Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1005

Legal threats related to editing with COI
User:Mark Jean has admitted to a conflict of interest in relation to the company Evolution Aircraft here. He stated, "AHunt - EAC is definitely doing business. We have the tax documents, several dozen invoices, and payroll slips to prove it.)" After several edits today, and several warnings and a personal note on his talk page regarding editing with a COI, the user made this edit with the following edit summary: "BilCat - per Wikipedia's published guidelines, you are vandalizing EAC's Wikipedia pages. Tomorrow, we will consult with an attorney familiar with this area of law for next steps. No COI exists. Your incorrect changes are intended to misrepresent the facts and create damages." This is a clear legal threat. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Use of Wikipedia Rules to Justify Vandalizing Company Wikipedia Pages (apparently with the intent to create damages)

User:BilCat is clearly a Wikipedia "super user" of some type. I am not. I have no idea who BilCat or Ahunt are. I am a novice to Wikipedia. However, the previous inaccurate postings by other users to "Evolution Aircraft" and "Lancair Evolution" have created damage. This is not a "legal threat" - it is simply a fact.

Also, my stating that I need to "consult with an attorney familiar with this area of law for next steps" is not a threat. I have no idea what the laws are for people slandering businesses on a public facing website. What are company's rights? How do they inform Wikipedia.org about personnel who appear to be vandalizing the information about their company? What are the correct steps to take? Finding out what the correct steps to take re. vandalism on Wikipedia is not a threat of legal action. It is a statement of intention to "find out what the heck to do." (Right now, I have no idea what to do about people who intentionally damage company's public facing data on Wikipedia. Readers view these Wikipedia pages as "statements of fact."  It makes no logical sense for someone to intentionally create obvious issues for someone they do not know.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Jean (talk • contribs) 08:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I have always viewed Wikipedia as a source of accurate, factual information. If it is Wikipedia's intent to communicate inaccurate information, this is news to me.

Correcting incorrect statements is based on a desire to provide Wikipedia readers with accurate information.

Evolution Aircraft Corporation is definitely in business. Please advise what the company needs to provide Wikipedia to correct what is being incorrectly published to the public.

Thank you. - User:Mark Jean (talk) 08:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Viewing "Wikipedia as a source of accurate, factual information" is your first problem. Any idiot can post any nonsense they want here. Wikipedia is a good place to start your own investigation to find correct info. Legacypac (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Here you say "this is not a legal threat". There you say "we will consult with an attorney familiar with this area of law for next steps.". How are these compatible? Someguy1221 (talk) 08:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * You can start discussion and rfc on the content of wiki article in the talk page of the article, especially concern on not in WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE claim, or even content that never able to WP:VERIFY, but not ranting legal threat. However, wikipedia is not the webhost of ad either. Matthew hk (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Your statement is a legal threat, and you are liable to immediate block unless you retract it.  That being said, you should also work on some of your other inaccurate statements, such as confusing "slander" with libel, your airy and unsupported claim that these companies have been "damaged" (one might be forgiven for thinking that their Facebook pages and websites being abandoned, phones not answered, and industry articles claiming that they're defunct are far more injurious to sales) or your presumption that those making edits of which you disapprove have malicious intent in so doing.   Ravenswing    09:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Good morning Ravenswing, Please allow me to clarify I was not threatening to take legal action. I have no intent to take legal action. Because of its impacts already, we will find & hire an expert in this area. Obviously, I'm new to Wikipedia & not an expert with the rules for correcting inaccurate information. The positive guidance has been enlightening.  From your response, it's clear you have an excellent command of legal jargon. Thank you for your feedback.  Mark Jean (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Greatly Appreciate the Feedback

A number of people do view Wikipedia as a source of accurate, factual information. However, thank you for pointing out they probably should not. We've advised customers they should not. But this did not dissuade them from repeating their concerns. We will invest sufficient time & resources to appropriately address these issues, and stay within the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. Thank you for your valuable feedback. - User:Mark Jean (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I investigated a little and found this article confirming the business is shut down. Their facebook page has no new posts since the fall of 2017 but there is a comment about them closingfrom a reviewer. I can't call the company in the middle of the night but it sure looks closed to me.Now I realize that businesses that are not operating often continue to exist legally with assets (which an aircraft manufacturer likely has) but from the outside world's perspective this company is out of business. If you have news articles that show they restarted that is a different thing. Cheers  Legacypac (talk) 09:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Legacypac, Appreciate your feedback on the above article. I was not aware of it. If you'd like to meet me at Evolution, I have a few open days next week.  We can show you the aircraft kits under construction, and our parts department that continues to support EVOs around the world.   - User:Mark Jean (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for clarifying that you are not threatening legal action above. We have a strict policy that such threats are not allowed. Your invitation to Legacypac is inappropriate, for one because he is unlikely to be able to visit, and also because even if he did we would not be able to publish anything based on your meeting, as we would not consider it verifiable. We base our articles on information published in reliable sources, which means we publish both positive and negative details on a topic seeking to achieve a neutral point of view; we unfortunately cannot update anything based on assurances. I've checked briefly this morning and it seems that the information currently published is clearly verifiable with respect to the company's "apparent" closure, though I do not see that closure has ever been confirmed. If you know of any independently published information which clarifies the company's current status, we can easily resolve the situation. I'll follow up later this morning on your talk page: the legal threat situation seems resolved, and this forum is poorly equipped for content issues. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't know if Mark Jean should be blocked for NLT, but what I believe is unquestionable is that he is in violation of the TOS for paid editing. If he cannot understand that he has a COI, and does not comply with WP:PAID, then he should be blocked on that basis. R2 (bleep) 17:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we give editors the opportunity to self-correct first. It's being handled. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Indefinite block request for Aimsplode


Since 2012 this user is trying to redirect his user page and talk to the main page. I just link some examples for the user page (Sep 2012, Jan 2015, Jan 2019) and for talk (Sep 2012, Feb 2013, Sep 2014, Jan 2019). As you can see by his list of edits,his only contributions from 2013 are this edit wars of counter-rollbacks, in spite of any warning, onto his user and talk. Vandalism-only account active for 6 years: the infinite block is necessary. I suggest to delete user page and talk and prevent its creation, thank. --95.235.37.216 (talk) 02:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This editor has made 125 edits over 8 years. The last time they edited an article was 2013. Is this really an urgent issue that needs immediate attention from administrators? Most of his/her edits are to user space. I don't think this is an urgent situation and I don't know why this editor even warranted your attention. Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * LMAO. Howsoever, no idea how to handle this.  Dloh Cier  ekim  12:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds like an object lesson in WP:NOTHERE to me. ——  SerialNumber  54129  13:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not even WP:NOTHERE. Their article space edits are constructive. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Were constructive. As pointed out above, they haven't edited an article since June 2013. Which means that however much they were WP:NOTNOTHERE nearly six years ago, that's clearly not the case now. ——  SerialNumber  54129  15:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * They can do what they want with their user page, really. Well, within reason, but I don't see how redirecting to the main page is inherently disruptive. But their talk page is not theirs to do with as they please, it's a community page for discussion with the editor; if they are repeatedly redirecting it elsewhere, a block with TPA revoked is reasonable. As for what to do about it? Nothing. This all happened years ago. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I deleted this nonsense trolling by 1.128.105.118. Of course, he is Aimsplode: 2 minutes after this "comment" (lol), he did this vandalism on that talk. A blatant vandalism-only user. --87.3.19.233 (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Question about an odd series of changes
This is obviously not vandalism or any other serious misconduct, but is there a case for intervening in a case like this? This user Special:Contributions/58.161.80.53 recently made a change (lengthening a sub-heading) to a page I was watching which I thought unnecessary, so I did an AGF rollback. Looking at a fair number of their other edits, they seem to be mostly adding a "History" heading with an template underneath. Is this something which should be standard practice? Being a non-registered user, it makes me suspicious. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Follow-up. Having just returned to this, I see that this user has been continuing to do the same thing, with another editor and I reverting them at the moment. I think it needs to be reported as vandalism. Pointless waste of time for everyone involved. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I found two more IPs (also from Queensland) doing the same thing, going back to November: 121.222.88.51 and 1.128.108.214. When they're not adding an empty history section, they enjoy adding the word 'history' to section headings, or creating a section for history and changing previous level two sections ==Example== to level three ===Example=== so that they fall under the mighty banner of History. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , hmmmm, that's odd. What do you recommend? Report as vandalism? At best it's misguided; at worst, mischievous and time-wasting for those of us who have better things to do! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I spot-checked some edits and they seemed on the surface reasonable, though it would be better if they were adding references. Could you please give a specific diff for an edit which you found troublesome? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm on a very slow tablet and about to pack up,, but there was a whole string of basically pointless edits, some on stub articles, which just added a History sub-heading with nothing but a template (forget its name now, sorry) saying something like "empty section, you can help by adding to it"; others shuffling other bits into a history section without improving the text or citations and sometimes IMO incorrectly;and always with no edit or summary. (Thanks to both of you for having a look.) Laterthanyouthink (talk)
 * Yes, the lack of edit summaries is a real problem and I've left a comment of my own to that effect. I see what you mean on Dinka language: . On the one hand I can understand putting down a marker, on the assumption there's something to be said on the history of the language. That said, an empty section isn't doing much good. What you think of the IP adding the tag instead, with a specific call to action? Mackensen (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is that they're mechanically tagging article after article. The missing information template would simply substitute one template for another. A bot could do the same kind of tagging, but the task would never be approved. You asked about troublesome edits. Here's an example: They add a 'history' section to an article about the village in Kenya where Obama's father grew up, followed by one sentence mentioning that. This will come as no surprise to anyone who saw the article before the IP did, because there's already a two-paragraph section, 'Obama fame', which explains the same thing in more detail. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a bizarre edit. Mackensen (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Having just wasted more time following up on a few more of the changes and looking at the types of changes made, IMO these four are either deliberate time-wasters or adding nothing of value, or at best very little, of questionable value. In the one I just spent some time on, they had actually removed some information of value. I think that they need some sanctions. It appears to be deliberate and there's never an edit summary. These are the four: Special:Contributions/118.208.136.99, Special:Contributions/1.128.108.214, Special:Contributions/121.222.88.51 and Special:Contributions/58.161.80.53. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Aha: 2001:8003:E405:F700:81AF:834C:4682:8533 is also from Queensland, and makes the same kind of edits. And they're blocked for block evasion as part of a range. Pinging, who took care of them. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 2001:8003:E405:F700::/64 is someone who mostly edits adventure films, lists of adventure films, visas for various countries, and tourism articles. I don't really feel comfortable naming the registered account this person used because some of the blocks I've done have been CU-related.  Anyway, knowing the sock master's username wouldn't help because it only made a few edits.  I never noticed this editor to care about history sections, but I guess anything is possible. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Another one has just started up. Special:Contributions/124.150.90.69. (I tried posting the other four on the admins' vandalism page earlier, but my post was removed and not acted upon.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't describe most of those edits as vandalism, mindless/tiresome as they are. Maybe when it cools off they'll find something else to do, or someone will discover they share an IP range with a sock and give them a nice, long holiday from the labour of building an encyclopedia. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes,, I know; they manage to just toe a line which is annoying but not blatant enough to be obvious vandalism... I did suggest sock puppetry but there's a different process for that but I don't know how to establish, determine or prove that they are. Oh well. I saw earlier that an admin had drawn their attention to this complaint on one's talk page (maybe same one then started that new one I posted above?). Thanks for your help. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I left a note for 58.161.80.153 IP and am prepared to block if they continue. Some other IPv4s listed by various people above are not currently active. If Special:Contributions/124.150.90.69 turns out to follow the same pattern it may deserve a block also. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 2 March may be too far to go back for this, but if not, I'd add 124.19.16.206 to the list. I happened to run across Japan–Korea disputes: it's been a playground for this editor since November, when they apparently paid a visit to New South Wales. If I'm counting right, out of 14 edits, there are two registered editors and one unrelated IP, and the rest are the same person (various IPs) making pointless history-related edits. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I forgot to say thank you for leaving them the note. I hope that will get their attention.BlackcurrantTea (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That topic area has been home to dozens of sock farms going back to the beginnings of Wikipedia, and virtually no attempt to connect the dots has ever done much good. If you have a clear smoking gun connecting two named accounts to each other, you need to open an SPI posthaste, but don't be surprised if you were wrong -- there are literally millions of people on the Japanese archipelago who all share similar views and largely make the same English mistakes that most English Wikipedia editors might mistake for unique linguistic quirks, and the exact same is true of the Korean peninsula. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I've no idea who the named editor might be, if they have an account (or several). The edits simply point to a single editor in Australia (not Japan or Korea) making very similar changes over and over. I found it interesting that they repeatedly returned to Japan–Korea disputes over a period of months, when their usual routine is to make one or two edits per article in widely varying subject areas (e.g. Fence, Hainan cuisine, Bambara language, Albert Street, Brisbane) and move on. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Acemaster77 and ENGVAR
New editor, 200 edits since February, and pretty much all they do is to breach WP:ENGVAR. There are a handful of compliant edits otherwise.

Their talk: page is one long list of warnings by other editors not to do this, and broken promises to stop.

I first encountered them this morning, where I rv'ed a couple of new ENGVAR edits, warned (User talk:Acemaster77 - Note that MediaWiki disambiguates links to repeated warnings. I don't think I've actually needed that before), saw the Talk: and then checked their recent history. I then reverted pretty much all of their edits for the last fortnight (I think 3 still stood). They posted to my talk, saying that it was hard to break a habit - but then went and did another one right after.

This needs to stop. I warned them, hoping that they would take the hint. Clearly they either can't or won't. I would have posted this to AIV as an indef as vandalism-only, but as my warning had said ANI and at least some hope of a GF discussion and warning, I post here instead. But having now looked at the rest of their contribs too, it's an INDEF from me. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * They've since gone on to this one "(I know you hate it when I change BE to AE but this time I can get away with this considering that I believe I was told it was ok for me to “modify” a wiki page as long as the page mentions a country that uses the “regional English dialect”.", which I think should be left to stand per WP:TIES, but with a block for WP:BATTLEGROUND. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is definitelty getting annoying. Their aim now seems to have switched from wholesale Americanization (e.g. Abraj Al Bait) to "getting away with" as much of it as can be lawyered. The point that WP has no preference for either variant, but does have a preference for the absence of disruptive busywork, seems not to have been received. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * They've edited daily since registering. Maybe a one-day block would get their attention? valereee (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I blocked this editor for 31 hours., please be cautious to avoid reverting American spelling to British spelling in articles with clear American ties like AGM-114 Hellfire. Thank you. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  18:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Cross-wiki disruptive behaviour of bold move by User:DZwarrior1
I filed a complain wikidata:Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard and remind him yet another bold move was reverted in en-wiki in User talk:DZwarrior1. That guy just straight up ignore any warning and vandal it-wiki by moving article from it:ACF Fiorentina to hoax title it:Associazione Calcio Firenze Fiorentina.
 * Inter Milan sub-article (note that RM away from "Inter Milan" was reject by several RM, the RM should binding to sub-articles), e.g.
 * (twice)
 * S.S.C. Napoli
 * S.S.C. Napoli
 * S.S.C. Napoli

His disruptive bold moves in en-wiki alone need indef block, i am not sure his cross-wiki behaviour also warrant a global lock or not. Matthew hk (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like the user is not responsive, and has been already blocked previously, so that I am afraid we need to block long-term.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * As a routine, these guy never had edits in User talk nor talk namespace. At least the last guy i reported in ANI (User:0716pyhao, stale since February 2019) had one single edit in talk namespace outside move related edits. Despite i don't believed it was a sock as the articles did not overlap, but checkuser may worth to have a check. Matthew hk (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * . After this thread was opened, he just ignored everything moved ACF Fiorentina to the wrong title. Matthew hk (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I blocked indef. If they want to be unblocked they now have to post an unblock request.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

White trash and User:Sangdeboeuf
The lead for this article includes the statement "...[the phrase "white trash"] may also be used self-referentially by working class whites to jokingly describe their origins or lifestyle." This is supported by 4 sources, and has been in the article in one form or another since 30 December 2008, when it was added without any supporting source. User:Sangdeboeuf doesn't believe that these sources support the statement, but does not have access to the sources to verify this. Because of this, they insist on tagging the statement with a "citation needed" "origninal research" tag, and they are edit warring to keep the tag in place.

I believe this is inappropriate. That Sangdeboeuf doesn't personally believe the sources support the statement is irrelevant if he cannot verify whether they do or not - his disbelief is essentially a negative form of WP:OR. In addition, a "citation needed" "original research" tag is only appropriate if no sources have been provided to support the statement. I'd be more than happy to remove the statement if Sangdeboeuf can show that the sources do not support it, but in the absence of any evidence of this, the sources are more than adequate to keep the statement in the article.

I ask that Sangdebouef be warned not to continue to edit war, and told that the "CN" "OR" tag is inappropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For some reason I wrote "CN" instead of "OR" in referring to the tag. "OR" is actually correct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * CN is the wrong tag (unless the citations themselves are challenged and removed as non-RS) - the correct tag is Template:Verify source and a request for quotation. Icewhiz (talk) 07:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah...OR isn't technically the appropriate tag, but the underlying concern does seem to be perfectly reasonable. There are sources, but all four citations fail WP:CITE. Nothing in the sourcing information purports to satisfy WP:SOURCES, and honestly, at face value, none of the titles of the sources strike me as reliable academic works, nor do any even have quotes or page numbers from which which one could verify the claim, even if they had access to all four books. For all we know, the claim could be original inference, synthesis, or purely made up, and it's not reasonable to just tell a user the burden's on them to read all four books to verify a claim for themselves. I would actually say this situation would qualify as legitimately "challenged material", which could be validly removed outright under WP:V until verification is provided. ~Swarm~   {talk}  08:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree on the paucity of the sourcing; this is the kind of thing you're looking for BMK, although I'm not actually saying that it would support the exact assertions you're talking about here.  ——  SerialNumber  54129  08:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Except this statement is in the lede and well supported by several paragraphs amd examples in the body. It is also a true statement as can be easily verified. For example a humor book that does exacly what the sentence says. Legacypac (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: BMK has breached 3RR on this article; see complaint at AN/3. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, Sangdeboeuf, I was going to raise the matter of your blatantly-retaliatory filing at WP:ANEW here; in the context of WP:BOOMERANG. Just because discussion here may seem to lean towards your position vis á vis sourcing, using Wikipedia's own processes as a weapon in a content dispute is about the crappiest thing you could do. You do not come out of that edit-war spotless either: be mindful. ——  SerialNumber  54129  08:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * BOOKCITE is not applicable here, and we don't need page numbers. The titles of the books use the term white trash in exactly the sense noted. I also dug up some quotes of very famous and not so famous people using it as self targeted humor. Sangdeboeuf's rejection of all the obvious evidence supporting this statement is unbelievable. Legacypac (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Eh, I guess it makes more sense when you're viewing the book titles themselves as the sources, but in that case, the sources are primary sources being combined, and the claim in the article is an original analysis, which would make the tag correct. If the actual reliable sources are in the body, and the book titles are just meant to be examples, that's fine, but then they should not be masquerading as reliable sources, but converted to footnotes. ~Swarm~   {talk}  22:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * what you call "blatantly retaliatory" I attribute to the fact that collecting diffs for AN/3 takes time to do, which I was busy with at the time this complaint was made. I suppose after being threatened with AN/I over a content dispute, I'm supposed to patiently wait for the community to weigh in before I can report a 3RR vio? BMK wrote a total of one comment on the talk page before coming straight to AN/I. If anything is retaliatory (not to mention frivolous), it's BMK's complaint. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Which would be slightly more convincing if you hadn't also had plenty of time to edit war while you did so.  ——  SerialNumber  54129  10:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? My last edit to the article was at 07:20 UTC. I posted a 3RR warning on BMK's talk at 07:37. Their AN/I complaint came several minutes afterward at 07:41, followed by my AN/3 complaint at 08:15. That's it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is that everyone had stopped edit-warring 45 minutes before your ANEW report? Ah, cheers. ——  SerialNumber  54129  14:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not seeing what that has to do with anything, unless 3RR resets to zero after 45 minutes. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have not looked at all of the diffs as yet and do not wish to comment as to the larger issues here, but I will say that I think taking 20-45 minutes (whatever the exact times was) is a perfectly reasonable thing to do when writing a complaint--especially if one is taking care to organize the initial post and cross the tees and dot the ies, make sure everything is in order and in compliance of what is expected of a complaint at the notice board. I mean I've never opened an AN/Anyhting, but I sometimes take that long just writing a middling-size response, trying to make sure I compose a wording that accurately conveys my thoughts without significant risk of misreading and with the best available wording to avoid imflammming the often hot discourse between the disputants needlessly.  Beyond the ponderousness of those such as myself, there are lots of other reasons why editors might take their time with a complaint--they might be unfamiliar with the process, they may have vision or motor impairments, maybe their kid is sick--or walked into the house with a tattoo they are going to regret most of their lives.  The point is, one doesn't know and I think 45 minutes doesn't even get close to stretching the amount of time that would need to pass before I would not give them the benefit of the doubt/WP:AGF test and take them at their word as to what inspired a particular attempt to avail themselves of a community process.


