forced measure. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Bludgeoning at AFD

I have a concern that User:SwisterTwister has strayed outside what is acceptable during AFD discussions, WP:BLUDGEONing to the point of disruption. I would like community input to decide if this is a valid concern, or not. Specifically, these concerns are with the following active AFDs:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aidan Delgado
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hayden Kays
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixpanel
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nemo Gould (2nd nomination)

User has been notified on their talk page of this discussion. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• Well, they don't appear to very good nominations or arguments, considering the responses to it, and he doesn't seem to be convincing anyone either, but I don't see much actionable beyond "you might want to rethink your approach" based on these responses.. Sergecross73 msg me 23:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• I share the WP:BLUDGEON concerns but am not sure what can be done about it. I think this user does make good contributions to AFD, but is at times overzealous and heavy-handed. There is an WP:IDHT attitude in the face of WP:CONSENSUS on quite a few AFDs. I guess what I would say is that I've never seen this user's non-!vote AFD comments sway anyone, and they are long-winded and may dissuade participation by other editors at AFD. So maybe the user could commit to only making nominations and !votes, but not responding to other users !votes? The comments don't seem to be helping (no one seems to change their opinion), and they are long and undoubtedly take a lot of time to make, so it might be a win-win in terms of productivity to stop making them. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Am I the only one who sees what's going on here? First Swister gets bashed for making terse and cryptic comments on AfDs and, now that he is making an effort to explain better, he's getting bashed for that too. WP:IDONTLIKESWISTERTWISTER would seem to apply. Reyk _YO! 07:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• I personally think ST is doing a much better job here. The previous conversation was all about ST not sufficiently explaining their reasons for deletion. Now that ST is explaining the edits, isn't that a step in the right direction? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• While I can see the WP:BLUDGEON concerns being raised here, I don't think its an issue of great merit to this thread. The only thing the WP:BLUDGEON concerns demonstrate is further indication that SwisterTwister is more often than not, unable to convince the community with his deletion rationales, which isn't what this thread is particularly about. We need to stay on topic with the issues being raised at large and not get distracted with irrelevant matters. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 12:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• I've not been aware of or participated in any previous discussions of this user. I only recently became aware of this user through my participation at AFD. As I said above, I'm not suggesting a sanction. But I am suggesting that this user agree to reflect on their AFD participation. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixpanel. SwisterTwister made this nomination after their PROD was declined. Five users have !voted keep (with reasoning), none have !voted to delete. But after virtually every keep !vote, SwisterTwister has made long, increasingly aggressive comments accusing other editors of not reading his comments or appropriately analyzing the sources. This is annoying, sure, but it's also a failure to WP:AGF. It is assuming the other editors participating are not doing their due diligence. SwisterTwister seems to be of the mind that if other users don't agree with him, there is something wrong with the other users, and that the only reasonable course of action is to agree with him. Obviously, editors acting in good faith disagree all the time. I've never seen SwisterTwister change their mind on an AFD, so I don't understand why he routinely expects others to do so. I would again advise this user to only make nominations and !votes, and to refrain from commenting upon other users' !votes. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• Inadvisable? Yes. Disruptive? No. There's no rule against being argumentative, and, while I find little redeeming value in SwisterTwister's unrehearsed, paragraph-free word soup ("These Keep vote have not at all even close actually specified where they find the extensive comments unconvincing yet with the concerns all laid."), I don't think the behavior shown in these examples is disruptive enough to merit community intervention. Rebbing 19:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• Irrelevant topic; nothing to discuss here. Suggest this subsection be closed. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
• Request to close this subthread. As Lemongirl942 points out, SwisterTwister was actually instructed by admin at previous ANIs to take on board feedback from users requesting he take more time to elaborate reasoning at AfD; he's done this so noticeably that I was actually meaning to drop a note to say I saw and appreciated it (and as LG and ST can both tell you, I really don't say that because ST and I share the same view of what should be deleted from the encyclopedia!) If there's a conversation to be had about further refining, a collegial note would be my recommendation; as it stands I don't think it's appropriate or useful to make it a part of ANI. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
• comment - If the consensus is that this is not actionable, then OK. I am troubled to read recently on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixpanel that ST has now started to call for relistings based on good faith users disagreeing with them[2]. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR, that concerns me too--may I suggest you add it to the thread above about respecting consensus so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle if the bludgeon thread is closed? Innisfree987 (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Problematic behavior of user Le Grand Bleu

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

---

This user has been blocked about a dozen of times, including three times this year (once by myself), mainly for personal attacks. What they are doing on Wikipedia is not particularly useless but not very useful either: they find unsourced statements, mark them as unsourced, and after a while, without making any effort, remove them, often with a rude remarks [3]. Today, they got a complaint on a talk page from a user in good standing [4]. They responded like this. I noticed their response and asked them whether they realize that the comment is rude. I was told more or less to mind my own business. May be time has come for this user to have a longer Wikipedia break, a year or may be even longer.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I'm more concerned about the potential libel going on at Talk:Geely: [5]. clpo13_(talk) 23:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Definitely a serious BLP problem, so I have reverted and hidden it. Moriori (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Regrettably, after reviewing this user's behavior in the time they have been on Wikipedia, I agree and support a one year ban. The user has had two three-month long blocks, and each time they have returned only to behave in the same manner. There is evidence of racial bias [6] [7], disparagement of positions the user disagrees with [8], name-calling [9] [10] [11], disparaging living subjects of articles [12], and at least one accusation that other editors are the President of Kazakhstan [13]. Frankly, I'm not convinced that this user will cease their behavior even after that time. As it stands now though, such a large portion of this user's edits are objectionable that I do not think we have another choice. agtx 23:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support one year ban per above and after looking at the notes in their block log. Le Grand Bleu does not display the temperament customary to participating in a collaborative project. These aren't just small lapses in civility where can be like "could you please be more civil? Thank you". Le Grand Bleu has demonstrated a complete inability to interact with others in a collaborative manner without responding with just downright mean and abrasive comments and bashing those he disagrees with. That is entirely contravention to working with others and building an encyclopedia. I am absolutely convinced that nothing short of a one year site ban will convince this user to engage in the community in a proactive and not combative manner. If not, then the user can always be blocked again if they come back with the same behavior. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support indef block: With those comments above, Should we indef block the user because he's totally incompentent with this user. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 23:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support one year block - Moriori has already applied this block, but I'm going to add my two cents nonetheless. After reviewing this user's recent contributions to Talk:Greely and other articles in relation to Greely, and looking through this user's past blocks and history, I agree that the community has exhausted all other options, and that a one year block is the logical next step regarding a sanction to impose in order to stop the problematic behavior and the disruption that has been made. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Indef block - This user has demonstrated no respect for the project, the administrators and the content. I'd go as far to say as the user is WP:NOTHERE. -- Dane2007 ^talk 03:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support 1 year block a one year block is the logical step, as Oshwah has said. I don't think an indef is necessary. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support indef ban 96.237.18.247 (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Community ban for User:Le Grand Bleu

It seems everyone has a different take on this situtation; but most can agree that he needs a community site ban for at least a full year. I'm not even going to go into detail about this; his block log, contributions, and the rest of this section prove anything I ever could. I do have one thing I noticed that most people don't, though: he uses being a "new user" (Yeah, that tag has been up since June 2014 and hasn't learned anything) as an excuse for all of the aforementioned BS. 96.237.20.169 (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

About the time you were writing that I was blocking User:Le Grand Bleu -- for one year. Moriori (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

That was actually the reason I wrote this. Although I can understand if you misunderstand; I think a site ban is deserved because he has kept up with this shit for around 26 months. 96.237.20.169 (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, massive kudos to User:Clpo13 for fixing up the Geely article a bit by adding sources, reverting him, and tagging it. 96.237.20.169 (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

e/c Wow! I freely admit I know nothing about the user or their edits, but it seems to me that blocking someone for a year within 3 hours of the OP and the user has not even replied (been able to reply) to the accusations is, well, premature. DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I blocked him not because of the OP, but because a subsequent comment from another editor alerted me to something else. When notifying User:Le Grand Bleu that I had blocked him, I said it was for his "BLP transgression at Geely today, an edit serious enough in itself to warrant a block, especially given your block history." He can appeal the block if he wants to. Moriori (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Rekt! 96.237.22.40 (talk) 11:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Lets not dance around the grave here and kick Le Grand Bleu while he's down :-(. As much as this user has probably caused frustration and perhaps anger, we need to be respectful and take Le Grand Bleu's feelings into account. Blocking someone for a year is not a decision that comes lightly, nor is it something should be done without serious care. If I were in Le Grand Bleu's shoes, I'd feel quite saddened, beaten, and defeated for being blocked for a full year. Making comments like this only makes things worse; we don't want to discourage this user from coming back (assuming that a one-year block is the consensus that is reached here) - we should have the attitude that we want him back! But we also want him to take time and learn from this and contribute positively and according to policy :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

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

User:WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94 and their personal cat war

A short lived attempt to remove Category talk:Violence against men from Domestic violence, which has a section dedicated to the topic (not to mention a category that specifies domestic violence), led to a lengthy unproductive conversation where I advised them that if they didn't like the definition of the cat, to take it up there. They apparently interpreted this as a call to edit war a different definition ([14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]) wherein one of their summaries, whatever it said, had to be redacted. This led to an equally unproductive discussion on WP:NPOVN, where their header needed to be redacted. This led eventually to an equally unproductive conversation on the category talk, which resulted in what looks to be an equally unproductive RfC on the issue started by them. Meanwhile, the user is continuing to war their preferences in (e.g., [22], [23], [24], [25]) where they see fit. The user is impervious to discussion, to the point where I've literally copy pasted my own response from earlier in the same conversation and I don't think they noticed. TimothyJosephWood 00:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable time for WP:DR. Both major players in the dispute have shown themselves willing to discuss, and at its heart this is a content dispute. It's a very tricky question, and I feel like I can understand where both are coming from.

The category description appears to include domestic violence, but at the same time says that nothing should be included except when gender is relevant to the targeting of the victim. Based on what jps says, the sources about domestic violence against men do not say that men are targeted because of their gender (this in contrast to some of the literature about domestic violence against women). So while the language including domestic violence makes sense for Category:Violence against women, it makes a bit less sense with the same language mirrored in the men's category. As the categories stand now, they would be more accurately named "violence against women/men in which the victim was targeted for being a woman/man". Jps thus seems to have a decent argument for removing e.g. domestic violence from the category despite having a section about men (although the language his argument relies on is in some part discordant with the stated inclusion of domestic violence), while TJW has an appeal to common sense on his side, along with the stated inclusion of domestic violence (although, again, such inclusion conflicts with the other language of the category description).

The more I read of this, the more I think all that qualifying language should be kicked out altogether, and make it a more straightforward "violence against men", which would include concepts which are understood via reliable sources to be "violence against men" rather than violence against people who happen to be men (i.e. it doesn't have to be because of their gender -- a noted connection is enough).

Regardless, I'm going off on the details of the content dispute and that doesn't need to happen here. I don't see any 3RRs breached, but I think jps's argument would be better served by DR or another form of discussion rather than continuing to remove the category, when it's clear TJW is going to undo all of them actively being disputed, and with neither party objectively correct. BRD prevails, I suppose. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

This is not about a content dispute; this is about a war that one user is waging against all sides. If you don't see an edit war in eight reverts, you need to look more closely. TimothyJosephWood 01:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, the filing party has a vendetta specifically against me since he did not mention the third user involved in this bullshit who I have pointed out before wikistalks me. jps (talk) 11:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Rhododendrites. Jps is known to have issues with civility and edit-warring, but DR could solve this. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Had no interaction with them before the issue with the DV article, stayed mostly out of the NPOVN thread until I saw it on my feed, and the first cat discussion until I was pinged. I was alerted again by another user on my talk, and intended to report to ANEW until I looked through edits, and saw that they they were pretty much warring across articles. I patently don't care enough to go to DR. If ANI doesn't want it I'll put together an ANEW report and be done with it. TimothyJosephWood 01:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

While I don't have the patience to file the WP:DR request myself, if someone else were to file it, I would happily participate. jps (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Warring continues. ANEW report posted. This can probably be closed. TimothyJosephWood 19:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Spammer leaving phone numbers behind

Example. These accounts keep popping up and leaving talk pages full of phone numbers. Can we delete these talk pages? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

This appears to be a new form of the hookers and astrologers spam that we get, I think there was an edit filter to weed out these India phone numbers, was discussed here or at AN not more than a few weeks ago. —SpacemanSpiff 03:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, SpacemanSpiff. And what about these talk pages? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that they've sprouted several new phone numbers in the last day. I've been adding them to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist as they appear. MER-C 03:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi MER-C. But about the talk pages? They are full of phone numbers. Is it okay to delete them? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. These guys are spammers, and we're not the only ones being spammed. MER-C 04:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. So, I'll be deleting such usertalk pages as non-controversial housekeeping unless told otherwise. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I just mass delete them as G11 - Spam. Spam is spam; it needs to go ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff, Anna Frodesiak, and MER-C: Regarding the phone number filter: edit filter 425 is designed to catch this sort of spam; it was set to log-only recently as it had very little to catch, but I've set it back to blocking actions now. -- The Anome (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, The Anome. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@The Anome: Since then, Special:Deletedcontributions/Asdfghjkjhgfdsdfgh, Special:Deletedcontributions/Klgjhg and Special:DeletedContributions/Fsfsfdlk got through this, filter 793 and the title blacklist. MER-C 00:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll investigate. -- The Anome (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violations from 182.182.0.0/17, rangeblock advice

Affected articles:

• Sangdil (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Noor Jahan (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wafa (Geo Tv) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Iss Khamoshi Ka Matlab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Maikay Ki Yaad Na Aaye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mannchali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Shaam Dhaley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Noor-e-Zindagi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Meri Saheli Meri Bhabi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Joru Ka Ghulam (Geo TV) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Thoda Sa Aasman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Marzi (Geo Tv) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mannchali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some of these articles are on their third or fourth copyvio restoration. I applied a month's semi-protection to most of these not too long ago, but the copyvios have resumed. Blocking the individual IPs is pointless. I'm considering a rangeblock, but would like a second opinion first. MER-C 12:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The range contribs tool is down, but I'd support a rangeblock of the /17 if enough disruption exists in that range. Katie^talk 16:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

[26] works in the meantime. I just dealt with another sock (User:Anaskhan000, of User:ANASKHAN777) who is almost certainly editing on this range and is probably the one causing these copyright problems in the first place. MER-C 08:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet showed up today (User:Anaskhanlive), so I've blocked the range. MER-C 12:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Range looks good to me! Thanks for applying the block :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry by JayJasper

Based on suspicious accounts editing at List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016 I performed a CheckUser and came across a number of accounts which were being operated across a number of different IP addresses and useragents. CheckUser and a behavioural investigation indicated that User:JayJasper, a user with around 47000 edits, had been operating these accounts. After performing my own investigation I asked User:Bbb23 to do an independent check, and his results confirmed my own. The following accounts are CheckUser  Confirmed as being used by JayJasper (talk · contribs):

• BrightonC (talk · contribs)
• Cojovo (talk · contribs)
• CPguy (talk · contribs)
• Ddcm8991 (talk · contribs)

• Dwc89 (talk · contribs)
• Earlgrey T (talk · contribs)
• Feel da J (talk · contribs)
• Hm838 (talk · contribs)

• Miss Cherry Redd (talk · contribs)
• Newbreeder (talk · contribs)
• NextUSprez (talk · contribs)

• Rollins83 (talk · contribs)
• Romandave (talk · contribs)
• The Anti-Censor (talk · contribs)

These accounts have edited topics related to contemporary US politics, particularly regarding the US election, some of them over a number of years (the oldest account was created more than 6 years ago). The deceitfulness and avoidance of scrutiny from JayJasper is highly disruptive and contrary to the nature of the project. Some of the accounts listed below were used as vandalism only accounts and therefore used with the intention of disrupting the project, other have been used for good-hand/bad-hand editing. It is extremely likely, given that the sock puppetry from JayJasper has occurred over a number of years, that there are a large number of accounts which have not been used recently and so were not detected by Bbb23's and my investigation.

As a brief clarification, I am acting here as a CheckUser not as an arbitrator and I haven't discussed this matter with the Arbitration Committee.

Due to the long-term and insidious use of other accounts I have blocked JayJasper indefinitely. I've decided to make this a normal administrative block (as opposed to a checkuser block) so if the community decides here to modify it an admin wouldn't need to go through the CheckUser team.

On behalf of Bbb23 and I, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Predident [sic] Trump is going to build a wall to keep sockpuppets like this out. EEng 04:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

And Mexico is going to pay for it?Humour aside, I must commend Callanecc and Bbb23's efforts here. I say go straight for an indefinite site ban. Blackmane (talk) 05:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

If you'll add waterboarding then I'm on board. EEng 06:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• JayJasper is a great editor. I find these allegations very hard to believe. Nevertheless, even if they are true, the indefinite block should be decreased so that Jay can continue making great edits as the US election draws closer.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Hell, no. This is inexcusable behavior, giving the finger to the entire community behind its back for years. No number of "great edits" can counterweigh this. Goodbye forever, JJ, and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. EEng 07:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

See the reference to good hand/bad hand above. In cases like these there will always be a 'good editor'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow. That's seriously some heavy-duty gaming going on. If there's a site ban proposed, I support it fully. Also, great work investigating and confirming this by the CU's. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Have to agree with all 3 above me (RickinBaltimore, Only in death, EEng). There's no excuse for this sort of extreme sockpuppetry, and I'd be reluctant to let the editor return to editing after just a year away and definitely not within the next month and a bit. I don't recognise JayJasper or any of the socks by name so this has nothing to do with that. Nil Einne (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. If he still wants to edit three years from now, he can make a case then. Not one month, not one year. EEng 19:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

See [27]. User:Cojovo says he is the real master and that JayJasper and some of the other accounts are innocent.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

As with most socks, his statement lacks any kind of credibility. For example, he lists all of his socks. Yet, some of those accounts were created before he was, meaning he couldn't be the master. Moreover, assuming the comments are actually coming from JayJasper (the person), it's a great strategy. Acknowledge a bunch of accounts so you look honest but with the goal of being unblocked to continue editing (and socking). Cojovo noted only one non-stale account, I.C. Rivers (talk · contribs · count), which I've blocked as  Confirmed.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I've also blocked the other accounts that Cojovo admitted to as suspected socks, although a couple of them didn't exist. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Could it be possible that the analysis was wrong? In other words, how clear cut is this? --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

As open-and-shut as it gets.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that an editor who edits as frequently as JayJasper would suddenly stop editing without so much as a complaint on his talk page if he didn't know the jig was up. --Tarage (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Cojovo has left more comments. See [28]. Based on the IP data available is this a plausible explanation?--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
• It should be noted that as of 22:14, September 27, 2016‎ User:JayJasper has requested review of the block. While User:Callanecc decided not to mark the block as a checkuser block to allow the community to consider it here, the basis for the unblock request is a challenge to the checkuser data, which would be hard, or impossible for us to properly review here due to the confidentiality of checkuser information. Review of the determination that socking occurred should be left to the Checkusers, and eventually Arbcom. Given the substantial contributions of JayJasper, I hope such review occurs promptly. Monty₈₄₅ 23:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't find Jay's explanation convincing at all, but I've flagged it for another CheckUser to take a look at. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

He's actually been here a lot longer than you. I think he should at least be given the benefit of the doubt.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

There still isn't any doubt for me, and I imagine Bbb23 still agrees. That said, there's nothing stopping the community giving unblocking him or giving him the standard offer. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

A few additional comments. I would have CheckUser-blocked JayJasper. The technical evidence was matched and cross-matched many times over. The behavioral evidence was strong, and not just in the political topic area but in other subject areas that JayJasper has an interest in. I would not unblock JayJasper after any period of time, six months or longer, without a complete acknowledgment of his socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Per the unblock request, and the CU request by Callanecc, I ran some checks. The technical evidence of sockpuppetry is unequivocal. In particular, the edits from one apparently static IP address leave no doubt whatsoever that JasperJay has been engaging in the behavior that Callanecc and Bbb23 described above. In recent weeks, JasperJay has edited from this IP address within minutes of The Anti-Censor, Feel da J, NextUSprez, and Ddcm8991. Evidence from other ranges is also unambiguous. I would also recommend converting this to a checkuser block. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Given we've now got confirmation from 3 CheckUsers that JayJasper has been extensively socking, I guess the only question is: Is the community sufficiently satisfied that the block should be converted to a CU block? Blackmane (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I feel this is needed, no standard offer sadly though. I understand some editors here are in disbelief, it reminds me a bit of Henry Plummer in this case as well the cat was let out of the bag. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• He just admitted to the sockpuppetry on his talk page. However, he says that Miss Cherry Redd (talk · contribs) and BrightonC (talk · contribs) are other people that he knows.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• Just looking at behavioral evidence, I don't find that assertion believable. I have a feeling the checkusers will agree based on technical data. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Standard offer or Clean start

