Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Felsic2

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

---

User:Felsic2 has just added a false reference to the Automatic rifle page.[1] He claims that the FG-42 is a "battle rifle" while the reference clearly refers to it as "(a full-power selective-fire rifle)". The full paragraph quote from pages 19 & 20 states..."While a sixteen- to eighteen-pound Browning Auto Rifle (BAR) could reasonably handle the recoil of its .30-06 chambering, when such a powerful cartridge was fired in a rifle of conventional weight (eight to ten pounds) things were very different. The Germans did field the FG-42 (a full-power selective-fire rifle) in very limited numbers, primarily to its airborne units. The success with such weapons was mixed, and the concept never caught on after the war. The conclusion to this matter is the FAL performed best in semi-auto, as do all battle rifles. While some nations adopted select-fire versions of the FAL, The British opted for the semi-auto only rifle when they chose the L1A1 as their standard service rifle". Felsic has been playing this little game (of manipulating the wording) for many months. See...Talk:AR-15, Talk:AR-15 variant, Talk:Colt AR-15, Talk:M16 rifle to name a few pages. I recommend an indefinite firearms topic ban.--RAF910 (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• See this recent thread about Felsic2 here on ANI for a long discussion about their tendentious editing on articles relating to firearms and US gun politics... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
• Considering that our article on the FG 42 does explicitly say it's a battle rifle, there doesn't seem to be much merit to this specific complaint, but Felsic2 in general has had a long history of bad behavior. ansh666 23:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have made necessary corrections and added appropriate references to the FG-42 page....As for the the reason we are here, I respectfully disagree, according to Wikipedia:Fictitious_references "The use of fictitious references is a form of gaming the system to circumvent Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It is a most serious offense because it compromises the integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia." Especially, by someone who has a history of gaming the system and making provocative edits to seemly annoy his fellow editors. See....Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms #Section move. I believe this shows a pattern of bad behavior.--RAF910 (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

1. It's not a false reference. Taking the whole chapter in context, it seems to me that the author of The Battle Rifle: Development and Use Since World War II is referring to the FG 42 as a battle rifle. The definition of a "battle rifle" is an automatic rifle firing a "full-power rifle cartridge", such as a 7.62×54mmR. The FG 42 is an automatic rifle that fires a 7.92×57mm Mauser cartridge.
2. If you don't like the citation I provided then there are many others availaible. For example: "This Kreighoff Waffenbabrik FG-42 was a select-fire battle rifle that was produced during WWII for German Paratroopers".
3. It is a bit odd that you're accusing me of a gross violation of Wikipedia policy for what may be a disputed citation since you yourself had to concede that you'd recently provided a series of citations which didn't support a claim in an article.[2][3] Incorrect citations are a problem that should be addressed wherever found, but getting something wrong isn't a crime.
4. As Ansh666 pointed out, the FG 42 article described that firearm as a "battle rifle", and had done so for many years until you just now changed it, ignoring the talk page discussion.[4][5][6]
5. When you found this supposed error, did you come apply a clean-up tag? No. Did you go to the talk page to raise your concern? No. Did you make any effort to resolve the dispute? No. Instead you came straight here to the admins board to demand that I be topic banned. This doesn't feel like a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia. Instead, it feels like an effort to get someone with opposing views banned. You have been coming after me for months.[7][8] It's beginning to feel like harassment.
6. I am a productive member of Wikipedia's editing community, including on the firearms topic. The Coordinator of Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms, @Mike Searson:, has repeatedly thanked me for my edits.[9][10]
7. Please don't cast aspersions, like accusations of "gaming the system". I edit in good faith. Please use article talk pages to resolve content disputes rather than just reverting or crying foul. Felsic2 (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

For reference, this is a better way to contest cited material: [11][12] Felsic2 (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Or this: [13][14] Felsic2 (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

As you can see, Felsic is a highly combative editor. He is also totally incompetent on the firearm subject matter. His most recent edit to the Wikipedia:Help desk states...

"Colt currently doesn't sell any products that it calls "AR-15". I'm not aware of any trademark enforcement activities. There are a couple of problems with being unable to write about the generic product. One of the biggest is that many, perhaps the majority, of sources simply refer to the "AR-15". Not the "Colt AR-15" or the "Armalite AR-15" or "AR-15 variant". For example, let's say a source says "The AR-15 is the most popular type of rifle in America." Where do we summarize that source's information? Felsic2 (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)"

Anyone, with even the most basic firearm knowledge know full well that Colt is still selling AR-15s. There is also this thing called the internet where this information can be easily found. Therefore, Felsic is clearly not interested in doing research. Only pushing his POV. I've now change my mind and I am calling for an indefinite block. --RAF910 (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I fixed my mistake after you pointed it out. Felsic2 (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Eh...RAF910, so a "battle rifle" is not a "a full-power selective-fire rifle"? Well now--pardon me for not knowing that--looks like a content dispute for you all to discuss civilly on the talk page, not at ANI. In other words, I have no idea what Felsic is supposed to have done wrong here. Nor do I see the combativeness anywhere--unless you mean their rebuttal. Now, if someone is dragged to ANI and tries to defend themselves, and that defense is seen as combativeness for which they need to be blocked, there's something seriously wrong here--I'm remind of the opening lines of "Prophets of Rage". And Felsic makes a mistake about Colt selling or not selling this or that product, and deserves an indefinite ban for that? No. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

References

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

Extra admin eyes

Can I get some admins to watch Draft:Andrew Turner (RAF officer)? The main editor's been ordered/hired to write this article using content plagiarised from the website given in the second decline notice there, and I have no doubt he or someone else will try to do so again as long as that order stands. At present the content (the career and education sections) should be removed. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 07:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The main editor is almsot certainly Andrew Turner himself: see the upload comments on the photograph. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

You'd think an Officer in the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire and member of the Upper Thames Rowing Club would have the sense not to embarrass himself this way. See WP:YOURSELF. EEng 16:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

He's now claiming not to be Andrew Turner despite the comments on the upload page. I also note that his username is an obvious abbreviation of "Air Officer Commanding No 22 Group" which is Andrew Turner's current post. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

In -en-help his words strongly implied that he was a subordinate of Andrew Turner, but not Andrew Turner himself. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Regardless of how this plays out here, it's our front yard so to speak. Anyone have an opinion on the matter? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• Setting aside for the moment the glaring deficiencies on the draft article, the subject almost certainly meets WP:BASIC. So we really should have an article on him. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • G'day, I've added it to my watchlist and completed the revdel. In its current form, though, it is not suitable for inclusion, IMO, and the references do not demonstrate significant coverage as yet. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm sorry if this the draft article did not meet the requirements of review. To clarify a few things, I am trying to add this article on behalf of AVM Turner who is aware that notable (in this case Air Rank) military officers are on Wikipedia and that it represents an interest article for those interested in the RAF. Indeed there is an article for No. 22 Group which cites him as the current commander and currently has a deadend link. I am, however, new to Wikipedia and acknowledge that the comments on the photo I uploaded confused matters somewhat. There is clearly a lot of rigour applied to review of each article, and in haste I have clearly not done everything correctly. I discussed the copyright issues with someone on the Help chat forum and the offending paragraph was removed. I will attempt to rewrite it, however I'm aware that paraphrasing is also not allowed and so I'm not sure how I will do this yet. I would greatly appreciate further advice and assistance to get this article online. I'm not sure what WP:BASIC is? But it seems user Ad Orientem agrees the article should exist. What do I need to do to help this happen? Many thanks in advance for any assistance you can offer.Aoc22gp (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