 * Now, I haven't looked at the AN3 issue as yet, so I can't attest that it's perfectly above board, but I do think that the initial dispute definitely involves issues on which reasonable people could disagree. Furthermore, if I am reading the implications of the cross-fire here, each editor is accusing the other of breaching 3RR or WP:EDITWAR in some sense. If both of those accusations are accurate, then neither party has really been approaching this situation in a manner immune to significant criticism. Where was the effort at dispute resolution before these two escalated to edit warring and counter complaints? I have to tell you, this looks more like something that should have gone to RfC, not ANI.Snow let's rap 21:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Bad day to be BMK. Do we have a "white trash" userbox? Need to get me one of them. <b style="font-family:Century Gothic"> Dloh Cier  ekim </b> 20:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment' Unless I'm missing something ( like coffee ) I think this could be relegated to the (white or otherwise) trash heap of actionless, "no bill", going nowhere fast, archived discussions. <b style="font-family:Century Gothic"> Dloh Cier  ekim </b> 20:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Lmao. ~Swarm~   {talk}  22:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to see this. :-( Sangdeboeuf and Beyond My Ken are both good guys. Bishonen &#124; talk 23:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC).
 * If I gave anyone the impression that I didn't think that Sangdeboeuf is a "good guy", then that's my error. I have no reason to think that, and in fact, I do not. It's a dispute, simply that, one in which I think Sangdeboeuf is wrong and he (I assume) believes that of me.  That doesn't make either of us bad guys, it just means that we disagree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ditto, but I'm bound to say that the article as it stands has good dose of OR and SYNTH and not-the-best-sources. No, you can't cite the statement re may also be used self-referentially by working class whites to jokingly describe their origins or lifestyle to books such as The White Trash Mom Handbook: Embrace Your Inner Trailerpark and White Trash Cooking (whether their covers or their insides), and I'm very skeptical about sourcing a statement about high blood levels of testosterone ... He proposes that a Mid-Atlantic state, Southern and Western propensity for violence is inheritable by genetic changes wrought over generations living in traditional herding societies in Northern England, the Scottish Borders, and Irish Border Region to a book entitled Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America – even if those ideas are in-text attributed. (And it's weird for them to appear in a popcult section of the article.) <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 00:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the "In popular culture" section is the weakest part of the article, and I when I was working on expanding the article, I considered just removing it, but decided not to for a number of reasons: (1) It seemed adequately sourced to me, even though I did not have access to the sources to verify them; and (2) I'm generally opposed to the wholesale remove of "pop cult" sections, because the community has never reached a consensus that it's a good idea. I prefer to weed popular culture material rather than do mass cutting.Be that as it may, the bulk of the article is -- I believe -- cleanly sourced, although I would prefer more variety in the sourcing.  That may be improving, as I'm now reading a book which could well have material which will be applicable to the article. (I've already added one paragraph to the article sourced from the book.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I hate to disagree with because he might put some strange image on my user page or remove the nice image that he already left there, but "White Trash Cooking" should not be dismissed out of hand. This was one of the best selling cookbooks of the 1980s and was widely reviewed and praised by august publications like the New York Times for being much more than a cookbook but also an incisive look into a regional subculture, and its photography was widely praised as well. Read up on the book before dismissing it out of hand. This is essentially a content dispute and as the experienced among us know, this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. If there are weaknesses in sourcing, then the solution is to search for better sources and provide better bibliographic information about the existing sources. That is what I have done in recent hours and there is more work to do. Anyone remotely familiar with American English and the culture of poor whites in the South would not contest the assertion that the term "white trash" is often used in a humorous, self-deprecating fashion. Instead, such editors will set out to improve the referencing of such an assertion. Note: I am an American of white working class background but not a Southerner. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  02:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * If White Trash Cooking contains an explicit statement to the effect that white trash "may also be used self-referentially by working class whites to jokingly describe their origins or lifestyle", then great. Otherwise, it's OR. (Even if we all know personally it's true.) <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Re "the term "white trash" is often used in a humorous, self-deprecating fashion," Please see my comment above. <b style="font-family:Century Gothic"> Dloh Cier  ekim </b> 03:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , another source that I recently added to the article, written by a Missouri academic, says "The more contemporary cultural phenomenon of the "Blue Collar Comedy Tour" is another example of how us rednecks are naming ourselves. Jeff Foxworthy, Bill Engvall, and Ron "Tater Salad" White use the self-deprecating humor of us redneck white trash hillbilly crackers to engage us in a Rabeslaisian carnivale in comedy clubs and on cable channels across America." I think that the cookbook source supplements that, if you read the reviews of the cookbook. Since my wife collects cookbooks and used copies of this cookbook are dirt cheap, I think that I will buy a copy so I can quote directly from its content. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Cullen328's source would seem to be sufficient; synthesizing the same claim from book titles is thus no longer required, so the issue just evaporates. There's no action to take here in either direction.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm all choked up over this. Fish anyone? Trout.jpg <b style="font-family:Century Gothic"> Dloh Cier  ekim </b> 12:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You know I'm all for it. A Dolphin (squeek?) 16:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Site or topic ban for Dianalasi23
has been warned extensively about introducing Cyrus the Great (a Pagan king) and Darius the Mede (a fictional character) to List of converts to Judaism and has not ceased edit warring. See warning at. I think that she does not comply with WP:CIR and therefore deserves a site or topic ban. Her POV-pushing for biblical literalism is manifest at. That was her response to According to WP:NPOV, the Bible is mainly mythology. We do not state Scientology beliefs as fact, the same applies to the Bible. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was gonna say "a ban seems a bit overkill at this point" because I like to see a laundry list of diffs for those, but I see that her activity is almost completely dedicated to emphasizing Jewish ethnicity or Messianic Judaism. Also, WP:COPYVIOs.  That said, she's only been here a few months (which is why I was able to assess her edits so quickly).  A topic ban from Jewish identity (whether ethnically or religiously) would be more appropriate than a site ban.  Either she would:
 * learn how the site works in a topic where she's not emotionally invested (the most mutually beneficial option)
 * stop editing entirely
 * demonstrate the same problematic behaviors elsewhere (leading to a block)
 * violate the topic ban (leading to a block)
 * In all cases, the disruption ultimately stop. Site bans are for when a user is an unrepentent walking shitstorm, not just a biased newbie.  And on a side note, while I revert a lot of YECists in Genesis related articles for taking out "myth," I try to take the time to explain to them what "myth" means in an academic context instead of saying it's no different than something that'd piss them off.  Ian.thomson (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup, I'm not her enemy. I tried to explain, but she did not listen. She already was blocked once for edit-warring. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yet here you are seeking to site ban someone who does not share your religious beliefs. How about not beating up on a newbie with 59 edits that is not vandalising anything. A range of opinion and belief is allowed at Wikipedia and I hope this editor can learn to incorporate diverse view points in an neutral manner. We tolerate a lot more serious disruption, even outright trolling, before a topic ban or site ban. Legacypac (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For me if she says that she understood the problem and she won't insert Cyrus or Darius as converts to Judaism would be enough. I posted here because she repeatedly failed to say that. Otherwise she is likely to reinsert Darius in April, then in May, then in June, then in July, then in August and so on. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. For true believers I'm from Satan with a mission to deny WP:THETRUTH. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked. I can't see a topic ban doing any good here. If she appeals the block and says she now understands the problem, we'll all be happy and she can be immediately unblocked. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC).

Tgeorgescu vs Legacypac
$I've moved the below mess to it's own subsection because it's distracting from the issue at hand. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)$
 * If you can't see much difference between a book with thousands of years of history and billions of followers as no better a source than a small cult invented a few years ago by a sci-fi writer, you have a very strong WP:NPOV issue. Legacypac (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * While I agree that the comparison is asinine (the Bible was created at a time when myth was the best one could do for science and history, and its writers were probably earnest; while Hubbard was a definite charlatan who contradicted then-known facts), your counter argument opens the door to dismissal as argumenta ad populam et antiquitatem. It also potentially derails the discussion, unless you want to gather WP:DIFFs for a WP:BOOMERANG -- but before you do that, I strongly recommend you also review Dianalasi23's edits.  Ian.thomson (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In Bible scholarship "myth" does not mean "false", just "unproven" will do.

"Marcus Borg has suggested that "the details of Strauss's argument, his use of Hegelian philosophy, and even his definition of myth, have not had a lasting impact. Yet his basic claims—that many of the gospel narratives are mythical in character, and that 'myth' is not simply to be equated with 'falsehood'—have become part of mainstream scholarship. What was wildly controversial in Strauss's time has now become one of the standard tools of biblical scholars.""

- from David Strauss


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * And, yes, that's what our articles say: Cyrus was a Pagan king who died Pagan and has never converted to Judaism, and the WP:RS/AC is that Darius the Mede is an imaginary character; the few dissenters from this viewpoint cannot agree among themselves who this Darius was. Neither "Christ is the Lord" nor "Hubbard is the Lord" are objective truths. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Were it not for one edit acknowledging Messianic Judaism as a thing, I'd just as easily suspect that Dianalasi23 could be a hyper-conservative Jew. You're making this a bit too strongly about religion, which is not going to help.  Except for members employees of the Church of Scientology and followers of Nazi-derived religions such as Church of Creativity, we don't carry out bans based on religion.  Focus on how Dianalasi23 is simply stuck on a WP:FRINGE position and refuses to cooperate, and in the future don't troll new users by insulting their the entirety of religious beliefs (yes, that's how comparing the Bible to Scientology comes across whether you meant it that way or not).
 * Now, let's get back to the topic of whether or not Dianalasi23's behavior warrants a topic ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles can be correct or incorrect. I'm aware of the meaning of myth. Not everything in the Bible can be proven by outside evidence but I take exception to you classing the Bible with Scientology. That is basically hate speech. Go read up on the Hittite situation. Legacypac (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * While I wouldn't go as far as "hate speech," comparing the Bible with Scientology is (at a minimum) unnecessarily inflammatory.
 * Now, let's get back to the topic of whether or not Dianalasi23's behavior warrants a topic ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The argument is rather simple: neither the Bible, nor the Koran, nor the Vedas, nor Dianetics are objectively true. So WP:NPOV says we do not treat them at face value, as objective historical facts. The Bible isn't WP:RS for historical claims. Neither is Dianetics. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Scientology are subjective beliefs. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

This is what I meant: they're (i) subjective beliefs and (ii) religious minorities (worldwide seen). So we treat all religious minorities the same, no minority is privileged. Coming back to the topic ban: yes, the user pushes a religious POV contrary to what historians have to say (according to WP:RS/AC) and contrary to the established norm that the Bible does not WP:Verify historical facts. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The non-Scientologist scriptures, while not works of history, are historical documents which reflect the thoughts of people in different periods of time and are therefore primary sources to be used with extreme caution. Even passages which have no historical facts in them are starting points for historical criticism ("why did they write this?  What does the fact that they wrote this to begin with say about the society it came from?  How did it influence the societies which immediately followed that which produced it?").  As far as people at the time knew, they were accurate.  The works of Hubbard were mostly fiction with Scientologist themes (more akin to Lewis's Narnia series), or (in the case of Dianetics and Scientology manuals) works that anyone at the time could know contradicts established science.  The former is interpreted in a variety of ways, many of which allow their followers to integrate into and cooperate with mainstream society; while Scientologist scriptures are a blueprint for an organization that separates its members from everything mainstream.  Big difference.
 * The real reason we don't cite religious scriptures, even if one set was proven and accepted as literally true, is that they're primary sources. It's no different than why all but disallow citations from Greek and Roman historians with the exception of quote verification.
 * Making this about religion only opens the door to a WP:BOOMERANG topic ban, which I don't want for you. I agree that Dianalasi23 needs to be topic banned.  Stop stirring up other issues that are only going to distract from that.  Ian.thomson (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I would not see what is wrong with saying that we don't render subjective beliefs as objective facts. Nor with saying that we treat all religious minorities the same. But I'll drop the stick if you so wish. I did not mean to indulge in hate speech. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually Theorgescu is in the religious minority, not the Jews+Christians+Muslums (collectively over 50% of humans) who accept the Old Testament. Kindly don't use Wikipedia as a soapbox.


 * I think the reported editor is pretty new (59 edits only since Jan) and will learn what sticks and what does not without the extra assistance of a POV pushing editor like Tgeorgescu who suggests a site ban already! I suggest dropping this matter. Legacypac (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * FFS... This isn't a zero-sum issue here. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't site ban editors with 59 edits who are not obvious blockable trolls. We rarely even consider topic bans for editors this new with so few edits. It's not like this editor is spewing Nazi hate, spamming up the site, or being a troll on notice boards. They are learning our policies. Legacypac (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Each and every of us has a minority religion (or minority lack of religion). We're all religious minorities here. Perhaps I should have listed Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, Adventists, Baptists, Pentecostals, Lutherans, Scientologists, Moonies, Mormons, Unitarians, Shia, Sunnis, Ahmadiyya, Alevites, Buddhists, Shintoists, Confucianists, Taoists, Hindus, Jainists, Falun Gong adepts, etc., in order to be less irritating. But, yes, edit-warring for WP:FRINGE/PS (pseudohistory), i.e. including a Messiah who was Pagan (polytheist) for all his life and an imaginary character as converts to Judaism, needs to be addressed. Since she shows no sign of wanting to stop from edit-warring, even if such edit-warring is rather slow. Besides, most Muslims and lots of Christians do not care if OT has errors. Bashing the Bible seems to be a popular hobby of Muslim apologists. They think that Moses taught Islam, but Jews have adulterated his message, that Jesus taught Islam, but Christians have adulterated his message. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to concur with Legacypac on all of the above; this isn't even a debate that needs to happen, it's simply how it is here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I had no idea that comparing four religious minorities and four holy books would be seen as hate speech. What I have stated is (i) we're all minorities (ii) all minorities are treated equally (iii) we don't state subjective beliefs as if they were objective facts. I don't think that you disagree with either (i), (ii) or (iii). Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking for a rangeblock for the Frenchie vandal
Regarding this case – Long-term abuse/Frenchie vandal – I think we need to have a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/31.52.191.70/24 because of continuing disruption. All the edits from that range are surely the Frenchie vandal going back to October 2018, so it looks like we would not suffer collateral damage.

Recent disruption has resulted in two blocks. A rangeblock would better protect the wiki. Binksternet (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  01:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  02:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Binksternet, take a look at Special:Contributions/31.52.190.0/23 (the 190.0/24 looks like the same as 191.0/24).
 * Your suggestion of the range 190.0/23 is better, as it catches more of the disruption, roughly 300 edits by the Frenchi vandal, whereas the 191.0/24 is about 150 edits by Frenchie. Binksternet (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ for a year as anonblock.

Colonies Chris

 * – This user keeps indiscriminately unlinking random words for no reason. I tried having a discussion with them, but they didn't reply and resumed editing just as before. They should be blocked per WP:MEATBOT until they promise to stop. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In the absence of diffs, I'm going to say that it's reasonable per MOS:OVERLINK to unlink things like fire, water, and sunlight. Mackensen (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I routinely unlink common words such as those. There may be certain contexts where such links are useful - I don't think that's the case in any of my recent edits. We can discuss specific examples. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You're indiscriminately unlinking light from the vacuum article, or time from the Stefan–Boltzmann law , even though those are clearly relevant links, that weren't overlinked. But more importantly, we shouldn't be at AN to get you to engage in discussion. The rest of the edits were fine, but the mass unlinking is indiscriminate and has to stop. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Headbomb is pretty much spot on with this statement, especially the part about having to come here to force discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyone who's reading an article on the Stefan–Boltzmann law may be assumed to be familiar with the concept of time: they're not there for a philiosophical discussion on the nature of time. That would be helpful in some contexts, but not this one. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Time is specifically mentioned as a physical concept. That is a topical link, not just "after some time, the thing happened" Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going to quote the full sentence here:
 * "Specifically, the Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time $$ j^{\star}$$ (also known as the black-body radiant emittance) is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature T:
 * There's nothing there that would require any reader to have a grasp of the concept of time beyond the everyday understanding. There are several technical terms there that are rightly linked, but 'time' is not one of them. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC).
 * Links are not there only when the reader doesn't know what something is. Links are there when they are topical. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