Statement from JayJasper. Copied by Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, here I am with my hands up acknowledging - with great remorse and regret - that the sockpupetting allegations against me are indeed true. I first want to offer my deepest apologies to the entire community for these grievous actions, which are entirely indefensible and contrary to the standards of the Wikipedia community of which I have been privileged to have been a part of for nearly a full decade. I apologize also for my desperately lame attempts to initially deny these allegations in the face of crystal-clear evidence. There are no excuses or any justification whatsoever for these actions, for which I take full and complete responsibility for. I perfectly understand if any of the editors who I have frequently interacted with over are angry and/or deeply disappointed with my actions. I would certainly have similar feelings if I were in their position. If I can be given the opportunity to earn back the community's trust and goodwill, you can take it to the bank that I will work diligently and enthusiastically to do so. Although my behavior-in-question could never be explained away, and that there are zero - maybe even negative - legitmate reasons that could be given for it, I would nevertheless like to give a bit of insight as to how it came about. Around 7 years ago, I for some reason felt a need to "experiment" by editing in other personas. I found that it seemed to stimulate creativity and and a sense of "freedom" to edit from the vantagepoint of "someone else". Crazy, huh? Despite having been a Wikipedian long enough at that point to know better, I naively thought it would be just a short-term thing that wouldn't do any harm. Well, it just seemed to get easier and easier to do, and I guess it became somewhat (for lack of a better word) addictive. I started rationalizing to myself that editing through the multiple accounts was actually beneficial to Wikipedia because doing so actually enhanced my editing skills. I now know what a load of malarky that was, and that there are no justifications for stealth sockpuppeting and that single-editor focused editing is truly what works best. I can't tell you how badly I wish I had the good sense back then to "experiment" in a manner compliant with WP:SOCK#LEGIT, with full transparency. Alas, I did not, and...here I am. The great irony to all of this is that, just a few weeks before being "caught", the reality of just how absurdly out-control the sock accounts had become was beginning - in a big way - to set in. I then made myself a resolution that within a period of six months I would have all the socks "phased out" once and for all (I had reasoned that if I dropped them all "cold turkey" it might become obvious and look suspicious that these multiple editors all stopped at about the same time. Then, just two or three weeks later - boom! Like I said, irony.  I tell you this not to garner any sympathy or persuade you to in any way let me "off the hook". I just want give some perspective, and let you know that while that while my judgement in this whole matter was obviously piss-poor, my intentions and motivations were never in any way of ill will, nor intended to disrespect or spite the WP community. I know that does not make it right, or even more tolerable. I fully acknowledge the harm my thoughtless actions have done, and I regret it deeply. Nevertheless, I want everyone to know that I truly do respect the community despite having engaged in actions that do not comport with that sentiment. Oh, about those handful of good sock/bad sock edits, including the one that led to the "reveal": They came about as a result of a prankish work associate who thought it would be a real hoot to give me some vandalism to chase after while I was editing from an office computer, and he was logged in on another (which has a different IP address from the one I was using, but I had made edits from both, so...). Now, I know this may sound like "a likely story" and that I'm trying to deflect responsibility from myself, but that is in no way the case. Although I didn't initiate these edits, I knew what was taking place and could have - and should have - made a staunch effort to prevent it from happening, but failed to do so. I therefore have complicity in, and bear full responsibility for, them. I just want it to be known that this sort of thing is not something I would initiate or do "for jollies" at Wikipedia's expense. Nor is it something I would ever allow to happen again, should I have the good fortune of being granted a second chance of being an active member of the Wikipedia community again. I would also like to note that I never personally edited under the usernames "Miss Cherry Redd" or "BrightonC". They are (well, were) the legitimate accounts of two people I know personally who started edited WP with my encouragement. Both edited from computers that were shared with me at home or work. Among the many regrets I have over this whole episode is they have lost their accounts as a result of my utter stupidity. If and when I am granted a second chance by the community, I will remember to utilize Template:User shared IP address on any and all applicable accounts. Having acknowledged my transgressions, I steadfastly vow to learn from, and never repeat, them. Having done so, I humbly and respectfully ask the community to extend to me the WP standard offer, or some variation of it. Knowing that some of you understandably have misgivings about doing so, let it be known that I am open to having editing privileges under probationary measures of some kind. Such measures would be prudent and more than fair. I am also open to any suggestions and feedback you may have concerning actions I might take to better my chances of having editing privileges restored. Given the opportunity to make a WP:Clean start, I could begin anew with a new account that is unstained by the legacy of sockpuppetry that brought about this whole unfortunate episode, but that continues the positive legacy of the JayJasper account. Please note that this positive legacy encompasses nearly a decade of constructive work that has benefitted the project: creating, improving, and cleaning up articles; constructive participation in talk page discussions and Wikiprojects; adding relevant content and reliable sources to articles, etc. While I know that my many positive contributions do not erase or excuse the harm done by my despicably poor choices in editing methods, I would like to believe that a decade of positive, productive contributions that have benefitted the readers of Wikipedia (and aren't they who WP exists for, and to whom the project has it first and foremost responsibility?) must count for something, and carry heavy weight at that. Whatever your decision, I thank you for your careful considerationm--JayJasper (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I will at least honor Jay's request for a community decision regarding a standard offer, or clean start after x time. Given how many socks though I do not feel that an "im sorry" is enough as trust is like at 0 for this editor. So I ask the community to state your input here on the matter... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'll repeat: this is about the worst thing an editor can do. I say a five-year absence at the minimum, but I'll settle for three. I'm not kidding. EEng 02:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC) P.S. The long statement now inserted above doesn't change my opinion. Actions have consequences.

User:Springee‎‎

I'm requesting an indefinie block from editing User:Springee‎‎ for several forms of Disruptive editing, including:

• Forum shopping
  • [29] Discussion of addition began on August 30, was 3 to 1 against Springee
  • Starts RfC instead of letting it go
• Canvassing [30][31]
  • Springee was accused of canvassing in December 2005 and not blocked for canvassing, but was criticized for at least pushing the boundaries, and should have learned what this policy says. Also received warnings for BLUDGEONing process
• Refactoring others' talk page comments: [32][33][34]
• Gaming the system
  • Several times during the March RfC at Talk:Chrysler, Springee tried to declare the discussion over, in his favor.
  • After a back-and-forth [35][36] over whether an RfC should be kept open, a Request for Closure was made. As more participants trickled into the discussion, the weight was shifting against Springee. Springee "innocently" changed the talk archive settings from 6 months to 1 month.
    • And it works like a charm. Instead of waiting for the Request for Closure to end the discussion, Springee has enlisted a bot to quash it. Dionysodorus asks to delist it, since a bot archived it. After pointing out the ploy Springee had used here, I unarchived the discussion and subsequently it was closed, in favor of keeping the proposed text.
    • At last, RfC closed after 3 month, the result is "keep" the addition. Was it added? [37][38][39][40]. Nope. It's as if the RfC never happened (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). Heads, Springee wins, tails you lose.
  • More recently, at Talk:Ford F-650 two editors disagree with Springee, and none agree, he declares the discussion over, and that he shall get his way [41] because there is "no consensus" for the edits the first two editors wanted. When a third editor disagrees, and none support, there is still "no consensus". Instead RfC is started (above)
  • Again Behaving as if the RFC has already been decided in his favor, Springee proceeds to delete similar material from another article, saying that the content must be removed because there is an RfC taking place. Heads, Springee gets his way, tails, Springee wins.
  • Counting 3 !votes to 2 in his favor after the RfC has only run a few days, Springee is again ready to declare that he gets his way, for the time being. When it's 2:1 against him, he wins. When it's 3:1 against him, he wins. When he finally finds a venues he likes, it's 3:2 in his favor, so of course, he wins. Hey, where'd that third !vote go?
  • Bad-faith wikilawyering: At Talk:Chrysler, Springee argued that a proposed addition had to be rejected because the text had flaws, and would never be allowed to be fixed. Meaning, no RfC could ever support adding any text to Wikipedia because, Springee claims here, the addition could never be edited again.
  • Selectively "cherry-picking" wording from a policy: essentially entire arguments related to Chrysler recalls, and Ford truck, consist of strictly applying only the due weight portions of the NPOV policy, while choosing not to apply the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Achieving neutrality section at all, let alone taking into account Editing policy.
  • Spuriously and knowingly claiming protection, justification or support under the words of a policy,
  • Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy:
    • citing "notability" to delete content after having been made aware of WP:N#NCONTENT multiple times. Citing WP:TRIVIA to delete content after having been made aware that TRIVIA is about section layout, not content policy. Violating WP:CANTFIX and WP:PRESERVE ad infinitum after having been made aware
    • Citing WP:NOTNEWS as reason to delete entire sections of articles because some of the content cites newspapers and magazines!? WP:NOTNEWS deals with creating new articles about news events, not deleting paragraphs describing events related to a topic merely because they cite news sources. Springee knows this, but has repeatedly made up new rules and new interpretations of policy as needed.
  • Stonewalling or filibustering -- too many diffs to collect. Any of these discussions shows Springee replying to every single comment, repeating his arguments over and over.
  • Bad-faith negotiating: moving the goal posts by adding new criteria to meet.
  • A new red herring this belongs on some other article -- EXCEPT nope, if you did add it to some other article, Springee would oppose it for reasons previously given. A bait and switch
  • Removing a large addition for a minor error. [42][43][44]

I can't go on; it's too much work for one person. I haven't even gotten to "Mischaracterizing other editors", "Borderlining", "Retribution" and "Playing victim". The number of blockable offenses goes on and on. Springee's history at AN/I goes back years. He has been accused of all these things many times, and has accused others may times. Often the boomerang went one way or the other. Many of Springee's rivals were themselves violating rules, but what is the common denominator in this years-long record of conflict? The common denominator is stonewalling, bad faith, and gaming the system. Springee has been warned many times, has tried voluntary topic bans, interaction bans, 1RR sanctions, and has had every opportunity to become intimately familiar with what sorts of behavior are not allowed.

This is never going to stop. A topic ban or temporary block are pointless. An indefinite block is necessary to stop this disruption.

If you review Springee's previous AN/I cases, what will follow is his counterattack on me, in the form of a wall of text. This AN/I discussion will grow to thousands of words. Look at each of the past RfCs, and AN/I threads. They grow so large they're unreadable. What is the common denominator in all of them? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Several of your diffs have nothing to do with Springee and several of your claims of misconduct have no evidence. On the other hand, there is evidence of canvassing. I would not consider this refactoring, but it does appear to putting one's thumb on the scale. I think it is very unlikely that ANI will resolve this. If "Springee's history at AN/I goes back years. He has been accused of all these things many times,..." is true then I suggest you whittle this down to 10-15 clear, compelling, obvious instances of disruptive editing and request an Arbcom case at WP:RFAR. - MrX 12:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I demur on the CANVASS bit - neither Arthur Rubin nor I are predisposed in any way to do anything more than express our own fully independent opinions, and anyone who thinks they can count on us to support their opinions is apt to be disappointed. Collect (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Both of canvassed editors had previously expressed strong agreement with Springee's interpretation of WP:UNDUE. Predictably, both of you went on to say you supported Springee's interpretation of that policy in this case. You also share Springee's habit of nuking large blocks of content for one flaw, rather than fix it, tag it or removing only part. You don't acknowledge the existence of the WP:PRESERVE policy. Like Springee, you are relentless. Nobody has said you're not independent. The fact is, drawing you into any discussion means an ally for Springee. You proved it by doing exactly what the canvassing policy says not to do when canvassed. Arthur Rubin had the sense to stay out of it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Alas - you are so wrong as to make your charge ludicrous here. [45] shows my opinion, which is quite dissimilar from the impression you seek to give about it.

Is the make and model number of the vehicle in each case of special and notable significance to the reader? If it has special significance, more than mere mention in sources, then it may be useful information. If not (that is, the make and model of the vehicle is of no special significance at all, and removal of the make and model would in no way harm readers) then it should not be included. Consider a mass murderer who left a "Brand X" soda can at a murder scene (that is - the brand of soda was noted, but of no significance to the crime or solution of the crime in any material way) would you expect to see a reference to "Brand X" in an article on that person? I suggest this be the actual basis for determination on a case by case basis, rather than setting an "all or none" rule here.

does not seem to show any evidence of being a CANVASSed position at all, and I find your imputation that I nuked material for non-policy reasons to be absurd here. Kindly redact your imputation, as I find such stuff to be quite toxic to collegial editing. Collect (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Collect, here are 3 diffs of you doing so on Chrysler: [46][47][48]. Your deletions also contradicted the letter and the spirit of the recently closed RfC which was decided in favor of keeping the addition. You could have fixed any minor issues, but instead you deleted it all. Over and over. In the thread Talk:Chrysler#Removal of 1979 bailout, another editor said, "Bad delete. Collect, why would you delete this... These are hardly embattled opinions. You even deleted completely innocuous mentions of Simca, Rootes, and Barreiros. Seriously. Mr.choppers". Removing content this way is found under WP:STONEWALL, "Removing a large addition for a minor error". You restored uncited gross inaccuracies, which had been in the article since 2013, and claimed the reason for your revert was because the citations were not quite perfect enough. Talk about bad faith negotiating.

I don't mean to make this about you, but there is overwhelming evidence that Springee chose you well when he canvassed you. He wanted somebody like-minded to help him win his RfC, because he will do anything to win. I could have hand-picked a dozen editors to "ask for advice" *wink* *wink* and those dozen hand-picked editors would proceed to post !votes favorable to me in any RfC. I could hand pick a dozen right now and they would come to this AN/I and post "support". It's easy. That's why canvassing is bad, and the AN/I record shows that Springee has litigated canvassing multiple times. No excuse for not knowing what he was doing.

I don't want to make this about you, but that's the facts. Anybody can read the diffs for themselves and see. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Mr. X, I also have to insist that this is never OK. An editor may choose to comment on an article talk page, but that doesn't obligate them to be drawn in, against their will, to a larger debate on a WikiProject RfD, or AN/I or any other protracted debate. We must always respect both the content and the context of an editor's words, and not change them or move them unasked. When I objected, Springee, as always, was deaf to it and reverted. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Edits like this and this stand out as problematic. I find it stunning that such large swaths of sourced, relevant content would be removed. I shudder to think that well-sourced information about millions of recalled vehicles would be swept from the article. I may be missing some context, but it looks like blatant whitewashing to me.- MrX 13:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

It's OK to think the article is better with out it. But when you go on removing it after an exhaustive debate that settled the question, we have disruptive editing. The pattern behind all these incidents is that Springee never stops gaming the system unless forced to do so.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

MrX, I would suggest you need to review the Chrysler edits in context before deciding. That material was the subject of a long RfC and with quite a few editor's weighing in. If Dennis (or anyone else) felt the final edits were wrong they should have voiced concern at the time (or now on the Chrysler talk page). Springee (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Springee, I did. What I see is an article that goes into elaborate detail about the management team and marketing campaigns, but says almost nothing critical of the company or their products. The talk page seems to show you object to any content about recalls [49], which I assume relates to the July edit wars. I'm not sure if this is just an unpleasant content dispute, or editor misconduct, but only Arbcom would be able to unravel it in my opinion. Fyddlestix' comments seem on point.- MrX 20:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

MrX, Thanks for looking into it. At a high level that was a dispute regarding WEIGHT and BALAS. Recalls do have a place in automotive articles but there is a limit. All the major car companies have many recalls each year. At some point we have to say we can't cover them all and that many are not notable (the common vernacular version, not NOTE) in context of companies that have been around for nearly a century. There is an archived Automotive project page that talks about which recalls should be covered with respect to car models but not at the higher level manufacture articles. I would also note that the RfC Dennis referenced only covered quality/reliability material not recalls. Recalls were discussed separately. More importantly, if Dennis was unhappy then why not address it then. Instead he is using this as an excuse to attack me with accusations of bad faith now. The issue now is basically a non-issue except for Dennis trying to make a mountain out of his mole hill. In this case the issue is Dennis starting off with an assumption of bad faith and going from there. Please look at this example[[50]]. Dennis's first post in the RfC was mostly an attack on me. How does that help anything? Consider the penalty Dennis is demanding? Indef block? Keep that in mind when reading Dennis's claims. When/if I get time this evening I will try to point by point reply to the accusations. (posted from my phone, please forgive swypos) Springee (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh jeez, not this again. Springee has a long history of getting into intractable disputes with a specific editor, and just not being able to compromise or let go. Usually the conflict goes on for weeks (if not months), spilling across multiple noticeboards, talk pages, and articles, and creating a giant time-suck for editors who have much better things to do. This is not Springee's first rodeo at ANI, and I've lost count of the number of times he has been brought here (and brought others here) over similar conflicts. Some examples: [51][52][53]. There are a number of 3RR and AE threads that show a history of problematic behavior as well: [54][55][56] Previous long-running conflicts with HughD and Scoobydunk were particularly disruptive, I outlined some of the most problematic behavior in their interactions with HughD here. Not saying an indef is warranted (seems overly harsh, doesn't it?) or that there might not be problematic editing on both sides (this was certainly the case in the dispute with HughD, no idea if that's the case in the current dispute) but this is an editor who definitely has problems editing collaboratively, and has been at the center of a whole lot of disruption. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Fyddlestix, I would ask that you review the recent interactions related to the recent RfC[[57]] and understand this issue before dragging out old issues. Please look at the way Dennis attacked me with accusations of bad faith almost from the word go[[58]]. Please also review the conversation that followed before assuming this is an issue with me vs Dennis (who also has black marks on his record). Springee (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not claiming that Dennis is squeaky clean - I don't know if he is or not. But I'm not sure that it matters: conflicts like these are always a two-way street, and this is the third time I've seen you get involved in a prolonged feud like this. In fact, looking at your edit history and your edit count, those three feuds seems to make up the vast majority of your edit history. This is not good. You should have learned long ago that wikipedia is not a battleground, and how to de-escalate rather than prolong these kinds of disagreements. We're here to build an encyclopedia not get embroiled in interminable pissing contests, and people whose primary activity on the wikipedia seems to consist of such contests should not be surprised if/when the community loses patience with them. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing my format wrote above. I'm not really sure we have a big conflict here. Yes, I guess I could have just walked away the moment Dennis accused me of bad faith. Then again he could have done the same when he, wrongly, felt I was working on bad faith. Beyond that what do we have here? This isn't some sort of long running feud. I disagreed with an edit and other editors and I started the usual discussion process. It certainly appears that we have exactly that other than the accusations of bad faith from Dennis. When it was clear that we had about 3:3 related to the issue and when Dennis made it clear any action of mine would be seen as bad faith I asked for help and started the RfC. Again I ask, what do you think I did wrong here? (posted from phone, sorry for any swypos) Springee (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

"...if Dennis was unhappy then why not address it then", Springee lied. I did address it then. Anyone can see that. I called you on it repeatedly. You're lying right now in the face if diffs that anyone can see show you are lying. You are "playing victim" when you wail about not assuming good faith. Per AGF: "editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such." I caught you stonewalling and gaming the system once, and warned you. Second time around, I caught you repeating the same stonewalling and gaming the system. I called you on it. You'd have me play the fool.

This is one of your favorite tactics. Every time you get caught with these tricks and schemes, votestacking, canvassing, wikilawyering, you play the AGF card. This is why I don't think a temporary block or a topic ban is sufficient. This is a deeply ingrained pattern of behavior that you couldn't quit if you wanted to. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support block or topic ban on automobile-related articles. The amount of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and gaming the system shown here was painful to read.v74.70.146.1 (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you another sock of the blocked KochTruth IP editor? Springee (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with your actions, so I must be a sock! So much for AGF. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Reply from Springee: I don't currently have time for a point by point refutation of the accusations made by Dennis but I strongly disagree with the accusations he has made. Dennis seems to have read all my actions in the worst light ever since throwing down an accusation of bad faith after I realized the material we were discussing was outside of the scope of the F-650 article (the F-700 in question was a 1993 truck, the article covers the 2000 and later trucks developed with Navistar). Because I realized this issue after we were already in discussion (note that no one else noticed this sooner), I was accused of bad faith negotiations [[59]]. I was concerned about the nasty accusations and asked Arthur Rubin for suggestions (unrelated to asking about the content dispute) [[60]]. I have worked very hard to avoid counter accusations of bad faith or personal attacks. Please note Dennis's first post on the RfC was as much an attack on me as anything [[61]]. I'm very frustrated that Dennis isn't willing to discuss these issues or offer any sort of benefit of the doubt [[62]], [[63]]. Dennis has a number of errors in his presentation of the facts. Please note that the RfC was started on Sept 9th. Many of his claims that I was ignoring RfC results predate the RfC! He also seems to confuse the limited conversations that occurred on the article talk pages for the longer discussion (involving all the same editors) on the Automotive Project page. The Chrysler material Dennis refers to was extensively discussed by a large number of editors. I think he is grossly misrepresenting things, including claiming the material that was the subject of the RfC wasn't added to the article (it was). Unfortunately something Dennis did get right is the wall of text from Springee. He has posted so many accusations and to answer each with context would require a lot of text. One final note, despite Dennis's claims that I was misreading WEIGHT and other policies/guidelines etc the current RfC favors removing the material in question by something like 15:5. Dennis is one of the five. Is this an editor issue with me or an attempt by Dennis to use an ANI to block an editor he doesn't agree with? Springee (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Springee just wrote 400 words defending his behavior on the grounds that I should have given him the benefit of the doubt, assumed good faith, read his actions in a positive light, blah blah blah. Poor Springee. In the exact same edit, just above, literally separated by a single line break, he accused IP 74.70.146.1 of being a sock of one of his old enemies. Of which he seems to have many. Springee, is there any way for you to grasp just how much bad faith is expressed right here in this one edit? It's like some kind of performance art, seeing how far you can flout policy before you get blocked for it. Bravo, I guess. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Well well well. If our policies mean anything, it's high time for admin action. AGF is not a suicide pact; the central issue is a turd of well-documented: Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#IDHT, WP:EW, WP:STONEWALL violations, and there's no reason to WP:IAR (i.e. ignore the policy violations) when the policy violations are in service of a currently successful effort at keeping text/info including this (!) out of the Chrysler article: National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) levied a $150 million fine on Chrysler for failing to complete 23 safety recalls on more than 11 million vehicles, the largest fine ever imposed by the NHTSA at the time.! Bravo, User:Dennis Bratland for bringing this here as this is exactly what ANI is for. Concur with 74.70.146.1, User:Fyddlestix, User:MrX and User:Dennis Bratland regarding need for a block, battleground behavior, blatant whitewashing and disruptive editing. Springee claims below, "I've quoted the original complaint so I can reply more methodically." The truth is- the complaint was quoted selectively. --166.216.158.165 (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Detailed reply

I've quoted the original complaint so I can reply more methodically. Please note there are some fundamental issues with this complaint. Dennis is focused on edits and discussions surrounding a current and RfC and one from several months back. Why is he only complaining the old one now? If he is going to complain about that RfC then he should notify the involved editors so they can give their views. We have already seen that Collet doesn't agree with some of Dennis's claims. The recent RfC stems from two recent additions to the Ford F-650 article (Aug 28th [[64]]) and and the Chevy Caprice article (Sept 7th [[65]]). An initial discussion was posted on the F-650 talk page on the 29th after I removed the text noting "The use in a crime isn't notable in an article about the vehicle" [[66]]. The original editor, CuriousMind01, posted a question about the removal on the talk page and I suggested bringing it up on the Automobile Project page which was done on Sept 3rd [[67]]. Dennis was the first to reply and in all honesty I thought we were in agreement [[68]] though I was clearly mistaken [[69]].

At this point Dennis focuses on my use of the word "notable" to remove the text in question [[70]]. I apologize noting I was not referring to the WP:NOTE but just a common use of the word [[71]]. The first accusation of bad faith followed with an accusation of STONEWALLING [[72]]. Note at this point the discussion was somewhat stalled and consensus seemed to be 2:2. At this point I realized (no one else had noticed) that the F-650 article is only about the 2000 and later trucks developed with Navistar and thus doesn't cover the older 1993 F-700 that was used in the bombing. Thus I argue that in addition to any other issue related to WEIGHT etc the material simply doesn't relate to the F-650 article. I would have thought that would be enough to justify removal. I was wrong... and at that point Dennis really started with the accusations of bad faith [[73]], [[74]]. I see NOTHING in my talk page actions at this point that could be seen as problematic and I feel nothing that would deserve the hostile replies Dennis was adding to the talk page. As of Sept 6th consensus was 3:2 against. On the 7th another editor joined the conversation in support of inclusion and then added very similar content to the Chevy Caprice article. I reverted the addition, Dennis reverted me.