It has now been speedy deleted, so the discussion is moot. However I agree with Ad Orientem that Turner likely meets WP:BASIC, and it should be possible to create a workable article once some better sourcing has been worked out. Unless people object I would be happy to have a go at doing this, liaising with Aoc22gp where that's helpful for information. Not a top priority for me, but shouldn't take too long. But on a related note, could somebody advise whether Aoc22gp breaches WP:ORGNAME? It would be nice to have that sorted before starting work. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I have drafted a new article at User:Jonathan A Jones/Andrew Turner (RAF officer), and if anyone is interested I would appreciate comments at the talk page before I move to mainspace. As that seems to conclude things can I suggest this section now be closed? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Use of page curation by Tiven2240

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

---

Tiven2240 has recently been using the page curation tool to make a series of tags/reviews that I would characterize as not being a careful use of the tool. I see several incorrect BLPPRODs [15], [16],[17], [18] (last one the tag was removed by Tiven2240 after placement). Tiven has also placed other tags on several articles that don't fit the issue described [19], [20], and in the first case linked, unreviewed the article that I had PRODed. Other users have noted these issues on the user talk page, and while I think this is well intentioned, it is also a disruptive use of the curation tool that the recent changes to that permission were intended to prevent. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I left a request on their talk page asking them to voluntarily stop using the tool, gain some experience and then look for a mentor. I hope they'll take the advice but if they don't we can take measures.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is another example of Tiven2240's incorrect/careless use of Page Curation. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 14:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I was bringing it here because it seemed to me that they might have been grandfathered into the usergroup for reviewers before making these patrols, but what I find interesting is that from what I can tell, they aren't in the reviewer group so shouldn't be able to mark pages as patrolled/reviewed to begin with. This seems like a technical problem to me. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: & @Sphilbrick:: I'm on my phone so can't quickly check whether they've been 'grandfathered' - but as it stands (until Thursday if my memory serves me right - Xaosflux might be able to confirm?) any autoconfirmed user can still access Page Curation & mark pages as patrolled. Once the patch is deployed, they will no longer technically be able to do this without an application at WP:PERM/NPR if not already grandfathered in. Mike1901 (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Mike1901 Tiven2240 has not been added to the new group, so will currently loose this access along with everyone else once phase 2 of the patch is processed. The "grandfathering" process is still a mess, see WT:NPR for more discussion on that. Tiven2240 is not on current outstanding lists to be processed, so right now would be expected to apply at WP:PERM if desired. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I confess I wasn't sure whether anyone could use the tools or one had to have a certain status to use the tool, but part of my reason for making my request voluntary is that I think in many cases of suboptimal editing activity, the best first option is to request a voluntary change in approach while they get up to speed with the right protocol and only if that fails should we institute more coercive responses.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense. When the second phase of the patch roles out, it won't be an issue, and hopefully your warning will do the trick until then. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Tiven2240 has continued to use the Page Curation tool and has insisted that "after a long study of how to use the tool I have come to know how to use it properly". I've followed up with a sterner message, telling Tiven2240 to stop doing page curation or face a block (with an explanation of why they should stop). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

...and has, since Boing's warning, created a new page which is an obvious copyvio. I've posted a follow-up response on their Talk, encouraging them to take BsZ's advice on board. Mike1901 (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Still using page curation tools this morning :( --bonadea contributions talk 09:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked for 48 hours, and will escalate if they continue after the block ends. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Graph database

• Tmobii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Graph database (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, there's an edit war at Graph database with User:Tmobii continually adding material into the article. This editor also uses a variety of IP Addresses such as 72.2.235.253, 172.56.7.186, 172.56.6.25, 12.125.215.110, https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/172.250.202.176 172.250.202.176], etc. Before Tmobii set up a login account, I requested that the article is protected so that only registered users could edit. During that time, the article was stable, no edits were made, but neither was Tmobii interested in discussing on the Talk page. The heart of the dispute is a content distpute where Tmobii insists that a product that he is associated with is notable enough for inclusion in the list in the article, despite a number of editors disagreeing including User:Kgfleischmann, User:Michaelmalak and User:Mark viking. I'm not sure of the next step - a temporary block may not be very effective as this editor seems to travel a lot and can therefore edit from lots of IP addresses without logging in, as they have demonstrated already. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I've semiprotected Graph database. If User:Tmobii continues to make this addition without having consensus for it on the talk page you might report again. His arguments for notability don't seem to be based on Wikipedia policy. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I generally steer clear of AN/I, but agree with HighKing on all the points they made above. --Mark viking (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Please hear from both sides before making a judgement, and let me lay out my case:

- There has been consensus on Cayley, GunDB, and ArangoDB for at least half a year, since 2015: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Graph_database&oldid=693524343 which was added by user Levlev32 and removed by an anonymous IP https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Graph_database&diff=725428050&oldid=725139748 for an invalid reason.
- Then user D3x0r restored it in https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Graph_database&diff=744210160&oldid=744035674 .
- Then user Michaelmalak (who is an employee of Oracle and has a conflict of interest) reverted.
- A discussion page formed where a long list of arguments were laid out for notability, and I got involved and followed/abided by the requests for list inclusion.
- But users HighKing, Mark viking, and Michaelmalak kept changing the requirements, and rejected the arguments for arbitrary personal reasons like "The definition of Secondary sources would (IMHO) exclude...", and sparked a revert war.
- I encouraged we continue to discuss, but user HighKing started threatening to ban me and wanted to shut down the discussion saying "best way forward is for me to disengage from responding".
- Then user HighKing complained to user EdJohnston, who I am now appealing to to hear my case.
- Finally, if we look at the facts the consensus count is the 4 listed above who have opposed to Levlev32, D3x0r, me, and another editor who left this unsigned note in the talk page referencing this discussion: '...cite convinces me. I don't know if it would convince User:HighKing, who did the initial purge. No one "moderates" this article. All Wikipedia users are equal editors.'
- Thank you for hearing my appeal, I will also attempt to personally contact you where necessary. Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmobii (talk • contribs) 02:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC) 