A quote from MOS:OVERLINK: "A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from.". There's no benefit to a reader here. Colonies Chris (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite a few are disputable. "English language" is OK here. "Altitude" might not always be obvious, especially to non-English speakers . "Netherlands" is always worth linking, especially given the confusion with "Holland" .  Some of the the edit-summaries are not always accurate - this one claims it's changed "Hansel and Gretel" to the opera, which it hasn't (which is just as well, as the story is correct).  So, yeah, it's not terrible automatic editing, but it could be improved a bit. Black Kite (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The offical tourism site for the Netherlands is www.holland.com Legacypac (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Altitude" is just an ordinary English word, not a technical term: WP:NOTDICT. It may well be worth linking "Holland", where it's not synonymous with The Netherlands - but not vice-versa. "The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar". Yes, the edit summary was misleading, but no incorrect edit was made (I undid it before saving). Colonies Chris (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Altitude is a relatively ordinary word, yes, but this is a topic related to atmospheric entry, and is something that is very much dependent on altitude. Again, the link is germane and topical. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep. If I may borrow a perfect summation: "Links are not there only when the reader doesn't know what something is. Links are there when they are topical." Just because you don't elder the topicalityif a link in an article you e never edited before does not mean the link should a automatically removed because it's a common word. Removing a link to time from any article on a time-dependent physics concept reveals simply that one shouldn't be editing that article in the first place as they lack the competence regarding the subject area. oknazevad (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly, links aren't only for when the reader doesn't known something. They are there for when something is important to the topic. Removing a link to time from an article on time-dependent physics is beyond crazy and as oknazevad says indicates not having knowledge of the subject. -DJSasso (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think one key point here is that these mass edits should stop once anyone objects with a reasonable rationale. Not all articles are the same, and we really don't need this kind of one-size-fits-all approach which changes thousands of articles a week.  I particularly object to the reconfiguration of piped links to redirects, under some pretence of "NOTBROKEN" yet many of these pipes were created as such, and the violation of NOTBROKEN is actually that being committed by these runs of thousands of semi-automated edits.  And I have seen examples of times when user will wait until the article is "out of mind" before reasserting the edits.  There's no real excuse for continuing to edit time after time against consensus, or even against one reasonable complaint, yet it continues time after time.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I see no-one has addressed the crucial question I quoted above from MOS:OVERLINK: "... whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from.". There's no point in a link that does not benefit the reader. Just about anything mentioned in an article is relevant to the topic - if it weren't, it wouldn't belong there - but that doesn't mean that linking it provides any benefit to the reader. We don't link items just because they're important - we link them in order to help the reader to a better understanding. We had these discussions years ago about overlinking - this is settled policy. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And what seems clear from above is that numerous editors here believe that the items you are delinking would help someone. You, on the other hand, disagree with those multiple editors and continue to edit against them, hundreds of times a day.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, no-one has claimed, for example, that a link to 'time' would be helpful. They're just insisting that it should be linked simply because it's important. And that's not how we do linking - that's been settled policy for many years. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that you're making semi-automated edits, masses of them, to enforce something subjective in each and every case. I think we can all agree that's an unwise use of a semi-automated tool.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Would Chris perhaps agree to voluntarily stop making semi-automated edits? Deb (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In the case of my comments important = helpful. I am guessing that is the case for others as well. -DJSasso (talk) 12:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm with Colonies Chris on this one. I have not yet seen one example of a removed link that was useful to keep. As above, the Stefan-Boltzmann link to 'time' is to the top-level general-audience encyclopedia article on time. Not even any technically subtle meaning for time within some narrower and more relevant context. I can't see any use to it, even worth the slight annoyance of increasing the bluelink density (and thus diluting the prominence of the major links). Is a link to the Netherlands needed, in case it's confused with Holland? No, because neither of those have any substantial relevance to the topic. "The Low Countries" would be adequate, so long as some vague notion of "the 17th century Western European coastal bit that wasn't England" was in there. We don't need links to convey that.
 * Small trout for failure to discuss earlier.
 * As to "semi-automated tools", then I have no idea what they are using, and it is entirely irrelevant. It also raises a real frown (and gets my fish-bucket arm twitching) to see other editors trying to stoke up an ANI on that basis, having failed to make a case as to the links themselves. Is there any credible claim that Chris' automated tool  (if indeed there is one!) is malfunctioning?  Is it making edits that they would not otherwise wish?
 * There are two questions here: should the links stay or go? is it mis-use of an automated tool?   The first is obviously subjective, but neither have any real support. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI, the tool is AWB, and it's use is not entirely irrelevant. If, per Headbomb, it is being used to make "indiscriminate edits" at high volumes, then it ought not to be, especially when requests to desist have come from multiple editors in this case alone. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As anyone can see from my contributions to the discussion above, these are not 'indiscriminate' edits. I can justify every one of them, with reference to long-settled linking policies. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Other than making these edits more easily, AWB has only made the same edits that Chris would have made anyway. You still have not shown any "random 'bot-generated" edits in addition, or that any of these deliberately chosen edits were themselves wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't quite follow you, I didn't say anything about "random 'bot-generated" (sic) edits. I was simply referring to the hundreds of edits per day performed using a semi-automated tool to enforce personal preference.  As noted above by other editors.  I think your diverging from the point.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Both Headbomb and yourself have described these edits as "indiscriminate". Headbomb has termed Chris a "Malfunctioning WP:MEATBOT:". Yet neither of you have shown any evidence of the three possible complaints you might make: that they were at all "indiscriminate" (as opposed to deliberate, on a subjective but policy-compliant reading of WP:OVERLINK); that they were against WP:OVERLINK or other established practice; or that were a mis-use of any automated tool. You complain about "personal preference", but on no grounds: personal preference is permissible here (and if you dislike it, see WP:BRD, rather than ANI). This also sits rather poorly, given your own recent visit to ANI over CITEVAR vs. Johnbod, a situation when we do have a guideline against your choices in editing.
 * More importantly here, you have shown no evidence for an abuse of automated tools, but you're trying to deflect the failure of your first claim as to content onto a double jeopardy to catch Chris that way instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good try on the red herring, the Johnbod situation was enlightening as it became clear that actually defending that particular CITEVAR position was actually incorrect, interesting to see your interpretation too. But in any case, trying to drag that back up here really does sit poorly... (oh ho ho, and it wasn't me making any kind of "first claim", and I didn't bring this to ANI, and BRD is fine if someone is asked to stop making semi-automated edits but they don't!).  You've missed the point a number of times and yet given your preponderance to change the subject onto me, I see no real good reason to continue the discussion.  It's so easy to just derail any conversation because I'm involved.  So on that, enough from me.  I'm sure we'll be back here in due course on similar grounds.  And now making the same old edits but suppressing AWB's edit summaries?  Wow.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Jayzus. Get a room, why doncha. Qwirkle (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Image issues with Topfool16
I have recently crossed paths with User talk: Topfool16. Their talk page is full of warnings regarding improper images uploads and they seem to not care even though most of their uploads get deleted. There are messages questioning what they are doing, that get no response. This sums up the bulk of their image uploads. I recently reported to AIV for adding unsourced content after a final warning, but the report went stale. I feel like something should be done about this user. StaticVapor message me!   02:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Lack of communication and I fear there may be some language barrier as well causing the user to never change their behavior despite issues. MPJ-DK (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like a content dispute. More dif's please. Why are we here? Wrestling or images? They are commenting via edit summaries and have messaged OP. Last edit was 5 days ago. <b style="font-family:Century Gothic"> Dloh Cier   ekim </b>
 * It is not about "content", but the users lack of understanding of copyright and fair use images as illustrated by his numerous warnings on his talk page. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Dlohcierekim, I said nothing of content dispute or wrestling in this post. If you check out the users talk page it's full of image copyright warnings. That is what this report is referring to.StaticVapor message me!   17:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I have given this editor an indefinite block for copyright violations, repeatedly uploading images without proper licensing information, and failure to communicate with their fellow editors. I have made it clear on their talk page that this editor can be unblocked if they make a commitment to change these behaviors, as long as their unblock request makes it clear that they understand the problems and will avoid them going forward.

, this is not a content dispute and has nothing to do with the fact that this editor works on professional wrestling topics. I do not see the communication by edit summaries that you report. This block is for the specific unacceptable behaviors that I described above. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Cullen328, Thank you for giving this issue attention. StaticVapor message me!   10:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Review of block
Here is where I left a block rationale effectively indeffing (though only blocking for a year) an IP editor who has had multiple blocks for disruptive editing relating to Ben Swann. The block I made was on the grounds that:
 * their edits to articles had a WP:GEVAL effect for WP:FRINGE ideas: for example, vaccines and autism, removing "conspiracy theory" when describing the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, saying that children dying at Sandy Hook is just an "account"
 * they had wasted a lot of other editors' time and patience outside of articles: when it's clear that consensus isn't going to go their way, they look for any reason to keep arguing. I've seen minimal acceptance of others' input from this IP, only enough to avoid trouble.

I had pointed out issues with a few of their claims prior to blocking them, to confirm that they weren't going to listen to anyone who didn't agree with them. One user has asked on my talk page if that makes me WP:INVOLVED. I'm not going to argue either way, though I am willing to bet that there's plenty of other admins here who would affirm that if this IP user had been using an account, they would have been indefinitely blocked under WP:NOTHERE already.

Ian.thomson (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Good block - we don't need more Infowars puppets here. The IP is static, I say the block lengths should be measured in years. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a note, but you only blocked the IP for a month. Nihlus  4:04 pm, Today (UTC−5)
 * Ian.thomson (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Good block (the corrected one :-)), since the IP is static.  Mini  apolis  23:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Shoot I guess maybe it's just me. I don't understand how changing from...
 * This: Swann created the series, Reality Check, which he used to espouse conspiracy theories, such as Pizzagate, and those surrounding the Aurora, Colorado and Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings and the 9/11 attacks.
 * To this: Swann created the series, Reality Check, where he devoted a segment to promoting Pizzagate. On his personal YouTube channel he questioned the official accounts of the Aurora, Colorado and Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings and the 9/11 attacks.
 * ...is indef-block-worthy. Another editor just made a similar change, perhaps because it's per the source, which says: Ben Swann is an award-winning television journalist who, on his own YouTube channel, raised questions about the collapse of one of the buildings at the World Trade Center and about official accounts of the 2012 mass shooting in Sandy Hook, Conn.. Similarly, I don't understand how changing Russian propaganda to Russian narrative is indef-block-worthy, when both words are used multiple times by the source (as discussed on the talk page). I don't mean to argue content at ANI, but I don't want to get myself blocked for POV-pushing, so maybe someone can explain to me what policy these edits violate. Is it required that in every article, every time we mention Pizzagate we must put "conspiracy theory" in front of it, or every time we mention anti-vaxxing we must say it's "false"? Even if it's not the subject of the article at issue, and even if the source we're citing doesn't say it? And if we disagree about it on the talk page, we get blocked? Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 00:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not commenting on the block (because I haven't looked at the details), but Levivich, the immediate prior sentence in the source to the one you quoted (Ben Swann is an award-winning...) is ...a journalist who has highlighted conspiracy theories about major news events to make its case. and the crux of the source article is that the subject is a "Conspiracy-Minded Journalist" and therefore it was a surprise that he was picked by a mainstream politician. So IMO leaving out 'conspiracy theory' in wikipedia's version would indeed be a subpar summary of the source being cited. Abecedare (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , to be clear, there are two different edits, weeks apart (the diffs cited for this block are from Jan 29, Feb 14, and Mar 4). The one I quoted above was the Jan 29 one, described above as saying that children dying at Sandy Hook is just an "account". Here is the Feb 14 one, which is the one described above as removing "conspiracy theory":
 * From: Swann created the series, Reality Check, which he used to espouse conspiracy theories, such as Pizzagate, and those surrounding the Aurora, Colorado and Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings and the 9/11 attacks. He has also questioned the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War, whether United States had a role in the development of ISIL, and other prevailing opinions about geopolitics and whether vaccines cause autism.
 * To: Swann created the series, Reality Check, where he devoted a segment to promoting Pizzagate. On his YouTube channel he espoused conspiracy theories surrounding the Aurora, Colorado and Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings and the 9/11 attacks. He has also questioned the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War, whether United States had a role in the development of ISIL, and other prevailing opinions about geopolitics and whether vaccines cause autism.
 * The phrase "conspiracy theories" was kept by the editor, just moved from the first sentence to the second. Both edits distinguish between what was said on the Reality Check show and what was said on his personal YouTube channel, and that is per the source cited. It doesn't seem to me like the edits change the meaning of the paragraph from "conspiracy theorist" to "not conspiracy theorist", particularly since that phrase was removed in the Jan edit but kept in the Feb one. Now, if it were up to me, I would put "conspiracy theorist" in the lead, but that's not the point. Content disputes are normal–I'm questioning why this is indef-block-worthy. I was recently involved in POV disputes about ISIS and illegal immigrant crime. In both those AfDs, there was wide-ranging agreement of a POV issue, but no admin came and blocked anyone. Instead, posts were made to ANI about "what to do" (they are still on this board right now). But in the case of this IP, it was an admin-placed block without community discussion first. I don't understand the difference. But I appreciate Ian opening up this thread and if it's just me, I'll stop. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 00:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In isolation, each of the IP's edits can be considered edit-disputes but looking at their complete edit-history, starting from May 2018, I see a pattern of civil POV-pushing in which they try to minimize the "conspiracy theorizing" aspect of the subject's journalism.
 * Such patterns are clearly problematic but when exactly to pull the plug and go from discussion to sanctions is always a judgment call. For example, IMO the IP remained unblocked for so long because afaict they were always civil and didn't cross red-lines such as 3RR. And, as you point out, in the "illegal immigrants and crime case", discussion on the appropriate sanctions is still ongoing, IMO, because the editor involved is (unlike the IP) far from an SPA. I rather think that, at least in theory, this disparity is a positive feature of wikipedia administration since our aim is not "same time for same crime" fairness but to tailor our response to what we think is best for the purpose of building an encyclopedia.
 * Anyway, it would be best to move such philosophical discussions off the busy central boards, and unless there are any more objections to the IP's block this section can perhaps be closed. Abecedare (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Per Abecedare, taking any one edit in isolation and saying "this one edit here is not something we block a person over" is, of course, always going to be true, and always going to be a very poor defense against a block. A multi- year month ed: corrected per below, POV-pushing, tendentious editor who isn't interested in presenting a neutral narrative based on mainstream understanding of the world, but instead will use a multitude of small, incremental, minor changes to gradually shape the tone and narrative towards their own POV and against the mainstream understanding of something is EXACTLY the kind of editor we don't want around here.  Their deviousness in making incrementally small, and individually less innocuous changes to shape the narrative is especially problematic, and all the more reason for a longterm block.  These changes are clearly calculated to effect the change in narrative they want, and instituted in such a way as to give them the exact sort of plausible deniability you, Levivich, are all too happy to grant them.  They were not blocked for those two edits, but are instead blocked for the sum total of all of their work.  Which is not what we want here.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was OK to let this drop, but... multi-year? Unless I'm missing something, the IP's contribs run from May 2018–March 2019, or 10 months. A multitude of small, incremental, minor changes? They have less than 25 mainspace edits in those 10 months, perhaps because they were blocked for 6 of them. The blocks in 2018 for edit warring were well-deserved. Since they came back, they haven't broken 3RR, they've spent more time on Talk pages discussing edits instead of edit warring (the exact thing that was asked of them), and they're not even terribly active as participants on those talk pages. Their edits to Ben Swann bring the prose closer to the cited New York Times source (differentiating between the conspiracy theories espoused on his TV show and those on his YouTube channel), and another editor has recently made very similar edits (which have also been reverted). So yeah, I have a hard time understanding the indef, which seems to be caused not by any POV-pushing or tendencious editing or edit warring, but for disagreeing on a talk page about a content dispute. I generally have a hard time understanding the concept that a series of accurate, policy-compliant edits, taken in total, can reveal a bad-faith editor, or that an editor who adjusts their behavior after being blocked should be blocked again anyway because we think they're EXACTLY the kind of editor we don't want around here. I guess I'm just a naive enabler. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 22:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So corrected. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure Leviv and I have shared much agreement on anything, but on this, I find myself empathising. It seems on some topics one must stridently toe a certain line, for even any mild reformulation is liable to be perceived as minimization and result in harsh penalization.  It is equivalent to a requirement that a "!" must be added in every mention of certain sins, and failing to add the "!", the editor is now minimizing that terrible, horrible thing that we all must denounce, to the point that if the "!" was left on the immediately precedent sentence, but not on the next sentence as well, the guilty editor has now become the kind of editor we don't want around here.  XavierItzm (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

2019 Balakot Air Strikes Page Defaced : Not able to edit
The page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Balakot_airstrike seems to be defaced with irrelevant content. Does not seem to be able to edit it to correct the issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagennos (talk • contribs) 04:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems to have corrected itself. The page now looks fine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagennos (talk • contribs) 04:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Corrected itself is fine but how the heck did that happen in the first place? I don't see anything in the history that could explain the content being replaced by Nude--regentspark (comment) 05:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * indeed, I have the same Qs as regentspark, it would be good to know how/why so as to prevent it from happening again. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  05:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This piece of template vandalism. Reaper Eternal (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I See Can someone NOTHERE block for this advanced, sneaky and highly disruptive vandalism that affected multiple pages ? e.g. Talk:2019 India–Pakistan standoff -- D Big X ray ᗙ  05:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked as an WP:LTA by User:TonyBallioni. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  05:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Removal of sourced info
User is constantly removing sourced info from List of Britpop musicians even though several different editors have reverted him here, here and here to name just a few. When it was brought up on the articles talk page, he provided more sources, one of which also described the band as Britpop. He has been asked and given final warnings repeatedly on his talk page but simply deletes the pleas and warnings. User has already been warned by Michig for edit warring and I don't want this to end up there so am avoiding reverting. Here you can see where I re-added the info with sources attached but user seems to have a preference for personal opinion as opposed to sources as can be ascertained from some of his edit summaries on that article's history alone.  Rob van  vee  16:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, this relates to User:Dean12065. They have received dozens of warnings over the last couple of months, including final warnings (all of which they have removed from their talk page). They were warned for edit warring on Suede (band) but continued to edit war on the same article after the warning . They don't seem to do anything other than make contentious edits and then edit war over them when they are reverted. --Michig (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I confirm that user Dean12065 has been constantly undoing my additions of several bands to the Britpop list, despite the fact every band I added came along with many reliable sources that made their presence in the list valid. They simply erased the bands, using personal opinions as 'arguments' and never, even once, coming up with a reliable source to justify their removal of the bands. This type of behaviour looks a lot like harassment. CouchJarvis (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen harassment with him, but a clear, unmoving, and unwavering bias towards his own opinion as fact is crystal-clear to us. He has clearly lost his arguments and continues to regurgitate the same stale argument and declaring any reason we have invalid. Clearly WP:NOTHERE to work in a group environment.  danny music editor  oops 21:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * is using edit summarries and this looks to me like content dispute. I have PP the page to encourage discussion. please respond here so we can sort this all out. <b style="font-family:Century Gothic"> Dloh Cier   ekim </b> 01:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have extended a personal invitation to discuss the matter here. <b style="font-family:Century Gothic"> Dloh Cier  ekim </b> 01:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I now understand what I am doing is wrong. I have no idea what the difference is between opinion and fact, and I also had no idea that my arguments were weak and pointless. I plan to attempt to prevent myself from editing Wikipedia for a long time. I will make sure I won't go on an editing rampage ever again. Dean12065 (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you can't tell the difference between fact and opinion, you probably shouldn't be editing here or at least should take a good solid study on the topic, because that is critical to working here. As for things like arguing over images like those on Suede (band), if someone, especially more than one person, asks you to start a discussion before reinstating something, you should discuss it with them first. I see you've taken that step in this case, but you cannot force your own point of view over and over again if the community decides your concern is not important. Removing those for the reason you've given is silly. The captions should, in most cases, precisely be relevant to what the text is saying. You're essentially arguing to remove them for fulfilling their purpose; that's absurd.  danny music editor  oops 02:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

For our purposes, a fact is something that is cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking. It is verifiable. An opinion is not. One's own reasoning on a matter is irrelevant. And simply put, redoing an edit several people disagree with, without obtaining a consensus to do so, is edit warring. I'm glad you now see your way of going about things is problematical. It would perhaps be for the best if you do stop editing till you've a better understanding. <b style="font-family:Century Gothic"> Dloh Cier  ekim </b> 10:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * "I have no idea what the difference is between opinion and fact, and I also had no idea that my arguments were weak and pointless." - this sounds either like we're being trolled or that you definitely shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. I'd moot a TBAN as the smallest option we should take, and a long/indef as perfectly legitimate. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought that was an odd thing to say, too. Absent an explanation, I'd say "trolled". —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 18:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I've been reverting some of Dean12065's edits. The justifications and behavior that willfully ignore everyone else (see edits to Suede (band) after warnings and talk page feedback) has made me assume that editor will be permanently banned sooner or later--probably sooner. On the other hand, editor is new, has not been entirely unresponsive, and edits include perfectly reasonable ce/typo cleanup, so always want to give someone a chance. But the behavior does soak up time and energy from the rest of us. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Unprotected List of Britpop musicians in hopes the matter is now resolved. <b style="font-family:Century Gothic"> Dloh Cier  ekim </b> 16:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As he has not edited since this discussion started, only time will tell. Thank you to all for the assistance and comments.  Rob van  vee  14:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Due to the long-term ongoing disruptive editing, edit warring, and issues that include the inability for this user to communicate and collaborate with others and despite the repeated messages and warnings asking the user to stop and to follow proper procedures and protocol, I have blocked Dean12065 for two weeks. Upon my investigation and findings from Dean12065's contributions, user talk page history, and the edit history of relevant articles, as well as the input and comments by other editors in this discussion, it's clear that this user needs to stop what they're doing and review Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in relevant and key areas before they resume any kind of editing. It's also clear that Dean12065 won't do this on his own given the numerous warnings and messages on his user talk page that went ignored. This showed me that a block was necessary to put the brakes on this user full-stop, and that this the only way to do so.