At that this point it was becoming clear that this was something that was not going to be solved through a normal back and forth given the accusations of bad faith Dennis was aiming at me and his insistence that WEIGHT and BALAS really only apply to balancing of opinions, not relative weight given to material within (or not within) an article (example from Sept 5th [[75]]). I ask Arthur and Collet what might be the best approach for this issue since we are now talking about two articles and NPOV wasn't the only policy mentioned hence it might be outside the scope of NPOVN. To that end I started an RFC on Sept 9th. The RFC was posted on the two car pages, at NPOVN, and "Economy, trade, and companies" and "Maths, science, and technology".

I'm sorry that was a long backdrop but I want to make it clear that this was and largely still is a content dispute going through the usual channels.

From the original complaint:

*WP:FORUMSHOP

• • [76] Discussion of addition began on August 30, was 3 to 1 against Springee}}
  • Starts RfC instead of letting it go

Not clear when it was ever 3:1 against. Additionally, the primary discussion was ALWAYS on the Automobile Project page. It isn't forum shopping to stick with the results of the main discussion, especially since Dennis was aware of that discussion. The RfC wasn't forum shopping either. It came about because we were 3:3.

*Canvassing [77][78]

• • Springee was accused of canvassing in December 2005 and not blocked for canvassing, but was criticized for at least pushing the boundaries, and should have learned what this policy says. Also received warnings for BLUDGEONing process

Yes, I was told to be careful about canvassing. I was careful and made sure my questions were neutral and focused only on how and where to answer the question. Not sure where the bludgeon comment comes from. A keyword search of the link turned up nothing.

*Refactoring others' talk page comments: [79][80][81]

The first was out of frustration but I do think it was deceptive that Dennis didn't make it clear that he was the one making the claim. The other two (the original and the restoration because Dennis refactored my post! [[82]]) are quoting two editors who replied to the RfCs posted at the article page. Note that I pinged the editors, made it clear these were quotes and where they came from.

*Gaming the system

• • Several times during the March RfC at Talk:Chrysler, Springee tried to declare the discussion over, in his favor.
  • After a back-and-forth [83][84] over whether an RfC should be kept open, a Request for Closure was made. As more participants trickled into the discussion, the weight was shifting against Springee. Springee "innocently" changed the talk archive settings from 6 months to 1 month.
    • And it works like a charm. Instead of waiting for the Request for Closure to end the discussion, Springee has enlisted a bot to quash it. Dionysodorus asks to delist it, since a bot archived it. After pointing out the ploy Springee had used here, I unarchived the discussion and subsequently it was closed, in favor of keeping the proposed text.
    • At last, RfC closed after 3 month, the result is "keep" the addition. Was it added? [85][86][87][88]. Nope. It's as if the RfC never happened (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). Heads, Springee wins, tails you lose.

Dennis is wrong in claiming the RfC material was never added. The RfC neever covered recalls (discussed separately) and if Dennis felt the material that was added was not sufficient then he or any of the many other editors involvedat the time could have added it. Again, why bring this up months later?Springee (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

**More recently, at Talk:Ford F-650 two editors disagree with Springee, and none agree, he declares the discussion over, and that he shall get his way [89] because there is "no consensus" for the edits the first two editors wanted. When a third editor disagrees, and none support, there is still "no consensus". Instead RfC is started (above)

Simply not true. As I said before the primary discussion was always on the project page and at the time of Dennis's claimed "no one agreed with Springee" the actual count was 3:3 [[90]].

**Again Behaving as if the RFC has already been decided in his favor, Springee proceeds to delete similar material from another article, saying that the content must be removed because there is an RfC taking place. Heads, Springee gets his way, tails, Springee wins.

The editor who added the Caprice material added it after joining the F-650 discussion (it was 3:2 against inclusion just before he joined). Note no RfC was taking place at this time. Dennis seems to be inventing facts here.

**Counting 3 !votes to 2 in his favor after the RfC has only run a few days, Springee is again ready to declare that he gets his way, for the time being. When it's 2:1 against him, he wins. When it's 3:1 against him, he wins. When he finally finds a venues he likes, it's 3:2 in his favor, so of course, he wins. Hey, where'd that third !vote go?

There was no RfC at this time! The RfC was 2 days away. The count was based on the current project page discussion.

**Selectively "cherry-picking" wording from a policy: essentially entire arguments related to Chrysler recalls, and Ford truck, consist of strictly applying only the due weight portions of the NPOV policy, while choosing not to apply the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Achieving neutrality section at all, let alone taking into account Editing policy.

Not sure how I would argue against a vague accusation like that. Currently the RfC is about 15:5 against inclusion and many editors have cited the same policies as me.

**Spuriously and knowingly claiming protection, justification or support under the words of a policy,

• • Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy:
    • citing "notability" to delete content after having been made aware of WP:N#NCONTENT multiple times. Citing WP:TRIVIA to delete content after having been made aware that TRIVIA is about section layout, not content policy. Violating WP:CANTFIX and WP:PRESERVE ad infinitum after having been made aware

This is another bad faith argument on Dennis's part. When I first removed the text from the F-650 article I said it wasn't notable in context of the article. I didn't mean WP:NOTE and said as much when Dennis brought it up. What can I say when an editor tires to accuse me of meaning WP:NOTE (and makes the accusation repeatedly) when I clearly state I didn't mean NOTE and, like many editors, used notable when I should have said weight etc.

**Stonewalling or filibustering -- too many diffs to collect. Any of these discussions shows Springee replying to every single comment, repeating his arguments over and over. Then how can I tell if the claim is legit.

**Bad-faith negotiating: moving the goal posts by adding new criteria to meet.

There is no Wiki rule that I'm aware of that says we can't suggest new arguments when previous ones fail to convince.

**A new red herring this belongs on some other article -- EXCEPT nope, if you did add it to some other article, Springee would oppose it for reasons previously given. A bait and switch

I've addressed this BS before. I think my replies on the project talk page were clear.

I would point out that Dennis seems to have a history of confrontation with editors who disagree with him. Dennis has taken a hostile approach to other users as well [[91]], [[92]], [[93]].

This should be a simple content dispute that was moved to an RfC but for a series of accusations of bad faith starting with Dennis. I'm sure I could have handled things better (not nibbled at the bait a few times) but his telling grossly distorts the events. (Sorry for typos, it's late) Springee (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Editor spamming Talk pages with invitations to join an "Association"

Editor TheStrayDog has begun posting invitations, apparently randomly, on the Talk pages of other editors to become members of the "Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Clash of Civilizations in Wikipedia (AWWDCCW)", an organization which TheStrayDog has apparently just created. This seems to me like a misuse of WMF facilities for activities not directly related to the project, but that may just be me. Posting here for consideration and discussion by other editors and admins. General Ization ^Talk 15:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Is he just pinging randos, or is there some rhyme or reason to the people he's pinging? If it's the latter, I don't see why he can't keep doing it. Also, have you talked to him enough to know if it's the former or latter, @General Ization:? I think you may have been too quick to take this to ANI. pbp 15:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@General Ization: hello dear! I didn't know about that rule . I will stop it right now also so sorry for this fault .thanks for mentioning me. best wishes. The Stray Dog Talk Page 15:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I haven't talked with him or her about it; some of us are actually supposed to be working during the working day. It may be perfectly fine; I simply thought some other eyes should take a look at this before he or she got too far into the effort. General Ization ^Talk 15:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@General Ization: Hello again! I was wonder to ask if it's illegal to ask users to join ? asking is not illegal I thought? but if you talking about a massive invitation I think may be ! can you tell me more or send me the exact rule? tell me more.The Stray Dog Talk Page 15:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@TheStrayDog: Being unsure if your activity is appropriate, I brought the question here for discussion. I will point out that WP:TALK contains these statements of policy: "[T]he purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia." Perhaps you could explain how you feel your messages and/or the association you have created will improve the encyclopedia. General Ization ^Talk 16:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

As a point of information, the Talk page messages are being posted using a newly created template at Template:Join AWWDCCW. General Ization ^Talk 16:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@General Ization: Yes. not a social network but I didn't say happy birthday to users or didn't poke them or invite them to a cafe! I know you are an American an I am an Iranian our politics are not on the right way but we are people and must be human and don't judge as a politician. It seems you are republican and hates Iranians no? want to make a frame-up against me to stop my peaceful stuff . but i don't think so . so amuse as a good faith and don't have any complaint against you [kidding]. happy editing. The Stray Dog Talk Page 16:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Uh, no, I am neither a Republican (not that that is at all relevant or any of your business) nor hate Iranians, and I suspect that you are not improving your standing here by making such statements, even in jest. Could you respond to my suggestion above? General Ization ^Talk 17:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe he meant a small-r republican. EEng 19:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes, I suppose I would be resistant to the return of a monarchy in the United States. Will be watching tonight's debate with keen interest. General Ization ^Talk 19:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

What the hell does him being American and you being Iranian have to do with anything? 74.70.146.1 (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I think there's something to look at here. Not suggesting that TheStrayDog is not here or either WP:NOTNOTHERE; but a couple of things are slightly bothersome. The user was blocked by Someguy1221, for many reasons (disruptive editing, including edit warring, assumptions of bad faith, making false accusations, and removal of valid maintenance tags); ten days later, they suggest it was an 'unintentional' block. A read of the archives shows they have been warned of this behaviour time and time again; and as for the political remarks above, a glance at a previous user page] suggests they are not versed in our guidelines in polemical pages. This shows they have been previously advised as to webhost policy, which is under discussion currently. Replies such as this and this do not inspire confidence that they are actually listening to what other editors are saying; combined with a TP still full of warnings, little enough seems to be changing to suggest that even if there is no intentional disruption, WP:CIR might apply. _Muffled ^Pocketed 19:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I second this. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

So dear fellows! I'm here right now and want to say Peace and do not mess with each other for some typical reasons. We are all human, who after this election that which seems will make trump as president of US (because Hillary got a cold), we all going to judgment day and then maybe heaven (I mean after WWIII). get ready for heaven (or hell if you are devil as much as that T-Guy) [laughing and waiting for that debate on BBC Persian]. The Stray Dog Talk Page 20:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that TheStrayDog; I guess I could probably redux my suggestion to CIR then. _Muffled ^Pocketed 20:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, allow me to expand my request for consideration by pointing out that the editor seems thus far to be either unwilling or unable to explain how this activity benefits the project. General Ization ^Talk 20:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

So I wanna say I stopped it for a long time as @General Ization: said it that can be illegal. close the discussion please . if you want. thanks anyway. and be on Peace. bye.The Stray Dog Talk Page 20:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@TheStrayDog: Please expand further on that. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Expand? ok, i said that i didn't know that rule which may ban me to invite people to an association. also there is a lot of templates that work like that and i thought it's not illegal. if it's not legal, ok, i stopped for a long time ago and don't want to bother people here. bye The Stray Dog Talk Page 14:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

This invitation you posted not even a half an hour ago doesn't support your claim that you have stopped. General Ization ^Talk 15:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) On looking at the page they are linking people to, I think a bigger problem is not the spamming ("random" is essentially impossible to prove, and AGF prevents us from forcing the criterion out of him) but the WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude assumed on the page. The sentence "This association is for those who believe that Wikipedia should [...] not [be] a place just for promote a race, religion, language, country, belief and/or an ethnicity" very clearly indicates that the author believes there is a substantial number of people on the project who think Wikipedia should be a place to promote this, that and the other. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I am not sure if someone who thinks this way about the project and its members should be editing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Realized immediately after clicking "save changes": Note that I am not saying there aren't a lot of editors who probably do think Wikipedia is for promoting a religion. There certainly are, and probably those who hold to the other jingoistic, nativist, racist views listed, too. But I am not trying to create an "association" for people on "my side" to fight back. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

If you just look at the totality of his edits since coming off his block, there's not much to inspire confidence. He's come down from his overaggressive attitude and edit warring, sure, but mostly it's just adding redundant information to articles, adding unsourced content to articles, making unsourced assertions on talk pages, and engaging in one really trivial content dispute. The almost complete lack of edit summaries is unhelpful, and the condescending way he refers to other editors "my dear" is just annoying. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about the overall issues, and I do not mean to imply a position one way or the other. But about the "my dear" thing, I know several Iranian Americans, and the use of the phrase is very common among them. It kinda loses something in translation, but I'd be inclined to AGF about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Of course it's probably a Farsiism and Iranian editors with less-than-native command of English will make such mistakes, and of course we should assume good faith the first time, but now that he has been asked to stop, has claimed he understands what he is doing wrong, and has then continued to do so anyway, we should begin to ask whether this is the kind of good-faith mistake we can continue to allow. English Wikipedia editors need to be able to communicate with each other in English, and editors with low levels of English should be at least capable of understanding when they are told that their English is in error and comes across as arrogant to most native speakers. TheStrayDog claimed below that he understood, but somehow has continued to do so nevertheless. If he kept to himself and only made minor edits, and behaved more humbly when criticized, then maybe this would be acceptable, but aggressively defending his actions with multiple explanation marks and insulting his critics ("you are wasting your time") is not acceptable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

As I hope that I already made clear, I was commenting only about the phrase (because it had just been brought up as "condescending" and "just annoying"), that's all. I'm not implying anything else about this situation. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I accepted my faults above, in my first respond and an admin closed the discussion for once. Also I have stopped for more than a day. please close the discussion , as you wish. it will be nice of you . thanks anyway. The Stray Dog Talk Page 21:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm leaning indef-block. Clearly he hasn't learned anything. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Hijiri, That question was real and it's a misunderstanding. i do not try to mess with you . I try to be good with you and have a good humor. but you are trying to sentence me. im talking about peace and i accepted my faults and trying to be good but whats wrong with you ??? seeking a way for blocking me???. you ar seeking even from my further actions to find something for convicting and bollocking me??!!! you are an editor, you are wasting your time for this simple situation. im so sorry for us. The Stray Dog Talk Page 13:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

You still don't get it. I am not "seeking a way" to get you blocked. I am beginning to think more and more that your being blocked might be the best way for the community to deal with a problem it is having. The problem is your constantly annoying other editors by trying to engage them in conversation about topics that have nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. You have said several times that you understand what you did wrong, but at the same time as claiming to understand you keep doing the same things. By accusing me of "seeking" to block you, you are continuing in the same WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour I called you out for above. And since being called out for use of "dear" you have called me thus no less than twice. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I don't call you dear anymore, pay attention that admins may judge your behaviors and your claims here, im so here and i had/have significant edits here and will have too. you are wasting your time, and its you which are not here to build an encyclopedia you are here to ban/block active users for some special reasons. for example likely you may oppose to our Association or me who am an inclusinist(maybe you're a deletionist) . also you have blocked too and you are not eligible to say users are here or not. this is an encyclopedia and we don't want to waste our time with sentencing other users for saying Dear and having Good Humor. i called you dear and you are convicting me for just calling you dear ? really ?? and then you are claiming im not here??. look at your behavior then judge who is not here, me and you?.The Stray Dog Talk Page 17:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

That's looking more and more like the best option. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 02:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: close the discussion please . as you closed first time once after my acceptance of my fault . for third time I want to say to assure you I accepted and understood my fault (adding that template) and I stopped it at the time and don't want to waste other users' time and make problem here . I'm calling peace and I'm here to build and encyclopedia. also i will fix my errors as soon as possible . If i didn't please note me at my talk page . thank you so much. The Stray Dog Talk Page 17:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

We're past the point where it'd be right for me to do that. @Hijirl88: I think indef block is overly excessive. pbp 18:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Note that when I say "indef" I don't mean "permanent". Blocks are preventative, and blocking someone who was annoying other users until this was brought to ANI, and then claimed they understood what was wrong and kept doing it anyway, and then someone else said they should be blocked, and then they said they understood what was wrong and would stop and kept doing it anyway is actually a pretty reasonable move. If they indicate that they genuinely understand what they were doing wrong and will do their utmost to change, they can be unblocked. "overly excessive" implies some kind of blocking-as-punishment ideology under which the "punishment" should fit the "crime". But this is just a user making other users' editing experience less enjoyable apparently through some kind of competence problem; no "crime" and no "punishment". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Block appeal - TeeTylerToe

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

---

At this user's request, I am copying their block appeal from their talk page unedited. The original discussion resulting in the block may be found here. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The full unblock request:

could someone post this in administrators noticeboard. Would it be AN or AN/i? Is this an incident? Thanks So, for one, per block policy, cooling off blocks strictly, explicitly against policy. So. You know. There's that. And, ya know, there's the whole, blocking is only to be used to prevent an imminent threat. It's not a punitive measure. That's policy too. So. That's two slam dunks on stating why the block was incorrect. Isn't this going well? How's this for a third. I should point out that it's wikipedia policy that after a block has been lifted, it is stated explicit wikipedia policy to generally consider the matter settled, and not to be used in further discussions such as this one. This was ignored the first time around. But here we are by your choice. I'm beginning to think this wasn't all one big joke. User raf910 claims that on july 2 I misrepresented this edit. He says I claimed that it had consensus. My edit summary was "changing the intro per talk page discussion". He also claims the edits were unrelated to talk page discussion. The intro was a matter of talk page discussion. It was a very restrained edit focusing on non-controversial wording. The edit summary was just pointing to the talk page discussion to explain the edit. raf910 makes another claim. "he repeatedly claimed that "Burton Balloon Buster" was the first assault rifle. Not, the Sturmgewehr 44 that the article credits. His ideas were rejected by his fellow editors, as the article is full of reliable sources confirming that the Sturmgewehr 44 was the first assault rifle. TTT did not listen." First. I did listen. Second, my ideas weren't rejected by my fellow editors. Over iirc 3 days I discussed the matter with Herr Gruber and we developed a consensus. RAF910 iirc choose not to participate. Third, it's not my claim. If you ask me the first AR was probably the thousands of select fire intermediate cartridge M1907s used by french forces towards the end of ww1. But I had 14 reliable sources stating that the infantry version of the iirc winchester m1917 was the first assault rifle. So I argued that that should be mentioned in the article. I don't care too much how many superlatives are heaped on the stg-44. I do worry about balance a little but not enough to bother going facing stuff like this travesty. Raf910 said "On July 4 2016, TTT added a requested comments from other editors for this discussion on the History and geography project [61] the only editor to respond User:Skyring who created an WP:RFC Was the StG-44 the first assault rifle, designed and employed as such? Skyring then completely rebuffed TTTs position. TTT did not listen." That is false. Fountains of Bryn Mawr posted and the rfc was eventually closed in my favor. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assault_rifle&diff=729346069&oldid=729340474 <- fountains of Bryn Mawr's post Then raf910 mentions my post to the reference desk. I think that's quite a biased way of putting it. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&oldid=728694610 raf910 accuses me of forum shopping on the npov noticeboard. I posted it there but no uninvolved editors posted. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&oldid=730936377#German_virgin_birth_POV_violations_on_Assault_Rifle_article raf910 says "TTT then forum shopped for the third time when he created a Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Assault rifle page. This request was denied within 30 minutes. TTT did not listen." The rfm was denied because there was an active rfc. Could someone tell me what raf910 means when he says "TTT did not listen"? But I guess it's my fault because I sought mediation? Because wouldn't THAT have been a hassle for everyone. It would have been such a waste of so many people's time. raf910 says "TTT then started to add random tags to the assault rifle article. Which were again reverted. And, he forum shopped for the forth time at the Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard [67] Where User:Scoobydunk told him..."Whatever you do, don't edit war to get the tag put in." And, User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris told him..."Most of the time it means that you should accept that you are wrong, and should retire with grace. See WP:1AM (which has nothing to do with late-night hours)." Again TTT did not listen." None of the tags I added were at all random. They were all legitimate tags. But the tags I put up indicating that the article was being discussed on the NPOV noticeboard with the instructions "do not take this tag down until the conditions have been met" kept getting taken down before the conditions were met. I did take their advice and I did drop the issue of people taking down the NPOV notice. Which eventually led to no uninvolved parties participating in the NPOV discussion on the NPOV talkpage. raf 910 sas "TTT continued to add random tags to the article which were reverted by myself and other editors. User:Skyring then filed an complaint at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Which resulted in TTT being blocked for two weeks. [68] Once again TTT did not listen." None of the tags I added were at all random. They were all justifiable. I didn't make any reverts. raf910 says In fact during discussions on User talk:TeeTylerToe regarding the block not only did TTT continue his tenacious editing he again refuse to listen, resulting in a lost of his talk page access. He also, admitted that he was trying to trick his fellow editors into and edit war. To quote the discussion..."@Boing! said Zebedee: Not only was TeeTylerToe edit warring...If you read in between the lines of his own statements, he was trying to trick is fellow Users into an edit war. And, then claim that, "I wasn't edit warring, I was just adding tags to the article. Its those meat puppets that are edit warring by removing the tags." This behavior is intolerable on Wiki and I recommend a permanent block.--RAF910 (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)...Thanks for explaining that.TeeTylerToe (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)" [69] Again TTT did not listen. Presumably he means tendentious? And I assume my tpa was revoked because I kept basically making the same unblock request changing it to address the feedback I was getting through the only way I could really get feedback. Let me note that some admins were a little more helpful on the feedback front than others. "admitted that he was trying to trick his fellow editors into and edit war." that's false. iirc he's referring to this which is me sarcastically agreeing with the accusations he was making against me. He actually quotes it... Is this performance art or something? He left out the ping part? raf910 pinged boing, and then he quoted it leaving off the ping making it seem like boing might have said it instead of raf910? raf910 said "TTT then manage to get User:Huon to lift the block. However, Huon maintained a two week topic ban on the assault rifle page. [70] TTT continued his tenacious editing and spent that two weeks accusing his fellow editors of wrongdoing, socking, meat puppetry, etc." It was an abstract discussion. I wasn't accusing anyone of anything. I was trying to figure out what was and what wasn't tag teaming. You would think that it would be simple. "Hey admin, what actions qualify as tag teaming" "Oh, this this this and this" "thanks". raf910 said "After his two week topic ban was lifted. TTT return to tenacious editing this time on the StG 44 page where he again claimed that the StG 44 is not assault rifle and again made unreferenced edits to that article. Those edits were again reverted by myself and other editors. On that article talk page discussion once again he accused and tried to trick a fellow editor into an edit war. Another editor told him..."Very well colleague, I will cut to the chase. You have just come off a two week block for tendentious editing on this very subject. Now you are straight back. The issue here is not how this bloody chunk of metal was used, but your behaviour pattern. Drop it. Irondome (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)" [71] This time he listened perhaps realizing that he could not win this fight, so soon off a two week block." I quoted the department of the army which said that the stg-44's primary use was as a semi-automatic weapon and that select fire was to be used only in emergencies. Maybe the department of war should be indef blocked with no appeal? I'm not 100% sure what Irondome's objections were. I was using BRD. I have noticed that BRD tends to break down in articles under the umbrella of a few of the more active projects. That's something that seems to be quite harmful to the project overall. raf910 said "TTT then move on to the Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16 where he again tried add unreferenced info claiming that the StG 44 was not the first assault rifle, which I again reverted. [72] Then he did it again [73] Also see talk page [74] Then he tried something different. He took an existing reference in the article and cherry picked a quote out of that reference. He then altered the quote to fit his needs. He also took another reference and took a quote from that article that repeated info that was already mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. I was then forced to revert his edit add the full quote to the article once again refuting his position. [75]" I made iirc 3 edits to that article. None of the adding new material that would necessitate adding new references. In one case I simply changed the text to better suit the actual text of the reference. raf910 said "tried add unreferenced info claiming that the StG 44 was not the first assault rifle". the stg-44, as raf910 clearly knows, was the product of the mk-42 contest. The -44 is a minor modification of one of the rifles entered into that mk-42 program. the -44 as raf910 well knows is a minor modification of the haenel submitted to the mk-42 competition. I made one edit stating "An StG-44 prototype, the Mkb-42(H) may have been the first rifle to combine a pistol grip with both a straight stock, and the over the barrel gas system" ffs indef me with no appeal right now. I confess. raf910 said "TTT has now moved onto the Colt AR-15 where he insists that the Colt AR-15 has select fire versions. Which any knowledgeable person knows is not true. Where he claims that the Colt AR-15 is "A minor product line in the civilian ar-15 ecosystem." Even tough it was the first and only AR-type rifle for decades. And, by his own admission he was completely unaware that the Colt AR-15, Sporter, and SP-1 are the same semi-automatic rifle. [76] Also, he is again forum shopping this time on the Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team trying to get a consensus delete the article altogether or combine it with the M16 rifle page instead of the articles talk page where he knows he will lose. title=Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team&action=history He clearly believes that the ArmaLite AR-15, the Colt AR-15 and the M16 rifle are the same and again refuses to listen." The first AR-15s sold (before the idea of an m-16 existed) were select fire and were sold to the federation of malay by colt. Colt sells select fire ar-15s today under a different name. The colt sporter SP-1 line introduced in iirc '66 was a minor product line in the civilian ar-15 ecosystem. The Colt Sporter SP-1 is a civilian semi-automatic model of the AR-15. "Also, he is again forum shopping this time on the Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team trying to get a consensus delete the article altogether or combine it with the M16 rifle page instead of the articles talk page where he knows he will lose. title=Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team&action=history" the AR-15 page had radically changed to focus on just the colt civilian line of rifles rather than all AR-15s. I suggested to the editorial team that they remove the new ar-15 article and replace it with the m-16 article for obvious reasons. Lock me up and throw away the key. raf910 said "TTT has repeatedly shown a lack of basic firearms knowledge on almost every firearm page that he edits. Yet he refuses to listen to his fellow editor and continues to edit said pages. This forces knowledgeable editor to waste their time and efforts to correct his mistakes. Mistakes which he refuses to acknowledge and continues on the next article." No diffs. My knowledge isn't perfect, but I don't think it's been demonstrated that it's a problem. raf910 said "TTT has displayed this behavior on almost every article and User talk page that he edits. He has generally annoys and vexes every editor that he has makes contact with. He likes writing walls text where he asks multiple repetitive questions for which the answers are obvious.[77] And, which make it difficult for other editors to understand what he is talking about.[78] He comments on talk pages frequently go off topic. He demands that others answer his questions which he has no intention of listening to, causing others to waste their time and effort.[79] He make no effort to gain real consensus, he simply bulldozers the conversation until other editors give up.[80] He accuses other of wrongdoing when they disagree with him.[81] He refuses to accept any reference but his own.[82] Yet, he rarely includes references with his own edits. He dares and tricks others into edit warring.[83] He is not here to help, he is here to push his POV at all costs." I try to be polite in my interactions. Testimony was made at the ani that I do collaborate. "I did not find the editor that difficult to work with" Also I have a long track record going back years. I also generated consensus on the assault rifle talk page with Herr Gruber. I am very quick to compromise. "He make no effort to gain real consensus, he simply bulldozers the conversation until other editors give up." That is false. I should note that many of the diffs raf910 posted are non-sensical. This was brought up in the original ani but nobody cared. katie accuses me of being a serial edit warrior. I'd like her to provide diffs. I've been here something like 6 years and I was ip editing before that and there have only been two instances. katie said that I think that I'm always right and everyone else is always wrong. This is demonstrably false. But when I have 14 reliable references that contradict something, "because I say so" isn't a convincing counterargument. I should note that in the original ani katie said "If he's causing problems again after Huon unblocked him, maybe it's time for a topic ban.". Rare restraint in an ani thread it seems. laserbrain said "I concur with KrakatoaKatie. The OP was a bit of an effort to get through, but it does outline a pattern of serious behavior including edit warring and refusal to listen to other people or back down once it's clear they are in the wrong. I'd support a topic ban from firearms, broadly construed." I believe I've responded to most of that. kudpung couldn't understand why even with his earlier interventions, "no amount of advice is going to improve his collaborative skills." "With only 718 edits to mainspace stretched over a very long time you have an impressive block log already and not learned much rom it. I see no eason why you should not sit out this latest, appropriate block." "Recommending that the next admin here consider withdrawing TPA due to abuse of unblock requests. Also, user is heading fast for an indef." But generally he just seems to be hand waving to my block log and contributions, which I don't think he understands thoroughly. irondome said " There is no compromise with this editor, which make collaboration impossible at this stage in the editors development here. " which is directly contradicted by his recent experience with me, among other things. I'd like to note that irondome also said "Is there any scope or room for mentoring here?" but that seemed to be ignored. huon said "TeeTylerToe spent most of those two weeks arguing on my talk page about the other editors. He has since brought the case to the ArbCom talk page and asked about his problems in the current RfA. He has also expanded the scope of his campaign to downplay the role of the StG 44 to various related articles. I do not see that the problematic behaviour would stop for anything short of a topic ban or a block, and I fully expect that if TeeTylerToe were to switch to some other topics, the same issues would recur there. Thus I unfortunately have to support a block. I wouldn't mind a "no appeals for six months" rule, but I don't think this requires abandoning all hope of him ever becoming a valuable contributor." "He has since brought the case to the ArbCom talk page and asked about his problems in the current RfA." That's false. People were suggesting limitations on appeals. I asked on the arbcom talk page if, under such circumstances I would appeal to arbcom. "He has also expanded the scope of his campaign to downplay the role of the StG 44 to various related articles." I mentioned that earlier. Those accusations are overblown imo. "I fully expect that if TeeTylerToe were to switch to some other topics, the same issues would recur there." I've been an editor for ~6 years iirc and I edited by IP before that. Given that track record why would you expect me to go on some sort of disruptive rampage? And he later says that hope shouldn't be abandoned. What would prevent this putative disruptive rampage? A 6 months I just want this to go away block? llywrch pointed to huon's unblock that said forum shopping and accusations of bad faith might lead to a quick indef And here I am. Stuck in the middle with you. Back where we were a month ago. The major complaints that seem to hold the tiniest bit of water seem to generally be problems with collaboration. Finally. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Here are some ideas. Maybe irondome's mentorship proposal has some legs. Maybe a 1rr restriction. Maybe some cooling off topic bans. Would an interaction ban with raf910 get him to stop calling me a troll everywhere and asking me to be indef banned in every forum he can find?TeeTylerToe (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Oh, and could someone ask that people making claims about my behavior include diffs or retract their statements?TeeTylerToe (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Also I'd like my block to be modified so that I am allowed to post on whatever forum is chosen for this to be discussed on. Just that one page. Block modifications like this are allowed per policy.TeeTylerToe (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Posted on behalf and by request of User:TeeTylerToe -Starke Hathaway (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

tldr; I'm demonstrably happy to address any specific concerns anyone has with my editing history. What transgressions do I stand accused of that anyone cares enough to argue, provide diffs? I've been a productive editor for 6 years. This block violates basically all block policy. This block serves no purpose, prevents no damage, and does no good. Admins who voiced their displeasure with me on ani might be surprised to hear that I do have a track record of working well with other editors and with developing consensus with editors. What purpose does this block serve? What does it teach me? How does it improve my collaboration skills? What damage was I doing when the block was imposed? What damage has it prevented?TeeTylerToe (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Copied from TTT's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

NPR, what else do I have to work with? It's easy to say TTT "doesn't get it", and it's easy to say he should know why he's blocked. It's easy to say his appeal sucks. I've been asking for a month for people to give me solid accusations that I can respond to. Guess what answers I got? "you just don't get it." "indef him because he doesn't get it" What I didn't get? You broke 3rr, here are the diffs. I didn't get, you broke npa, here's the diff. See my problem? Everybody's telling me how easy it is to see what I did wrong... Nobody's actually telling me what I did. Everybody's telling me I'm guilty. Nobody's telling me what I'm guilty of. "just confess". Yea, thanks. What else can I do? I guess somebody has to entertain the circus. What I'm not trying to do is win any old battles as you, NRP seem to be accusing me of doing. When I was blocked I wasn't waging any battles. I haven't started fighting any old battles. raf910 posted an iirc 17 paragraph screed accusing me of basically everything under the sun on an ani. That led to discussion. But none of the discussions had any specifics. There was no, this diff that diff the other diff. There was no "he's violating 3rr in slow motion." With no specifics where does that leave me but to rebut everything?

Someguy1221. I have no problem admitting that my opinion was wrong, or that I was wrong about a fact. I wrongly referred to the federation of malay as the kingdom of malay. I was wrong. I was wrong about the sales of select fire rifles before the ban. I thought they were common even with the tax stamp. Someone corrected me. I was wrong. I thought the colt sporter SP-1 was a separate line from the colt AR-15. Someone corrected me. I was wrong. I think the m1907 was the first assault rifle, but here's the thing, that's my opinion. So I don't insert my opinion into wikipedia articles. I never make the argument "because I think the m1907 was the first AR". Now, I have 14 unimpeachable, reliable sources saying that some people say that the burton rifle was the first AR. That could be wrong. One of the sources is a book. It was brought up that the author of the book source worked for a winchester museum. Someone said, well, he's a winchester employee working for a winchester owned museum so that would be a primary source. Let's say the book was my only source. Sure, let's look into that. Well, the winchester museum isn't owned by winchester, it was named that presumably to commemorate donations made by winchester. The museum itself is independent. In fact, it's name has changed to the wild bill museum of the west or something. But I'm open to argument. I'm willing to admit when something is shown to be wrong. And even with 14 unimpeachable reliable sources, I recognized consensus, and dropped the stick. Consensus was against me and I dropped it. And then a few weeks later I was brought to ANI and a week or so after than I was blocked without appeal for 6 months. And now you're telling me I should be indef blocked because I can't collaborate in the face of disagreement. What can I do Someguy1221?TeeTylerToe (talk) 01:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion to unblock or leave blocked

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

---

@TeeTylerToe and Starke Hathaway: The problem is, walls of text like this are heavily frowned upon and I can just about guarantee that no admin is going to wade through this to try to figure out what you're trying to say. Please find a way of heavily condensing this. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 00:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not endorsing the appeal, and I (and others) warned TTT against taking this tack. Please don't feel obligated to ping me to this discussion any further. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

No, no, oh god no. --Tarage (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• "3262 words, 18582 characters" - WP:TL;DR - I appreciate TTT has put alot of effort in to this however to be blunt ... No one is going to sit here for 30-40 minutes and read this whole wall of text ... It needs to be condensed to around perhaps 500 words. –Davey2010^Talk 01:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I could only bear to read through part of that unblock request, but it looks to me like a lot of the same stuff that got him blocked in the first place. Notably, a complete inability to accept that he might be even partially at fault. It seems to just be a wall of reasons that everyone else is wrong, and his block is wrong. This sort of attitude was explicitly cited in the thread that lead to his last block. It's looking to me like TTT is just one of those people who can't collaborate in the face of disagreement, and I support not only denying his unblock request, but upping his block to indefinite. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I was waiting for a long download to complete, so I read the entirety of TTT's post. He's mostly just rehashing old content disputes, such as who made the first assault rifle. That's immaterial here. He also responds to what I suspect is every single comment made at the earlier ANI post. I don't understand why he would do this. He even quotes a user who says, "He likes writing walls text where he asks multiple repetitive questions for which the answers are obvious." TTT should consider this statement carefully before he makes another post. Buried inside that long post is a request that people consider mentorship. This is an issue that could be discussed here. But this 3000+ word "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" essay isn't going to help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

He seems to be completely missing the point. The community voted him off the island. Completely. He's seriously lucky he only got 6 months. This is not some magical out of the blue abuse of power. This is the community telling him his behavior is not wanted. Arguing "nu huh!" is not going to convince us otherwise. Wait out the block, or don't come back at all. --Tarage (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose unblock (and support indeff...) per the "unblock request" and new comments by TTT on their talk page, comments that show they still feel they've done nothing wrong, and still blame everything on everyone else instead. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 07:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose unblock Unblock request shows no evidence they understand why they are blocked, nor any statement indicating they are willing to change. Granted its difficult to make a statement that you are going to change when you dont understand why, but there we go. Once this request is closed (assuming its rejected, if its accepted its not relevant) suggest re-removing talk page access for the duration due to previous disruption and abuse. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

'Oppose unblock Obviously not. He hasn't accepted that he has done something wrong. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• First off, I just want to say that I know very little about the incidents behind the block. So, all I'm gonna say to @TeeTlyerToe: is that requesting an unblock request while stating that you don't understand the principles behind the block is almost never a good idea. I suggest, moving henceforth, that you read thoroughly through all discussions about you, and come back here when you can demonstrate that you know why you were blocked, and how you know you can (and have begun to) improve. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 21:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose unblock support indefinite block...Just more of the same (I'm right, everyone else wrong) behavior that caused him to be blocked in the first place. Also, per block summery...TTT is now in violation of his "very last bit of WP:Rope". Which allows an "immediate indefinite block without further discussion".--RAF910 (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose unblock because TTT has not shown any sign of understanding why he was blocked in the first place, and this thread is one more example of same. Long screeds that boil down to "I'm right, and everybody else isn't." We're a community, we have to work together; this sort of behaviour is disruptive. I'd call troll, but he puts so much self-righteous effort into his misbegotten contributions, and your average troll tends to be a minimalist. --Pete (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I just turned 50. Before me I have two choices. I can read the avalanche of words posted by TTT or I can start on Peter Wilson's roughly 1000 page history of the Holy Roman Empire. I have a reasonably good chance of getting through one of them before I die, but not both. I'm opting for the HRH. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock and turn talkpage access back off again so we don't have this waste of time again. Black Kite (talk) 09:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Agressive comments over Sciences Po page

I am copying a dispute resolution demand (argument with an IP user, alumni from the institution, only editing its web page):

Copy/pasted quoting

The Sciences Po page was a pure advertisement page. I tried to put it in an encyclopedical form and was personnaly attacked for it (saying that I carry out a personal vendetta against Science Po). The user admitted using several IP adresses. Now, they are trying to put back the advertisement style and remove the banner. For example, they insist putting in the lede, without any source, sentences like: "Beyond its academics, Sciences Po is well known for its international outlook." "The Institute also maintains a robust sport programme and competes against other grand écoles in the Île-de-France." "Sciences Po and its innovative curriculum would inspire and serve as the model for the London School of Economics." (the article says part of the inspiration, not the model and innovative) "Almost every member of the French diplomatic corp since the Fifth Republic, and roughly half of ENA’s cohort each year are also graduates." Etc. I tried to prevent it, but now I face strong personal attacks like being called "Lameadee the vandalist" and saying that I "hate Science Po" in a summary, saying I am a "dishonest editor", implying that I have to be a Science Po alumni to edit the page, writing things like "You're just lying at this point.", "clearly you are a vandal", "Consider this your warning." And the user implies that because he spent time on his advertisement, nobody must touch it. I claim that there is also sexism here. I know for sure that I never wrote anywhere that I was a woman, so sentences like "she was lying about the citations she was using" or "she is a dishonest editor", is an attack on me as a woman (it’s easy to say that women lie and are dishonest). And it’s untolerable. I tried to discuss in talk page and to tell him (them) not to personnaly attack me, but it’s getting worse.

Then, on Kudpung กุดผึ้ง advice, I filed a page protection demand, it was done. Then, because the attacks continued, I asked a protection of the talk page, which was refused (for a good reason):

Copy/pasted quoting

Semi-protection: Persistent personal attacks and insults by multiple IP users. Perhaps I was not clear on my first demand, I would like the insults to stop in talk page too (and edit summaries). --Launebee (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Declined I'm not shutting out your opponents from the discussion. And your claims of sexism are based on thin evidence. NeilN talk to me 10:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC) My main claim was not sexism but strong personnal attacks 'like being called "Lameadee the vandalist" and saying that I "hate Science Po" in a summary, saying I am a "dishonest editor", writing things like "You're just lying at this point.", "clearly you are a vandal", "Consider this your warning."' And he continues to call me "a troll", a "disruptive editor" (I talked about disruptive editing, insults and sexism, but never qualified him of anything). You can understand I don’t like being countinuously publicly insulted. --Launebee (talk) 11:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC) I understand that and posted a note to the talk page after I declined your request. If the attacks continue, please let me or another admin know. --NeilN talk to me 11:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Thanks! --Launebee (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Could you just let a message on his page, for him to understand that his comments on me are not acceptable and that he would face consequences if he continues? --Launebee (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC) This was done. --NeilN talk to me 16:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

On Kudpung กุดผึ้ง talk page, we had this discussion:

Copy/pasted quoting
":::Coming to this from RFPP, [94] I am uncomfortable with shutting out one side in a content dispute which only seems to involve two people. I will add something to the IP's talk page --NeilN talk to me 11:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Thank you! I understand, but it has to stop. --Launebee (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)"

Dear NeilN, you asked me to tell you if it continues, it does. Despite your messabe on his talk page, the user wrote on Kudpung กุดผึ้ง talk page: "I believe him/her to be a dishonest editor and we have proof she is lying in her edits." "when someone calls her a disruptive editor and a liar (which are true for what I was responding to). Anyway I'm through with wasting my time on trolls. I regret that your time (and mine) gets wasted dealing with these kind of people." "It's so obvious this person is a troll" He keeps saying that I’m lying about the sources even though I gave him once again in talk page the newspaper articles dealing with all the "scandals". He keeps saying I’m dishonest when I say I did not understand the question "How come you deleted it anyway?", but I really didn’t.

I would like it to stop, for the third time.

I would also remind the IP user that I never qualified him personnally of anything, I just complained about the personal attacks made to me, not the user himself.

--Launebee (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Launebee: I've popped your copy/paste quoting in a box to make it easier to read -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Launebee, nothing urgent but for future reference you may use {{ANI-notice}} to notify an editor of an AN/I discussion so that you don't have to create a diff. Hopefully, you won't be needing it, but, it's there for reference. It's also in the big red box at the top of the page. I've gone and separated your notification from Neil's comment, just so that it's plain obvious. Thanks, Mr rnddude (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• What people are missing here is that without prejudice to whomever might be right or wrong, I had already Full protected that page to stop the nonsense. When the protection request at RFPP was made and declined, it was already protected. I worked in a university in France for 12 years and I'm staying well out of anything to do with Sciences Po. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Clarification: I declined to protect the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Samtar and Mr rnddude!

My demand concerns here the personal attacks against me, not Sciences Po page. --Launebee (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

This time, 78.51.193.8 who claims to be another user (but has only this contribution), is attacking me on Sciences Po talk page in a civil manner, but is still attacking me (with no basis by the way). I could answer but I guess it’s pointless. Another IP would show up and a talk page is not the place for this kind of discussion. But once again, it has to stop. My editing on Sciences Po is content focused. --Launebee (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I don’t know if it’s considered as a personal attack, but User:SalimJah stated "Launebee's way of editing this article did not strike me as very collaborative" and "I don't think that Launebee helped reach a neutral point of view through his relatively aggressive edits".

As I told them, I improved a lot of things in the articles and added a good ranking of Sciences Po. Still, these alumni are still attacking me for preventing advertisement to be put in the article and because I talked about the huge amount of scandals extensively covered by newspapers. Actually, everyone can verify in the history, in the beginning, I just wanted to have a neutral statement about reputation in the lede, and because there had been a series of reverts about this, I created a section with sources, and little by little wrote the whole section because there was so much to be said. My edits are not "agressive", they just reflect what is in the newspapers.

And ones again, they only complain about a part of my edits, but not when I add a positive ranking of Sciences Po.

They have to stop bashing me.

--Launebee (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I have just seen that the IP user wrote inside my comments , and that he wrote twice that I lie (I deleted, and it’s not my job to put into form his insults). --Launebee (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The IP user inserted again his insult within my text and deleted my signature! By the way, according to him, saying twice that I lie is not personal attacks. At least, if you let him continue on insulting me, not in my text and now he’s deleting my signature! --Launebee (talk) 09:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Launebee; I'm not sure what you mean by if you let him continue on insulting me, but, I'll take a stab at responding to what I think you mean. This page is patrolled by both admins and non-admins who are considered experienced users. The balance of this is I'd say 80% non-admin to 20% admin. As a non-admin aside from comments and attempts at dialogue there's little we can do, the most damning is probably the revert button. I can't stop the editor permanently any more than you can. As soon as an admin arrives they can take proper action. I'll try keep an eye on the page and help out as much as I can. The letting them continue part, however, is something only an admin can act on. Give them rope till an admin gets here. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Your most recent edit, the one where you mention The IP user inserted again his insult within my text and deleted my signature! - I see that your sig has been removed, but, haven't been able to identify when and by whom (it was removed earlier than that comment) but their comment appears to have been inserted as a response to yours. It comes right after your signature at 14:16, 19 September 2016 (they've quoted all of your points, that may be tripping you up there). The IP could be far more tactful, the presumption that you are lying is uncivil for a start. I'll post a comment to their ip talk page. See if I'll receive a response. This is a content dispute turned dramatic (due incivility). Mr rnddude (talk) 09:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude Sorry for the ill-worded part of sentence then! Actually, he put it after the discussion, but then reinserted it inside my lines. You can see in history, only a boot and him made edits. Thanks! --Launebee (talk) 09:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, you are right, he quoted all my text. I put back the insults then... --Launebee (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Launebee give me a couple minutes to separate out the comments, I've reverted part of your edit so that I can move around the comments. Avoid an edit-war hopefully. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Launebee, I've re-instated their comments with an indent, asked them to remove their inferences of lying, and made sure that your sig stays in place where it is. Feel free to ping me if you need anything. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much Mr rnddude! Let’s wait for the admins now :). --Launebee (talk) 10:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. My original comment can be found here. @Launebee: please be sure that I have nothing against you, nor your willingness to stress the fact that Sciences Po is subject to strong criticisms in the French academic landscape and has faced a number of scandals. However, anybody looking at the revision history of the Sciences Po article will recognize that the unregistered user had added a lot of factual content to the page. This content may have been framed in an overtly laudable way. There are ways to discuss that and improve the write-up. But merely and repeatedly reverting such contributions without any willingness to reach a compromise between your views and those of other editors is counterproductive: (i) it does not help the article get better, (ii) it creates animosity between contributors and drives newbies away, and (iii) it creates unnecessary work on the part of the community trying to solve what eventually becomes a personal dispute. BTW, I honestly think that your own edits were at least as biased against Sciences Po than the unregistered user's ones were biased in favor of it. As I see it, the article would have been much improved, had some middle ground been reached between both of you. This is a missed opportunity, which was the main message I wanted to convey through my talk page edit. So yes, your style of editing *was* inappropriate to me in this particular case, and I was (naively?) hoping that we could do better, also potentially trying to convince the unregistered user to come back to work on a compromise.