Mass additions of banners to flag articles

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

---

Trylie (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) is adding unhelpful banners to a great number of flag articles (such as [21] [22] [23]). The edit summaries are effectively meaningless and attempts to reach the user on their talk page have been ignored. agtx 23:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Agtx: I was unaware of your report when I reverted the addition of the 'new' template on the 'Flag of Ukraine' article. Would you like me to revert the outstanding additions before other editors add to the articles. At the rate the user is going, it will probably be too late for a mass rollback. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Probably not a bad idea. Since the user isn't responding, I feel ok calling it vandalism and starting to rollback. agtx 23:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Between us, it's done for the moment. It appears that the user has also created (or used?) at least one other account as Meatydog (talk · contribs) per this edit. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

There's something seriously WP:NOTHERE about the user. All notifications are being ignored and deleted from their talk page, and the editor is having strange interactions with him/herself here and here. Could it be a WP:COMPETENCE issue? Whatever the problem is, it's getting extremely disruptive and drawing in more and more editors + refactoring this thread on the noticeboard here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Meatydog, with Trylie as a sock puppet (since the oldest edit was by Meatydog on October 31). Shearonink (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Trylie's Flag Templates... I have no exact idea where to report the preceding "personalized" category, but seems like it should be reported somewhere. Shearonink (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Probably at WP:CFD. Blackmane (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Found a little sockfarm there. All blocked now, awaiting tags once the SPI clerking is done. Thanks all. Katie^talk 02:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Blackmane: Yeah, I had thought of that, but then it seemed to me that if the creator is a sock then their various creations might need a speedy rather than a discussion... Shearonink (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Looking through CFD and CSD, I can't really see how these categories would normally qualify, but, that being said, I don't see why they couldn't just be deleted on the rationale that an indef blocked sockmaster created them. Blackmane (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:G5 @Blackmane:? Correct me if mistaken, but Gs (G1, G2, G3 etc) can cover anything, be it, page, category or talk? MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 18:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

oh good find! There was a feeling in the back of my mind that there had to be a criterion for it. Blackmane (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Polemic after block for personal attacks

Requesting a longer block for User:JuanRiley. His talk page edits since last block for personal attacks have consisted of a laundry list of complaints against the same editor the personal attacks were against. The point of all this is to prove that User:N0n3up was wikihounding JuanRiley, and therefore all the personal attacks were OK. This is a violation of WP:POLEMIC, and evidence that JuanRiley doesn't get why he was blocked, i.e. WP:NOTTHEM, WP:IDHT. Much of this content isn't even diffs that could be useed in a dispute; rather it's more taunts and name calling against N0n3up on JuanRiley's talk page, which is exactly what he was blocked for the first time. A longer block is necessary as a final warning to either help build an encyclopedia, or cease editing altogether. JuanRiley appears to be here to carry on personal grudges, not build an encyclopedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I do not say anywhere that N0n3ups's actions excuse my "personal atacks". I am merely listing on my talk page facts. Which no one has to read. Indeed I asked several admin's (I think) that were involved in my block whether this list was a personal attack.Juan Riley (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Your talkpage is for other editors to communicate with you. It is not for compiling lists of anything. See WP:UP. Further, at least regarding the last ANI you were involved in, the edits you characterized as personal attacks were in fact not personal attacks, yet you continue to characterize them as such. I'm not an admin, and do not even play one on TV, but that would be enough for me to block you if I were. Calling an edit by another editor a personal attack, after you have been told by numerous other editors that it is not, is in itself a personal attack. Do everyone, but mostly yourself, a favor and just delete that junk. It has no use in furthering your editing at Wikipedia. John from Idegon (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

With respect John, I do not understand. Where do I call an edit by another editor a personal attack? Juan Riley (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I see now that was the title of the ANI section you apparently copied? So I struck that. The rest stands. Talk pages are for communications, not compiling evidence or whatever it is you are doing. If that was an attempt at communicating with the editors linked in the intro, it failed. Pings do not work unless you sign your edit and that isn't signed. Best advice is to delete it. If you want to copy it onto your computer, that's your business...but keeping lists like that in a place where they can be easily seen (a talk page qualifies as that) is in violation of both the policy I cited above and the one Dennis cited. Just lose it and we all can go home. John from Idegon (talk) 05:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

This list is inappropriate and serves as nothing more than to agitate the user accused of the behavior. If the list is not removed, I suggest another block and an administrative removal of the list. -- Dane2007 ^talk 07:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• @JuanRiley: Regarding the "I asked several admin's" (sic), you mentioned a few of us but didn't send any pings, and I didn't get the message (it's possible I missed it). But now that I know, and as you want my opinion specifically, yes, your userpage accumulation of complaints about another editor is a clear violation of WP:POLEMIC (see "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed"). And even if you tried to word the list itself without attacks, your nasty heading is very much an attack. So remove it all, or it will be removed for you. And if you'll take some advice, drop your campaign of complaints against User:N0n3up and move on, as it will not turn out well for you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• I have just seen this edit made after that polemic section was posted, in which JuanRiley says "Also am seeing if I can parlay a week block into an indefinite one". So this has been deliberate provocation all along, and I have obliged with the indefinite block he seems to want. I will now remove the polemic. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that an editor's talkpage is his/her castle. As long as JuanRiley does not continue to ping others, then there's no need for an indef ban. IMHO, we're sometimes too quick to zap away editors. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oh Riley is a troll. I fully endorse this block, which has been a long time coming. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
• Also endorse. I actually indef blocked this account a few days ago on the basis of WP:NOTHERE, but reversed myself when I realised that they'd already been blocked by another admin, albeit temporarily. We all have better things to do with our time than play these sorts of silly games. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC).
• Endorsed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
• Endorsed. When people show you who they are, believe them. Katie^talk 15:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism noticed

I have noticed repeated vandalism occurring on the page List of current heads of state and government Please restore it to its correct version. Thanks Edknol (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I see only one blatent diff of vandalism on November 9th for that article and it looks fine as it currently sits. -- Dane2007 ^talk 07:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Edknol: If a case is only with regards to Vandalism and nothing more, then in the future, you should consider taking the matter to WP:AIV per the rules stated there, as ANI is for more difficult situations. (If any experienced editor disagrees, please correct me.)

As for Vandalism on the article. I see a vandalism attack by User:Mattyhain on there of about 8 edits, and one vandalism edit by a 98.253 IP, so not exactly one to take to WP:RFPP yet. MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 20:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

User talk:98.167.185.72

98.167.185.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has made a series of disruptive edits over at Portal:Current events/2016 November 9, I have tried twice telling them to take the issue to the talk-page but they keep insisting on "media bias".

Warnings given:

1. [24]
2. [25]

This editor has already undid multiple editor's contribs. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

All you have shown is you have warned them. How about a diff to the actual disruption? John from Idegon (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

All you have to do is look at Portal:Current events/2016 November 9.

• 1. [26]
• 2. [27]
• 3. [28]
• 4. [29]

To name a few. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I actually came here to report them, myself, and found this. Looking at their contributions; it's roughly half reverts of the same material; material that was added by multiple contributors. They are going against consensus, and have ignored polite requests to take note of the three-reversion rule. Their editing is disruptive and continuous, and they are accusing all who disagree with them of 'sockpuppetry', which I believe is a breach of good faith.