 * I've left an in-depth message on the user's talk page with a block notice, recommendations, as well as clear expectations for when the block expires. Dean12065 was provided a list of policies and guidelines, and was asked to review and understand them, and to retrain himself at the new user tutorial before resuming any kind of editing. He was also provided with clear in-depth expectations regarding his edits and behavior in the future; he was informed that his edits will be expected to comply with all policies and guidelines, and failure to meet these expectations will result in longer blocks and additional sanctions. If anyone has any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to let me know. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Linkspam citing Eoghan Lyng... Filter?
Some IPs primarily from Ireland have been consistently citing an obscure Irish writer named Eoghan Lyng, so much so that these cites are collectively trodding on the WP:REFSPAM guideline. Last August I removed a bunch of these but another Irish IP restored them. Later, the same kind of spam cites were removed by but a new user,, was created to restore them and add more. Last December, the involved IPs shifted to Spain for a while, returning to Irish IPs by New Years Eve.

Other disruptive behavior includes adding a false reference, a book that does not support the statement it supposedly backs. I looked through this book and it says nothing about these actors being considered.

Should we block some IPs and the registered account, or set a filter? Examples and involved IPs listed below. Binksternet (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * My mistake there. Normally my references are strong, this one wasn't. I should have checked beforehand. -emnetinlurve
 * I see. You are saying that the actions of Special:Contributions/86.41.102.66 are your actions, Emnetinlurve. I didn't doubt it but that confirms it. Binksternet (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I admitted it. It was misguided, but it wasn't sabotage. Sinclair definitely mentioned Mel Gibson as a candidate, and that's what I referenced.-emnetinlurve


 * Considering that many of these pieces are an attempt to aid Wikipedia's pieces on Paul McCartney and James Bond, this seems somewhat unfair. They're journalistic pieces, they aren't some spammer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.108.125 (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Definitely not block this person, as there are interviews here that show credence to this person's work.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.108.125 (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you are clearly not here to expand the encyclopedia – instead you are here to make sure the name Eoghan Lyng appears as much as possible. That's why we are having this discussion. Binksternet (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Another username was registered to respond to this situation: . I am notifying this new account as well. Binksternet (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, Eoghan Lyng interviewed Graham Gouldman who corrected Wikipedia on facts about Wax, which I reported, interviewed Mike Bullen about his work on Cold Feet, got insight into the writing of Mull of Kintyre, brought useful information about Matthew Holness's Possum and is one of the few writers to have interviewed Richard Hewson about Thrillington. If you wish to downplay the name Eoghan Lyng, fine. Just don't take it out on the work. At least let the work get linked where it should be linked -Emnetinlurve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emnetinlurve (talk • contribs) 01:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not willing to "let the work get linked" when the works have been added systematically in a promotional manner, to increase the web presence of Eoghan Lyng. Any one of those references that you say should remain would be an insult to everybody else who does not come here to promote a writer. And the Lyng additions are usually trivial matters of how someone felt, appropriate for a magazine or book but not for an encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Look, if interviews with Marianne Farley, Matthew Holness, Graham Gouldman, Eric Stewart, Denny Laine,Mike Bullen,Richard Hewson, Carl Davis Rick Buckler and Johnny Echols can be restored in the name of entertainment and encyclopedia, then the rest can be dealt with accordingly. Binksternet  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emnetinlurve (talk • contribs) 01:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with Binksternet's analysis. This appears to be a coordinated campaign. I first spotted these from edits by a couple of different IPs, then the ZanetaStepanova account was created specifically to revert my removals. I'd assumed those IPs were related to that account (which, as a new account, I didn't consider to be a socking issue). On the face of it, some of the additions seem to have some merit, and I actually wikified a few of the edits I initially encountered before I suspected there was an issue. Others seem entirely promotional, e.g. . Most of the edits I saw were citing We Are Cult or Taste of Cinema. When I asked ZanetaStepanova about COI, it was denied. I wasn't convinced, but as I had no proof, I let it go. I had no idea so many IPs and articles were involved. Nzd   (talk)  02:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

AS you say, there is merit to some of them. So, could we focus on those? You are hurting a writer very deeply by removing his interview from the Possum page (which he didn't put there). If you wish to remove the Brendan Gleeson comments, go for it. -emnetinlurve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emnetinlurve (talk • contribs) 02:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I think Lyng's work is very authoritative on culture. His interview with Farley is on the nose, as is his brilliant interview with Martin Youth Glover---Jennifer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenniferjaques (talk • contribs) 03:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so Emnetinlurve and Jenniferjaques just got blocked because of violations of WP:MULTIPLE, and now Irish IP 86.41.105.171 has picked up the same behavior. Binksternet (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Latest is . Nzd   (talk)  10:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that this IP just the above post, and also  by  at Talk:Possum (2018 film).  Nzd   (talk)  10:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This Tweet seems pertinent. Nzd   (talk)  10:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If the above tweet doesn't confirm Lyng's involvement, this one makes it more obvious. Binksternet, he got your name wrong. Booo! Also, some odd goings on with 86.41.107.246 and ZanetaStepanova both submitting unblock requests today (both saying they were working on public networks, both of which were declined as not blocked).  Nzd   (talk)  17:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC) Courtesy pinging, reviewing admin for both requests.  Nzd   (talk)  17:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have now been namechecked, so he is obviously monitoring this page. Note that this isn't the first accusation of bullying (see from confirmed Emnetinlurve sock ). I won't be responding to the tweet, except to say that I don't consider my wanting editors to abide by Wikipedia rules to be anything remotely approaching bullying.  Nzd   (talk)  23:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have responded to a subsequent tweet that was directed at me. That response details my recomendations for how to proceed should the user wish to contribute constructively and within the rules. The Emnetinlurve account has been blocked and has now had TPA revoked. The other sock/meat accounts are also blocked. Any further sock edits can be dealt with via the SPI page. Did you want to progess a proposal for a filter, or do you think this is enough for now?  Nzd   (talk)  03:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's stand down for now on putting a filter in place. I'll keep an eye on things and report back if the problem returns. Binksternet (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Eoghan Lyng examples

 * Apr 2016 – Portrayal of James Bond in film, citing The James Bond Dossier
 * Apr 2016 – Timothy Dalton, citing The James Bond Dossier
 * Jan 2018 – Spot the Pigeon, citing We Are Cult
 * Jun 2018 – Thrillington, citing We Are Cult
 * Aug 2018 – Jon Astley, citing We Are Cult
 * Aug 2018 – Jon Astley, citing We Are Cult
 * Aug 2018 – edit warring to restore the above reference
 * Aug 2018 – Rushes album, citing We Are Cult
 * Aug 2018 – edit warring to restore the above reference
 * Aug 2018 – Rough Boys, citing We Are Cult
 * Nov 2018 – Wax band, citing We Are Cult
 * Nov 2018 – Noctorum band, citing CultureSonar
 * Dec 2018 – Sheet Music album, citing 10cc World
 * Dec 2018 – License to Kill, citing The James Bond Dossier
 * Dec 2018 – Casino Royale film, citing The James Bond Dossier
 * Dec 2018 – Life Is a Minestrone, citing CultureSonar
 * Dec 2018 – Japanese Tears, citing CultureSonar
 * Dec 2018 – Cold Feet, citing The Digital Fix
 * Jan 2019 – Jack and Sarah, citing Ezine Articles
 * Feb 2019 – Marguerite film, citing Dirty Movies
 * Feb 2019 – Back Chat, citing We Are Cult
 * Feb 2019 – Rick Buckler, citing CultureSonar
 * Feb 2019 – Restless Natives, citing Taste of Cinema
 * Mar 2019 – On Her Majesty's Secret Service, edit warring to restore refspam

Disruption over at Lord Voldemort and Severus Snape
Tvurta keeps making changes over at Lord Voldemort and Severus Snape, adding terms to Voldemorts occupation that are against consensus.  A glance at Tvurta's edit history shows that they never use edit summaries, and with a single exception of a comment on my talk page have not engaged with regard to any of their contributions, despite constant reversion. Some edits are acceptable, but the constant adding of reverted information, and a refusal to engage - especially after multiple warnings and pieces of advice on their talk page has got to stop. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Tvurta just re-added the changes to Lord Voldemort (previous revert here and edits here ); also other change that have been previously reverted in Severus Snape (adding "Professor" as part of the name) . Still no engagement, despite warnings. Magidin (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I blocked them for 31h for edit-warring, they were clearly warned enough at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Years-long blocks of dynamically assigned IP addresses
Recently I pointed out a problematic series of three year blocks placed against dynamically assigned IP addresses. These cannot be useful; whoever they are aimed at could easily not even have noticed they they were blocked before they got another IP address.

Today I encountered another such block, this time placed by a different user to the one discussed previously. Two administrators declined to lift the block even though I clearly demonstrated its pointlessness.

I find it extremely baffling that such blocks were placed at all, and even more so that their pointlessness is not instantly obvious. Nobody argued that such blocks were valid on the last thread. By starting this thread, I show again that the block is serving no purpose, and request that administrators not place blocks which have a negligible chance of affecting the person they are aimed at. 82.132.222.212 (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How do we know that you are not the target of the block and evading it at this very moment? The edit history of the affected range only seems to suggest a single person. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The OP/IP is almost certainly a sock of WP:LTA/BKFIP. Favonian (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Arguing the process instead of arguing the merits is a clue to that. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it's almost TOO obvious. Blocked 31 hours. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Current events/2019 March 11
There's a fun little edit war going on here. Anybody care to put a stop to it? Madness Darkness 23:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.png Investigating...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My Name is Madness - I've applied full edit protection to the page for 24 hours and warned both users for edit warring.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you're a star :) Madness Darkness 23:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My Name is Madness - HA! I try... ;-) No problem; always happy to help!  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Date format IP
I have recently encountered a number of Brazilian IPs making changes to date formats, mainly from DMY (or UK style) to MDY (or US style). First it was (which geolocates to Salvador) about 2 weeks ago; yesterday it was  (which also geolocates to Salvador); today it is  (which geolocates to São Paulo). They have never responded to talk page posts. What should we do? It's not a vandalism-only account, but it's certainly disruptive. GiantSnowman 13:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * is still active. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That IP hasn't edited for 24 hours? GiantSnowman 20:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * GiantSnowman - Is this still an ongoing thing that's occurring right now? I haven't looked into any of the IPs yet...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   06:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am unsure, given the changing IPs. I notice it when it appears on my watchlist only. GiantSnowman 08:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * GiantSnowman - Got'cha. I was just asking so I could get an idea if this was an issue that needed my attention immediately or not. I saw that this ANI discussion hasn't gained any attention or responses, so I wanted to ping you and check. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   10:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * appreciate it! GiantSnowman 10:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You bet; always happy to help :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   17:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Cross-wiki socking and vandalism
has been blocked on Chinese wiki for vandalizing zh:李学勤 (Li Xueqin on en-wiki) and making legal threats (see zh blocklog). I reverted several of their unsourced defamatory edits there and was accused by the user of libel, who went on to threaten legal action. Yesterday they were blocked by admin on zh-wiki (admin  was also involved).

Soon afterwards, a new account,, was created and placed numerous unwarranted tags on Li Xueqin (which I wrote and was featured on DYK and ITN). The two accounts are doubtless the same person. When I confronted them, they all but admitted to socking (see discussion), but went on to accuse me of "outing" their personal information. I'm not sure about Wikipedia's policy on cross-wiki socking and whether CU can be used across wikis, but this user is clearly WP:NOTHERE to contribute. -Zanhe (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Report to Wikimedia Foundation and its HQ:
 * User:Zanhe: actively committing threats to out a contributor.
 * User:Techyan: actively committing vandalism with refusal to give a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NormandyD-Day1944 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Zackmann08 - rollback vandalism, insertion of deleted template, leaving articles visibly broken
78.54.190.20 (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Vandalism on Finnish municipalities, e.g. - replacing with call to the deleted Template:Infobox Finnish former municipality so several articles instead of an infobox show a red link to that template.
 * currently restored, but when Zackmann08 inserted it, it was deleted.
 * Messed up replacement of template:Infobox Russian governorate, putting the type labelled as "Political status" in the field for higher level subdivision, e.g. .
 * violation of AGF
 * when informed, he simply deleted the message
 * In fight against IP 8..., using rollback vandalism https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elisabethpol_Governorate&diff=887434986&oldid=887330112
 * Had been warned before, but decided to remove the warning
 * Notice about ANI thread removed too
 * This is ludicrous. The IP in question did a blanket convert that broke nearly 100 pages. I rolled them all back with the help of an admin so that I could fix the conversions. As for 78.54.190.20 they have continued to IP Hop so that they could post and contribute from multiple IP addresses. They have violated WP:3RR & WP:NOBAN by repeatedly posting the same messages on my talk page (thanks ). If ANY admin thinks I am in the wrong here or would like further explanation of my role in this, please and I'm happy to provide more information on what was going on here. Right now I don't feel I need to spend time explaining all of this. But if an admin feels differently, more than happy to go into detail. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * FUD and LIE. No page was broken. Yes, maybe the subst: was not correct/complete, but that happens to others too, including Zackmann08 . A request to tell how subst: can be done to avoid the current situation was not answered, only another attack posted.
 * The role of Zackmann08 is in using blanket vandalism to the article namespace - something that did not take place by the IPs. Yes, the IPs posted on the user talk page, but that is a requirement. isn't it? Try to resolve on talk page and then if it fails and ANI started, inform user of ANI. "7 qz" didn't their role. 78.54.190.20 (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there any particular reason you brought this to ANI instead of, say, DRN? At the top it clearly says This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Kb03 (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

For the record, Zach reported this IP to WP:ANEW at 11:06 AM. The IP then filed this report at 11:07 AM. It is no coincidence that the IP filed a report here virtually immediately after Zack's report and it is clear it was in retaliation. Furthermore calling another editor's edits vandalism is no different than calling them a vandal. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 18:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I doubt if it'd be possible to write that entire ANI report, which contains 6 diffs, in less than a minute. Such assumptions of bad faith serve no purpose and should be avoided. Otherwise, instead of discussing the problem, we are liable to end up discussing whether report A was filed to preempt/undermine report B or whether report B was filed in retaliation for report A. It's silly and leads nowhere. 78.28.54.83 (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Eyes on Sean Hepburn Ferrer‎, please
An editor is intent on removing well-sourced information that they deem "slanderous". In fact, they seem intent on removing all sources in the article. bd2412 T 19:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've reverted and warned. Next step is AIV, not ANI. GiantSnowman 19:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've given him a warning. If that doesn't work WP:ANEW is thataway.  Or just ping this discussion.  In the future, however, WP:ANEW is the correct place to report behavior problems such as this.  Warn at least once, and if they don't stop, use ANEW.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Issue at the Teahouse
Would someone rectify what I see is a problem at the Teahouse. The discussion is inappropriate there and since I direct new editors to the page it is shameful at best. I read just enough to realize I don't want to direct anyone to the page to see it. Otr500 (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Otr500 - The discussion in concern is now archived and no longer present on the teahouse page.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   14:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. Otr500 (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn and Michael Jackson; reopening an RfC as a participant, but changing the question?
has some strong opinions about our article on Michael Jackson. This is fine, it's an emotive topic. The user objected to an early close of an RfC by someone involved in the discussion. This is fine too, I can see their point, although I think it's clear what direction the discussion was going. They undid the close; this is perhaps less ok but I suppose so. But they insist on simultaneously changing the RfC question to a verbose and partisan question which I feel misrepresents the actual issue, but leaving the previous pre-close replies in place. I feel that as one of the participants, this now leaves my opinion misrepresented, as the comment I wrote in reply to one question now appears under a different one. I tried restoring the original wording, but that was immediately undone with the edit summary "No rule against what I did". I've tried discussing this with them at their user talk, but they weren't willing. Could someone uninvolved in the matter please take a look and consider reaching out to this editor and perhaps restoring the neutral wording that many people replied to? Thanks. --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The strong opinions you state that I have are shared by other editors, including those with experience writing FAs. I'm not one of the editors writing the article from a WP:Recentism point of view based on a documentary. DannyMusicEditor gets that. So do others. Like I stated, in addition to how poorly worded the initial RfC phrasing is, using the non-neutral statement that the child sexual abuse material was scattered about, it should never have been closed by the starter of the RfC who was involved in significant disagreement with me and closed the RfC in a biased manner regarding me. Collect agreed. I addressed exactly what the issues are and presented both sides neutrally and accurately, like I've done in RfCs before, as seen in this case, which I was commended for, and this case. Take note that the Trypophobia RfC I refer to on my talk page in that "commended" discussion is not the same one that was successful. That one did fine format-wise. Presenting the issue clearly and accurately also worked at Talk:Cultural impact of Michael Jackson. Like I stated there, RfC statements are not always, and cannot always, be very short; this has been shown times over at Requests for comment/All. MarchOrDie has not at all shown how the RfC statement I used at Talk:Michael Jackson "misrepresents the actual issue." Soon after I posted it, Collect came along and voted, clearly understanding the issue. To me, it was insufficient to simply re-open the RfC with the previous statement, which is now out of date since the version of the article the editor wanted implemented has now been implemented, and especially given that I might have been reverted. I also added the RfC to more than just one category. Like I noted on the talk page, it is not uncommon for an RfC to be extended with a fresh statement from someone who has relisted it. It didn't make sense for me to start another RfC on the matter entirely separate from that one. And I did explain that the RfC was previously closed inappropriately. In my opinion, MarchOrDie is all for that previous wording because more editors, not having all of the details, are likely to blindly vote "support." And besides the note that the RfC was re-opened, it is not like we don't have time stamps to show that the initial posts are responses to the original RfC comment. Lesson learned on not having gone ahead and started the RfC myself to begin with, though. If the RfC had begun with my statement in the first place, it's guaranteed that the so-called consensus that the led the original filer to close it would not have existed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Flyer, as the person who commended you in that prior instance, obviously I do have faith in your ability to neutrally frame the RfC discussion such as to present the competing views fairly. However, I do think that MarchorDie presents one argument that makes that point mute: you're presentation of the issues may be more precise and neutral, and yet if it is not the one to which editors have been already responding, it's not appropriate to edit that field accordingly--WP:TPG specifically considers and advises on this issue: never edit comments (procedural or otherwise), if doing leaves even the remote possibility of those who have responded to that comment already having their responses viewed in a false light.