Unrelated comments:

- it would help bring clarity to the conversations if you could indent your talk page answers and keep conversations under a specific header focused on the associated topic.

- how would you know if I'm a Sciences Po alumni? ;) SalimJah (talk) 12:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

"I honestly think that your own edits were at least as biased against Sciences Po than the unregistered user's ones were biased in favor of it"

This whole thing of me biased against Sciences Po makes no sense. Once again, I also added in the article other stuff, like the (only) good ranking of SP by Universal.

The IP user said himself that he’s an alumnus. I did not mention you as an alumni but you are clearly biased in favor of Sciences Po by accusing me of being biased in spite of the facts. You keep saying my editing is "agressive" etc., but every information I put is sourced. You know say the other user is biased, but before, you only intervened against some my edits, that you consider to go against Sciences Po.

--Launebee (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, you did write above that "these alumni are still attacking me". Further, I am *not* attacking you, and did *not* intervene against your edits. I totally welcome your contributions and the sources you include for them. This is not the point. The point is the significant amount of content that this unregistered user added and that you repeatedly deleted without trying to reach consensus. This is not a constructive way to proceed. Reading through it, this material could have been improved upon to enhance the article. Through your reverts, you arguably nourished the animosity of this unregistered user against you (which I do *not* mean to justify, BTW). Regarding the "facts", as I see it, they do not clearly speak in favor of any of you being unbiased. But again, that's not the point. Who can safely pretend to be unbiased about any topic? The magic of Wikipedia is that (necessarily) biased people are willing to collaborate in good faith to create unbiased articles. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view SalimJah (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I repetitively tried to have the IP user to focus on content, but it did not work.

You only intervene in defavour of content that you think can do harm to SP. You never complained about me adding a positive ranking of SP, or agreed with my propositions to delete sentences like ""its rankings in law, economics, and sociology were among the top in Europe." It’s your right to like SP, but don’t write as if you would be a middle point between me biased and the IP user. You are biased in your choices of intervention, and it’s your right, and I am not biased in any way in my editing, which is forbidden of course, and which you are writing I am.

--Launebee (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

It’s now SalimJah who is writing to me in an agressive way: edit summary --Launebee (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

How the hell is that aggressive? Someguy1221 (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

It's clearly not. _Muffled ^Pocketed 07:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Isn’t it at least not collaborative to write in a summary edit "don’t do it or I will refer to someone else"? If he thinks I’m doing something wrong, he can tell me why, or directly refer it in the discussion here, rather than harshly making such threats, even though I did nothing wrong. --Launebee (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Launebee: "Please keep it in place, as I'm going to refer to it in the moderation thread that you started" I don't think English is your first language. If it isn't then I suggest you read everything twice over keeping WP:AGF in mind. The sentence doesn't mean what you think it means. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• I looked at this article as it stands now and as it stood before Launebee started working on it back in July (see this version. Like too many of our articles about universities, the former article was a cesspool of promotion - not a WP article at all, but a brochure for Sciences Po; as it stands now the article is still full of unsourced promotional content that belongs on the Sciences Po website (i.e. the unsourced content about the campuses and the entirely unsourced section about notable people). Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

That may be true, but this is not the topic of this thread, which deals with the alleged aggression from which Launebee suffered on the Sciences Po talk page. My claim here is that the way he managed his interactions with the IP user (i.e., massive deletion of potentially useful content and edit warring) is not a workable way to reach consensus and NPOV within articles. This is especially true when dealing with newbies who may not know the rules and need positive feedback and explanations. Otherwise they simply give-up contributing, which is not in our interest. The IP user presented sound arguments in favor of some of his edits, and looking at the revision history, my sense is that the way Launabee managed this discussion is in part responsible for the personal turn that it has taken and which he now complains about. For instance, deleting his (badly formatted) arguments from the talk page without providing explanations as to how to do things right was unlikely to be taken well. Things had already escalated at that point, and such behavior certainly didn't help. SalimJah (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@SalimJah: "massive deletion of potentially useful content": you repeat it everywhere but Jytdog is precisely saying that it’s not "useful content" but advertisement, as I keep explaining to you from the beginning.

@NeilN: You are right I have to assume good faith. But what should I do here? SalimJah has been, for several years, nearly only editing the page of SP or people linked to SP, his now repeating everywhere that I deleted "potentially useful contents" and then that I am biased against SP in my editing. He’s now giving one example of diff to make me look ill-intented even though this thing had been taken care by Mr rnddude with me. All of this because there still is huge problems of advertisement in the lede of the article, I proposed the relevant changes in talk page, but they are drowing it in a lot of text on me being bias, so that we forget the actual content of the article. I opened a dispute resolution on content, but they say it’s already taken care of here.

@NeilN:, @Mr rnddude: and @Jytdog:: Could you tell us what do you think of my propositions of editing there? It would be really appreciated. There still is a lot of things to do, but take care of the lede, especially the false claim "its rankings in law, economics, and sociology were among the top in Europe." is the most important I guess.

--Launebee (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad we can eventually get back to substance, Launebee. :) Just commented on your points. However, I strongly encourage you not to bite newbies in the future. SalimJah (talk) 10:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but you are not a new user but an old single-purpose account ;). --Launebee (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I was obviously not referring to myself, but to the IP user with whom you argued about the Sciences Po page. However, I do start to find your repeated insinuations about me being biased, aggressive or not legitimate annoying. You have no evidence for it. Please stop. SalimJah (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Let me remind you that the IP user was insulting me, and that admins and volunteers told him to stop. I made no insinuation, I said it clearly: you edits are only linked to SP since several years and you are only attacking me personally on the things that are not positive for SP. --Launebee (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay. So it seems that we can't agree, neither on substance (see the talk page), nor on process (see above and the talk page). And now you drag me into this personal argument once again, putting my good faith and legitimacy into question. The fact that I've been editing the page in the past is no evidence that I have a personal agenda, nor is your (unfounded) claim that I'm a Sciences Po alumni. All I've been trying to do is restore a positive working atmosphere in the talk page while making some progress on the issue. You behaved in a similar way with the IP user, imposing your POV with strength while brushing the evidence he was trying to present aside (see my description of the way you managed your interactions with him above + the talk page and history of the Sciences Po article). You eventually dragged him into a personal fight with you, not the other way around, and you won by having him leave. You also claimed several times that I was attacking you personally (that's actually the very reason why I had to post here in the first place). I'm not. Pure and simple. I refuse to play this game. So, what we need now is the assessment of the extended community. Anybody out there who would be willing to review the arguments presented here as well as the discussion on the Sciences Po talk page? SalimJah (talk) 09:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

You kept and keep saying my edits in SP page were "aggressive", that I have POV and that I am biased against SP, without any proof (and you won’t find any because it’s false, and your links to the talk page proves nothing). Obviously you are not here to "restore a positive working atmosphere" but to "defend" SP.

You said yourself that "us", it’s an organisation with a SP adress, and you were working for them. It seems from there that admins already told you not to do ads for SP.

Anyway, I think this discussion can be closed, because it leads to nothing, let’s only discuss of content on the talk page. But some third opinion would be helpful indeed.

--Launebee (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

CyberBrinda

I am very likely to need some help here as I have no idea yet what I am doing especially concerning listing "diff's". I will look into this if actually needed.

I had participated in some AFD's (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rewati Chetri and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pankhuri Gidwani and received notices of thanks from CyberBrinda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I had made some edits, to Rewati Chetri that were maintenance (marking dead links, removing a redundant reference to the same source with the same content, and I also removed the external link to a pageant that I feel was just pageant advertising, since there was no mention of the subject. All these were done with an edit summary and I posted what I had done on the talk page.

The edits were removed so I posted more comments on the talk page and looked around. I placed an external link tag on the article to deal with it later, with an edit summary and the reasoning on the talk page. I sent a message to CyberBrinda about the incremental mobile edits to the page, with no edit summary. I received a notice of thanks from the editor. Looking into it more I found that the editor had made other like edits such as Miss Earth India, and in fact is a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account with hundreds of such edits. CyberBrinda had been warned by at least one user, and was blocked twice for disruptive editing. I added a message on the talk page concerning the things I found. I may not have done things exactly right (or right at all) but think I have been civil and trying to be informative about the issues.

The external link tag that I placed was removed and at least had an edit summary "(The External links does not violate any copyrights...)" but no discussion, in fact no discussion on anything just the thanks and edit reverts.

I am posting this discussion on the user talk page and that may get some response. I did not look to see if the blocks were related and did not know protocol as to if I should have made inquiries to the blocking admin or here since I have not done this before. I was going to send another message, and was looking at the templates, but the external link tag was removed without discussion so I know that any further discussion to the user would be a waste of my time. I feel some intervention is required as I do not know how to follow the hundreds of rapid fire masked edits (no edit summaries), that includes what looks to be 87 edits on one day on the same article, to see what is going on, but 367 edits to 5 articles (842 total edits to just a few articles), in such a short time by a somewhat new editor, causes me to wonder. Add to this the disregard of policies and guidelines, in light of receiving messages, means to me there is a problem. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• I closed one of the AfDs and at that time I came across Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnnLivinova that wasn't CU acted on because it was stale. I've blocked quite a few socks in the different sockfarms around these shows and this definitely feels like one of them. I'm not familiar enough yet to identify which one it is, but I'm pinging Cyphoidbomb as he filed the SPI. —SpacemanSpiff 09:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I am sure you will either find that, or a very enthusiastic fan, that has no regard for policies and guidelines, and I don't think either an asset to Wikipedia. One problem I have with the hundreds of edits is that I am almost certain they will be found to not have contributed to source or references, since that is almost impossible to find without looking at a primary source. I actually can't see an end result difference between fan base mass article creations and paid advertising article creation. They both end up adding articles that 10 years from now will far more likely than not end up the same as when created.

I think that I am going to step back from being involved in these type articles. They have a large fan-base and I see too many primary, non-sourced, or severely under sourced micro-BLP's being nudged through, as well as editors seeking cleanup being attacked as being biased against pageants. I have successfully "battled" (I feel) in at least 3 areas where I think these "battles" have resulted in vast improvements to Wikipedia. I would use another word, but that is appropriate in the instances I was involved in, and I don't think I am up for this one. I will just have to accept that we might just need articles on everything, especially after running across List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair, the single sourced spin-off; List of Prime Ministers of Australia with facial hair, and future additional spin-off's this slippery slope is heading us. We will likely have articles on city pageants in the future anyway. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 10:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I happen to think that the user is a sockpuppet. The problem is, I don't know who they're a sockpuppet of, because there are apparently numerous rings involved in beauty pageant editing. I thought I was on the right track with AnnLivinova, but the accounts are all stale and the CU declined to look.

• CyberBrinda's account was created 24 June 2016. By 1 July 2016, Miss Supernational was created, apparently as a way to circumvent the salting of Miss Supranational. The salted Supranational article was created several times, and included edits by socks of AnnLivinova and Mrdhimas.
• There are significant competence issues going on here as well, like here where CyberBrinda bizarrely used a link to a directory entry for Elle MacPherson in an article on someone who is not Elle MacPherson. When I brought it up, the user blanked the page with no response.
• In these edits the user added a birthdate for a living person, supported by a blog. When I notified the user about our blog and BLP concerns, they were apparently ignored, and 20 hours later, CyberBrinda used a poorly-constructed baby name website to assert a claim that Rashi Yadav practices Hinduism. What? Based on her name? When I brought this issue up, CyberBrinda removed it with no comment. She then removed my notice that we do not use blogs, and that BLPs must be impeccably sourced.
• The user also kept irritatingly refactoring another user's comment, apparently removing the criticism, while retaining the greeting. I blocked them for this after they did it repeatedly. The criticism was in response to straight-up vandalism committed by CyberBrinda.
• There were also a spate of AfD template removals by CyberBrinda.[95][96]
• The user was admonished by Little Will for copy/pasting references into other articles without verifying that the links worked. Brinda had added deadlinks and months-old accessdates, which heavily implied that they were not being checked. Sloppy.
• And once again in this edit, Brinda adds a specific birthdate for Priyadarshini Chatterjee using this source, which doesn't seem to say anything other than that the subject was 19 at the time the article was written. It seems to me that CyberBrinda either doesn't understand our BLP concerns, or they simply don't care. Neither scenario is acceptable.
• There are other indicators of oddities. Here, where Brinda admonished a user not to be a "serial deletionist". Where did they get that phrasing from? It took them two tries. I'd argue that only cynical Wikipedians, sockmasters, and meatpuppets being coached by sockmasters would use that sort of phrasing.

Anyhow, there are numerous problems surrounding this user. The fact that they decided early on that they weren't going to respond to corrections makes it difficult to deal with them constructively. The increasing victim's mentality is counterproductive as well: "I don't need any negativities in my life." "Why are they doing this to me!?" "Because that is what you are capable of....blackmail" Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comments; We can only extend being nice to the newby so far or giving generous allowances for gross ignorance. User JamesBWatson added back the external link tag with the summary "Restoring removed tag. It has nothing to do with copyright" and it was taken out again with the same summary "The external links does not violate any of the Wikipedia's policies.". Apparently she also blanked out a warning he placed on her talk page. I undid her removal of the tag. I am now requesting an indefinite block because even "if" this editor is not a sock there can be no doubt the evidence is clear this single purpose account is not here to build an encyclopedia. I also think CU should have taken a look because such disregard can only mean an editor does not worry about being blocked or banned. He or she will just start with another account or just use another one already in existence. I do hope someone can look into this. An editor that does not respect the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, nor editors and admins, to the point of blatantly ignoring them, and just as blatantly continuing his or her own agenda, is a detriment to this encyclopedia. I suppose I will have to remain in this as these pageant articles and pageant related BLP's are horrendous examples of things Wikipedia should not be or have included. Otr500 (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I've given a final warning. This has gone on long enough, any further disruption of any kind should result in an indefinite block. —SpacemanSpiff 03:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit-war with jytdog over Teledermatology

• Teledermatology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm trying to update the teledermatology page to include two recent (2013 and 2015) studies around efficacy of teledermatology. Editor jytdog has rejected these edits without explanation. I have included the links to the peer-reviewed journal publications on the talk page: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23785643 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24923283 — Preceding unsigned comment added by YungCoconut (talk • contribs) 04:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @YungCoconut: This appears to be a premature escalation. It's normal to give it much more than a few hours on the article's talk page before escalating to AN/I (and WP:DRN would be a more normal escalation path for a simple content dispute, or WP:RSN for issues with sources), unless there's already a reasonably serious incident. Personally, I'd have used {{uw-ewsoft}} for a new user, rather than {{uw-3rr}}, but regardless of that, you need to use the talk page and allow time for discussion as the first step in these situations. See also: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Murph9000 (talk) 05:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@YungCoconut: Also, it is not true that Jytdog reverted without explanation. Both his edit summaries have clear pointers to WP:MEDRS. Please carefully read the second paragraph which starts with, "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Just to point out, being on Pubmed is *not* an indication of reliability. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Pubmed aside, being published in Dermatology Practical & Conceptual and Acta Dermato-Venereologica, which are peer-reviewed journals with academic editorial boards, should be a sign of reliability per WP:MEDRS. De728631 (talk) 10:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    • From looking at the study, it looks like a specific application of a commercial device? Which I assume is why Jytdog prompted for a review rather than a single study. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Yes, Softlavender has raised the same issue at the article talk. De728631 (talk) 11:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Both should be trouted, at least, for edit warring. Jytdog especially, should be following the advice s/he throws at others, not to edit war. Both reverted at least twice, contrary to WP:EW.--Elvey^(t•c) 02:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Seeing that comment from an editor who only made the edit warring problem worse with their own edit warring, that sounds rather silly. The expectation should have been that after Jytdog's first revert, editors who wanted to justify inclusion needed to gain consensus for it on the talk page. I'd give YungCoconut leeway here for this incident being a new editor, but Elvey should have known better than to jump in antagonizing the situation and come back here asking for a trout. That sounds like attempted WP:HOUNDING or WP:BAITING to me.

There’s not much more Jytdog could have done differently in the face of two editors trying to reinsert disputed content without gaining talk page consensus, though this does seem to suggest more eyes are needed on Elvey’s behavior considering they’ve previously been sanctioned and has a history hounding editors.[97][98] Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Request

This is a relatively urgent request to have all restrictions removed. Almost all of my time on Wikipedia is now spent on making charts as my primary username but I can not add them to Wikipedia without logging out and can not add them to any semi-protected article. I just did three charts for maternal fatality and would like to add them using my primary username but can not do that. Nor do I wish to wait six months to ask for this restriction to be removed. When it was brought up there was no decision and it was archived as a stale discussion. I still am only about half way caught up on all the things I noticed when I was blocked, and some of them involve each of the restrictions I am under and each means that I can nor make a productive contribution because of that and I have no interest in invoking IAR and making the edits anyway. I follow all the rules and always have. I was away for six months during which I continued to contribute to other projects and never once violated the block thus qualifying me for a standard offer which I am requesting. As soon as this is approved I will put one or more of these three charts into one or more articles. I have a backlog of over 6,000 SVGs to work on and another 6,000 or more waiting for translations, so I am never going to run out of the graphics I am working on (so far I have done over 1,500) and have no time for wiki drama. But I would like to be able to use the work that I am creating. After all, a picture is worth 1,000 words. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Could you link to your restrictions? I'm not sure what you are requesting to have removed. Also, the way you have phrased this request implies that you have secondary accounts and that you log out to evade the restrictions. Could you clarify that?--Atlan (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe from this and the previous discussion that Apteva's work on charts invokes some of the issues related to his MOS ban. Tables/charts etc often require *specific* formatting which may conflict with other formatting used in the article hence the request to remove the restrictions. He is not saying he has been logging out, he is saying in order to put the material in he would need to log out and edit as an IP, and that even if he did, he wouldnt be able to make changes to semi-protected articles - he clarifies this when he says he has no wish to IAR and do it anyway. So currently his restrictions prevent him from making useful changes - the only way to make said changes would be to break the rules, and he doesnt want to break the rules. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

See WP:AN January 2013, including the "Proposal to restrict Apteva to one account" subsection. I think more information is needed before anything can be considered, despite the fact that Apteva has done good work at Commons and has been editing well here for over a year ago, I think. Johnuniq (talk) 08:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Atlan: Ctrl+F WP:RESTRICT for "Apteva"; it's not clear if they are currently violating the restriction to one appeal every six months. I think if they let an appeal get archived wihout a proper close and didn't immediately request a proper close, then they should be blocked unless there was clear consensus to remove the restrictions.It is not at all clear to me what they want to do, what they are restricted from doing, or what the relationship between these two might be, though. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Apteva's restrictions are logged at WP:Editing restrictions. His last appeal was in April of this year, which is give or take a day, 5 months ago, and that appeal was indeed archived with no resolution (I commented on it and almost no one else did). In fairness I do not think an archived request that was not closed should count towards his 6 months limit, if you are appealing a restriction you should get a clear yes/no answer. However my comment still stands - I do not think lifting restrictions from someone that were put in place specifically to prevent them making certain edits, so they can continue to make those edits is a good idea. Saying that, it has been awhile, so maybe its time to see if they can work in the area without conflict. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't really think about that. I don't really understand the urgency of re-appealing five months after the last appeal was archived without result and risking a block for the possibility of getting the sanctions lifted one month sooner, and I would probably take the burden on myself to request a close if my appeal got archived without result, but you're right that it probably shouldn't count. Stricken. I would say remove the restrictions; they've certainly done their time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Except for the one-account restriction. A thorough explanation is needed for all use of alternate accounts, and since the vast majority of Wikipedians are already under a (de facto) similar restriction -- the policy called WP:SOCK -- explicitly allowing the use of alternate accounts should only be done if it is made clear why such an allowance is being requested. The above request ... doesn't look clear to me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

See my reply to Atlan. Its just the odd way he has phrased his request. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I remember having a few head bumps on Apteva's page around the time their sanctions and block were put in place. WP:RESTRICT doesn't log any charts restrictions for Apteva, so how is this actually a violation. Or am I missing a few things here? Blackmane (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