Diffs: (From most recent, as of this post.)

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

I believe that is all of them. As is shown in the diffs, they've reverted the same or similar material ten times.

Icarosaurvus (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I just want to point out that an IP starting Wikipedia for the first time pointing out things like socks is suspicious. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It is suspicious, but it also is edit warring. Everything does not need to be at ANI. This should have been filed at WP:ANEW. It is pretty blatant, so perhaps a passing admin will dole out a block. It is suspicious, but without a clue as to who the master is, a SPI is pointless. John from Idegon (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment This user was just given a 48 hour block per this edit: [40] (Arb enforcement sanctions). I feel we can all move on now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment As of this edit [41], the article in question has semi-protected status for the period of one week. Further, an Active Arbitration Warning has been applied to the page, stating that the 1RR guideline for post-1932 American Politics s in effect. Hopefully, these things together will solve the issue definitively. Icarosaurvus (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The Great Meme War speedy deletion contested 50+ times

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

---

Earlier today, The Great Meme War was created and tagged for speedy deletion under CSD A11 and G3. It has since been contested over 50 times and is showing no signs of stopping. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@MRD2014: And none of the reasons were valid. Article deleted, no further action needed at this time; however, the title is on my watchlist. —C.Fred (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Hounding, harassment and continued trolling

Burninthruthesky (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has kept up a sustained attempt to hound and harass me. Having been an IP address based editor of many many years, I was forced to create an account due to continued trolling at Plasticine by Burninthruthesky and one other editor. Since that event, Burninthruthesky has followed me into my named account and continued to hound me, making frivolous and unfounded allegations at every opportunity.

His latest attempts are a number of baseless SPI complaints, for which he has an extensive history. So much so that Bbb23 specifically warned him against further allegations of this type at his talk page here.

Burninthruthesky has followed me to Ignition system where he is attempting to support another editor in a dispute (which is being discussed on the talk page). Burninthruthesky's editing history shows that he has never made any technical edit to any article on any electrical subject whatsoever (his area of expertise is clearly aeronautics). It is therefore entirely reasonable to assume that he has no expertise whatsoever in electrical matters. Nevertheless, he is now supporting the other editor on a very technical point which he cannot possibly have knowledge of.

Denis Bratland reminded Burninthruthesky that he has to assume good faith here. However, Burninthruthesky responded that he has no intention following it here. The rest of what he wrote is incomrehensible gobbledy-gook.

An IP address editor has stepped in while I have been away (since 24th Oct) and Burninthruthesky has fallen over himself in the attempt to accuse the IP of being me. The second SPI (he has tried unsuccessfully before) is here. Apparantly, two editors stating that he has to assume good faith must be the same editor when it is, in reality, policy. He dismissal of the argument as a 'straw man' when so many references mention the issue (they would not if it was not important) is clear trolling.

When that SPI fails, he raises another. The IP is merely reiterating a point that has been extensively discussed on the talk page. As to what Vodaphone providing mobile access has to do with anything is anyone's guess. Burninthrutheski is also guilty of cherry picking the edits, because a different pair of edits tells a very different story. (It is clear from the talk page that 148.252.128.92 and 148.252.129.151 is the same editor using a dynamic IP address. I do note that the SPI is unactioned after three days, so it is presumably not being taken seriously. Presumably, unless checked, Burninthruthesky is going to keep trying until he succeeds.

I must insist on some positive action to stop this persistent harrassment, hounding and constant stream of allegations. --Elektrik Fanne 14:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

• There is a specific statement on the SPI pages that unfounded accusations are a form of harassment. As one of the other editors involved in the plasticine trolling and subjected to an unfounded SPI by the unnamed (but very long established) editor, I have been watching this SPI for a while. It seems that Burninthruthesky has picked up a nasty habit from that editor, that of using SPI as an unchallengable harassment technique. After all, how do you challenge an SPI? Surely we're all against socks?

There is nothing to these SPIs, and Burninthruthesky has been warned enough about using them like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that these three SPI filings over the last few months (1, 2, 3) - as well as the one he created on Andy Dingley in March 2016 (this SPI record was deleted for being completely unfounded and led to a warning being left Bbb23) - all appear to be completely unfounded, and have only wasted the time of our Checkusers and patrolling administrators, which are both short in numbers in that area to begin with. This all appears to be over the same articles (Plasticine and Ignition system) - both of which I've seen or reverted disruption from in the recent past. Burninthruthesky, why are you continuing to do this? You were warned about this back in March, and have continued to create unfounded SPIs three times since. Can you explain yourself, please? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Potential legal or BLP issue

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

---

• article Joel Segal (sports agent)

67.83.176.228 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) had been removing content from the provided article without adequately explaining why such content is "inaccurate/misleading" — [42], [43], [44]. They then proceeded to post a comment on my talk page which contained the following: I am Joel Segal's attorney. The content I removed at his request was inaccurate and incomplete and misleading, as well as confidential nonpublic information. The quote attributable to him was unauthorized and not endorsed by him as being published as representative of his stature in the industry. The information was posted by an unauthorized source. An inaccurate and incomplete and misleading wikipedia page is potentially severely damaging to Mr. Segal's business. It is imperative that the changes we made be completed. Thank you.

I'm unsure as to whether or not such message constitutes to a contravention of WP:LEGAL, hence the report here. Nevertheless, would an administrator please review the revisions provided and see whether or not such content is inaccurate or misleading, as per BLP -- I think another pair of eyes on this would be greatly appreciated.

Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 15:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I left them a message explaining a few things. If they can be persuaded to actually engage... Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Not a legal threat. Just someone claiming that he's the article subject's attorney (COI for sure) and explaining that he feels that the content is inaccurate and should be removed. Only in death has already done what I felt should be done at this time, which is kindly explain to the user on his talk page about how Wikipedia works, and what he needs to do in order to properly discuss the content and exactly what issues exist with it and why. If disruption continues despite the message and the warnings previously left, then we can consider action. But not now. Assume good faith, and if anything... WP:DOLT should apply no matter what. Even if he did make a legal threat, sure we should block per WP:NLT... but we should also investigate the content-related issues that are the driving force behind such legal threats, as a surprising amount of them do actually point out legitimate violations in Wikipedia's BLP, verifiability, or other relevant policies. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

There has long been a pattern of OWNish behaviour by IPs and a SPA on that article. I have no doubt that the message left was intended to chill and should fall under NLT. I invite you, Oshwah, to do exactly as you suggest and investigate the content removals. I'm confident that you'll find they have RS behind them. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The article has been protected for one week for persistent disruptive editing by Bbb23. While I agree that the repeated removal was disruptive, a legal threat was not made by the IP. We should also make sure to verify that the content being repeatedly removed does, in fact, follow Wikipedia's relevant policies. It's the proper and decent thing to do, just in case ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Bbb23 has been persistently disruptively editing the article? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