 * Maybe you are correct and that this issue would have been better resolved had you taken the initiative in the RfC, but that's just not how things played out and if you think some gamed, abused, or otherwise improperly applied process, you have a few options, but that isn't really one of them. You really ought to have requested a close review at AN, made a strong case for how the original request didn't meet expected standards for the RfC inquiry, and then propose a follow up discussion, with all previous parties pinged back but with the whole thing green-lit by admins, so you didn't get personally accused of refusing to drop the stick. I recognize that's an awful lot of work to put on the back of someone arguing the first discussion was flawed, but that's just the way the cookie crumbles some times. Afterall, we do rely upon/trust responding editors to catch mistakes in the process as well, so sometimes a less than ideal RfC inquiry is a kind of harmless error so long as the resulting consensus was clear and reasonably well informed as regards the sourcing. Anyway, causing people's responses to point towards an inquiry that is not the one they responded to it far too problematic as an alternative. Edit: The approach arrived at now of moving the rewording to its own section is also a perfectly reasonable middle ground solution, imo.  Presuming, that is, that the re-opening itself was appropriate (a separate issue that I don't have time to provide a properly-researched opinion on at the moment. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 01:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've refactored that talk page section. Paul August &#9742; 17:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think what Paul August did was perfect; it re-opens the RFC and with the question that Flyer22 Reborn wanted to ask in the refactored form. I don't see a need to pursue the matter any further.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   17:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Given my history with Paul August at the WP:Spoiler guideline, I would rather he hadn't been the one to move my post. And my post being there at the end is odd since it's not like I'm asking for thoughts on re-opening the RfC. But, anyway, I left a note (followup edit here) at the top of the RfC, under the original filer's original comment. And, yes, that is allowed. Has been done in numerous RfCs. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm the original opener of the RfC. Just commenting to say that I've seen this incident discussion and I thank MarchOrDie for raising it. I approve of Paul August's refactoring. However I observe that because of the way that Flyer22 re-opened the RfC it is now listed on the RfC noticeboards under Flyer22's reformulation and not the original question (even though my question has now been put back at the top of the RfC on the talk page). I think that might be a bit confusing to people coming from the noticeboard to the talk page but I'm not going to make a big fuss about it. Oska (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well that's not really satisfactory, is it? While we are here, Flyer22's edits to Wikiprojects publicizing the RfC may fall foul of the WP:CANVASS guideline. It's this editor's assertion that the suggested changes are directly to take account of the recent documentary, but that's not something I'm aware of. I certainly didn't support it on that basis. Which is one big reason the RfC fails. Is there any sane way out of this? --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The mismatch could be fixed by removing the rfc tag, waiting for legobot to delist and then promptly re-adding it so legobot reopens the rfc again using the original question restored to the top (as it is now). I'll leave it to others to decide on whether it's worth going to that trouble. Oska (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that's maybe the least bad way out of it, but I'd prefer if someone uninvolved would do it. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Big sigh. As noted in the RfC, nothing I did by contacting the related WikiProjects (the WikiProjects the article is tagged with) and Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography runs afoul WP:CANVASS. That guideline is clear. The proposed changes that are no longer simply proposed changes because they were hastily implemented are directly related to the documentary. The whole debate started because Oska went on about "approaching this from a user's point of view, not as an editor.", stating "I have no personal interest in editing this particular article as I have little interest in Michael Jackson (his music or career). However I did read an article about the new documentary Leaving Neverland and afterward looked up Jackson's wiki article to get more context on the allegations made in the documentary and detail on any further abuse allegations over his lifetime. As a user I then found I had to trawl through the article to find this information - it wasn't gathered in one place. (And to be honest, that was too much work and I gave up). So for me, the article failed as an encylopedic reference in providing a subset of information on a subject in an accessible way. I don't think I would be alone in looking up the article for this particular use." Subsequent responses in that discussion and on the talk page have mostly been about integrating the Leaving Neverland content and how to do it. Just look at the discussions about the lead, for example. The other child sexual abuse content in the article wasn't difficult for editors or readers to locate at all. It was clearly identified by subheadings. If the Leaving Neverland documentary never existed, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Editors are free to take a look to see what I mean. I suggested an RfC to settle the matter regarding the body of the article. But the lead aspect currently has two sections concerning it on the talk page. As for the claim that "the way that Flyer22 re-opened the RfC it is now listed on the RfC noticeboards," what noticeboards? When I look at the current version of Requests for comment/All, I see Oska's RfC statement. I saw mine there until mine was moved down. Let the RfC play out already and stop trying to derail it because there are now more oppose votes coming since I explained to participants what's actually going on. This ANI thread is nothing but a waste of time, involving two of three editors who keep tag-teaming when it comes to arguing against me because just about everything they argue at the Jackson talk page is based on pure opinion rather than any guideline or policy. And when they do argue a guideline or policy, it's a faulty argument, much like the WP:Canvassing claim above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Big sigh back. I see a lot of erroneous statements in your long response but I choose not to challenge them one by one. I am glad the technical issue with the RfC wording is resolved. I think the wording of your announcements is canvassing, or at best reveals that you do not understand what the discussion is about. There is a separate discussion about adding mention of the documentary to the lead. The RfC we are talking about concerns restructuring the article to put the material about his alleged sexual attacks on young boys into one section. The two issues are connected, but distinct. By conflating them you are being at best maladroit or careless. You should have let someone else do these announcements. You should not have made (two?) reverts on the article while it was under discussion. You should endeavor to be more careful and more succinct in your arguments. --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Rebutting your nonsense such as "Flyer22's edits to Wikiprojects publicizing the RfC may fall foul of the WP:CANVASS guideline" is not a wall of text. Things are not a wall of text simply because you can't be bothered to read them or don't have the attention span for it. Don't want your nonsense thoroughly rebutted? Don't spew nonsense. I am beyond tired of your faulty understanding of the rules and what makes a featured article. You trying to separate the clearly related Leaving Neverland material from restructuring the article is more nonsense. I am not focused on the lead here in this ANI discussion. I noted the lead matter because, just like the restructuring matter, it came about because of a focus on the Leaving Neverland documentary. There is no getting around the fact that no one, absolutely no one, complained about the article needing restructuring until Oska came along talking about restructuring the article to help readers better find the Leaving Neverland documentary content. And that is why I mentioned that documentary in the notices I left and in the RfC statement I made. But keep on acting like you can teach me anything about editing Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Flyer22 > As for the claim that "the way that Flyer22 re-opened the RfC it is now listed on the RfC noticeboards," what noticeboards? When I look at the current version of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All, I see Oska's RfC statement.
 * Sorry, I have just rechecked the RfC noticeboards and what Flyer22 says is correct. It is now displaying with my question. I had checked it previously and it showed Flyer22's text and I thought that was after Paul's refactor but am now not sure of the timing. So sorry to the admins for raising what is now a non-issue. As for the rest of what Flyer22 says I won't respond to that here. I think it's outside what this incident is about. Oska (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For clarity, the RFC on Requests for comment/Biographies (which is one of the pages transcluded on /All) was Flyer 22's wording from when it was readded by Legobot at 13:01, 11 March 2019 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies&diff=prev&oldid=887245955] until it was changed by Legobot at 18:01, 11 March 2019 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies&diff=887284392&oldid=887252288]. The precise timings on other pages may have varied a bit and of course caching especially for transcluded versions may have meant it would show up at times different from these. I would recommend people always remember to purge the cache when something may have been changed recently, especially where what you're looking at is transcluded. The changes would have been based on changed to the listing in the article talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As one involved party I would be happy to see this incident closed. Paul's refactor has properly resolved the issue. Oska (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, close this nonsense. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved party, I am happy to NAC this one as "issues resolved by involved parties; no further action required", insofar as there are no peripheral issues that I can see that the community would need or want to address. But just to be perfectly pro forma, I'd first like to hear from the OP, that the refactoring has satisfied their concerns (I suspect from the wording of their initial post the answer is 'yes', but I'd still rather hear as much directly before taking a close action, given the context of ANI). <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 02:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Oska's wording in the RfC
Oshwah and Snow Rise, I think a more acceptable way to resolve this would be for Oska to remove the "It is currently scattered through the article." part of their RfC wording. It is clearly a biased description since the content was not scattered, but rather presented in the respective sections. As noted by me and others, including Wugapodes, this is the standard way that we present featured articles on people. Of course, if someone states that material is scattered about, giving the perception that the material is not orderly or is messy, editors are going to state that it shouldn't be scattered about. It is no surprise or coincidence that once I crafted an RfC that detailed the issues and presented both views, Collect and Wugapodes showed up to vote "oppose," whereas previous editors had typically voted "support." And it may be the case that the RfC matter should be started over with my RfC statement. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's likely in your best interest to drop the stick. It very likely is a coincidence as I drafted my response on Friday the 8th but didn't post it until Monday the 11th and wasn't even aware you had changed the wording. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 22:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wugapodes, if you don't think Oska's "It is currently scattered through the article." wording in the RfC is a problem, then I'm more inclined to move on. I still think it has biased editors' opinions and should be removed, and that my wording and broader RfC listings would have resulted in more oppose votes (for my aforementioned reasons). Collect hasn't noted if my RfC helped with regard to his vote, but I think it did. Anyway, if Oshwah thinks it's best to close this, I will oblige. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hoax
Sorry if this is the wrong venue. I need a speedy delete of a new article Polish Hill (Kansas City, Kansas) which is a hoax and borderline racist. See its talk page. I edited a bit before I realized the place was fictitious. Need an admin. Best Regards,   Barbara    ✐  ✉  03:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Appropriate eyes are on this. It may or may not be notable but it's not a hoax. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've declined it as it does not appear to be an obvious hoax. has listed some sources on the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post
 * The New York Times
 * The Kansas City Star
 * Kansas City Historical Society
 * Kansas City Chamber of Commerce
 * KSHB
 * Wyandotte Daily
 * The Pitch
 * The Leaven

(I'm not saying it's notable, just that it exists.) Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 04:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * One more not suitable for the article, a local politician from Polish Hill: Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 04:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

It may exist. At least one reference looked legitimate, but I haven't seen any that claim where the neighborhood is located. That is essential for verification. A second problem is that the article creator may be here to promote a "Polski Day Parade". power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 04:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Polski Day is a real thing, it's mentioned in several of the references I listed. KSHB, Wyandotte Daily at least. Polski Day is a big deal at Polish Hill from what I gather. It may be the only notable thing about Polish Hill, other than that they had a famous baseball player once. Also–this may surprise you–it's known for having good Polish food. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 04:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We must have some editors in Kansas City who could go over there and verify if the food is any good and worth writing an article about? Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 04:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Because the article is not a hoax (the neighborhood clearly exists or existed) and no evidence of racism has been produced, I see no reason for this discussion to continue here. Anyone interested in the topic can either improve the article or comment at Articles for deletion/Polish Hill (Kansas City, Kansas), or both. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Long-term edit-warring at Kersti Kaljulaid
Kersti Kaljulaid is the current president of Estonia, and she was born in 1957 in Estonia, which at the time was part of the Soviet Union or under Soviet occupation, depending on your political views. For already years for now someone (typically an IP) changes in the infobox Estonia to Estonian SSR, Soviet Union, and somebody else (typically Klõps) immediately reverts this back. This became the main content of the page history. I know that the article is in scope for the Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions, but I am unsure what would be the best action. Apparently, all users are acting in good faith. Full or semi-protection of the article would favor the Klõps version, since they revert swiftly and are autoconfirmed. I do not feel asking for sanctions for particular editors would be productive, and one side is mainly represented by IPs anyway. This is a recurring problem, I also have Leo Komarov on my watchlist which I have to protect regularly because of the edit-warring (also Estonia vs Estonian SSR in the infobox). I am unsure how to proceed and would welcome any advise.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * First, most of the reverts at Kersti Kaljulaid article are not on birth place, but just plain vandalism, that she is born in the year 1666 or has 3000 children etc., , , ,  etc. Estonian media even had aricle how google says Kaljulaid is 17 years old, google info came from Wikipedia. Google says our president is still teenager. There was a long pause in the birth place changing before the latest wave.


 * Secondly, the birth place question has been discussed many, many, many, many times before., , , etc.


 * Thirdly, referring it as about political views is very much political agenda. Make Yourself familiar with the issue Stimson Doctrine, State continuity of the Baltic states, Occupation of the Baltic states. Also I'd object Your attack against me (cite would favor the Klõps version) I'm not the only editor keeping the project articles in same style. As seen in the discussions linked above this policy has been implemented for years. Please, if You want to change the consensus on this question raise your concern in the respective project pages, not behind the corner somewhere. --Klõps (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why I was suddenly named to be guilty of this disruption. I never reverted these edits either way. If we have a policy please provide a link to the policy. If we do not have a policy - well, this is just pointless edit-warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And Centralized discussion/Country of birth was not closed, and the discussion shows there is (or at least there was in 2008) no consensus on the issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion + rangeblock
Hi. was indef'd just over a month ago. Both before and after the block they have edited as an IP address, mainly located in Gujarat, India, with the range 117.129. Yesterday this edit was made. That was followed up by a post on my talkpage by about the very same subject. This "new" user has the same MO - mobile edit, semi-obscure cricket articles, etc. In my mind this is an obvious sock/block evasion. I'd be grateful if this account can be blocked. If you need anything else, or want me to be more formal, and go to SPI, then let me know.

As a side note, if a range-block on 117.129, 117.128 and 117.233 was possible (as per the list in my sandbox, linked above), I'd be very grateful. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 06:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd be very grateful if someone could take a look, esp. with regards to the rangeblock element. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Lugnuts - Okay, so based off your description of the IP range (at least one of them), it looks like we're looking at a /16 CIDR range. However, when looking at the contributions of 117.129.X.X (AKA 117.129.0.0/16), I only see two edits that are dated back in 2008... see this link to view the range's contributions... What am I missing here? I'll keep digging and see what I can't find...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   09:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Aww, you're killin' me, Lugnuts! You meant to type "117.229", not "117.129"... lol ;-). The diff you gave here, as well as your sandbox link, helped me to figure out what was wrong. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   09:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oshwah - Ahh, apologies, a typo on my part. It should be the 117.229 and 117.228 ranges. I've put the most recent list in my sandbox. Thank you.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Lugnuts - No worries. I've done it before also, and I was able to figure it out from the links you gave. ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   09:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I knew I should have had a Sunday-morning lie-in!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Lugnuts - Okay, so looking at the contributions for 117.229.X.X or 117.229.0.0/16 (see here) - this is definitely a big range and with a lot of edits that go through it. Looking at the WHOIS shows me that the range is actually 117.229.0.0/17... okay, but looking at the contribs for the slightly smaller range here still shows a large amount of edits... I'll take a look at the other ranges listed in your sandbox link, but the real solution to this issue might actually be to apply protection to the articles that have been the target by this user...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   09:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into this for me - appreciate your help. The 117.228 has had rangeblocks in the past if that helps.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Lugnuts - No problem! The 228, 229, and 233 IP ranges are all the same (/17 CIDR ranges). Can you tell me how recently that each IP range caused disruption or vandalism and how often it happened so I can take a look? Diffs would be helpful. Depending on when it last happened, the edits might be too far back in the past for me to justify applying any range blocks here... Let me know. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   09:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Each IP pops up every other day, makes a couple of edits, then moves to the next address. This goes back to the original user, Nainanike, who was indef'd following a long-term period of harrasment against me. This is def. the same editor. In the meantime, I'll keep adding to the log in my sandbox.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Unconstructive Editor
User "Cordless Larry has been running around a few articles relating to Sri Lankans and editing them without gaining consensus among all editors, and neither does he appear to be knowledgeable on the subject. He must ask for permission to delete text and place tags on such articles before attempting such edits, especially since he does not appear to understand the subjects at hand. Muchsinomeeno (talk) 09:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I believe he is valid of point 2, 3, 4, 5, and has historically been guilty of point 1.


 * A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following:

Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors. Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable. Does not engage in consensus building:

a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.

Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.

In addition, such editors might: Shortcuts

WP:DAPE WP:CTDAPE

Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rule-abiding editors on certain articles.

Muchsinomeeno (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC) :The context here is that I reverted 's addition of material about a survey to Sexual minorities in Sri Lanka, which cited a source that didn't mention a survey or contain any statistics from one. See Talk:Sexual minorities in Sri Lanka for an explanation. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Muchsinomeeno has now removed an expert-needed tag from the article for a third time, claiming to be an expert. I don't know whether Muchsinomeeno is an expert or not, but it's clear that the issues with the article haven't been addressed. This is starting to get disruptive. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Article's a rambling mess. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 12:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is, and then there's History of sexual minorities in Sri Lanka too. It always frustrates me when editors put their effort into creating multiple, overlapping, sub-standard articles rather than concentrating on one quality one. That's not Muchsinomeeno's fault, but their removal of the expert-needed tag doesn't help. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That said, I don't think that this noticeboard is the place to resolve and discuss these issues. If someone could explain to Muchsinomeeno that I don't need to "ask for permission to delete text and place tags" on articles, though, that might help them understand how Wikipedia works better. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Ack. So's this thread. <b style="font-family:Century Gothic"> Dloh Cier  ekim </b> 13:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Regular disruptive editing from an IP range in film Cast section
It been two or three weeks since a particular IP range is making mass changes in Cast section of Malayalam films, mainly reordering cast and adding CAPS to non-nouns, such as,. Tried to talk through edit summary in   but it was ineffective; communicating directly is not that useful as the person's IPs are frequently changing. However, not all edits are problematic but most edits are.--<b style="color:darkorange">Let There Be Sunshine</b> 18:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Let There Be Sunshine - You should try and communicate directly with this user and voice your concerns with their edits. I understand that it might be difficult given the fact that their IP changes frequently, but "communication via edit summary", per policy, isn't a thing that's valid or recognized at all. Just reach out to the user and point them to a discussion on an article's talk page. This way, they can continue to participate and respond and you won't be left having to chase down each new IP the user is utilizing in order to continue collaborating with them. The IP range you provided is absolutely huge, and blocking that entire range isn't going to happen. Are all of the edits made by this range from this same user whose causing various editing issues and concerns? I mean, we're not talking about a case of blatant vandalism or abuse here... the edits you describe appear to be various concerns stemming from what look to be good faith edits. I think we need to step back and start at step one, which is to reach out to them properly... :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   09:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It would appear that this editor, who geolocates to southern India, does not speak English very well. They seem to think that the words they capitalize are part of the characters' names. It would be very helpful to get them in a conversation, especially since they keep switching IPs. RedPanda25 02:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

146.115.72.47
Has been warned since February against unconstructive edits, disruptive editing, edit warring and NPOV violations in their talk page. I encountered the IP in the Hugo Chávez article, where I opened a discussion in the talk page to discuss the edits and ask why unreferenced content was being added. Despite all of this, the IP decided to blank their talk page and revert once again in Hugo Chávez, without edit summary or answering in the talk pages. --Jamez42 (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This IP user was recently warned for vandalism to Jair Bolsonaro, but all I see are edits that appear to be good faith; it doesn't jump out to me as being blatant vandalism of any kind. The user last edited just over 24 hours ago. Based on what I've seen so far, I can't block this account. Their edits are stale at this time and no diffs were provided here that point directly to recent disruptive editing. I'd need to see this IP user actively making disruptive edits before I could justify blocking it.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   08:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * These are the diffs concerning the changes in Hugo Chávez: . I wanted to leave a report because the IP was warned (nine times) before the page was blanked, but it seems that left another warning and that, like you mention, the edits are stale. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

User talk:2600:1:C354:8175:0:67:FDBC:4001
I'm not sure exactly what is going on, but this IP is claiming that someone is using "this site" to clone their phone and steal information. I left them a message that we are unable to help them at Wikipedia, but they overwrote it. Can a sysop evaluate this? Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hans Zimmer
Please could someone lose this edit.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * also, remember it's better to ask for a revdel privately, rather than on the most watched page on WP. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive (NONAZIS?) edits by 185.113.97.195


This user keeps changing American to Jewish or somehow adding "Jewish" to BLPs. . Last edit was after a final warning on the user's talk page.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked 31 hours for vandalism. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Another Nazi troll - ReaIestTruth


Requesting an indef block for ReaIestTruth, a self-described Nazi whose edits today are clear trolling (, which were references to this American political news).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Given what I’ll call the Morty Factor, the tendency of some wikiteurs to make up imaginary enemies, it might be worth doing a checkuser before just blocking this, and the one above. Qwirkle (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I already was checking when Drmies blocked; I started writing a comment but got distracted by stuff I get paid for. No comment on the IP per the privacy policy, and nothing interesting to report otherwise. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

TheRealCanadian71
At this point I’m convinced user TheRealCanadian71 is WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia but to abusively continue to switch lead photos for their own shits and giggles, across mutliple pages for weeks, rather than adhere to the policies and talk pages. And I’m not the only one who has noticed it... Just putting it out there rather than futile edit warring. Trillfendi (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you please stop? I'm trying to help, geez, To my defense I took the Camila Cabello to talk therefore I do not vandalize and tryna say I do things for my shits and giggles is an inuslt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealCanadian71 (talk • contribs)
 * I don't think WP:NOTHERE is correct, but there is definitely unintended disruption, along with refusing to listen to other editors' advice., from now on, if any change you make to a page is reverted, by anyone, you must gain consensus on the talk page before re-adding it.  This is called the Bold, Revert, and Discuss cycle.  While semi-optional for most editors, it is now mandatory for you. Failure to follow this will result in a block. I suggest leaving the sanctions at this level for now, and see how it goes.  This may just be a learning curve issue. If no further problems arise, we could remove this restriction without fuss in a few months. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm having difficulty seeing the wood for the templates, but when I looked at TheRealCanadian71's mainspace contributions, I expected about 5 reverts on one article, and a serious case of edit warring, but that's not the case. I certainly think their change to Nicki Minaj is a better (and more recent) photo; the one reverted back to looks like she's just seen this ANI thread and is wincing a bit at it. New users don't necessarily know where to go to discuss things, and I can only see good-faith mainspace edits (combined with a fraying patience on talk pages which can be summarised as "I don't understand, please help me instead of insulting me!") Chill, folks. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, if by "chill" you mean "block them indefinitely", I've done so. I don't understand why we're supposed to tolerate someone who makes a change, and when reverted by anyone (at last count, at least 9 different editors) simply restores their version.  Escape Orbit clearly explained this last week on their talk page; it had zero effect.  Being new is no excuse for thinking you must get your way at all times.  If he can convince anyone he'll stop reverting and stop with the insults, feel free to unblock.  But save the patience for someone who demonstrates some tiny iota of self-awareness. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Continued incivility and defiance of consensus by Carmaker1
Unfortunately, it's come to this yet again. Carmaker1 is continuing to behave in an uncivil manner and continuing to defy project consensus.