To answer the immediately preceding question, early on I was doing charts as one user name and inserting them into the article under a different name (one name on commons one on enwiki) and got yelled at for being a sock even though the sole reason for the second name was to have one to use for editing and another to use after I became an admin and for articles that I could not use the other name for. All very complicated but all quite simple. Unless anything has changed in the last five years other than that now all new accounts are SUL, my recollection is that if I take a photo of a house across the street I am allowed to put it into an article under a non-linked different username, that if I am working on an article that I would get fired if my boss found me doing it, etc. ditto. Almost all of my work is creating graphics under my primary user name, and I just uploaded three, that one at least would be extremely useful for the article on that subject and I am waiting with baited breath to be able to link it under my primary username. I would prefer but will defer if needed to continue editing the 150 solar articles under this user name just for the purpose of continuity. I am more than willing to follow all rules and only have one of own, Anonymity. That one is non-negotiable, and I am 100% certain, permitted, on this platform. I simply would not have any interest in contributing anything ever if it could not be done under that one and only one condition. If you look at all of the solar edits I have done from day one you will see they were all done under this username even if I was inserting a chart that was done with the commons name. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Correction. I have done 45 charts using this username and about 1800 under my primary username. Just guessing I would say I have about 20,000 edits, 2/3 on this username (13,900 and 10,360 under my primary username), as I was trying to "run up" the edit count to get to 5,000 so I could do an RFA. Apteva (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. Why is a different, anonymous user name any more private than the "Apteva" anonymous user name? Why would you want a separate user name for "becoming an admin"? (I did read this, but I'm afraid it didn't help me to understand, sorry). -- Begoon 03:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Really the only thing that you would need to read is WP:VALIDALT. I am not asking for anything more or less than what the consensus of the community has determined are legitimate uses of alternative accounts. My opinion would only be an issue if I had a different idea than what is written there and I do not. But it is my contention that it would be trivial to look through 30,000 edits and figure out a huge volume about that person and quite possibly identify them, out them, but that is totally prohibited and has already caused us to lose at least one good editor that I know of, and perhaps more. One way of making that less likely would be to avoid editing anything that would immediately identify your country, your city, your street, or your house. After I became an admin some of my edits would be as an admin and some as an editor, and as many admins did at the time at least, I have no idea of today, a separate account was used when you were in a public place and could not log in but wanted to sort categories write articles, just do ordinary tasks. But that was a long time ago and that may have changed completely. I do know that now we have a serious problem promoting admins, but I do not know how many of the current admins are using alternative accounts. Anyway, read up on WP:VALIDALT to see all the ways that I would not just want to but need to use an alternative account. Basically I want all restrictions removed so that I can do the exact same things, no more, and no less, than anyone signing up to make their first edit today. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 05:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The above seems to be in order. I support removing all restrictions. I would, however, strongly urge Apteva to put more effort into considering how his comments will be read by other users. The above "the sole reason for the second name was to have one to use for editing and another [...] for articles that I could not use the other name for" very much looks like "for articles that I am not allowed edit per my restrictions". Requests for removal of restrictions should not require very careful reading and interpretation. But that's a minor issue; I still say remove the restrictions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't be averse to the removal of the restrictions provided some disclosure linking the 2 accounts was made to Arbcom. All of them are CheckUsers anyway so it wouldn't be out of their ability to link your accounts, although that would be a gross breach of policy if there was no reason to do so. Unfortunately, if someday Apteva were to become an admin, I believe there must be public disclosure of alt accounts. (Any admin may correct me here). Blackmane (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I obviously have no objection to notifying Arbcom, and you are right that fishing expeditions and idle curiosity are forbidden. WP:AGF my intentions are and always have been only in the best interest of WP. Obviously as an admin you do not need to publicly reveal the accounts that you will use for privacy reasons. That would not work and if policy says you do that policy may need to be corrected. Apteva (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you confirm that you would adhere to the prohibitions at WP:ILLEGIT in your use of an undisclosed alternative account, specifically the prohibitions from: Editing project space, Circumventing policies or sanctions, Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts, Avoiding scrutiny? Have you adhered to these conditions and prohibitions in your prior use of undisclosed alternative account(s)? -- Begoon 04:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I can categorically confirm that I will always adhere to all policies and guidelines, and out of 30,000 edits (give or take) I can only recall one violation and that was very early on before I knew about 3RR and an explanation would have worked far better than a block. Everything else has just been absurd wikidrama like below which I have neither the time nor interest in. I am her to build an encyclopedia and nothing else. You can either help me or I have no clue why you even have a user account. Apteva (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I don't want to misunderstand what you are saying, so let me ask directly: Are you therefore of the opinion that your blocks for disruption were not the result of your violation of any policy or guideline, such as, say WP:DISRUPT? I ask because how you view what happened in the past could be indicative of what may happen in the future, if restrictions are removed. I haven't decided whether I can support this yet, so your responses are helpful. I lean towards support, but I remember the events clearly, and still have lingering concerns. -- Begoon 09:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Please understand that you could not get me into an argument if you dragged me there. Too much work to do. I have a backlog of thousands of graphics to do and have no time for discussion. My intent is not to read this but to make an edit as soon as the restrictions are lifted. Sanctions are trivial to impose and with lees than a minutes discussion can be reimposed if there was any hint of the tireless, dogged war I pursued in the past to change the MOS to what it became anyway! Hows that for being right? Right now I just don't care about anything other than creating another useful graphic and offering it. If anyone wants to change anything, the furthest I will go is leave a comment on the talk page and let future generations sort it out. I am proud of the 1800 graphics I have done. One that I am working on now is being translated into 80 to 90 languages, meaning it will be available in native language for that many different wikis. That is far more important than discussing whether there should be a comma after Atlanta! Apteva (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose Ban is a few years old. I was going to vote to support, but looking at the enormous amount of discussion and hands thrown up in frustration pre-topic ban I found here alone, I vote no. The lack of clarity in the request doesn't give me confidence either, so I won't support a reduction in the topic ban to allow editing but not policy discussion. Perhaps closer Seraphimblade has something to say? --Elvey^(t•c) 02:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Please I implore you to amend or withdraw this. There is one and only one reason for making this request now. To put a chart into an article. Surely you can see the value of having me do it using the username that uploaded that chart? Apteva (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The simple fact is that I don't even use this account any more other than to occasionally update the solar articles. All of the rest of the time I am on commons on my primary account creating charts which then get put into articles, but mostly are just available for articles or are already in articles. I would guess there are 500 to 1000 that get updated monthly or annually as new data becomes available, like ones showing unemployment, and the only time an article needs to be edited is to say the date range of the chart has changed in the caption. I will never run out of work creating and translating charts and that is where almost all of my time is spent. I just want to be able to use them too. Why is that such a strange request? Apteva (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

My only comment is that I closed the previous discussion based upon the consensus of the community that the restriction was necessary at that time. If it is now the community's view that it is no longer necessary, it should be lifted; conversely, if there is not a community consensus to lift it, it should remain in effect. The restriction is a community sanction, not something I came up with on my own. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I suggest removing all sanctions, and that if anyone sees any hint of anything even questionable discussion here be capped to no more than two responses or ten minutes whichever comes first and one vote of support before closing the discussion and reimposing whichever portion is suggested. I will be marking this account "Not currently in use. Please contact me on commons." And not be using it for at least the rest of this year. I don't have time for controversy, and will avoid it like the plague, as I have an encyclopedia to work on that desperately needs help. You can't even look up the income in Florida without finding that the numbers have been vandalized and the page marked disputed. I will fix it but that takes time and effort. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

The back and forth has lasted a couple days and may result in some confusion or perhaps inevitable talking over one another. So in the interests of clarity, I'm posting this for consideration. Does the community support/oppose the lifting of all restrictions that are currently active on Apteva? As far as I understand, the current restrictions are

Apteva's active restrictions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Apteva is only to edit using one account Apteva is topic banned indefinitely from modifying or discussing the use of dashes, hyphens, or similar types of punctuation, broadly construed, including but not limited to at the manual of style and any requested move discussion, and from advocating against the MOS being applicable to article titles Apteva is topic banned from proposing the removal of his existing restrictions, at any Wikipedia venue, until 31st January 2014, and is limited to one appeal every six months after that

!Voters are, naturally, free to choose whether they support the lifting of particular restrictions instead of all of them, as they desire. Blackmane (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Editor rapidly making pov changes to Bulgarian related articles without discussion

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

Despite my earlier warnings, Anngelo (talk · contribs) is rapidly making changes to a series of articles. Not only are these major changes (the editor seems to be anti-Turkic), including changes of sourced text, he's changing spellings, breaking templates, etc. I think there's a WP:CIR problem here as well as the pov issue. Doug Weller talk 08:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked for a short time (12 hours) to get their attention, and a warning given about future editing. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I think you caught him just at the end of his editing cycle, given yesterday's edits, but he'll see the block notice. I've also posted to him about changing quotations (which he's done to match his pov). Doug Weller talk 11:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    • He's back @Black Kite:. Both User:Crovata and User:David.moreno72 have reverted him today and User:Chewings72 has warned him to no effect. Doug Weller talk 12:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Anngelo (talk · contribs) has now been blocked 48 hours for vandalism by User:Widr. EdJohnston (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Call for topic ban or indefinite block for racial insult

I've already noted that this editor is anti-Turk. Now I find that he's changed "Turk or Turks most often refers to" to "Turk or Turks most often refers to taking up the asshole" [99]. Doug Weller talk 14:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The editor is not only anti-Turk, but anti-logic. Did not do one constructive edit. There is material for indefinite block, the community could wait the expiration time of the current block, but if such disruptive edits continue then there's no good from waiting, it's a waste of time and energy.--Crovata (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Someone needs a little explaining. That could never be called a constructive edit. WP is not a blog, it is an encyclopedia. Apparently they do not see the difference, and simply need to be educated. If they are unable to constructively edit anything a block is needed but if they are only unglued in one topic area, that calls for a topic block only. I see our job though, not as one of weeding out bad editors, but making everyone into a good editor. Apteva (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

This is an openly racist editor - we should have no tolerance for such editors, not try to talk them out of being racist. Doug Weller talk 07:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:!HERE Meters (talk) 07:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

What does it for me is that Anngelo has made no effort to communicate with other editors in any fashion. No matter what his motives, that lack of communication plus his behavior should equal an indefinite block. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Someguy. Obvious nationalist is obvious. That plus the racism and vandalism is indefinite block material. Blackmane (talk) 08:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• I feel pretty confident that it's safe to interpret the Arbcom decisions regarding Eastern Europe and the Balkans in such a way that we could enforce a discretionary sanctions topic ban on Anngelo from any page relating to Bulgaria or the Turkish peoples, broadly construed. However, his contributions lead me to believe that if he is topic banned, he'd either immediately violate said ban (which I'd respond to with an indefinite block), try to sockpuppet around it (if he is not already a sock of some other blocked crank), or never log back in. In the first two cases, the only practical difference between that and indeffing him now would be a little extra WP:ROPE. In the last case... It's really kinda hair-splitting since he wouldn't be editing anyway. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Though, since I've just had to notify him of those sanctions, that does mean that I can't just throw the topic ban at him just yet... This'll still work as a safety net if we don't arrive at a community topic ban (or indef block) here. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban and/or indef block - Indefinite blocks are not necessarily permanent. If he wants to start talking and agrees to a voluntary topic ban from all pages concerning Bulgaria or Turkish peoples, then we can give him more WP:ROPE. Were it not for Apteva's arguments (which I agree with the broader principle of, though not this particular application), I'd've called a WP:SNOW consensus and indeffed Anngelo already. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban (voluntary is fine), oppose indef, as they are synonymous, as said editor has as I see it only edited that area, and we are losing editors at an alarming rate, and need to be more helpful at turning bad editors into good ones. We used to have 5,000 active editors and are down to 3,000 instead of the 10,000 we need. Please note on user talk page "Any edit on any Bulgaria or Turkish peoples page other than the talk page will bring an immediate and undiscussed indef block." Apteva (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support indef block and/or topic ban It's clear that he will probably not be a constructive contributor. Indef might be needed here, but we can take a chance on it, if he keeps editing disruptively, he'll get blocked anyway. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Firejally

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

---

• Firejally (talk · contribs)

Warnings given:

• [100]
• [101]

This user has been making unconstructive edits over at List of Naruto characters. Looking at their history (User talk:Firejally), it looks like the user has had problems with this article in particular. Efforts have been made here [102], here [103], and here [104] but the user refuses discussion regarding adding mass content. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Persistent addition of unsourced content

GTVM92 (talk · contribs), who has been banned for "Persistent addition of unsourced content" three times before, despite numerous warnings is still keen to do so in his recent edits. Please consider 1, 2 and 3 as examples for recent activity. Pahlevun (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You're supposed to notify the editor. I did so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

About this, I can said if you are living in Iran, you should know that which party won that election and their leader was who. I don't add references about election of a party's leader in 1990's to the page! I only edit inbox like what I see in results section of English and Persian articles. But about it, I add the leaders that you said in the list's main article that they were the list's leaders in that election. Please see your edits in the main articles! This change has made after a high ranking of party (Shajoni) said the news. I add the reference when I changed the name and also to the main chapters of article. As you see: "In 2016, the association removed "Combatant" from it's name." GTVM92 (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not talking a content dispute. Here, the user clearly manipulates the numbers. In this version, the results are given from three different sources. (Nohlen et al, IPU, Abrahamian) None of them cites Executives of Construction Party. He did add them with 47 seats and changed sourced material (Nohlen et al). Pahlevun (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Legal threats at Talk:Nawab of Kalabagh

An outright legal threat was issued. Consequently the user was blocked indefinitely. De728631 (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Legal threats at Talk:Nawab of Kalabagh. I will now go ahead and notify the offending user. Safiel (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, never mind, went to his talk page to place the notice and he has already been blocked. Safiel (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Possible legal threat in edit summary on edit to The Hillbilly Way

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

---

The Hillbilly Way (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

During recent changes patrolling, I ran into an edit by User:207.58.228.234 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) containing the following edit summary:

The Hillbilly Way is infringing trademark policies by using the name Povertyneck Hillbillies in any capacity. They do not, nor have the ever owned the trademark and have been served a cease and desist about the matter.

Do we treat this as a legal threat? Should the IP responsible for the edit be blocked? —bwDraco^{talk/contribs} 15:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• I think the edit summary reflected a legal dispute involving the subject of the article and was not directed as a threat to Wikipedia or any editor. That said the edit was certainly disruptive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• I was about to say essentially the exact same thing. Someguy1221 (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Given that, I think the user should be directed to dispute resolution. I've already reverted the edit and placed a warning on the user's page, which I will allow to stand. Most likely, the IP should not be blocked at this point. —bwDraco^{talk/contribs} 15:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I don't think this is an explicit legal threat. It's a statement that the band was served a cease and desist letter, but it's not the same as "editor X at Wikipedia, you will be sued for cease and desist if you keep reinstating this paragraph". De728631 (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure a level 4 warning for making legal threats is appropriate in this case. I'd remove it and post a level 2 for disruptive editing or something more in tune with what actually happened. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Template changed. This was a hard one for me to interpret, hence the discussion here. Thanks, folks. —bwDraco^{talk/contribs} 16:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruption, personal attack, incivility by user RealityCheckTime

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

---

User:RealityCheckTime arrived at Shooting of Keith Lamont Scott on 25 September, the same day they registered that username. They have been a disruptive force for most of that time, repeatedly violating the policy WP:BATTLEGROUND and the guideline WP:AGF. They have made strong accusations of POV-pushing against me without evidence or support from others. Their tone has deteriorated to the point of "horseshit" and "fuck off" to a third editor. The username alone implies that they feel they have a corner on Truth. A temporary block would be preventative.

RCT started out somewhat reasonable, arguing the content not the editor,[105], and I conceded to their argument on one issue.[106] They chose to take an aggressive stance against a relatively innocuous WP:NOTFORUM violation, removing it after two editors had replied without removing it.[107] But their tone changed when they failed to immediately sway other editors to their view on a larger content issue, that of whether the article should include past criminal history of the deceased. At this point they started seeing POV-pushing in everyone who differed with their viewpoint, and the discussion began to fall apart as a result.[108] They said I was trying to "paint a rosy picture" of the deceased, failing to see that my approach could not be more neutral. This shows that they are unable or unwilling to evaluate opposing arguments fairly. They refactored without an edit summary, moving another editor's comment, showing a shortage of respect for WP:TPG.[109] My comments were "unabashed bullsh*tting" and "plainly nonsensical", and "demanding edits contrary to policy" (I "demanded" nothing).[110] This comment speaks for itself.[111], as does this one.[112]

I doubt I am the only editor present who would like to see this user removed from the scene so we can continue the business of collaborative editing of this article. I think any fair look at the article will show that we are doing a fairly good job on neutrality without this user's assistance. We may decide to include past history, possibly requiring an RfC, but RCT's involvement is not helping us with that decision. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I am not seeing evidence on RealityCheckTime's talk page of any discussion regarding this issue. No notes or even a single formal warning. I am not making any judgements on what is going on here. But I will point out that with rare exceptions ANI should not be the first stop in dispute resolution. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  I addressed that in the AT discussion thread,[113][114] so it's not like RCT was unaware there was a behavior issue. I apologize for failing to lay the proper bureaucratic groundwork for an ANI complaint that I didn't expect to file. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Obvious SPA (and a PRECOCIOUS one at that) here to fix the truth. This is unacceptable. Obvious agenda here. Battlegound here. The ratio of positive contributions to disruptive POV pushing is far too low to tolerate this. @Ad Orientem: No one is required to waste their time trying to reform an editor who is obviously NOTHERE to help us build an encyclopedia.- MrX 17:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Lol didn't even know they deleted my comment. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Wow, the diffs MrX posted are pretty egregious. The user is probably not a first-time editor, given the conduct and clear familiarity with wiki-customs. I would support a block, probably even an indef block on NOTHERE grounds, unless and until the editor makes a clear, public statement that he understands the problem and will avoid repeating it in the future. Neutrality^talk 17:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• RealityCheckTime has been made aware of discretionary sanctions. Let's see if their behavior improves. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• I've been here eight years have participated in a more than a few "hot topic" articles and have rarely dealt with an editor that is so immediately aggressive and nasty. 10 minutes after he joined the article and he tells me my participation is pointless and against the rules. Any discussion on his talk page would have been a waste of precious time. I've learned not to get involved with editors of that ilk. Buster Seven Talk 18:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• Suggest the username is probably indicative of attitude towards the 'project'- any more questions needed?! _Muffled ^Pocketed 19:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• WP:BITE may apply unless someone actually files a valid SPI. 25 total edits is not exactly a lot of them. NeilN is reasonable here. Collect (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• A "new" editor that uses the {{od}} tag, the phrase "crystal balling", "WP:UNDUE", "WP:V" and "RS" for reliable sources in their first hour? I'd like to think you're being generous, but the reality is you're being naive. Black Kite (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Agree I see the BISH is, like The wolf, on the mother. _Muffled ^Pocketed 20:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

This loudly quacking sock on the floor is quick alarming. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm too lazy to file an SPI right now, but my money is on this user being a sock of Factchecker atyourservice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) based on style and FCAYS' contributions at talk:Shooting of Michael Brown.- MrX 21:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Sock of whom? Note that the person has made precisely zero edits to any article and thus is not a huge problem.

Also note that "outdent" ("od") is not unique to WP (several hundred systems use such an outdent command), and "crystal balling" is a common enough real-world phrase http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/crystal-balling etc. RS is, indeed, used by relatively new users, and there is no reason to assume this person was not an IP editor before. "UNDUE" is used by this new user - referring to its use thrice before in the same talk page. As is "reliable source".

I may be naïve, but I take the principles here quite seriously, and I do not see any reason to stomp on this account since it has received the official warning post. See if it continues to offend. File an actual SPI. Collect (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion a good-faith prior IP would be willing to disclose their prior IP address(es), even if they have to disclose the current IP address privately to some "trusted authority". In any case, socking is not the only issue here by any means. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, how many people who have done extensive anon editing could really provide a list of their previous IPs? I couldn't. TimothyJosephWood 21:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I could pretty easily get mine for, say, the past year by checking out the page histories of articles and other pages I remember editing. I would recognize at least some of my edit summaries (and edits) there. And this would be a trivial matter for the current IP address.
I once edited logged out for a short time. I have just spent 5 minutes of research to determine that my IP address, now changed, was: 72.198.26.61. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I have made it a practice to leave any situation where Editor Collect appears. I have had my say. Buster Seven Talk 22:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Collect: Late reply, but I think MrX is likely correct here given the topic, nature of comments, and username. I get that WP:HUMAN applies to IP editors and to AGF of new accounts, but even then, the behavior is a problem. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Calling other editors racist in an effort to bully them into walking away from a content dispute is among the worst behavior I can imagine on Wikipedia; far, far worse than some salty language or curt dismissal of "arguments" that are clearly not based on Wikipedia policies.

I won't repeat the salty language, but can I also expect that such baseless character insults will cease? More generally, is it really the case that all are welcome to edit WP, or are the doors only open to people holding specific niche views that aren't widely circulated in RS's?

That said, I'm now going to re-revert EvergreenFir's comment attempting to promote a conspiracy theory on the talk page, because it's still an abuse of the talk page. RealityCheckTime (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

At this point I am convinced that you are making up policies and guidelines. Please show me on WP:TPG where so-called conspiracy theories is against the rules. I sense WP:NOTHERE based on removal of a comment, which I am also sensing a WP:OWN situation. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 14:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Clear WP:OWN, no "sensing" required. To my mind, a user who believes that an article is being dominated by editors on one side of an issue, who lack the competence and integrity to control their bias, has four options. 1. Take the issue to a higher court, with evidence of this improper collective WP:OWN. I don't know what court that would be, but I have no doubt one exists. 2. Take the issue to WP:NPOVN and get uninvolved input. 3. Open one or more RfCs and get uninvolved input, without abusing that process. 4. Give up and move on.
Persistent righteous disruption can never be an option, and it should not be tolerated. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I was "this" close to warning them about ownership, but refrained from doing so since somebody already warned them about disruptive editing. For me, the best option is #5: blocking the user per WP:NOTHERE, WP:OWN and WP:DE. RealityCheckTime is in desperate need of reality checking thesemlves. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 15:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

RealityCheckTime, I see the comment has been restored and you have been warned. Let me reinforce those warnings - touch another editor's comment again and you will be blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

If you do in fact end up blocking him for x reasons, I just want to say muchas gracias in advance. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 15:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Spshu

Recently, I have looked over the scenario at Defunct Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States, and I am concerned. Spshu violated WP:3RR by reverting an edit made by Frietjes to his preferred revision. This wouldn't be a major problem if it wasn't for the fact that he has already been blocked seven times for edit warring. This incident just shows that he possibly has no intention of changing.

And while discussion is under way at Talk:Defunct Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States#IBID-type citations, Spshu has been retaliatory and a tad hostile throughout most of it.