What, Floq? OK, thanks, I'll go block Bbb right away, and then I'll protect the article for one week for persistent disruptive editing. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah, there is a warning on the top of this page in red that says "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." I’ve done it for you .. but just this once. - NQ (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

NQ - Ah, I didn't start the thread, but good catch nonetheless. Should have caught that myself while I was looking into this. Thanks for adding the notice. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@NQ: I think you misunderstand the comments. --Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

oops, my bad. :) - NQ (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

You bunch are like Wikipedia's Keystone Cops. EEng 18:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Mass revert needed

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

---

BeppeLoSqualo (talk · contribs) has been adding mentions of a book called the Knights of Neptune, written by A.J. Morgan to multiple articles. I've blocked them but don't recall how to do a mass revert. The book doesn't seem to exist so this might not be spam (my block reason) but a hoax. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

done using User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js - NQ (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

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

DanHamilton1998

DanHamilton1998 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

@SwisterTwister: (involved). Anyway, DanHamilton has decided to use AfD discussion as a place to demonstrate uncivil like behaviors towards the user SwisterTwister, calling him a "her" even though swister's talk user page clearly states his name which is clearly male.(See this) [and] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Hillmann. It then also goes into detail which in summary is basically calling SwisterTwister stupid. I suggest mentoring for behavior or a civility block. --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Swister's user page states nothing. Nothing at all. Gricehead (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

• Gricehead - You may want to see this diff, Although it states nothing now Dan had gone through the userpage history. –Davey2010^Talk 21:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeh, irony failure. Sorry. I'll stop the derail now. Gricehead (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Ill also add this, notice no-where ST claims to be a expert on anything, but Dan appears to think so per this Special:Diff/748880339 --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The first edit by DanHamilton1998 to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Hillmann here seemed to be fine as far as civility and no personal attacks go, but I do agree that the next edit (here) begins to swerve from a discussion about content and to an unwarranted discussion about SwisterTwister and his experience and character, and with unfounded evidence and reasons to support such statements. The next edit here) contains comments aimed towards SwisterTwister that are absolutely unacceptable.

"Your logic there is extremely weak and incorrect. I don't know where you draw your experience in the publishing world but it clearly is not a background in real publishing. What is your background? What makes you an expert on this subject? Your lines of logic are vague and weak and rely on your personal opinion which clearly has no merit. You continue to perpetrate this lie that the works in question are not collected in libraries. They are collected by over a thousand libraries, that is a fact. You are incorrect about there not being enough here to merit an article. There is more cited evidence for this article than any author article, I've been able to find. Swister Twister [sic] please step aside this is getting strange and feels personal."

"Ok,SwisterTwister [sic]. now [sic] you are outright lying, or not checking the links"

"So either she forgot the second n in Hillmann or she is just lying or potentially mentally ill and fixated on trying to block this article."

"Her argument is a conspiracy theory"

"So who do you believe swistatwista and worldcat?"

As far as the whole "he" vs "she" thing... making that mistake in assumption is common. It happens... shoot, I do it occasionally and by mistake. That's not the end of the world... :-)

However....

DanHamilton1998 - Stating that SwisterTwister is lying, potentially mentally ill, fixated on trying to block this article, and that he's making arguments that are "conspiracy theories" - are unacceptable. These are personal attacks, and are absolutely against Wikipedia's civility policy and how we resolve disputes. Please stop. I am leaving you a warning on your talk page regarding this behavior. If personal attacks or other such incivility continues, you may be blocked from editing for this behavior. Please comment on content; do not comment on others like this. Also, what did you mean when you said, "Swister Twister [sic] please step aside this is getting strange and feels personal"? What do you mean when you say that this discussion is getting "strange and personal"? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah I added the gender thing into the ANI due to I believe it was not accidental in my opinion, however thats not why we're here. I propose that maybe a attack block is in order? However, maybe holding off until DanHamilton1998 comments? Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Zppix - No worries. In that regard, I'll assume good faith and assume that DanHamilton1998 didn't know. I'd rather address the big civility/personal attack issues rather than the small stuff such as this. I'm not calling gender assumption itself "small" (especially if doing so does offend someone personally), but this is an observation we can assume good faith with. Like I said, I accidentally say "he" instead of "she" and occasionally so. It happens... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

My apologies about incorrectly guessing the gender of Swistertwister I assumed they were female and that "Swister" was a playful spelling of sister. I also apologize for making the statement that Swistertwister is possibly mentally ill. But I do feel that the argument Swistertwister has made are both inconsistent and incorrect. At this point I feel that it has gone beyond SwisterTwister's opinion because Swistertwister continues to make repeat false statements that Swistertwister has already acknowledged are false due to evidence I have presented. I asked Swistertwister to step aside and let other Wiki editors look at the page because Swistertwister appears to either not be invested enough in editing this article to review the evidence and remember evidence Swistertwister has already acknowledged in the past. I also believe SwisterTwister has a false understanding of how major news outlets function. Swistertwister appears to believe from the statements made that Bill Hillmann has written the articles about himself in all of these 22 outlets outlets cited. I think we can all agree that is false and an curious thing for Swistertwister to think. DanHamilton1998 (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I personally have also looked at the page WITHOUT the bias of this ANI (when it was first nom'd) and I honestly don't disagree with any of the AfD votes, however, this is ANI not a place to ask for an article review. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Myron Ebell

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

---

BatteryIncluded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - On the BLP Myron Ebell, which is under general sanctions, BatteryIncluded has added unreliable sources, and used reliable sources in a sloppy way to make a point. Has also demonstrated a lack of neutral tone, and has intimidated other editors.

This editor has been adding poorly sourced content to support what appears to be a bias against the person in this biography. For example, this edit was barely supported by the source cited. When the edit was removed, the editor reverted with the edit summary "Show references to the effect instead of deleting the existing ones." This is not how Wikipedia:Verifiability works. The editor later added references here from a personal blog to support their point.

On the article's talk page this editor made this statement where they lament "Unfortunately, the courts had not caught up yet with Ebell to make him stop -an now under Trump's wing, he likely won't be stopped for a long time." This editor also left a message on my talk page here warning me to "Please keep your Republican tags and opinion." This editor's sentiment is also articulated with this edit, where they state "Now that Trump has been elected, it doesn't much matter ... human civilization on this planet is soon over. I will still call out this sort of BS, but I won't waste any more time on you."

A caution about the article's discretionary sanctions was left on this editor's talk page here, though after that caution this editor called another editor an "idiot" here.

At Talk:Myron Ebell, BatteryIncluded has intimidated other editors with these statements about them:

• [45] - "dumbass".
• [46] - "obnoxious and unethical".
• [47] - "cut the bullshit".
• [48] - "cut the bullshit".
• [49] - "You have no interest in building this encyclopedia, so go FYS and go edit comic books or something with a low scientific threshold".