Incivility: Carmaker1 routinely attacks other editors in edit summaries. He has been blocked and topic-banned for this behavior in the past. Most recently, he dug back over a decade in the page history for the sole purpose of harassing another editor and myself. His response to my warning was even more uncivil. (As an aside, I'm not entirely offended, but I also can't say that I'm enthusiastic about an attack against me being immortalized in the page history like that, and I suspect Srosenow 98 would not be either.) He is also fond of posting "only warning" templates for what were either innocuous edits, possible good-faith confusion, or an IP's first edit (e.g., , ).

Defiance of consensus: WikiProject Automobiles came to a consensus that model years would be used to describe North American vehicles, and calendar years for Europe where model years are not used. Carmaker1 seemingly does not accept the model year system's existence and has made it his mission to purge it from Wikipedia. A recent edit to Ford Fox platform went directly against this consensus. Carmaker1 was correct about one thing - the table heading stated "production" instead of "model year" as it should have. After I reverted the edit and corrected the table heading, this smug diatribe was posted on the talk page, all but admitting that his flouting of consensus was disruption to prove a point and get someone else to fix the heading.

And, most recently, this edit where he restored the incorrect date system and accused me of "edit warring" for having reverted it (once).

This needs to stop. Carmaker1 continues to show what is either ignorance of or contempt for WP:Civility and WP:Consensus, not to mention other core Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Repeated AN/I discussions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) and short-term blocks have not helped in that regard. --Sable232 (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * From what I do observe, Sable932 has made it a habit, to WP: HOUND/stalk me and my editing history, focused on undoing a large portion of my recent contributions, on some conviction my edits are not in consensus or plain personal offense (at being to the letter accurate), that goes against their opinionated beliefs. Attempts to either highlight in automotive articles BOTH the model year (MY) and year of introduction or start of production, are just as equally, frequently removed by the said user in question. It is very obvious when articles, that had little to involvement with said user, end up seeing random changes (for the sake of it) . A large amount of my recent edits, are deliberately reverted or changed, items that are perfectly factual and clean-up issues with timelines, which are murky with model years. When a vehicle has a build date in late 2018 and was launched this past January as a 2020 model, one has to highlight those differences and specific timelines. This is strictly the case of an individual that despises the style of my editing, which puts a focus on BOTH MYs and calendar years, but does not favour prose that gives the misleading impression, that a model year is an actual date in time and not a designation with numerical proximity (incoming calendar year). I take major issue with that and like a few other editors, Sable932 takes offense towards that approach, searching for loopholes to undo contributions of mine. I don't think I see that with anyone else, outside of plain vandalism. Doesn't do me any good to introduce false information into an article. Therefore, I am not going retain false information in an article if I spot it, so trying to attack me for seeing statements that claim "Ford started selling the Ranger pickup in 1983" as misleading and hurting Wikipedia credibility, I will correct that to "Ford started selling the Ranger pickup in 1982" in reference to its March 1982 launch date. I previously let the fact that I was falsely accused of hoaxing slide this past December and never took to task, the gaffes made on that one, so I will not let false statements be made against me in the future in a rather petty manner with doctored or deliberately distorted evidence. Waging a campaign to ban someone, because they criticized unnecessary extra work you created for them and failed to fix yourself over a long period of time, has hardly any merit. Unless any collaborative edits are in progress, needing back & forth feedback or ANI notices (like now), I do not want to see Sable932 on my user page nor my talk page. I have expressed that, therefore them going against my firm demand, constitutes unwanted harassment. Article talk pages are there for a reason, which Sable932 goes out of their way to ignore them and not respond to anything said on there by me. I really do not have time for this, but unlike last time I will not get caught up in daily life and leave this without early input from me. Wikipedia is an occasional task, where I research, edit, and submit my contributions, expecting that when fully valid and cited/sourced, my edits are only to be genuinely improved upon with good faith or elaborated upon. NOT dumbed down or reverted for causes, other than being unverifiable or plainly false. Vandalism and plain edit warring (removing content by an editor over personal reasons), is unacceptable, so I really do not have to accept that. The claim of incivility is absurd, as it is already disgusting some of what one sees in parts of Wikipedia in regards to racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and worse pass through without much scrutiny (other than the offended party). This individual is going out of their way to monitor my edits and see in what way they can possibly pick at them or remove them altogether, knowing that if great time was spent in some cases, it will be taken as intended insult, if the item in question didn't require any fixing. And yes, there is a difference between correcting a false statement and that of deliberately rewording someone's text for the sake of it, then feigning the claim "not in consensus", when consensus has never for one day championed the need to type up statements that will be vague or misleading to readers.  If Sable932 was very serious about making sure things are crossed and dotted, there are plenty of articles that need cleaning up and changing text in this area, along the lines I have been doing. Or it is just easier, to see my own edits correct a DATE to an actual FACTUAL date, that just lessens focus on the model year as a consequence and then remove them in some pissing match? I have no reason to be okay with an article stating "Lincoln Aviator came out in 2020", which doesn't even tell the end user what "in 2020" refers to. Was there an Aviator available in 2019? YES! Did Ford start building them in 2020? NO! Is anything U625 Aviator before 2020, false or fake, not a production model and just a prototype? The average person may or may not understand these differences and figure out a 2019 build date, doesn't negate the MY 2020. It's just an industry standard, which I want to make as obvious as possible in EVERY automotive article so it becomes well known. I have heard Chrysler's PL Neon be referred as being released in 1995 and failing to meet a expectation, that wouldn't have been available at SOP in 1993 and by being a design signed off in September 1991. The person responsible for such a statement, was ignorant to the fact that "seeing 1995" didn't refer to the date when the first units were produced.  Therefore, I highly disagree with Sable932 edits to block counteracting that phenomenon (of confusion), borderline edit warring to prove a point themselves. There is an obvious pattern, that targets my contributions (despite their own edit history not always being so stellar) and don't think I am going to overlook that, when it erases my contributions with an unwillingness to compromise or genuinely collaborate with me. I am equally unimpressed with Sable932's own past edit history, which showcases very uncivil statements towards others. I don't believe I would be in the middle of such a matter, if not for their own issues that manifest in what matches up to tattle-telling over petty personal offense.--Carmaker1 (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I am actually more concerned to see that the "model year vs actual year" dispute is still ongoing&mdash;seriously, it's been years. For all of the complaints about Carmaker, they all seem to stem from the fact that this stupid disagreement can't be resolved. How hard is it to draft up a guideline on when to use the model year and when to use the actual year, and implement it via a centralized RfC? This isn't rocket science we're dealing with here, but a local WikiProject can't make the sort of binding, cross-article ruling that would be needed. I mean, Sable, come on, you've been arguing about this for over a decade. It seems absolutely ridiculous that your priorities are to complain about and report Carmaker's petty incivility, again, and again, and again, rather than work towards a decisive community decision to settle the issue once and for all. And, yes, I recognize that Carmaker can't keep his mouth shut, but it's clearly a side effect of this intractable squabble. If I'm wrong, and it's already settled as you suggest, and Carmaker is just "ignoring consensus", then please point me to the centralized, pan-article RfC that Carmaker is ignoring (as it was strangely omitted from your complaint), and I be happy to take a look at re-blocking. Otherwise, I'm of a mind to propose a two-way IBAN, if not a two-way TBAN from motor vehicles. Please keep in mind that accusations not directly proven by diffs will be considered personal attacks, and excessive, back-and-forth walls of text will be considered disruptive. ~Swarm~   {talk}  00:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Swarm, it was settled years ago. See WP:MODELYEARS. --Sable232 (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Swarm, I apologize for NOT providing diffs such as Sable932 did. I admit I am in a bind right now task wise and essentially posting on the fly via my tablet. It isn't a good excuse, but I am rather tied up sadly and it really bugs me to not be fully 100% here and very responsive, with useful diffs. I will get on that, if allowed to do so within the next hour.--Carmaker1 (talk) 01:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * that's a non-binding advice page. What Swarm asked for was a link to a centralized, pan-article RfC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, it's the product of consensus among WikiProject Automobiles members, which I presume was discussed at the project talk page although I don't recall for certain. As far as I know there was no Wikipedia-wide RfC on it, and I wasn't aware that the lack of one invalidated the WikiProject consensus. --Sable232 (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether the model year problem has or hasn't been resolved, or who is right or wrong about a model year, the fact is that the precise model year of a vehicle is just not that important. An encyclopedia that anyone can edit is bound to have a thousand issues like this. Why do we have motorcycle tyre and yet, also, tire???? The humanity! The Automobiles project was once thrown into civil war over whether rpm should be expressed as min-1, or whether PS or HP was always correct and "standard", whatever "standard" is. Or something. Tomato tomato. You can't edit Wikipedia at all if you can't pick your battles and prioritize. Decide which hill you want to die on. Being picky about details makes for great copy editing, but for issues that are known to be basically skunked, where nobody will ever be truly happy, color or colour, petrol or guzzoline, one needs to have a little chill. Be a little bit flexible, be willing to work with others constructively rather than jump down their throats.<P>It just doesn't matter that much whether the final production or model year of the Chrysler New Yorker was 1996 or 1997. That's a trivia question. For encyclopedic purposes, it was in the late 90s, and that' is the main thing. Wikipedia is not here to settle bar bets. (Disclaimer: that's my pet essay I'm promoting. But I wrote it because I think it matters.)<P>Also, there's admins who have significant history with Carmaker1, and I'm not offering any opinions one way or the other on what they should or should not do in this case. I'm only here to say that one needs to know when to relent. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was born and raised in Detroit and my father (briefly) and my grandfather (for many years) worked for major car companies. As a child as far back as the early 1960s, I thought that it was odd that a car manufactured in 1961 would be called a 1962 model. But that is the way Detroit worked and marketed its products, and it would be foolishness to try to claim that an iconic '57 Chevy does not deserve those digits, just because many were built in late 1956. Instead of spending a decade arguing, the way to resolve this issue is to conduct an RFC so that many editors can agree on a model year/production year standard that can be applied consistently across all American automobile articles, thereby avoiding or at least minimizing the endless bickering. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly very interesting. I've never really understood where it all came from in US automotive history or maybe not remembering. Ford started building the F-Series in November of 1947, but launch was January 16, 1948. Right on the dot pretty much. No one wants to get rid of MYs, but properly designate them in every article or include both side-by-side or in different sections on the same page. If I don't know about a vehicle and reviewing new technologies introduced by the vehicle, it can be very annoying to know "in 1964" was really "in 1963" instead when the pioneering achievement was made and if MB offered the same feature in 1963, then why are they getting the undeserved credit for an innovation, already available in a 1964 GM model as well in 1963? It seems stupid and trivial, but it does defy accuracy when you get such minor details wrong. A Pontiac GTO is not a 1963 model, even if you could get one by Xmas 1963. It's a '64, but SPECIFY it correctly, is my idea. Don't leave the reader to guess what you mean. Nor if a user tries to expand on it by saying, "the 1964 Pontiac GTO was introduced in 1963", you go and delete it the way Sable932 has been doing as seen in several of my recent edits. I don't really understand that, as it's harmless information nor is it redundant. It just explains the timeline a bit better and avoids something not making sense. I am not claiming false information, so no reason why it even should be deleted, none other than to solely keep a personally wanted focus by Sable932 on model years. Forgive if this line of text is misplaced--Carmaker1 (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Cullen, I'd support an RfC if that's what it comes to. I thought WikiProject consensus was sufficient, and while my personal preference would be to not reopen that can of worms (in those discussions years ago I was repeatedly accused of deliberate ignorance and bad faith for resisting attempts to eliminate U.S./Canadian nomenclature), if it's the only way forward then that's fair enough.
 * What an RfC would not do is anything about Carmaker1's persistent incivility, including harassing others in his edit summaries. I find it strange that such behavior is seemingly well-accepted now. It appears to have gone on long before I made the mistake of attempting to engage with him, indicating a high likelihood that it will continue beyond this specific issue. --Sable232 (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You’d support an RfC “if that’s what it comes to”? Seriously? This dispute is going on for years, apparently because nobody can be bothered to start an RfC, something that is step-one for most people in the most minor disputes...but you’d be willing to “support” one, “if that’s what it comes to”? . Quit bringing this to AN/I and work on dispute resolution. Go start an RfC. Now. Go. Oh, and for future reference, a WikiProject consensus means nothing. I don’t know where you got the ridiculous idea that a handful of editors on a WikiProject have the authority to make binding decisions that apply to any articles they want, and then they can just run to AN/I when someone doesn’t abide by them. You’ve certainly been here long enough to know better than that. At this point, you’re certainly expected to have figured out the fundamentals of dispute resolution and consensus. Ignorance certainly isn’t a good defense from an editor who registered in 2006. There really is no excuse. ~Swarm~   {talk}  12:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Facepalms now? Really? Talk about dialing it down a notch. WikiProject consensus is a level of consensus. It doesn't trump broader level guidelines, but then we have no guidelines that would contradict WP:MODELYEARS. The reason the Automobiles and Motorcycling projects haven't felt any urgency to fight this fight is that there's no right answer. US carmakers have had their quaint tradition of model years (and goofy 1/2 years), which they have always followed -- except when they don't because lulz -- and non-US companies have sometimes used this system but mostly not. It's an arbitrary construct -- who's to say when production of something with thousands of parts made in 30 countries "began"? Or ended? Trade rules define what country a car was made in, but that's an arbitrary percentage of parts. Knock-down kits are a goofy workaround to such trade laws.<P>For our purposes, we need to remember that Wikipedia doesn't have the power to make a messy world neat and tidy. And it isn't worth the effort. Putting a car in the wrong decade is bad; being off by one year is less important than the Oxford comma. Explaining why the October Revolution wasn't in October ranks a lot higher priority than untangling the knot of production vs model years.<P>Sable232 is exactly right that this isn't about the WP:TRUTH of model years. It's about correcting a car's year from 1985 to 1986 without flying into a frothing rage attacking the IP editor who, 9 years ago, got 1985 out of Car and Driver magazine instead of from an obscure out of print auto industry trade journal written in Swedish. Even when correcting inexcusable errors, even deliberate vandalism, edit summaries should be civil. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, with all due respect Dennis, is this really about the content issue at hand or it more personal, stemming from a past AN/I on outrage over my "hick..." statement sometime a year ago, which you feigned outrage over as a "racist" statement? In fact, regarding this matter at hand, because of rather obtuse journalists not doing due diligence with their reporting, I have had to spend a LOT of effort, assuaging people on a forum (Bronco6G) for the Ford U725 aka the future Bronco, to understand why Ford marketers' statements of "Coming by 2020" or "Coming in 2020", has NOTHING to do with the model year nor their expectation they should expect it to be revealed this year as a 2020 model year vehicle. Based on the internal information I have access to thankfully, I pointed out to them production on the U725 Bronco is not until December 2020 as a 2021 model and that never for one day, did the SOP date have any single day in 2019. All this confusion came from clueless journalists creating their own narratives since January 2017 announcement, that any references to 2020 by Joe Hinrichs at 2017 NAIAS, meant model year and not actual introduction, Job 1, or launch date. I detest having to do such clean up or corrections ever so often, because public sources such as media, Wikipedia (dependent on content), and etc cannot get the facts right.  In regards to Wikipedia, myself and others armed with such knowledge, can make such a difference much quicker. I believe in both use of model years and real-time dates (months/day+year), if possible. But please do not substitute introductory dates/timing, with simply the MY. It isn't accurate nor will the average person see pass that. It has to be broken down for them, to fully understand, when, where, how and why something was introduced. The new USDM 2019 Ranger pickup and the 2018 Lexus LS 500, narrowly avoided this being "a point of contention", by being vehicles launched the same year as their designations, even if production began the previous year. It's really simple. Take it from someone, who essentially fought with User:Stepho-wrs and User: OSX on this topic many years ago on the side of Sable932, only to realise they weren't wrong. The idea to implement both in articles, came from them and keep all happy. What I do not understand, is there being an issue with having both or that I should leave statements are not phrased correctly. Not to beat this horse to death, but why would it help an article, to put that "Ford introduced a new Explorer in 2020", instead of "Ford introduced a new Explorer in the 2020 model year"? That really shouldn't be an issue.  As for my incivility, the only thing I see as uncivil, is my talk page angered response on being harassed and to only address me on article talk pages. I have been told that by 1-2 users in the past and I complied as requested. I do not endlessly post on their talk page, despite being told otherwise. It serves no purpose, than to antagonize them and violate their personal request. Additionally, it was only by chance, that I saw that Sable932 was responsible for some longstanding errors in a Ford article, but I happened upon it and did not seek errors on their part to criticize. I don't have time to chase their editing. I do such in-depth edit history reviews to figure out how and why errors are missed for long periods and where they appeared. If a consequence of vandalism or done by well-meaning editors and why they weren't spotted earlier. If I was really that awful as being proposed, wouldn't I hound their edit history and pick out ways to target their work (independent of my own contributory areas), as has been done to me for some peculiar reason.  Not to be combative, but I did have to question here if Dennis' perspective is fully objective and not particularly tainted by the fact, that my past "hick" statement and AN/I by him was not dramatized enough or "handled" to their satisfaction? Some of the ideas being proposed by Dennis, don't really mesh well with what my intentions truly are and seem deliberately distorted, similar to Sable932 doing so. One can hopefully trust it is coming from a place of genuine objectivity, as opposed to personal reasons. I don't see how any of us have the authority to decide, that "it's just not important" or "trivia".--Carmaker1 (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I remember Dennis filing a similar report here, with a massive wall of diffs, which I thoroughly examined in good faith, coming to the conclusion that the complaint against you was heavily exaggerated if not falsified outright. I suppose that means he is referring to me when he says there are "admins who have significant history with Carmaker1". ~Swarm~   {talk}  03:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't see this before. Thank you, as I can only imagine if that is what happens to be the case here too. No ignorant bigoted statements should be welcome on Wikipedia, but what I am seeing is an attempt to avenge the previous "Reverse Racism" case with my "hick Americans" statement. I once said, that I do have a background from Texas, New York City, and the UK (of foreign ancestry overall), so to have made such a statement way back, was still unacceptable. However because of my own background being highlighted on here at times, I can imagine the statements being made against me by Dennis still stem from the unresolved outrage, that I somehow am bigoted against white people of certain backgrounds from the US Midwest or Southern states. I considered it to be reaching, even with the irrelevant factoid that I am quite involved in circles of such people as an avid off-roader and 4x4 enthusiast, which tends to favour those demographics heavily and very close to an example. The fact that a case could not be made that any poor civility of mine was racist or bigoted, I can only wonder how that was received by Dennis overall in the AN/I Archive 971.--Carmaker1 (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Dennis, thank you. The personal attacks and other incivility are the primary issue here, and thank you also for noting levels of consensus.<P>Swarm, I'm not keen on being bullied into filing an RfC by your degrading remarks above. This dispute has not "been going on for years" - the WikiProject's consensus has been in place for years (since 2010). Why should it have escalated to an RfC when the local consensus worked without issue? This is, to my knowledge, the first time it's been challenged like this. If Carmaker1 had shown more interest in discussion and less interest in personal attacks, there was nothing stopping him from re-opening that discussion. Yet even in his paragraphs above, the ad hominems and dancing around the issue continue.<P>I am aware how small the calendar vs. model year issue appears, especially to uninvolved editors. However, it's one of the first things a reader will notice if it appears wrong. There were enough cases of IPs changing calendar years back to model years because of the lack of clarity in that respect - it's part of the reason why the WikiProject came to the compromise it did. When readers find what appears to be incorrect information, Wikipedia loses credibility, whether the information is indeed incorrect or simply not presented clearly.<P>Once again, this is primarily about Carmaker1's incessant incivility. It would have been quite agreeable to simply discuss the issue, whether with the WikiProject or with the community at large, but he showed no interest in that. --Sable232 (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure I dealt with a similar dispute some time back, but I forget the specifics. Anyway, I seem to recall coming away with the impression that Carmaker1 was usually right (or could at least back up his arguments with sources and facts) but needed to work on his interpersonal skills, and for me the issue is not really "civility" so much as when he is challenged, he leaves a giant wall of text for some poor schmuck to wade through and try to work out what he's talking about. The most obvious example where he was blocked for a month last year, where he accused just about every administrator looking at the situation of "abuse" in an unblock request that was, not surprisingly, declined. This is probably why he's run into trouble, as any admin looking at it thinks "I can't work out what the issue is, but he seems argumentative so, meh, let's block him".