Spshu has been around for almost ten years, which is long enough for him to understand that this kind of behavior in not acceptable. Please discuss and see what action needs to be taken. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 18:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

This might be better addressed at WP:AN3.--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Already address there: existing AN3 report with a page block. Electricburst1996 is not happy with the administrator's decision to the point of question their judgement. --Spshu (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I had the option of blocking both editors or protecting the page. If both are blocked then there is no way the problem is going to get solved. If the page is protected then at least they have an opportunity for discussion. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Boomerang for Hounding by Electricburst1996

Electricburst1996 has been warned about harassing/hounding me over my block log, which all of which can be explained. He has been retaliatory about every encounter with me. He has reverted posts at AIV and talk page discussions. The first time he got me block by removing talk page discussion and not allow point that out in my defense. He then demanded an indefinite block while I was serving that block, which boomeranged on him. He purposefully started an edit war on a page that I went to get away from him, reports the matter to AIV], suppressed posts there ([115] [116]) then turned down & reveled that he did not like that I force him to discuss matters which lead no where as he won't. One administrator stated that disturbed him regarding the removal of my AIV posts. (" I don't like the pattern of removal of comments at WP:AIV by Electricburst1996.") Another administrator stated that it disturbed them that Electricburst1996 purposefully force that edit war to expressly to get me indefinitely block ("Unlike the others who were pinged, I have a rather good idea why I was chosen, and I'm not happy about it. I'm particularly concerned about this. Expecting to be blocked for one's own conduct in the hopes that the other party gets indeffed? Seriously? Electricburst1996 should re-think their approach to collaborative editing. Huon (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC) " revealed), but he continues to just pop in to issues that the only interest is to stir up other editors against me (like during this current issue)] or file 3RR reports. Canvassing for votes to get me banned (Signal_boost, [117]). If you want more, I can dig more up. I would have provided diffs but given all the moves to archive of some of the above. Also, I just want to give you a taste of what he is up to as far as hounding me as it would be just about a week by week action report. And given an admin to shoot first then not question later. Spshu (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I... have no words for this. How are you making yourself look better by bringing all this up? First, make a case as to why you SHOULDN'T be blocked, THEN make a case against me. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 19:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

No, we do not operate on the principle of "guilty until proven innocent", and it's never appropriate to make a comment like make a case as to why you SHOULDN'T be blocked. Without even looking at this dispute—although if it's only in relation to a single page, I don't see why you think protection doesn't address the issue—if I see one more crack like that out of Electricburst1996 there will be a boomerang headed your way. ANI is a dispute resolution forum, not a mechanism to punish people whom you don't feel WP:AN3 is treating harshly enough. ‑ Iridescent 20:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Would long-term behavioral issues fall under ANI? Just wanted to know before I decide to withdraw. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 20:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Possibly, depending on the circumstances, but you've given no indication of one existing. Content disputes definitely do not fall into the ANI remit, and edit-warring comes under WP:AN3 except under exceptional circumstances. To be frank, this looks suspiciously like you running to the other parent because AN3 didn't give you the answer you wanted to hear. ‑ Iridescent 20:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Well, let's say an editor who's been around for ten years doesn't have a particularly clean track record for edit warring that spans a few years (let's say three or four). What kind of standard should they be held up to? ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 20:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

To exactly the same standard as every other editor—a block log is not the Mark of Cain. Either someone is problematic or they aren't. Since the page in question was protected, has Spshu edited problematically in any way? Unless your answer to that is "yes" and you have diffs to back it up, I strongly suggest you drop the stick. ‑ Iridescent 20:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Well, he has refused to own up to the fact that he violated WP:TPO by editing another user's discussion comment, and has made incendiary remarks about other editors. Would that count, or is it past the sell-by date? ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 20:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Electricburst already attempt to recruit the two other editors over these issues (and more editors over other issues). TPO was explained repeatedly to Eburst that the other editor had in effect edited my post (I quoted them) thus that editor should have properly refactored. Eburst then violates TPO and reverts when I edit my talk page section title over the issue. The other editor involved did not want to get involved when he previous pinged them when Eburt piggy back these complaints on another editor complaining over a good faith dispute then ping/canvassed those editors involved. Neither editor felt any interests in pursuing either issue; one ever considered disruptive. Spshu (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Iridescent: I also dug up these talk page comments he left:

• Removing warning against vandalism on your talk page, NeutralHomer; really rich when you have no clue. That is what Rollosmokes did when originally confronted with warnings against his vandalism of multiple pages while he entreated that the discussion should go to the TV Station project talk page. (Perhaps, you should read above what he had to say about that. And effectively YOU now.) Now the both of you refuse to acknowledge the discussion there that PTEN is a network. Spshu 15:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• No it does not. As per your article, Thomas did not open Kewpee's in 1923 and did not own that location until 1944 and was not Haloburger until 1967. All in your article. Each change is noted my version. Your are making a mountain out of a mole hill. In this case, Haloburger didn't come full formed as per your article; it was more evoluationary. I don't understand why in the world you don't understand your own article!!!! Spshu (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• At this point you are being disruptive and are causing the edit war to get your way. See Wikipedia:Overlink crisis as why not to have too much lapping navboxes (look for the "Morocco had gained 12 separate navboxes". Animated films are covered in another navbox and were link (as is Marvel Animation directly) to in the Marvel Films see also section in my edit. The animate film link takes them to Marvel Animation Section: Animated Marvel Features which has a list of the animated films and the article has the Marvel animated production navbox. Additional there will most likely more Marvel live action films and animated films. If you set such an overlap standard then "overlink crisis" will return. Thus my use of redunate as a reason to remove them. --Spshu (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• I end up having to beating the dead horse because fail to understand that this issue has been decided repeatly against your position and your continuing to edit war over the issue. Spshu (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• ←Where is your evidence that it still exists, King Shadeed? Your own "proof" is to latch on to two marketing executive titles and ignore the presents of two chairs for NBC Entertainment and NBC Broadcasting and that the page is for NBC ENTERTAINMENT not NBCU TV Group. Neither person's job description in their bio indicates that they jointly run NBCU TV Group but that they report directly to NBCU's CEO.Spshu (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Going about trying to eliminate articles you don't like, by turning them into redirect, and edit then to make it worse edit warring to try to get what you want, is rather wrong of you. You also tag articles that have references proving they are notable, with notability tags. Dream Focus 22:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• First, you are not assuming good faith nor have you read any of the discussion linked above nor can you prove that I don't like them. Prehaps, I like WP more and don't go around making WP what I want, but follow the guidelines. Also, it takes two to edit war. To a degree, it was a discussion taking place with the edit summaries. If you if looked at the edit summaries would show that the other party had no reason. Second, having references doesn't make them notable. The sources need be of significate coverage not routine coverage. I could launch an attack that you start articles that aren't notable, but I have not, instead I tag it as unnotable giving you a chance to make it notable or move it into a notable and related article. This is what I did with the Imprint article, create an article to hold this info until notable sources guidline is met. Would you preferred that I took your new article directly to deletion? Spshu (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• It is you who is edit warring as you have not waited for any other opinion. You were reversed for not doing so. You acknowledge that company do declare "new" companies that already exist. So once again, you are trying to blame me for your actions. Yup, you can have it your way. Spshu (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• So you demand that people address you with your full legal name, first middle and last name, every time they address you? But, you want to be addressed as Stereorock here, which is not your legal name. Why are you using that? WP:COMMONNAME is the key here. So, some how you are telling me you can not tell that the call signs refer to TV stations in a TV station article? Spshu (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• You think that AfD has any thing to do with hate Disney? Really? Did you dig up all the Disney article that I revamp from being nearly unsourced? Nope, because the AfD was all that you could come up with. What is in the TV Guide can preempted, so no that doesn't mean that they air nor any adding any references. Spshu (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
• Because you posted MY WARNING to you. That would look stupid for me to leave a notice from me to myself. You can see that you are just a name caller (a two year old activity) since I have left every 3RR notice that has been post to my talk page, EVEN ones that editors have posted falsely. You did not join the discussion open since 21:31, 15 March 2015, you ignored the edit summary directing you to the MOS, you ignored the link to Other Stuff before going over 3RR. Leaving the 3RR notice when you have done none of what the notice requires of you. So it even greater hypocrisy that you call me a vandal or a hypocrite. You are disruptive for disruption's sake. Spshu (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• You will cease leaving false warning on talk page. I will not be intimated by your miss use of warnings. Spshu (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Links provided for context, interpret however you want. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

So since every diff you've provided predates your AN3 request, your answer is in fact "no". We don't do punishments here; drop the stick. ‑ Iridescent 23:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

(adding) In fact, Electricburst1996, it appears that your last block for edit warring was less than two months ago. Do you really think "look at the block log to see how unreasonable this person is" is a game you want to be playing? ‑ Iridescent 20:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

That was the one I indicated that he reported me to AIV for, removed my post at AIV, did not discuss, ran to 3RR (after AIV did not work) expecting that he would get a block in an attempt to get me permanently blocked (complaining to the admin when he did not get that). Spshu (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Can this discussion be closed? ElectricBurst hasn't responded and it's just a drop-the-stick situation. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 15:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Requesting closure

Can we get this discussion closed? The situation has blown over, and there's no sense in taking action. Unless something more serious in nature crops up, we should put this report out of its misery. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 01:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

"Clash of Clefairies" vandal and harasser

Some of the IPs used by the vandal:

• 115.134.191.167
• 2001:E68:6C35:C600:7872:AEC4:7793:EEDF
• 113.210.182.162
• 2001:E68:6C0A:1200:1C39:9028:263B:D35C
• 2001:E68:6C0A:1200:E117:9A5C:9044:AF2
• 2001:E68:6C0A:1200:356F:DAA1:F2EC:7EED
• 2001:E68:6C35:C600:849A:7D46:FB98:31CE
• 113.210.77.55
• 2001:E68:6C35:C600:2128:DFAB:2567:D586
• 2001:E68:6C0A:1200:D81:16C0:405E:8E53
• 2001:E68:6C35:C600:8C42:B2EF:A8DD:C642
• 2001:E68:6C35:C600:C2E:312F:2583:85A9
• 2001:E68:6C33:2F00:D5E3:71D2:ACE1:A439
• 192.100.135.122
• 113.210.54.38
• 210.186.248.149
• 192.100.135.121
• 113.210.51.239
• 60.51.66.136
• 60.51.65.203

DISCLAIMER: My original thought was to open a WP:SOCK investigation, but the user discards their old IP addresses (so there's no point in blocking inactive IPs). We also already know that it's the same user (they have admitted it and have made no effort to hide it). This is not a complete list of the user's IPs. It is just enough for administrators to determine which IP ranges are problematic.

REPORT: This user has essentially been using multiple IP addresses to vandalise articles with nonsense pertaining to various video game phone apps, such as Clash of Clans and Clash Royale ([118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126]) and to harass users. Some examples of the user's harassment includes completely spamming Barek's Talk Page with vandalism ([127]), personal attacks ([128]), and even falsely accusing an innocent editor that doesn't use an account for being a known serial vandal ([129]).

DangerousJXD has the most experience with reverting and dealing with this vandal (though keep in mind that he has stated that he doesn't want to get too involved in administrative discussions such as this) and, as a result, the vandal seems to have placed much of their attention on him. The user has vandalised DangerousJXD's user page ([130]) and even spammed his Talk Page with unwanted messages and is reverting bots in an attempt to troll ([131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150]). The vandal also tried to post an out-of-context link to an old Sock investigation, in an attempt to make DangerousJXD look bad. I checked it. It was nothing; just an old accusation that was made on thin evidence and was quickly dismissed by administrators ([151], [152], [153], [154]). The user is also trying to make it sound like he wanted to be an innocent, good faith user until DangerousJXD apparently wronged him, causing him to become a vandal ([155]). A rather dubious story, if you ask me. DarkKnight2149 21:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Darkknight2149 - Looking now. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this is a case of IP hopping and trolling over ranges. However, most of the IPs seem to now be stale, and blocking them would be pointless. I'm looking into the articles being targeted and considering protection; this will probably be a better solution. Stand by. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I don't think the user's edits are confined to a set of specific articles. DarkKnight2149 18:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

They're not. The only page I protected due to the edits made by these IPs was someone's user page. The edits are clearly disruptive, but they're not occurring at a frequent enough rate for me to feel that any kind of range block would be appropriate; it would probably cause much more harm than good; it would block way more innocent people from editing than serving it's intended purpose. :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Someguy1221

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

---

Hi can Someguy1221 be blocked. (Redacted) but can he please be blocked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by My left hand (talk • contribs) 02:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Pinging User:Someguy1221 since he wasn't notified. Boomerang anyone? Meters (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Remarkable how Someguy1221 managed to fill a user's mailbox with messages in the nine minutes between the creation of the user's account and his posting here. Meters (talk) 02:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked, return appearance of banned user making more-or-less monthly visits to claim they've been threatened via email. I think they complained about me a couple of months ago. Acroterion (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Cut-and-paste moves and other disruption

A Malaysian IP editor has been disruptive for a long time about film titles. At first, the IP editor engaged in repeated copy-paste moves, mostly to The Howling: New Moon Rising (for example, [156], [157]). After I reverted those copy-paste moves four times, the editor finally started an requested move. It failed. Undeterred, the IP editor went through a bunch of articles and changed the name of the film in that article ([158]) and in a bunch of other articles ([159], [160], among others). Alright, somewhat disruptive, but not worth going to ANI. The truly disruptive behavior comes in the form of changing working links to redlinks: [161], [162], [163], [164]. After I fixed these links, the IP editor edit warred to change them back to broken redlinks: [165], [166]. Plus, the IP editor still seems to be engaging in cut-and-paste moves, as of a few days ago: [167] and [168]; [169] and [170]. There are probably more that I'm missing.

I'm not exactly sure to stop this editor from edit warring to reinstate broken links and making cut-and-paste moves, but these are the IP addresses I've encountered so far:

• 1.32.75.57 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - September 2
• 110.159.78.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - September 19
• 115.133.104.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - September 20
• 60.52.1.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - September 22
• 115.133.105.215 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - September 23
• 115.133.105.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - September 25
• 115.133.104.8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - September 26
• 60.50.134.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - September 26
• 60.50.202.222 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - September 27
• 115.133.111.192 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - September 28

This editor seems to be the most active, and perhaps the only active, editor on 115.133.0.0/16 and 60.50.0.0/16, but there are other ranges that the IP editor is also active on. I'm not really sure what to suggest. I can check the range contribs tool for cut-and-paste moves every few days, but that's really tedious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Sounds like an edit filter might be needed Pinging @Samtar: and @Musikanimal: who are our resident edit filter experts --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• I too have been dealing with this IP at articles related to Dakota's Summer, the Mostly Ghostly films, and the Feast (2005 film) sequels (e.g. [171] – so add 1.32.74.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) ). It would be really great if their disruption could be curtailed once and for all. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Anon. user mass deleting sourced information

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

---

An anon user, Special:Contributions/2602:306:C5E9:B450:967:864A:ABAD:160E has been mass removing information from various articles containing information cited from Influx Magazine, claiming that it is "spam" [172] [173] [174] [175], quoting Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Influx_Magazine as reason that somehow everything that the source says is "spam".

I had tried explaining twice to the user that even if a website is not notable to be included on Wikipedia, that doesn't mean it is a non-verifiable source [176] [177].

Even if the source is deemed unverifiable and inappropriate (which IMO is far from that), I feel that the user's mass deletion is highly pointy and disruptive.

I have refrained from reverting the user's edits further than I have already as I am not sure if the edits are exempt from 3RR. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 12:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The user has also been removing sourced information from other sources: [178] Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 12:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I have explained this multiple times but this person keeps readding spam links. For years Steve Pulaski or someone associated with him has been adding spam links to his reviews to various articles. Some use a non-notable website, (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Influx_Magazine), while others just link to his message forum (like here). Here are a few of the IPs

• 75.57.175.40
• 76.202.208.65
• 76.202.210.4
• 2600:1008:B014:3292:2340:677:FECD:C84A

You will notice that their ONLY submissions are these spam links. I am removing them.

1)I'm not any of those users. 2) How are these spam? Are they self-promotional? Are they plain rubbish? Look at those sources carefully, we can see the names of the people who wrote them, and at least at face value they are legit opinions. Who are you to call them spam? Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 12:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say you were any of those users. I said you kept readding what I was removing. How aren't they spam? They serve ONLY to promote Steve Pulaski which is why his name seems to need to be mentioned in every single instance. When a person adds links to their own writing, it is self-promotional. Literally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C5E9:B450:967:864A:ABAD:160E (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain HOW they were being used to promote Steve Pulaski (whoever the heck he is)? Just because the links are about one guy giving opinions on things of a wide range, from movies to Hillsong?? Have you thought of the fact that the users in question might have just quoted him as a source? The things you deleted don't even try to paint him in any greater light than just calling him the maker of these mere opinions. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 12:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you really this stubborn that you will ignore all evidence? The IPs that add these reviews ONLY ADD THESE REVIEWS. In what way would that lead to literally ANY interpretation other than that they are promotional additions? And for the record all of them are movies, the IPs didn't add anything to Hillsong, they spammed Hillsong: Let Hope Rise which is a film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C5E9:B450:967:864A:ABAD:160E (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Here are a few more Wikipedians who removed these same spam links:

• Barte did it here
• Carniolus did it here
• Efyeahimamarxist did it here

You can see from the edit summaries they were labeled "non-notable", "non-noteworthy", and WP:SPS. Should you go yell at them, too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C5E9:B450:967:864A:ABAD:160E (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Please note that whether a source is notable is not connected to whether a source is reliable. As far as I can tell, there's no reason to not use Influx Magazine as a source. DS (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@2602:306:.:So that means if I edit a bunch of movie articles and I paste all the sources from Roger Ebert's website rogerebert.com, it means Roger Ebert is a spammer and is promoting himself? WP:SPS says: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. So maybe you should read [179]. Whatever "level of experience" he is, I doubt that his opinions are non-notable enough to be excluded from Wikipedia. This Steve Pulaski is not Roger Ebert, but is Steve un-notable enough to be excluded? My point is no. ^{Yeah, I think you should yell at them too.} Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 13:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Barte, Carniolus and Efyeahimamarxist's edits gave reasons for their edits that may (or may not) be valid. Whatever, they have not been challenged. Beyond that, it is an irrelevance because your sole reason for deleting vast amounts of material has been challenged. The references are not spam in any shape of form because they are not promoting any product. They are just a review for which no evidence has been offered that they are unreliable. And your claim above that it is promoting the reviewer is just plain nonsense. --Elektrik Fanne 13:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

* The version of the article as it was immediately before it got deleted (minus the categories and maintenance tags) is now located [[here

(Oh bloody hell. I hit the escape key, just after I realised I'd posted the above. That would have worked in 1998.)

• The version of the article as it was immediately before it got deleted (minus the categories and maintenance tags) is now located here. It would appear to me that this magazine/website is essentially self-published. Judge for yourself whether this is a source that should be used on Wikipedia. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Shirt58: I probably won't decide for my own self. I was referred to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard so depending on the outcome of this discussion I might choose to raise the issue with this source there. Nevertheless I am hoping for a conclusive outcome to this content dispute. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 03:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• @Shirt58: My main issue with the anon. is not regarding the deletion of Influx Magazine, but the anon. user mass removing sourced information coming from this source. I personally support the deletion of Influx Magazine as per GNG, but the verfiability and reliability of the sourced information is not dependent on the notability of the source subject's on Wikipedia. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 03:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• @Shirt58: Also all of the content that was deleted by the anon. wasn't referenced from the deleted Wikipedia article Influx Magazine, but they were referenced from the actual website of Influx. So I appreciate your effort retrieving the deleted content, but I'm not sure how helpful it will be. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 03:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Advocacy-pushing disruption over at UK Independence Party

The article on the UK Independence Party (UKIP) is experiencing regular disruptive editing from User:RoverTheBendInSussex, a self-professed UKIP member. Multiple reliable sources authored by academic political scientists and published in peer-reviewed outlets testify that the party are nationalist or British nationalist in ideological orientation. User:Rover is unhappy with this, and has been edit warring over a period of ten days to remove "British nationalism"/"Nationalism" from the article infobox and replace it with either "British patriotism" or "Civic nationalism" ([180]; [181]; [182]; [183]; [184]; [185]; [186]; [187]). Despite their repeated claims to the contrary, they have provided no reliable sources to support their claim. There is a talk page consensus of other editors that "British nationalism"/"Nationalism" should be in the infobox, and Rover has not overturned this, nor gained a single editor to support their calls for change. The issue has been extensively discussed at the article talk page; the option of an RfC has been offered to User:Rover but they have ignored this and continued to edit war. Myself, User:Snowded, and User:Bondegezou [update at 19:19: and now User:Elektrik Fanne] have been reverting their edits; in my case that has probably pushed me into edit war territory, for which I apologise, but I was trying to uphold consensus. Rover's behaviour is textbook disruptive editing—refusal to "get the point", tendentious editing, acting against consensus, resisting requests for comment, and an opposition to verifiability—it's all there. Given that this has been continuing for some time now, I thought it time to get an administrator involved. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

As I recall events, User:RoverTheBendInSussex removed "nationalism", which triggered a discussion on Talk, and Rover participated in that. However, it soon became apparent that everyone else participating was happy with the tag, and Rover's evidence against didn't hold up. After a few days of debate during which the label was mostly absent from the article, I re-added the label in this edit on 16:05, 25 Sep. Rover reverted here two days later. A few hours later, having reviewed the Talk page and only seeing a stronger consensus for this label, I re-added it here. About 37 hours later, we get to today: Rover re-removed, User:Midnightblueowl re-added and Rover re-removed in short succession. So, I agree with Midnightblueowl that Rover is ignoring consensus here. Bondegezou (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