I have expressed my concern about this editor at User talk:Bishonen#Myron Ebell, an administrator, who advised that a report here would have more eyes. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours for personal attacks. Reading through the diffs above as well as the talk page itself, he was clearly warned about being WP:CIVIL to which he followed up with more incivility. Not to mention, he's been blocked in the past for being uncivil. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Jimbo's account might be compromised

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

---

Can someone take a look at this, please? Arkon (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Someone got it, thanks. Arkon (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Ya think? General Ization ^Talk 23:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Fixed title of thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Can someone unblock @Bender235 and @Bender the Bot, which "Jimbo" blocked? General Ization ^Talk 00:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, @Newyorkbrad. General Ization ^Talk 00:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Was I the only account blocked in this incident? If so, I'd like to know why. Also, the article discussed right above this (Myron Ebell) was the very last article I edited. I mean, weird things happen but there is literally a 1⁄5,283,334 chance of that happening by coincidence. This is bizarre. --bender235 (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

No, Zzuuzz was also blocked, and they had a run-in with Ijon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Look at that user's edits and Jimbo's after the compromise and I think you'll see a pattern. General Ization ^Talk —Preceding undated comment added 00:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Also Bender the Bot, but Newyorkbrad unblocked the bot at teh same time he unblocked you. General Ization ^Talk 00:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo's log shows no other blocks, so I suppose we got off lucky. Zupotachyon (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I still don't understand why I was targeted. --bender235 (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Your bot's latest edit to Facebook would be my only guess. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, okay. --bender235 (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• Is there any chance he can stay blocked for the foreseeable future no ? .... –Davey2010^Talk 00:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

No. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Well what a shame. –Davey2010^Talk 00:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Jeepers, Trump hasn't even become US President yet & already, strange things are beginning to happen ;) GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

He can unblock himself, no? Pretty sure removal of permissions was standard in these situations, though I might have missed it if it's been done already. Arkon (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The account has been locked, the ability to unblock does not matter when nobody can even log into the account. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 00:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This has escalated to a global lock (across all projects), so a steward will need to unblock. I believe JW is a steward himself, but presumably he will want to discuss the situation first with someone else to ensure that any security issue is corrected. (That's what I was asked to do when my WP e-mail account started sending out spam a few years ago after I'd inadvertently downloaded a virus, back when I was a checkuser and an oversighter.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

So, does Jimbo have to create a new account in this instance? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

No. He needs to change his passwords and make sure he's using best security practices. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is public; we should probably not be discussing the response to this kind of incursion on a public page. General Ization ^Talk 00:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I would like to remind everyone that intentionally logging into someone else's account, particularly one with advanced permissions that you do not yourself hold, is a violation of the terms of use and potentially a serious federal crime. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, MusikAnimal just unblocked Ijon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please take a look at that user's edits and tell me if you really think they should be unblocked. General Ization ^Talk 00:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The unblock was proper in light of [50]. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks. General Ization ^Talk 00:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Jimbo here, writing from my alternative account. Thanks for handling this. What's my new password? EEng 02:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for contacting Wikipedia's replacement password service. I'm sorry, sir, but there is a small service fee for replacement passwords. Now if you can just email me your credit card number, its expiry date and the three digit security number on the back of the card, your new password will be forwarded to you as soon as possible. As this is a complicated process, please don't be alarmed if it takes a few weeks for delivery... --Shirt58 (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm Jimbo! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

And so is my wife. MarnetteD|Talk 12:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I received the new password, thanks. As for the rest of you: Back to editing, insects! EEng 23:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE block needed for an editor who will not stop trolling

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

---

I am requesting a WP:NOTHERE indef block of TweedVest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) whose short time on Wikipedia has been focused on trolling Hillary Clinton talk pages, violating WP:BLP, POV pushing, and WP:SOAPBOXing.

Examples

[51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56][57] [58] [59] [60][61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66]

Warnings

[67] [68] [69] [70] [71]

Thank you.- MrX 01:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Since he appears to have a few edits not immediately and directly under American politics, I've topic banned him using discretionary sanctions. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Ian.thomson. - MrX 01:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Further clarification: also, his edits relating to American politics (while clearly inflammatory, opinionated, and lacking or misrepresenting sources) are the sort of stuff that someone who needs to edit other topics might well believe is just good-faith "balance". Ian.thomson (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I've taken a very quick and cursory look at the linked diffs and also at Tweed's broader editing history and I'm not sure this is so much a case of NOTHERE as a rather spectacular WP:CIR and WP:NPOV fail. Tweed has a little over 80 edits and a few appear to actually be constructive or at least well intentioned. I'm not even sure I would call all of the linked diffs as clearly bad faith editing. But I am seeing two things that are a serious problem. First is an obvious POV in their editing history. They are playing advocate for one side in the recent political election. The second is a clear failure to grasp the way we operate here. Basic guidelines like NPOV and RS seem to be lost on Tweed. That coupled with their obsession with hot button political topics spells trouble. Conceding that I may be pushing the boundaries here on AGF, Im going to suggest that a TBAN from editing on any political subject broadly construed for at least six months, but maybe a year, might solve the problem. I think we will quickly find out if this is someone who is interested in learning how to contribute constructively to an encyclopedia or they are just here to advocate. If their pattern of editing does not improve in six-twelve months then it's probably best if Tweed found another hobby. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Mostly done already, though if you mean to suggest that all politics (and not just post-1932 American politics) for six months, that's an option. I went with indefinite because I don't think certain users (on all sides) are going to get any better within the next four (possibly eight) years. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd probably go with any politics post 1932. But I don't think an indefinite topic ban is needed. If Tweed is simply suffering from the ordinary ignorance that all new editors have to varying degrees then 12 months will fix that. Conversely if there is a problem that goes beyond a lack of understanding the way the project works then I am fairly confident that will become evident quickly as well. In the first case; problem solved and happy editing. In the second; we may need to gently suggest that he is not a good fit for our community and should look for some other undertaking to volunteer his time and efforts. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

He can appeal later on, indefinite isn't "irrevocably infinite." The reason I hesitate to set exact dates on topic bans is because some editors will just go "ok, so I have to not use this account for X units of time." Ian.thomson (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I'd suggest dropping a note on his talk page letting him know that he can ask to have the TBAN lifted after a reasonable period. And emphasizing that this is not punitive but rather because we are concerned that he doesn't have enough knowledge about how the project works to constructively contribute to some hot button topics at this point in time. That said, I would not lift the TBAN in less than six months and I would need to see evidence of constructive editing elsewhere. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is not a case of incompetence else I might agree. This is plain alt-right POV pushing and trolling, with no sincere effort or desire to actually improve these articles. I refer you to the editors contributions: a few random gnomish edits and large proportion BLP violating innuendo disguised as content proposals. I still think he should be blocked, but hey, let's give him a chance.- MrX 02:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

You may well be right. We will see. If Tweed is a far right troll my guess is he will either abandon the project after being TBANNED or he will ignore the BAN at which point hitting the indef button will only take a couple of seconds. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Motivação