Anyway, having an RfC on this issue definitely needs to happen, to stop these continual feuds. Don't look at me, I don't know anything about cars other than you need one if you want to go roadtripping on the A82 through the Great Glen. Somebody who knows what they're talking about needs to start one.

Wikipedia is a collaborative work. It's not enough to be simply right, you have to be able to convince everyone else that you're right too, and if you treat people like idiots, you won't get the result you want, and you'll walk away with Wikipedia being wrong. That's not good. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Very fair point, as yes it is collaborative on here. All of that is entirely accurate, as people should not be made to feel like idiots on a collaborative project. The last time there was issue, no actual infraction was committed by me genuinely and holes were poked through the claim. It was indeed taken advantage of by none-other-than..., that select administrators did not want to put in the effort to understand the situation and just left a mess as-is, simply citing false reasons such as "hoaxing" with citations, instead of the fact they disliked my methods of defense and lack of humility, plus purportedly some wanted past vengeance for me not being "taken care of". When they couldn't prove and use gross incivility or legal threats (example) as a reason to block, a false claim of email abuse or "hoaxing", was kept in place instead. Other than that, I believe an RfC is the best way to resolve all of this.--Carmaker1 (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Who will bell the cat? Which automotive editor will be bold enough to start the RFC that would resolve this matter? Brownie points will be awarded. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's say we have an RfC. Let's say there is a consensus. Let's say we write a strongly supported guideline telling us what is the correct year of a car's production or model year or whatever we call it. Let's say for the Smithmobile Model K the "correct" year is 1986. Then some rando IP come along and edits Smithmobile Model K and says the year is 1987, in contradiction to well-established consensus, because the ranto IP doesn't know or understand the consensus, and hasn't read the obscure dead-trees-only automotive trade journal written in Swedish with the one true year. What will Carmaker1 do? Will he correct 1987 to 1986 with a calm and civil edit summary? Or will he rant and fume and swear, cursing the ancestors of the IP who dared to edit Smithmobile Model K? What if the poorly informed editor wishes to have a talk page discussion, and present their reasons for believing the incorrect year? Will Carmaker1 tell this person they have no right to edit Wikipedia? Call them garbage? All this talk of RfCs on model years misses the point entirely. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , those questions can be asked and answered and responded to and the issues dealt with much more effectively, at the conclusion of an RFC on the matter. If editors working on such topics are carrying out the results of an RFC, then it will be a unified team effort. Those who edit in opposition will not be able to gain consensus, and behavioral problems can be dealt with more promptly and easily.<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  07:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly not sure where to start Cullen. This is all new to me and I'll need to study and absorb it, then act accordingly if allowed. I trust doing an RfC wouldn't be redundant at this point and it will make a lasting difference? I simply favour it that, where "Production" boxes are written, I am not fighting with people on what should be production versus model years. Sable932 does not reason that way, but there are some users weirdly enough, who will delete/change production dates to that of the MY instead. Now that just doesn't make sense and I admit I lose patience when it keeps becoming rinse-and-repeat, with no assistance on such issues and I eventually get tired of borderline edit warring with someone who isn't getting it. Some people change them around for fun and it's nerve-wracking, when other well meaning users made contributions in between and then one cannot do an easy revert. Manually restoring conflict is an undue burden at times, that eventually the wrong diff makes it public and spread to other sites, misleading those that read it (as fact). Well, I digress.--Carmaker1 (talk) 06:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not one word you just posted has anything whatsoever to do with the real subject of this ANI thread, or the purpose of this noticeboard. Go do whatever RfC you like, wherever you like, in whatever forum is appropriate. Whether we do or don't have a specific guideline on car model years has no bearing at all on the actual behavior problems here. The same problems with one particular editor have gone on for years. If the supposed lack of a model year guideline were the cause, then why aren't all the editors working on car articles being repeatedly warned to stop biting others? The common denominator isn't car articles. It's one editor who lacks a sense of proportion, and of perspective, and is unable to react in an emotionally mature way to the reality that an open wiki is bound to have errors in it, or have new errors introduced. That's what building and maintaining an open wiki is. Car industry experts will never be able wall off their chosen articles to scare away hapless noobs from ruining their masterpieces. Carmaker1 has never been able accept that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And beneath it all Dennis, you seem (my perception) to be the only one not open to that (other than author of this AN/I). Your (perceived) main underlying focus, is possibly that it was never handled to your satisfaction, the handling of my incendiary commentary of "hick Americans" back in 2017. Yes, I admit it was arrogant and rude of me, being from an economically upper class U.S./UK background to make such a snide comment and not expect anyone else to take offense. However, I make mention of that instance, as it does indeed taint your objectivity, if that's overwhelming your intent to contribute to this discussion and not truly what's on the table right now. To simply aid/backup Sable932, because of personal offense. If you are not able to look past that, but simply dredge up and try piece to together unrelated matters and not focus on the fact of it being content-related, then no one is getting anywhere. The real issue here is, allowing personal grievances be brought to AN/I (framed as collective issues) and used as a reason get a desired (personal) end result, devoid of anything actually content related or truly widespread. I made the point,  to deny Sable932 access to my talk page. Next to no discussion with them is collaborative nor is it open to be when you're ignored, so I prefer to work with them on article TPs or elsewhere. Based on other past AN/I instances, their goal is block, ban, as many people as possible (doing a search on my name at AN/I highlighted it). When demanded, I have granted a few stubborn and volatile (now inactive) users such requests. I really hope I am wrong about that objectivity concern, as 1 or 2 times (following 2017 AN/I discussion) you have made genuine gestures to work with me on topics. The one very good point by you, is that errors will happen on Wikipedia. However, everyone STAY on top of them and collectively maintain articles.  One just wishes everyone else was more proactive in ALL areas, so that if I don't pick up the slack, someone else will and isn't something worry to about, if I take leave from editing for 3 weeks. If people can build on what myself and others try to contribute, my (their) work is pretty much done and all they will get is endless thank-yous/thanks from me. Ironically enough, I actually got thanks on that very diff Sable932 is complaining about in the Ford Tempo article, which shows how several editors were not pleased with the mess made of the Ford Tempo article years ago and they were happy I helped fix it once and for all (hopefully not about edit summary highlighting responsible parties).  It's not fun, adding a few lines here and there or major restructuring, then finding out days/weeks later it has been tampered with for the billionth time and no one notices to fix it back or IMPROVE on it. Then when I actually add some text/changes on another article and there's a minor complication with it, someone is on you/me like white on rice and ya wonder where it's even coming from, when little effort seems to be paid towards lost (neutral/good intent) or troublesome IP accounts (bad intent) making a mess at times.  I've chalked such discriminatory measures up to possibly registered users like myself, attracting greater attention when editing or my choice topics regarding vehicle development history, not being in the favour of those users nicknamed "deletionists". Those that prefer to whittle down as much content as possible in an article, as opposed to elaborating (expansion) as much as possible (like I do), provided the information is relevant and cited. I am really at the point, I cannot expend energy at being combative to defend my contributions, aside from minor scolding a few on obvious errors meant to detract from an article's credibility.  If that is contentious, perhaps I need to take note. When I started editing here in 2006-07 on non-automotive topics, it was awful the treatment and it never subsided until I started being more assertive 2-3 years in (2009-10) and discovering how to use "edit history". I have always been under the personal impression, there are individuals 10x worse than me (I have seen terrible talk pages, AN/Is, article TPs...), as I only target vandals or at least try to. I do admit, I do mistake good faith editing for bad intent. Other than that and these minor squabbles (borderline edit warring) and volatile edit summaries, I try to lay low and have no interest in giving to get little in return. I simply care about the facts and keeping the world on the same page through Wikipedia.--Carmaker1 (talk) 05:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * You continue to make attacks and cast aspersions towards Dennis and I while showing no cognizance of the problems with your behavior, and misrepresent the issues in your responses.<P>Just because you claim to have been "thanked" for this doesn't justify your harassment of Srosenow 98 and myself. A belief that you're righting great wrongs doesn't invalidate Wikipedia policy. --Sable232 (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And you are not making attacks yourself, in trying to distort my character as an editor? As you see it then, because my edit summary is not harassment. Commenting on my page and being told not to, is. It is very clear the intent of yours here, because if I was not editing in a space of your interest and simply focused on my own primary interests of vehicle development and music production, I don't think we would be even having this discussion. Would it be easier to not have me in the picture and therefore no one will "challenge" the credibility of allowing model years be substituted for initial dates of introduction or SOP dates? I really have to wonder with that. Lastly, please review WP: WIKIHOUNDING and see where my concerns lie with you. A select few, out of hundreds of editors the past many years, have been guilty of this with me, but you are the first I am taking to task with this concern for once. I do not like reporting users formally, as it goes against my intentions of allowing people to resolve themselves and not wasting the time of administrative oversight. Very little the past few months, that I recall being particularly uncivil, other than my talk page response to you. You are picking at things possibly and unfortunately, I might already see the reason (as highlighted above). It is not to create a calm and welcoming environment, but to possibly eliminate what one may consider a "thorn in their side"? You are not a stranger to that and I have the proof in previous AN/Is. I can only wonder in this case. All of us here, are intelligent individuals, otherwise we wouldn't bother with being involved in this project at all. In other words, I am not stupid and can see patterns and intentions.  As for "righting great wrongs", I have learned long ago from WP:OR issues, it is not worth it trying to make Wikipedia an original source, as it goes against the standards entirely. I see no point in me adding content, that cannot be supported by an outside source upon original submission. My goal is to make sure all of the insider knowledge I have or have collected from various automotive OEMs, is indeed reliable and can be verified independent of me in a link as a citation. If I cannot do that, I no longer bother adding new text anymore. Hence a now greater focus on cleaning up timelines, over adding new vehicle history. If you are trying to use past examples of my failure to do that (avoid original research), then it is a deliberate attempt to misrepresent my intentions in the present and future. Otherwise, you have no evidence of me "righting great wrongs", in the sense of not providing supported content.  The real idea I have is to unearth information BURIED in hard to find sources and bring them to the forefront. Not manufacture my own content. In example, some of BMW's archives are difficult to find. I brought their hidden Deutsche-only database to the forefront and a treasure trove of vast information on past BMWs, that even a few users now use it, thanks to me using it in a few articles. Prior to that, no one knew about it very well. That is my style of editing, not to disclose future JLR models on Wikipedia from work and then not provide a source for it, because I am somehow magically the great source for it. I used to do that at times, but I figured out why that wasn't acceptable quite awhile ago. Other than sources that go dead, I am not providing unverifiable content. In conclusion, I really suggest you actually point out instances that are really occurring with me, versus slapping together inflated accusations and then hoping again someone will take the (manufactured) bait, before it's proven false against me.--Carmaker1 (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * And that's another thing you aren't understanding. I'd rather have "Carmaker1 edits collaboratively and civilly and abides by consensus" as opposed to "Carmaker1 no longer edits" but when you can't even acknowledge that those things are important and that not doing so is a problem, how can the former happen? --Sable232 (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

NPA violation by Störm after warning
has been removing content from Abhinandan Varthaman, either by providing misleading edit summaries, or providing no edit summaries at all.

For this disruption, I and warned him on his talk page. Störm removed the messages as "stupid, flash in your toilet", after that he corrected his typo "flash" as "flush" by making a dummy edit.

I warned him against this NPA, to which he responded by writing in edit summary that "should I build one?", meaning "should I build a toilet?". Shashank5988 (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * While not at all responsive or collegial, I don't see the personal attack. Seems to be commenting on content. <b style="font-family:Century Gothic"> Dloh Cier  ekim </b> 21:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A number of editors have been heatedly editing that page. And I don't see the edit summary as misleading. Unfortunately, edit summaries are not obligatory (unless you were running for admin in the past decade). Perhaps can had some insight. <b style="font-family:Century Gothic"> Dloh Cier   ekim </b> 21:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Google the edit summaries written by Störm. You would know that Störm is throwing racist jokes to deal with his opponents despite warning. 115.164.81.107 (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ip, if you are going to throw around assertions like that, the onus is upon you to provide WP:diffs or at least links demonstrating this behaviour. I went looking and could not find such, but I did stumble upon this edit from yesterday in which Störm erroneously asserts that because Wikipedia is not a news site, it is impermissible to include information that a minister in the national gov't of Pakistan has been arrested on corruption charges, until such time as the formal case against him is resolved. That's clearly untrue on so many levels that I think it actually opens a WP:CIR question.


 * As to the article that gave rise to this complaint, I do see how these two edits would be seen as problematic. It's not that I think that content necessarily needs to appear in the article (I think that's an issue to be decided by a consensus analysis of the WP:WEIGHT factors); rather, my concern (as a previously uninvolved party giving my impression here for the first time) is that Storm's first removal is predicated on WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH with a little non-sequitur mixed in for good measure ("there was no war, thus he was not a POW, and therefore there is no validity to any complaints made by Indian commentators and therefore we shouldn't even mention that such complaints were advanced"), while the edit summary in the second case seems like no more than a WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationale.  Again, it may very well be that the article would benefit from removing this content, but the party removing said content ought to at least be offering a reasoning recognized under policy.  All told, there does seem to be a slant to this user's edits in some pretty contentious areas, but the much more problematic problem is a weak understanding of the relevant policies, and a willingness to advance arguments which are not predicated in policy or some other source of community consensus.  This might be correctable with mere discussion and warning, but if the IP is being truthful and accurate in noting racial attacks, the obviously a sharper response is probably called for. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 23:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the IP is referring the edit summaries I reported above. IP is absolutely correct with his assertion that's why I made this report.
 * I also looked at this edit which you mentioned and I agree that we have a case of CIR. I further looked into ANI archives and found this: . Administrators%27 noticeboard/IncidentArchive970. It appears that Storm has been engaging in disruption for years. I am also concerned why he is not responding to this report. Shashank5988 (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any evidence of "racist jokes" in either of those diffs (both are of warnings left by you and another editor on Störm's talk page, not edits of his own), so I doubt that was what the IP was referring to. If there are such jokes, they almost certainly need to be discussed here. If there is no evidence of any such jokes and the IP is not going to provide any, the reference to them should be struck or deleted entirely, since such accusations require support under our guidelines and its at least possible this was nothing more than trolling, given the topic area from which this dispute arises. I do agree there is some evidence of a problematic approach to certain topic areas--the discussion you link to above, with its TBAN result, is particularly salient, though far from the only concerns that come to light with a little digging. But that said, the IP's accusations, if true, are of a much more serious conduct issue--the kind serious enough that we expect a diff supporting that accusation immediately upon it being made. That's not been done here. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 19:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It occurs to me now that what you might be trying to get at is the link included in one of your diffs (FYI, when people call for diffs, they usually want the actual edit by the party accused of misconduct, not a diff to another user's comment referring to it) in which Storm makes his "flash in the toilet" comment. Now, I think it's probably reasonable to interpret this as being roughly analagous to calling you a "piece of shit"--which, is obviously a WP:CIVILITY issue in and of itself needing addressing. But that comment, standing alone, does not meet the burden of the accusation that another editor is making "racist" jokes--insulting and denigrating certainly, but there's no reference to or even implication of a racist objective in that comment. Do I believe that racial perspectives could underlay this editor's problematic behaviour in the WP:ARBPIA area? It's certainly possible from the edits explored here. Do I think we can just assume that the comment in question constitutes a racial insult, even if nothing in the comment itself suggests as much? No, it looks to me like your run of mill (though still very much inappropriate) PA, and it doesn't serve any helpful purpose to begin speculating that the user may have said it for nefarious reasons--which, barring any additional evidence, is considered a kind of PA in itself. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 20:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The argument is over an article about an Indian. Jokes/insults about toilets are commonly leveled against Indians due to the perception that they all defecate in the open. mostly edits articles about Pakistan/Pakistanis. Pakistanis and Indians are commonly in conflict and racist attacks between the two are not uncommon. That's not proof of a racist attack but I hope that at least spells out for you how it could easily be interpreted as one. 38.68.203.42 (talk) 06:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I've seen the potential for the implied subtext all along--and I might even share your concerns/suspicions as to what the ultimate motive behind the comments may have been. But more than a vague scatological reference would be necessary before we go around implying racist behaviour--an exceptionally serious claim which requires some significant support if it is going to be laid as an accusation against another contributor. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 07:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Whether or not this is a personal attack against you as an editor (this appears to be debated above), I will comment and say that leaving warnings on someone's user talk page for making personal attacks against you isn't generally a good idea. If (for example) I warn a user, they remove it and with an edit summary telling me to go stick it somewhere, and I follow up with another warning for being uncivil while removing my first warning... it's just asking for the potential frustration (on both sides), the issue, and the situation to escalate and for the user to keep doing this and make more personal attacks and uncivil comments. Users who make blatant personal attacks toward others and with the intent of being harmful to that user will almost always continue doing so if you give them the impression that it's bothering you. Leaving another warning for the user making a personal attack at you will give that impression... so don't do that. ;-) Repeated incivility and personal attacks by someone shouldn't be tolerated and should of course be reported so that action can be taken (if necessary), but leaving warnings for incivility in this situation will only open yourself up to more abuse.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   06:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Ruairiaskin0505
Continues to mass upload and add copyrighted images despite warnings. Concurrent report already filed on Commons. G M G <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  13:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the user for 24 hours for the repeated addition of copyrighted content and material to articles.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   13:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

COI editor issuing legal threats
Issuing legal threats on their user talk page and on the article with which they have a COI. --<b style="color: green;">Finngall</b> <sup style="color: #D4A017;">talk 16:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hallwang Clinic (talk · contribs)
 * Blocked for legal threats. Should probably have been blocked for username anyway. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 16:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Nothere user refuses to communicate
User_talk:HCC_World_Cup page history shows this user keeps fiddling with some fake game even though his user talkpage, a draft and template are all at deletion discussions Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Asia Qualifier