There haven't been a lot of people involved in the Talk discussion, as is common these days, but you can see it at Talk:UK_Independence_Party#British_Nationalism. Rover made his case, this was examined at some length, everyone else rejected the arguments, Rover got a bit ad hominem-y. Bondegezou (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• That whole talk page conversation appears to be RoverTheBendInSussex arguing against a consensus of other editors. There also seems to be an element of WP:IDHT in that he is repeating the same arguments that have previously been rejected. Coupled with the serious edit-warring and this edit, I would say a topic-ban on the article is warranted to prevent any further wasting of other editor's time. Someone who admits to being a UKIP supporter, edits the article, and then posts this edit summary "Leave editing this page to impartial individuals" is clearly not concerned with WP policies. Black Kite (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Admittedly I do have a bias on this issue, but I think that a topic ban would be a good idea. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
    • In the talk section you didn't admit you had a bias in this instance, although several comments you made did present leakage. The issue I have with this is you have ignored multiple links I have posted, you previously agreed on "civic nationalism", and then when somebody else who happens to be a Labour Party supporter pushed for "Nationalist" or "British Nationalist", you went back on your word and changed it again. It is worth noting you seem to have a special interest updating "Radical Right" politics, and extreme left wing politics, be it; Vladimir Lenin, Ken Livingstone, Karl Marx, Mao Zedong, and others of an extreme left ideology. Are you a supporter of left-wing politics, such as Jeremy Corbyn, Socialism and the UK Labour Party. If so, I question your impartiality in updating the UKIP page. [188] What you are pushing for is a not clearly definable description of UKIP. I have clearly stated facts that directly contradict the ideology of "British Nationalist" or "Nationalist". In the simplest explanation, how can UKIP be "Nationalist" if written into their Constitution is reconnection with the Commonwealth [189], and a policy of Global trade. Not to mention building partnership connections with Global nations? [190] [191] and immigration [192]. The clearest definition of Nationalism is; "a shared group feeling in the significance of a geographical and sometimes demographic region seeking independence for its culture or ethnicity that holds that group together." This description does not fit UKIP's policies or mandate. Regardless of which anti-UKIP tabloid or pro-EU/anti-UKIP academic research you post. Midnightblueowl has admitted a clear bias with regard to UKIP, and is pushing for a ban against editing the page so people of his ilk, who oppose UKIP openly can change the page status to push a negative rhetoric and vision of UKIP. Everyone who has supported this ideology on the UKIP page has been either a Labour supporter, Scottish Nationalist or Welsh Nationalist, all of whom oppose UKIP. What does a Wikipedia user have to admit before their opinion is deemed biased against a page they are adding. The SNP are defined as being Civic Nationalists whilst their supporters resort to near daily anglophobia and violence online, and have been videoed/had radio interviews expressing both verbal and physical violence against people with alternate opinions. [193]
      [194]
      [195]
      [196]
      [197]
      [198] Yet they get defined as being Civic Nationalists on their page, a status I felt fair to be added to UKIP's page. Yet UKIP, the party that has had no hand in Nationalist violence on air or in the general public are defined as being the more tribal form of Nationalism. How utterly pathetic! User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2016 (GMT)
      • It would probably be a good idea if you didn't import your arguments on the UKIP talk page to here; this is not the venue. You appear to have three problems; 1: you are accusing others of having a POV when you clearly have one yourself; 2: You are edit-warring against multiple other editors against talk page consensus; 3: Your use of sources appears to be veering into WP:SYNTH, something that has already been pointed out on the talk page. You have two choices here; either you accept the consensus that is against you here (or open an RfC, something that has already been proposed), or your editing of the page will need to be restricted in order to prevent the huge time-sink that has already occurred. Which is it to be? Black Kite (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
        • I know that this probably isn't the place but I do want to counter some of the slanderous falsities that Rover has promoted here, lest uninvolved editors mistake them for fact. "You have ignored multiple links I have posted". False. Myself and several other editors read each and every one of those links; there were five in total. In each and every case the link did not contain the information that Rover was claiming of it, and in one it actually directly contravened the information that they were claiming of it, for it made the specific claim that UKIP are nationalist. It was Rover who completely and utterly misrepresented these five sources in order to promote their own personal view of UKIP. "What you are pushing for is a not clearly definable description of UKIP". What I am "pushing for" is the use of reliable sources written by academics who have actually conducted a great deal of research into UKIP and published their findings in peer-reviewed journals. What I am also "pushing for" is the acceptance that there is a consensus on the Talk Page which should not be contravened by the unilateral actions of one editor. "Everyone who has supported this ideology on the UKIP page has been either a Labour supporter, Scottish Nationalist or Welsh Nationalist, all of whom oppose UKIP" - I have no idea where Rover plucked this one from, for it is sheer supposition; anyone who seems to disagree with Rover's behaviour is immediately accused of being a lefty with a strong anti-UKIP bias. "Midnightblueowl has admitted a clear bias with regard to UKIP". No I haven't. This is yet another blatant falsity. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
          • I wonder if the most logical action here would simply to impose a 0RR restriction on Rover. This, I think, would be the best way of proceeding without preventing him from commenting on the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
            • "False. Myself and several other editors read each and every one of those links; there were five in total. In each and every case the link did not contain the information that Rover was claiming of it, and in one it actually directly contravened the information that they were claiming of it, for it made the specific claim that UKIP are nationalist." - No. Each of those links were about Civic Nationalism. Which discussed UKIP within the context of the article about Civic Nationalism. "What I am "pushing for" is the use of reliable sources written by academics who have actually conducted a great deal of research into UKIP and published their findings in peer-reviewed journals." - I provided links by the University of Cardiff and Fabian Society. Both those links were academic reports. "I have no idea where Rover plucked this one from, for it is sheer supposition" - Try reading editors, edit histories. "Midnightblueowl has admitted a clear bias with regard to UKIP". ~ "No I haven't. This is yet another blatant falsity." - 6 hours earlier... "Admittedly I do have a bias on this issue, but I think that a topic ban would be a good idea." You have not come to a consensus, and your answer is to go over the head of a editor who doesn't make a habit of disagreeing in this manner, has been editing on Wikipedia for years and has provided plenty of counter argument to what you wish to add to the info-box. None of which you have provided a counter-argument for. Look above. You, and other editors just want to block me as I have provided a counter-argument to what you have claimed which is NOT accurate. My concern is people would use this inaccurate status to misportray UKIP as a political weapon. The status has been on Wikipedia for a day and someone has already screencaptured it to attack UKIP proving my point. [199] User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2016 (GMT)
              • Declaring their political allegiance to UKIP then turning around and questioning Midnightblueowl's impartiality in updating the UKIP page kind of smacks of hypocrisy doesn't it? Blackmane (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
              • "You, and other editors just want to block me as I have provided a counter-argument to what you have claimed which is NOT accurate." Let's get this clear - no-one wants to block you. They do, however, want you to stop your edit-warring and associated disruption on the UKIP article, which almost certainly will lead to a block or topic-ban if it continues. The choice is yours. Black Kite (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "Each of those links were about Civic Nationalism." This is either a deliberate lie or reflects a total inability to understand the sources in question. Anyone can look at these sources: these are the two which Rover has claimed analytically describe UKIP as "civil nationalist" ([200]; [201]), and these are the three that Rover claims support their claim that UKIP adhere to an ideology of "British patriotism" ([202] [203] [204]). As anyone can see, none of these claims are substantiated by the links in question, and this is something that has been told to Rover on many occasions now. One can also see how Rover deliberately misrepresents sources with their link to a Twitter post above; they claim that "people would use this inaccurate status to misportray UKIP as a political weapon" but on the Twitter account in question, the commentary is dealing not with the "British nationalism" that Rover takes issue with, but the description of the party as "right-wing".
  • "6 hours earlier... "Admittedly I do have a bias on this issue,"" - yes, I have a bias with regard to how Rover should be sanctioned because I have been dealing with their disruptive editing for ten days now. That is a very different thing from admitting some anti-UKIP bias. Rover is again deliberately misrepresenting my words to suit their own agenda
  • As uninvolved editors should be able to see now, Rover has no intention of playing by the rules. When there is a consensus on a particular point, they insist "you have not come to a consensus". They maintain that they have provided "plenty of counter-argument" but have only done so by totally misrepresenting sources and ignoring the fact that their arguments have been consistently examined and rejected by a range of other editors. They continue to claim that the information in the article is "NOT accurate" despite the fact that said information is based squarely on the claims made by academic political scientists in the very best quality reliable sources (moreover, they have been pointed to WP:Verifiability, not truth at least twice now). They have now been offered an RfC on multiple occasions and have ignored the offer, instead continuing to insist that they are right and that editors who disagree with them are politically motivated and should desist from editing altogether. They've had multiple chances to cease their behaviour and have failed to do so. I think that the proposal of a topic ban is a good one and would welcome the involvement of administrators to put a stop to this disruptive editing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

User:RoverTheBendInSussex, as I've said on the Talk page in the past, you have raised some appropriate points of nuance that I think warrant coverage in the article text (I've made suggestions where). However, you are not new to Wikipedia. You know how the project works. You can't win every argument. You will achieve more if you accepted when consensus is against you. It's not up to me, but I support User:Black Kite's suggestions for how to avoid the "time-sink". Bondegezou (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

In the end, this is quite a simple concept and one answer from the editor

RoverTheBendInSussex, are you going to stop edit-warring against others, and trying to claim others should not be editing, on the UKIP page? If the answer is yes, then we can close this and carry on. If the answer is no (or if you continue to do so after answering "yes"), then a topic-ban on the UKIP page or (more likely) an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE are in order. Which is it to be? Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• This is all rather pathetic. I have provided clear and concise explanations as to why the edit is wrong, and doesn't match UKIP ideology. Nobody has even argued the point I have made. Now because I disagree with an inaccurate and potentially damaging edit. I am threatened with removal/blocking. My choice is thus; Put up with an inaccurate edit which I have clearly explained as being wrong citing examples of it being wrong, and comparisons to other parties showing it is wrong. Or fight my corner and be banned. No proper debate about the subject has been had. More people have made threats to me than I have tried to cause conflict, and nobody has attempted to explain the reasoning for the edit. Utterly pathetic. I encourage people to actually debate this edit on the talk page, or would that result in another barrage of threats to ban me as well? User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 01:45, 01 October 2016 (GMT)

Two rangeblocks (or more) for Teenage Fairytale Dropouts vandal

Because of ongoing activity, I think we could use two rangeblocks to help deal with the long-term abuse case known as the Teenage Fairytale Dropouts vandal. The following two ranges are problematic:

• 2001:8003:24E7:AC00:....
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:....

Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Promotional editing by User:Scholar of Record

New editor Scholar of Record (talk · contribs · block log) is editing a variety of Iowa-related pages to add links and references to the work of author Zachary Michael Jack. Some of the edits appear almost constructive at a glance [205] [206]. However, most are clearly promotional [207], [208], [209]. One edit includes an Amazon link [210]. The user has not responded to talk page messages. agtx 02:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I've warned him for a edit for another article, Mechanicsville, Iowa, for the exact same thing as mentioned earlier([211]).— JJBers (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Scholar of Record has posted a comment on my talk page, but it does not inspire confidence. agtx 03:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Allegations by User:Castncoot

User:Castncoot has accused me and User:JFG (who is not an admin but does have some admin privileges) of abusing our authorities. diff

These claims are completely bogus. Neither of us has even sought to exercise any such authority. They are part of an ongoing campaign of low-level disruption, intimidation and personal attacks designed to hinder forming a consensus on whether or not to move the New York State article away from the base name New York. Castncoot is strongly opposed to the move proposal.

I have tried to discuss on Castncoot's user talk page on several occasions, and the response has been baseless allegations of disruption against myself. Other users have raised objections to Castncoot's behaviour, but not always on the user talk page, and so these comments are now deeply buried in the discussion. As I write Castncoot has not responded to my asking for a withdrawal of these latest and strongest allegations, but has not made any other edits either, and is possibly on a short Wikibreak.

They are now again editing and have responded on the project talk page but not on their user talk page: Asking me to withdraw such content amounts to a cover-up and subterfuge on its own, which I will not engage in. [212] I have requested they respond here. [213] [214] Andrewa (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

But I think the time has come to escalate this to ANI. Other users have adopted similar tactics in the New York discussion, possibly following Castncoot's poor example, but have not gone so far as this. Hopefully an appropriate censure will set some boundaries and cool their passion a great deal. Andrewa (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

As I've said previously, although in reference to a different case, if Castncoot has evidence of corruption and conspiracy they better be able to put up diffs, else shut up. The histrionics and hyperbole are not conducive to collegiate discussion. Blackmane (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

That previous incident doesn't IMO influence whether or not the current one is acceptable, but it might have a bearing on what the appropriate response is, if the pattern is similar. Can you be specific? Andrewa (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)\

It's a personal attack, unless they can back up the allegations with evidence. At the very least a stern warning is called for. Kleuske (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

As the response now alleging cover-up and subterfuge (diff above) shows, it's part of a pattern on New York RM related talk pages. I have not named the other editors now falling into this pattern, and don't want to clog ANI with every incident. My hope in raising this is to improve the tone of the discussion there, or at least put a brake on further escalation. Andrewa (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Someone is trying to take over my account

I just received an email from wiki@wikimedia.org saying that IP 202.69.12.62 has requested that the password to my account be reset, probably hoping they'd be able to intercept the email somehow. The IP, which geolocates to Islamabad, Pakistan, is currently CU-blocked by Materialscientist, but with no tag identifying the master, so I can only guess who it is (IMHO probably Najaf ali bhayo, but it might also be LanguageXpert), and since the person behind it probably is trying to do the same with other accounts too, I thought I'd let you know... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

People do this all the time; not so much because they think they can intercept the email, but because they're morons. Used to happen to me once or twice a month. It can be safely ignored. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

This happens with socks I block, as long as your email password is strong and you haven't communicated with these socks via email, you should be good. —SpacemanSpiff 12:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

If it's that common it's odd that noone has tried it with my account before, people usually just call me nasty things. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

It happens to me once in a while, every few months, or so. Last time was on July. You can safely ignore it, I did some of the times. Some other times I tried to play safer: I logged in (to check I still can); take a look at my contributions (to check no one use my account); change password (to invalidate the temporary one, I hope). The procedure is prettu much standard over the net, I presume; yet I think Wikimedia could do better. Possibly on our first logging after this there could be a few questions or suggestions. Like logging if the request was a fake one (they could catch some IPs making lots of attempts), suggest to change contributions and change password anyway :-), or simply provide a link to invalidate any temp password. I don't know... I know little about security, but as a user the message seems poor, it feels like "someone tried to hack your account and we do not care much". - Nabla (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to be safe, please make sure you use a unique password on Wikipedia. Don't use the same password you use elsewhere, and consider using a password manager. There have been a lot of data breaches recently and it's quite possible one or more of your passwords has been compromised. Have I Been Pwned? is a good site for checking if your email address has been part of a data breach. None of this contradicts what others have said; this particular password reset is all but certainly nothing to worry about, I'm just giving general advice. --Yamla (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• What Floq said. If I think there may be a particular user involved, I privately forward to the blocking CU, or if not any, to any CU so they can take a peek if they so choose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Personal attack from User:Old_Lanky - "moron"

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

---

Personal attack from User:Old_Lanky per this diff [215]. An editor with a background of trouble, see this diff [216], that needs further resolution. KirksKeyKard (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• A one time use of the word "moron" might be uncivil, but it isn't grounds for sanctions as they've already indicated they "won't trouble the article again.". Single, rude comments are best ignored. What he did in 2013 has no real connection here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, the sort of person who would send a message like this to drive another editor off the site can only be a moron. Especially as his past history strongly supports the view. For example, his attitude problem her and in numerous other edits. I have nothing else to add. Old Lanky (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I count a second use of the word "moron"!! I recommend a one week block for User:Old Lanky to allow him to cool off. KirksKeyKard (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

A moron who can count to three! Can he make it all the way to four? Don't bother. I've just resigned from this shambolic site that gives free rein to morons (five) who know everything and understand nothing. Wikipedia is crap. No wonder it has no credibility in academic spheres or, indeed, in any sphere inhabited by intelligent people. Bye now. Old Lanky (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

You both need to cool your jets. Lanky, back off the colorful adjectives, and Kirks, your comment is no less offensive than using the word "moron", you are just putting lipstick on a pig and hiding the incivility with flowery language. I'm not blocking anyone for the above but you both need to knock it off. You aren't children. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

-.- Seriously Kirks? What are you, five? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 15:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Admins for your support. I think this last post from User:Old Lanky, see here [217], says everything that anyone needs to know. This has been a tough time for us all, but I think we have come through it stronger and wiser. KirksKeyKard (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Kirk, all this started over the single use of the word "moron" after your posted a message that was no less offensive, so from my perspective, this is a fight you started. I wouldn't be so smug if I were you. Neither of you have been shining stars of collaboration. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay everyone, this fire's been put out, so there's nothing left to see here. Admins --> Please CLOSE. Thank you. KirksKeyKard (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Vote summary in RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gamergate draft

Would an uninvolved admin please have a look over the recent addition of a "vote summary" to the RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gamergate draft by IP editor 2603:3024:200:300:C67:8989:F806:A1A2, and determine if it should stay? Diffs:1,2. I have discussed reasons for excluding it on the Talk page (that vote counting is disruptive per WP:NOT#DEM, WP:NOTAVOTE), but other editors are in favour of inclusion. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it's useless, but it's not off-topic and there isn't any other reason to remove it per WP:TPO. Best to just leave it, the closing admin will just ignore it anyway. — Strongjam (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I do suggest that it is off-topic, in that it is not participating in the RfC. Given the IP editor's lack of other contributions, there would be a strong case for a WP:DUCK->WP:BANREVERT, but I do not like WP:DUCK as a reason for anything other than a WP:SPI, so do not make such a case. I do, however, think that the later addition of !voting editors' registration dates & edit counts to the table is pretty poor form.[218] - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 16:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editor / edit warring at Andrea Bargnani

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

---

IMO, User:JoshDonaldson20 is being very disruptive and clearly edit warring at Andrea Bargnani. The content in question that JoshDonaldson20 is persisting on adding to the article has been reverted and disputed by multiple users, yet JoshDonaldson20 is determined to keep the content in the article no matter the reasons or retorts being presented to him. Myself, Sabbatino, Bagumba and IP 188.2.133.143 have reverted content placed in the Andrea Bargnani article. As of now, it is 4 to 1 in favor of not having the content there, yet JoshDonaldson20 continues to re-add it. I was in a back-and-forth revert spree with JoshDonaldson20 before deciding to cease as it wasn't worth my time and I understand how disruptive and pointless editing warring is. I was going to move on from the matter until IP 188.2.133.143 got involved and there is now an edit war between them. I warned JoshDonaldson20 at his talk page to stop edit warring and instead discuss the matter as it would be his duty to do so as his content is what has been disputed many times now. I invited JoshDonaldson20 to discuss as WT:NBA where I had earlier started a thread regarding the content. Nothing came of that – JoshDonaldson20 decided instead to just re-add it. This is clearly disruptive editing and blatant edit warring which has tarnished the edit history of the Andrea Bargnani article. Outside mediation is required here – perhaps a time out for JoshDonaldson20 or full protection at Andrea Bargnani? DaHuzyBru (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

It is now 5 to 1 with User:Vítor the latest to revert the content [219]. DaHuzyBru (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• Yep, content dispute with one party edit-warring against consensus. This is for WP:ANEW. I'll close this. 19:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC) _Muffled ^Pocketed 20:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• Blocked. (Is that you again, DaHuzyBru? Please remember, it's four tildes. Anyway, you haven't closed it.) We can skip WP:ANEW for now, the bureaucracy isn't intrinsically valuable. JoshDonaldson20 has already been blocked twice for edit warring in the past few months, so I made it 72 hours this time. Bishonen | talk 20:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC).

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

Repetitive Hoax articles for channel Hum TV

Info.Channels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – is creating various Wikipedia articles that doesn't even exist, i have taged them with {{Hoax}} and warned the user but he can or may erase the tag, so i wanted to notify here. I have searched for an articles that user created, but there is not even a single source, reference or even a slightest detail on that articles and yet he claimed that these are TV series to be aired or aired on Hum TV, adding made-up articles name, stories outline and linking the articles with real actors. I have been monitoring Hum TV and its contents for quite a time and have built many TV series articles, but never had any information regarding those TV series that user created. Following are the articles that user allegedly created by giving them fake names, fake plot outlines, and linking them to real actors, that have never been a part of such productions.

• Maroon-e-Wafaa
• Moch-e-Kunjoosi
• Chohat
• Dil-e-Humwaar

Look into that issue as soon as possible. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 2:56, October 1, 2016 (UTC)

This is now being investigated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amir'khan12. The four hoaxes you listed have been deleted, along with another nine that I found. I believe that's all of the hoaxes created by the now 18 known socks of Amir'khan12, but I can't be certain they didn't also introduce false information into existing articles. It's kind of difficult to sort through since he occasionally adds something that's true. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Problematic behavior at Portal:Current events

The IP editor in question:

• 2600:8800:FF04:C00:C052:8350:C710:B155 (talk · contribs)
• 2600:8800:FF04:C00:4C61:46F5:F7F2:F9EF (talk · contribs)
• 70.209.67.17 (talk · contribs)
• 2600:8800:FF04:C00:C9D8:9FC2:D559:4ABC (talk · contribs)
• 98.167.194.3 (talk · contribs)
• 70.209.114.41 (talk · contribs)
• 2600:8800:FF04:C00:E98E:504E:508B:6A89 (talk · contribs)

And potentially more. Judging by their editing patterns and Geolocate results, I believe they are one and the same person. While it's not exactly out of the ordinary to edit from multiple locations or from different dynamic IP addresses, it is rather alarming that their behavioral problems persist in spite of that.

The editor's field of interest seems limited to Portal:Current events, and they have been making consistent contribution to the page, which should be applauded. However, I would have to point out:

• Here and here the editor took it upon themselves to revert a permanently banned editor; unfortunately, the "banned editor" in question is still making contributions as of this moment, and appears to have a clean record. The reverts did not seem to have sufficient merits - certainly not given in their summaries.
• Here, in a rather contentious edit war, they accused someone who undid their previous revert of being a sock - without offering any evidence. Here they proceeded to make accusations of vandalism, on rather flimsy grounds. Possibly under the impressions that they had "consensus" and were fighting one single vandal, they attempted one further revert, going over WP:3RR. They were summoned to discuss on the talk page, but did not show up. The editor appeared to prefer arguing through edit summaries - which isn't what edit summaries are for. This kind of behavior has persisted.
• The editor's remarks have a tendency of being perceived as uncivil. Here they referred to someone as "delusional" - and while the previous editor might not have put the item under the appropriate heading, they did not either. Here they essentially derided an editor as having a pre-college grasp of the English language. In the page, they again went over WP:3RR.
• Rather snide remarks, as seen here, followed by a pointy dummy edit. Also seen here.
• They insist on using "Obama administration" in place of "The U.S.", and will rapidly revert any attempt to rephrase it, as seen here. I was personally a party in one of such instances, during which I was reverted, accused of committing "bias through omission", accused again, and again. I do admit in the heat of the moment I did not disengage when I should certainly have - although to be fair, I omitted the phrase because it did not appear anywhere in any of the sources given, a fact seemingly entirely lost to the editor. It appears while accusing others of perpetrating a bias, the editor also has a POV to push. Notably in the process the editor also reverted, without careful consideration, other edits that might be far less debatable, purely because they were angered by the debatable ones. In an unrelated case, source was yet again disrespected.
• Very quick to make accusations of bias, as seen here and here. Might have a point, though it could always have been expressed more elegantly.
• "who th fk is this biased guy!"
• Remarkably specific accusation.
• Not on Current events, but "are you a "PAID" agent for Mr. Doocy?"

I admit I might not be able to entirely keep my cool when dealing with this editor, so for now I should disengage. But this editor - if they could be brought from the venue of edit summaries - should be allowed an opportunity to rethink the way Wikipedia works, as well as how to deal with other editors, like-minded ones or not.

I would also like to bring to everyone's attention the hectic scene of Portal:Current events, where edit wars happen almost on a daily basis and where there is hardly any moderation going on. Given its time-sensitive nature, issues are rarely resolved through dialogue, consensus is rarely reached or even attempted. If nothing should be done, irrelevant content, POV-pushing and counter-POV-pushing will remain a recurring feature of that particular place.

Morningstar1814 (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)