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

• 2016-06-02 "Changed lead sentence"
• 2016-08-28 "Better, more accurate detail in lead sentence"
• 2016-08-29 "See Germany and Italy articles. The Republic of India is the world's second most populous member state of the United Nations. More detail is necessary. Unlinked page."
• 2016-09-07 "Germany is also a country; India is a country of much greater significance. Federal parliamentary republic is the form of government in Germany and noted in the first sentence of the Germany article."
• 2016-10-05 "Much better definition of course the definition is all politics. As was explained, see Germany, Italy, Turkey, articles, list goes on, etc."
• 2016-11-11 "See Pakistan article (which I earlier changed without reversions, Pakistan is located in the same subregion); it is commonly known that India is a country so it's necessary to be more specific"

From above, over the period of around five months (June-present month), this user has been making the same edit using almost the same reasoning (WP:OSE) and never posting on the talk page for discussion. The user has been blocked previously in June for edit warring on another page. Given that, it is expected that this editor is experienced enough to know about discussing on the talk and edit warring by now. The issue concerned has been discussed by others previously and these edits were reverted by different editors. I personally reverted it twice. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

This user was previously blocked on 1 June per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive317#User:Motivação reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked) for edit warring at Bipolar disorder. EdJohnston (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Unserefahne and Vietnam

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

• Changing Confucianism to Ruism, mostly in categories, e.g. [72] and [73]. Here is a look at the contributions to categoryspace.
• Renaming stuff based on their own way of translation, e.g. [74], instead of sourced translations.
• Stressing Vietnam's Chinese history by changing names for Vietnam into Annam (which, as far as I can tell, is mostly used for Vietnam during Chinese rule) and de-disambiguating Vietnamese language into Vietnamese.
• Adding explicit Tables of Content, columnising tiny reflists into 4 columns and more, summarized in this diff.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing Vietnamese to Annamese

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

Repeated deletion of a page by admins

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

---

Repeated deletion of a page by admins even after explaining I was not done creating it. Usernine (talk) 10:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)Jimfbleak deleted it twice due to a clear conflict of interest as he is a birder and the geoup kusts an operation involving a bird sanctuary that made national headlines and that went against birder interests. Now content is not visible. Please restore the page "United States Civilian Forces" so I can complete it. The guys who tagged and deleted it were very rude and aggressive and threatened me. Usernine (talk) 10:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)usernine

It's called a sandbox, use it, then if it's good enough, create the article. Also, a piece of advice, learn the proper steps to creating an article before you create one. It helps avoid stupid situations like this. Ugh. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 17:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I suggested that Usernine reported me here due to accusations of bad faith editing and abuse of my admin rights, discussion here. I've also pinged Cahk as my alleged co-conspirator, accusations here. The topic is clearly non-notable and lacking anything approaching proper references or any evidence that it is more than a one-man social media campaign, but since the editor concerned is convinced that the world is against him, rather than there being any failure on his part to follow our rules, I thought it best to air his grievances here. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, Jim, remember, their new and inexperience, that means they're always right and we're all out to get them. lmfao. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 18:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Did we rename this page "kick the newbies around"? I must have missed that. Would a grown-up admin be so kind as to restore the content and move it into the draft space so that we can all see what this is about. thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Why do you assume it's kicking a newbie around? Isn't there a real, more than likely, possibility that the newbie is actually trying to advertise something that's not notable? ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 18:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, AGF, it's a newbie, and you're quite clearly kicking him/her around. The newbie may well be misguided. We expect better from editors than the tone of your posts in this thread - they speak for themselves as being repugnant. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

"Repugnant"? How? I told them to created the article in their sandbox and gave them advice as to reading the guidelines for creating articles. As for the second comment, it was a reference that I made on Jim's talk page that so many newibes assume they're right and everyone's out to get them. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 18:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Tagishsimon - You're an experienced editor. So am I. I don't see a newbie being kicked around. I see a newbie kicking. I see a newbie whose rants can be ignored, and should be ignored. I also see that the page has been temporarily restored. I also note that the use of the word "repugnant" has aspects of a personal attack. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I see the 'lmfao' comment as repugnant. YMMV. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

As I said, it was a joke that I made on Jim's talk page because it's quite common. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 18:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

You are aware that we can read? You didn't "say it on Jim's talkpage", you said it on ANI in reply to a new editor who was obviously upset. It's about as textbook an example of WP:BITE as I can imagine. ‑ Iridescent 19:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Page temporarily restored at Draft:United States Civilian Forces, so people can see the matter under discussion. My 2c would be that the organisation is clearly non-notable, but that this is a good-faith attempt at creating an article rather than attempted spamming. ‑ Iridescent 18:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

After reading through it, it reads as a clear WP:COPYVIO. Just a copy and paste of an about page. Minus the first paragraph. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 18:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Ugh, please see [this. THAT is what I was reference. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 20:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio from what? I'm not seeing any match on either Google or on a (admittedly quick) skim of their website. ‑ Iridescent 18:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I said looked. The way it's formatted and everything looks like it's just a copy and paste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crash Underride (talk • contribs) 18:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• On the article rather than behaviour, but does not appear to be a a copyvio; does- according to e.g. this- be completely non-notable, backed purely by blogs, FB, Pinterest, etc. Immediate A7 if this ever reaches artispace. _Muffled ^Pocketed 19:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
• I don't have anything new to add - my comments on the user's talk page, as well as mine, demonstrates no ill will on my part. Both Jim and I went extensive length in attempting to resolve the matter. Having said that, I don't accept personal attacks. The newbie is just misguided on how he/she perceives Wikipedia to be. Just because everyone thinks their organization (or "movement", as the newbie calls it) "needs" a page, it does not mean so. If everyone CSD I tagged counts as a "bite", well, then I am happy to hang up my skates because new page patrollers are clearly not appreciated for weeding out problematic articles so other editors can actually review notable articles. --Cahk (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Polyenetian, IPs and suspected copyvio

I recently removed some nationalist rants and threatening remarks by Polyenetian (talk · contribs) on their own talkpage and warned them, see the page history. A user, Rrburke, has suggested that Polyenetian might as of today be using the 59.189.114.222 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) IP to avoid scrutiny. It looks likely enough, but I'm not sure; the topics — Cantonese people, Guangzhou, etc — are pretty much Greek to me. Could somebody more at home with them take a look, please? I also noticed another IP in the same /22 range, 59.189.112.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), has edited the same articles, but that may be nothing. And another thing: the edits by both Polyenetian and the IPs are in suspiciously sophisticated English — not the way Polynetian writes on their own page at all. I think it may all be copyvio. But I found such a confusion of hits on Google that I'm having trouble telling who is copying who. I don't have much confidence in my skills at identifying Wikipedia mirrors. Pinging @RexxS:. Bishonen | talk 17:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC).

Hey Bish, you didn't ping me! I've been meaning to spend some time on this as I also suspect copyvio - for the same reason. Doug Weller talk 19:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, @Doug Weller:! If you can spend time on it, that's great. Bishonen | talk 20:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC).

I'm not seeing a problem of copyvio with Polyenetian's edits. For example, looking at the last few article edits I find idiomatic expressions like "harbour anti-Semitic feelings", but searching for part of the sentence containing it reveals that most of the time the words are found associated with the US spelling 'harbor', so it's unlikely to be a copy-paste. I also find typos, like 'cemetey' and 'destrction', and unidiomatic expressions like "The Thirty Years' War brought tremendous destrction to the Germany". None of those show up in any convincing way in Google searches for the sentence fragments containing them. Whatever the source, Polyenetian is composing the text him/herself. I suspect that Polyenetian may not have English as their first language, but is sufficiently able to be able to paraphrase sources while retaining phrases that give the appearance of more sophisticated English that they employ when relating their own thoughts. I haven't examined more than few edits, so please take this as a tentative opinion. Does anybody else think that it's reasonable explanation of 'Shonen's concerns? --RexxS (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Genre warring

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

---

A couple IP's 2607:FB90:2999:8EAD:54E8:92E7:A920:78BA (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 72.200.185.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are genre warring on Eagles related articles:

• Life in the Fast Lane
• One of These Nights (song)
• Hotel California
• Life in the Fast Lane
• Heartache Tonight
• The Long Run (Eagles album)
• Witchy Woman

Not sure how to make a multiple request at WP:RfPP so I'm asking here. Thank you, - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

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

De-linking Wikipedia

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

This [75] information may be related. I left the information a few days ago but haven't followed up on whether the information was useful or not, or related to the user Judtojud.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC))

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

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

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

The user has several interests:

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

Some of active IPs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard Pombo

I came across this article on my patrol, and noticed a new editor Special:Contributions/Rencoyote who has edited solely on this article. Looking at the diffs between edits, there seems to be a concerted effort to remove some of the negative sounding information as "one-sided", "allegations", "unnecessary", "paragraph is not relevant", "Wiretapping played a minor role in the 2006 campaign", etc. I scanned through the talk page of the article, and noted there had been attempts in the past (albeit a LONG time ago) in removing similar materials in questions. Given I am not familiar with the subject matter, could another editor look into this?--Cahk (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

That certainly looks tendentious. I'll try to look some more tomorrow; for now, I've given the user discretionary alerts for American politics and biographies of living people. Bishonen | talk 00:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC).

Chester M. Southam - class editing it, out of control

• Chester M. Southam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is being worked on by an out-of-control class (here) that is bombing it with badly sourced, badly written, misformatted content and edit warring that back in after I fix it or remove it. They will not use the talk page. There are about six of them. Too bizarre to report to EWN so am asking for the article to be protected here.

I reported at the WP:Ed incident board here and emailed the teacher too. AS WP:ED advises, behavior issues that need admin attention should get reported here just as with any users.

I am not asking for blocks; just protect the page please. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The most recent editor from the class project added references but did not cite them with footnotes. Yes, there's a breakdown in communication between the students and other editors; it would help if we could get some constructive engagement with them. —C.Fred (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

From them. They are not using the talk page at all. Protecting the article will force the behavior they should be doing anyway. Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

the worst of them created an account to impersonate me and was just blocked for socking. out of control class. Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I think I've successfully cut him off. He'll be sadly disappointed when he tries to finish his coursework, and I do not feel sorry for him one little bit. Katie^talk 03:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

thanks for that. Jytdog (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Prof. Carl Hewitt evading his ArbCom restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

Anonymous person using multiple IPs attacking pages related to TV series

I can't tell whether it's sockpuppetry or not. Also, I don't know whether it's the same person. Look at those IPs:

• 2602:306:8348:43D0:91D4:16E3:ACC1:A7C8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2602:306:8348:43D0:F454:4F5C:55CE:81A7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2602:306:8348:43D0:1C53:DDAA:FCB:648A (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2602:306:8348:43D0:389F:61CC:325E:7B68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2602:306:3A69:9530:356C:CE50:A882:9EA4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2602:306:3A69:9530:A4E2:A8C8:4F23:3A22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2602:306:3A69:9530:C438:8A8D:C936:D27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2602:306:3A69:9530:8854:97CC:A26F:AF25 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2602:306:3A69:9530:4481:AC2D:5B31:E61F (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Also, this person keeps attacking articles related to Law & Order, Three's Company, and Cheers.

• Cheers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Law & Order: Criminal Intent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Three's Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• CSI: Miami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Diane Chambers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rebecca Howe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See any patterns? George Ho (talk) 07:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

SwisterTwister and possible wikihounding at AfD

SwisterTwister (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

I posted the following on User talk:SwisterTwister:

Hi SwisterTwister. Your "delete" votes in three AfDs came contiguously within 20 minutes of my posting "keep" comments in the same AfDs:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moov – you posted at 06:30, 13 November 2016. I had posted four minutes earlier at 06:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC).
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RightNetwork – you posted at 06:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC). I had posted 19 minutes earlier at 06:13, 13 November 2016
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobile Fun – you posted at 06:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC). I had posted 11 minutes earlier at 06:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC).

This is concerning because when I posted in an AfD today, it was immediately be followed by a "delete" vote and made me feel wikihounded (see Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding). How did you find these AfDs? Did you find these AfDs from my contributions? Cunard (talk) 07:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

SwisterTwister deleted my post and responded in an edit summary:

As my talk header states, please do not post such violations of WP:AGF, and as it is, I've been voting at AfD all day. I'm voting Delete at advertisements, including ones I had commented at before, and that's all there is to say

I reviewed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moov, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RightNetwork, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobile Fun, and saw no prior involvement from SwisterTwister. I also reviewed the AfDs' associated articles Moov, RightNetwork, and Mobile Fun and saw no prior editing or page review from SwisterTwister. After asking for and receiving advice from Northamerica1000, I am posting here to ask for community input.

Cunard (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

This looks somewhat baseless to me. SwisterTwister is a regular at AfD, these !votes are well reasoned, and there is no indication that they were doing anything to spite you in particular. I suggest not trying to make too much of timing correlation that may well be coincidental, and in absence of actual disruptive or tendentious behaviour.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

There were other AfDs during the same time where you commented after SwisterTwister (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Lincoln), and SwisterTwister !voted on many more AfDs than the ones listed above. This seems entirely baseless to me. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your example, SwisterTwister's comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Lincoln was made on 10 November 2016. My comment was made three days later on 13 November 2016. I found it from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs.I do not see how this AfD is relevant here, BU Rob13.

In the three AfDs I posted above, SwisterTwister first commented on all three within 20 minutes of my participating in the AfD. Those were the three AfDs I had most recently participated in. The timing is too coincidental for this to happen three times within 20 minutes.

Cunard (talk) 09:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Even if it was (which is a big If) - they are free to keep an eye on your contributions and, following that, edit the same page - as long as they are not being disruptive or trying to impede or hinder you in any way. These seem to be entirely good-faith, constructive AfD !votes. You have nothing to complain of here.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)