I asked him to explain his edits twice  and he just deletes my questions and the deletion discussion notices. Can an Admin impose a block to get their attention. Legacypac (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC) Strips the notices and carries on Legacypac (talk) 05:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * 657 edits, and the only 4 to mainspace were vandalism/test edits... Someguy1221 (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I've indeffed the user pending a good explanation. I'm going to bed now, so I'll leave it to others to deal with the pages up for deletion. If I've messed up, any admin is welcome to unblock. Deor (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The MfD and TfD will close as delete soon anyway. No one will vote to keep the pages. Legacypac (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User blocked by Deor - thanks Legacypac (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)}}
 * still has rights to edit their talk page and rather than use it to discuss this block they continue to delete the notifications and use it as a test page.Spike &#39;em (talk) 09:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 34 edits since their block (none of them constructive) and counting. To be clear: I think they need to be blocked completely. Spike &#39;em (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Those pages all clearly qualify under speedy deletion criteria (G3, U5) and there's no need to waste time at MfD and TfD, so I've deleted them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A previous user,, was blocked in January for exactly the same reasons / editing style, so I suspect these are the same person. Spike &#39;em (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, I thought there was something familiar - well spotted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Revdel needed ASAP
<span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:#DC143C">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 05:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

And these. User need to be blocked for inserting links to video of mass killings. <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:#DC143C">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 05:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * May need to remove their talk page access so they don't post it to their talk page instead. Let them eat UTRS. <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:#DC143C">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 05:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. For people who wonder how nasty the Internet can get, this is a prime example. --Rschen7754 06:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this is as good a place as any to remind users that this page is not a good place to request RevDels. As this has been resolved, it shouldn't be necessary to revert and RevDel this section.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And guess this is as good a place as any to suggest that the WP:AN/I edit notice should include a link to a list of admins that have been active in the last few minutes or so in mop-up places - WP:AN/3, WP:AIV, CAT:CSD - to avoid this perennial problem. Yeah, encouraging editors to post on admins' talk pages instead of here is sub-optimal, but a kind of least worst alternative. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have been here for years and I dont use IRC. I have no clue where to ask for quick revdels such as this above.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:REVDEL, or more precisely, it's subsection WP:REVDELREQUEST. Or the massive pink header you see whenever you try to edit ANI which says in huge bold letters If the issue concerns a privacy-related matter, or potential libel/defamation, do not post it here. If you need an edit or log entry to be deleted or suppressed (oversighted), or for any privacy-related matter, please e-mail the relevant diffs via this form or to oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org. If a suppression action is pending, consider asking an administrator privately to delete the revision in the meantime. Revision deletion may also be requested privately via IRC: #wikipedia-en-revdel connect <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  10:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I never understood why we don’t have a web form where you can pop in a diff and hit submit to request revdel. Why is there no on-wiki way to request revdel? Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 13:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, there basically is: Special:EmailUser/Oversight. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * By “on wiki” I meant not via email. I don’t want to reveal my actual email address, and I don’t want to set up a dummy email just to report revdel issues (nor do I want to enable email at all). So I just don’t report revdel issues, which is fine. But it would take like five minutes to set up an ordinary web form to submit revdel requests, and captcha can stop spam bots, so I just never understood why that hasn’t been done by now. I assume there is a good reason, just wondering what it is. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 14:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * (apparently edit-conflicted with close) I guess one of the issues there is that there really isn't a "revdel team". The form would just have to email every administrator, all 1500-or-so, and that's a lot of load for a mailing list. Maybe we could set up a form that could notify a bot which could post on #wikipedia-en-revdel or #wikipedia-en-admins to get attention? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Emailing oversight should be the first thing you do; their mailing list is generally seen by someone within a few minutes any time of day, and they do act fast. Oversighters are also bound to much more strict privacy guidelines than the rest of us, so you should not be afraid of revealing your email address to them. If it's especially urgent then asking for revdel here is fine too. It's only if it's a matter of privacy or a very serious BLP issue that you should not post here - drawing unnecessary attention to matters that need to be hidden is an undesirable result. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've emailed Oversight many times and not once have they spammed or cyberbullied me. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 14:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Threat at Ainu people
At 58.178.8.7 has stated "I have given the scientific sources to such facts, if wiki removes this I will be making a video about racist mods defending old 19th century racism". This isn't a legal threat but is still chilling, particularly to those of us who are open about our identity. Doug Weller talk 13:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you mean Ainu people?Nigel Ish (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, yes, somehow it got saved while I was trying to fix it, leaving odd characters in the section heading and my error. Doug Weller  talk 13:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I was reverted the disruptive edits (Tromdor (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC))


 * IP blocked for righting great wrongs, and while the threat is not a legal threat it's a threat to engage in harassment of specific Wikipedia editors. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Tony85poon
A. Randomdude0000 has been engaging in troubling editing and talk page behavior, especially at Cory Booker 2020 presidential campaign and Kirsten Gillibrand 2020 presidential campaign. This has become a WP:BATTLEGROUND where the user appears to have a WP:POINT, which happens in this case to be to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS on behalf of feminism. Case in point, this edit. Note the editor was blocked for two days in late February. I consider myself too WP:INVOLVED here, but I suspect a topic ban for post-1932 U.S. politics or women's issues might be in order. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also notifying some other involved editors: – Muboshgu (talk) 04:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with Muboshgu's assessment of Tony85poon's behavior, which is becoming increasingly brazen. A few examples:, , . It seems as if he is saying "go ahead and block me, I dare ya". So I agree that a topic ban, at the very least, would be in order.---A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 05:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have been troubled by their edits. They are clearly not here to be constructive and cooperative. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I share the others' views of Tony85poon's conduct but disagree about the appropriate remedy. I believe a topic ban would be an example of biting a newbie too hard too fast, something we do too often in the AP space. I think this editor deserves a firm and frank, high-level warning from an admin about what the project is about and how they can contribute productively. If they persist, only then should they be topic banned. Tony85poon has undoubtedly been disruptive, and I'm concerned about potential listening and competence problems. But I believe he is here in good faith to build an encyclopedia--he just needs to better understand what that means. R2 (bleep) 17:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Partial retraction of that view. In this recent edit, Tony85poon did actually dare me to ask for a block, suggesting that it's not his job to avoid disruption. This isn't a problem with AP-related articles, it's a problem with his understanding of community-wide standards. I suggest escalating blocks. R2 (bleep) 17:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems like a textbook WP:CIR case to me – not capable of exercising editorial judgment in their edits and constantly adding irrelevant content despite other editors' efforts to get them to stop engaging in such behavior. Mélencron (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, Melencron. Their problematic behavior relentlessly continues despite the efforts of multiple editors to keep it in check, and the editor in question gives no indication of putting the brakes on anytime soon. At this point, I believe a block is in order. The disruptive behavior needs to be stopped ASAP.---A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The listening and CIR problems are relentless. This editor needs a hefty block. R2 (bleep) 00:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * If there's a competency issue, do we think there's a mentor out there who might be able to guide this user in a more productive direction? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's great that we're willing to work with a new editor, but I think that mentoring might be a frustrating exercise for both parties. This editor seems to have clear ideas of what he wants to do, and he is not easily dissuaded from those bad ideas when other editors point to the guidelines. This struck me as an example of the user thumbing his nose at a request that should have been fairly easy to honor. Here he sort of doubles down on the behavior on another entry a couple of days later. Larry Hockett (Talk) 07:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Edits like this convince me that we either have troll on our hands, or someone who simply does not possess the competence to edit an encyclopedia. Having seen very similar behavior from other users in the past, I'm betting that we have a troll. Regardless, this has become quite disruptive and we need an admin to step in. - MrX 🖋 03:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If I can throw my two cents in here: This is pretty much a CIR issue. Repeatedly starting barely understandable RfCs for trivial matters (eg "Can a political campaign article have a "Positions" section?") or adding completely unreadable (and overlinked) sections eg here and here is disruptive and just sucks up other editors' time. I'd support a (second) temporary block, removed only when and if another editor offers to mentor Tony85poon. Hydromania (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I would say the user covered a lot of fields, and may be from Hong Kong so that he also covered topics from Hong Kong. WPHK talk page had die off and people works as lone wolf. And active user would also have a risk of too strong personal POV, which i feel it looks playing fire on cross-wiki edits around Cory Booker (say, Korean wiki, da-wiki, Greek wiki, hi-wiki, ca-wiki, etc). As an user that joined wikipedia for so long, I would say new user have to learn that wikipedia is based on secondary source, which each other have their own POV and people defend it, but the basic ground on editing, was given fair weigh on reliable source as WP:DUE. Once he learn that, there is no need to warrant an indef block. And yes, i personally seldom touch ethnic or political articles. Matthew hk (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Strike-off my comment. Well, after the socks were exposed (that easily spotted as ducking due to usernames), I can't tell their political agenda on editing so much political articles. May be WP:NOTHERE or more seriously, just like Russia flipping facebook? And yes, WP:RBI. I suggest we close this thread. Matthew hk (talk) 09:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Over the past several days, Tony85poon has fortunately shown a greater willingness to listen to and cooperate with other editors. Given this welcome and positive change in behavior, a block no longer seems to be necessary at this time. However, they have continued to make some problematic edits (along with some good ones, it should be noted) that have required reverting or amending, and continue to be a seemingly endless topic on the talk pages of the articles they edit (the aforementioned Booker campaign article in particular). While these edits do appear to have been made in good faith, they show a general lack of understanding of basic encyclopedic standards. So, I believe Tony85poon should continue to be monitored, and perhaps offered the mentoring option if the problematic editing pattern persists (assuming there is someone out there with the time and willingness to mentor them).---A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Tony85poon is taking over WP:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. He has six (6) active RfCs going, all of them pretty frivolous and/or unnecessary. He seems to think that a RfC is warranted as soon as someone disagrees with him, and he refuses to listen with other editors ask him to take them down and talk things out. Some of his disruptive behavior has settled down, but he's still a bull in a china shop. R2 (bleep) 22:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Tony inserted content into Jimmy Carter with the edit summary "Requested for Comment at the Talk Page" while the content is under discussion in one of the aforementioned RfCs. Tony violated 3RR so I blocked the account for a week. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It appears that he now has a sock puppet. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for bringing that up here. I've already filed an SPI. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Tony85poon has been blocked indefinitely for creating multiple sockpuppets. --Calton &#124; Talk 01:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Threatened with block by edit-warring admin using "fuckoff" template
Can someone please have a word with JzG? He is edit-warring at Liberty University‎ and just threatened to block me using a (fictional?) "fuckoff" template. Neither of these actions should be acceptable from an administrator. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You templated a regular. You did this in pursuit of your desire to use self-sourced promotional content in a controversial article. I called you on your hypocrisy. You came here. Good luck with that. Guy (Help!) 20:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Regarding the "fuckoff" template: Current wiki policy, as delineated in Section 4.5.3, is that you can tell someone to fuck off (a) on your own talk page, and (b) once per person. JzG is OK as far as 4.5.3.b is concerned, but has violated 4.5.3.a.   Regarding the "threatened to block me" accusation: no, he didn't, that was clearly a parody of the edit warring template.  Regarding the "edit warring" accusation: that could very well be, but ANEW is that way.  JzG is fined 45 quatloos for violating 4.5.3.a, but will likely run into more trouble if he uses bad language against ElKevbo again, on any page, since he's used up his 4.5.3.b quota. Play nice, Guy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What do I subst to use that template? Asking for a friend. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 21:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I had written a big long screed about how to resolve this, but I think Floquenbeam has said it far more eloquently than I could have, and I very much support the sentiments enclosed.  Full disclosure, I thought the "template", while perhaps not suitable for repeated use, was hilarious and had quite a good chuckle over it.  Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n! 04:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * That "template" made me laugh almost as much as the bringing this complaint here expecting someone to take it seriously. On the heels of  Wikipedia is better than a comedy show today. Legacypac (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: An editor in good standing has asked for help with an administrator who is blatantly edit warring and threatening to block that editor and all anyone can do is make light of that editor and the situation. Is that what we're doing here? Is that the kind of community you want to have? ElKevbo (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest walking away from your keyboard for a few hours and thinking about your own conduct at the article and how bringing this to ANi is perceived by other users. Hopefully you have some realizations. You are taking this a LOT too seriously. Legacypac (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you believe is wrong with my conduct at the article? ElKevbo (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if an admin is edit warring (and this is not a claim of support or denial that Guy was edit warring), that doesn't mean that you have a right to edit war either. It takes two to tango. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n! 04:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Suggested light reading: standard dispute resolution protocol. Talk things out first, or seek dispute mediation, and only bring issues to ANI if they are chronic, intractable behavioral issues. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n! 04:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I've taken a look at the situation. JzG is WP:INVOLVED and should certainly not block  under any circumstances.  Beyond that, this looks like a content dispute -  is a long-term editor who appears to be in disagreement with JzG there.  There is an open discussion at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 04:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no more intention of blocking ElKevbo than he has of blocking me. I reserve the right to continue to remove self-sourced promotion from any article, per WP:RS, WP:PROMO and WP:THISISAFUCKINGENCYCLOPAEDIAARTICLENOTANNADVERTISEMENT. Guy (Help!) 05:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The content here is far from controversial and I can't see any reason not to use it, nor to use the primary source (our rules are to not rely on imperfect sources, not to strip them). However we should additionally have a secondary source.  Is there any local equivalent to the THE that lists such things across all colleges? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thus spake our resident contrarian. Meanwhile, back in the real world, it's self-sourced advertorial from pretty much the only university known mainly for right wing indoctrination and teaching creationism as science. Guy (Help!) 06:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Guy, we are talking about this content. Which is uncontroversial stuff, about the organisation of the college and their sportball teams. It has nothing to do with creationism, or with the academic credibility of the institution. Whatever their beliefs, they still play sports.
 * If you really think that their beliefs are reason to remove content like this, then yet again you've let your self-appointed role as "Guardian of the Wiki" against pseudoscience et al to cloud your judgement. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * @ElKevbo: FYI the wikitext which JzG placed on your talk is a copy of the wikitext you placed on his talk, with a few words changed. To my reading, the suggestion is that someone engaged in an edit war should not attempt to get the upper hand by templating their opponent. The edit-warring template you used is just a CIVIL way of saying "fuck off". Of course JzG is not going to block you and there was never a suggestion, let alone a threat, that he would. I hope your reading regarding the article content is more accurate. Johnuniq (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "just a CIVIL way of saying "fuck off"."
 * Sorry?
 * We have an ongoing problem here with CIVIL. Clearly recent policy and practice permits such language - providing that it's used by powerful admins or their friends. If ElKevbo had used it, that would be another matter. We should address both of those, both the use of uncivil language, and the inequity in policy's application.
 * Also JzG has a long record of threatening editors. I am not reassured by Johnuniq's Of course JzG is not going to block you and there was never a suggestion, let alone a threat, that he would., because JzG is forever threatening to block any editor with whom he disagrees (and frequently me). If the claim is that JzG should not be taken at his word, then that's quite an allegation to make of an admin. If JzG is making so many hollow threats, then that's clearly an attempt at intimidation and that needs to stop right away. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems to me it would likely be inappropriate to for JzG to take any administrative action in this case from the get go. As I understand it, the university is fairly involved in the American political scene, and the page itself is under Wikiproject Conservatism, so it would seem to fall into the area JzG shouldn't be involved administratively per [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=864829040#User:JzG/Politics]. In any case, it looks to me like JzG is too involved to take any administrative action. I agree with User:Andy Dingley that it would be quite wrong for JzG to threaten to block people even if they would never do so. Especially since less active editors may not understand WP:involved.  But has JzG actually threat to block anyone? The example cited at the beginning of this thread [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ElKevbo&curid=1633028&diff=887306268&oldid=887123663] never says 'I will block you'. It simply says you 'may be blocked'. Nearly all of our templates say something similar and they're generally intended to be used by everyone because anyone can bring a case to ANI or wherever is appropriate to ask for a block. An admin doesn't lose that right when they become an admin. Unwarranted warnings can still be a problem even when it's clear it's not a threat to personally block, but that's separate from the admin issue.  It is unfortunately true people tend to take block warnings more seriously from admins, even in cases where the admin is involved in the actual dispute rather than administratively so probably can't actually block the editor. I don't see any simple solution although maybe admins could be encouraged to add a message 'I'm not saying I will personally block you, but I can use the avenues open to all editors' if people feel it's a problem. My impression is most new editors don't really know who is an admin anyway. Many mistakenly assume anyone warning them is an admin even if they often aren't.  Nil Einne (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a block warning. It was a comment on the rank hypocrisy of one party in a content dispute trying to gain an advantage by invoking "edit warring" against another. In this case, ElKevbo's primary goal is to include self-sourced promotional content in an article about a controversial subject. Whether or not you agree with the specifics, it's clearly a legitimate concern, and reflexively reverting any removal of self-sourced content, as ElKevbo has done, is clearly some kind of problem, but there's no chance I would block him for it, or take any other admin action, for very obvious reasons. Guy (Help!) 06:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the advice, everyone. I have not edit warred at this article and this administrator has edit warred (with multiple editors). It's very disappointing that other administrators are not only okay with one of their colleagues edit warring to impose his own views on an article but also okay with him then threatening and harassing another editor. I hope that everyone understands just how toxic that makes this community when its administrators allow and encourage that behavior. ElKevbo (talk) 07:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That just looks like a deliberate lie, as the page History shows no evidence of edit warring. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 08:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * JzG removed content from the article in Special:Diff/887193370 (BOLD). ElKevbo reverted this edit in Special:Diff/887194939 (REVERT). The appropriate step for JzG to take in the WP:BRD cycle is to discuss this dispute on the article's talk page. Instead, JzG reverted ElKevbo's revert in Special:Diff/887201363. This seems like a pretty clear-cut case of edit warring by JzG to me. ElKevbo did not continue this edit war. feminist (talk) 09:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ... and that is a pathetic edit war. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 09:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally I can't see anything wrong with templating the regulars. It does none of us any harm to be reminded when we step over the line, especially us admins. Whether I agree with him or not, I'm disappointed with the flippant responses to Elkevbo's complaint. Deb (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand that many established and experienced editors take offense to being templated, but I get templated (usually by mistake) all the time... it's never bothered me at all. I typically don't template established editors or experienced contributors directly, but there are situations where I absolutely will (such as edit warring between an experienced editor and a new editor). In that case, it doesn't matter to me how long someone has been on Wikipedia or how many edits they have - I leave both users the same templated warning on their user talk pages. This is in order to be 100% equal and fair to both parties, and so that I'm not seen as playing favorites. The template in this case isn't left in order to be careless, but left in order to treat all involved editors the same and hold them to the same level of accountability.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   12:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What's the point to having warning templates anyway? Surely they developed as a standardised and equal-handed set of warnings for particular situations (and experienced editors ought to recognise that, and their limitations). It is much better to have a template that is patronising, with its "welcome to Wikipedia" and "you may not know of this policy, but..." approach than it is to have the "You are a hypocrite, fork off" version used here.
 * Unjustified use of a template is annoying, but if any experienced editor gets a deserved template, then that's their doing. They shouldn't complain about it being done with standardised wording. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * was clearly edit warring with ElKevbo. And the faux "fuckoff" template used by an JzG might well be interpreted as a threat of blocking (that it was delivered in a tounge-in-cheek style makes no difference), and as such is inappropriate behavior for an admin. Paul August &#9742; 14:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that telling or hinting at another editor that they should "fuck off" is childish and immature behavior, and is definitely unacceptable behavior coming from an administrator - regardless of the situation, manner, or context. That's absolutely not okay; we're supposed to lead by example and demonstrate how to behave and how these kinds of issues and disputes should be handled.... How is telling someone to fuck off a behavior that's compatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators? ...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   15:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, point for point. This behaviour is well bellow the standard of civil, focused, and non-incendiary conduct expected of even a rank-and-file editor, let alone someone invested with the communities faith and special permissions for the purpose of putting out fires and maintaining good order for the sake of the project.  As sure as the day is long, we're going to have at least a half dozen people showing up here to advocate that "Well, in the context, I think Guy's comment was funny and acceptable." and boy am I tired of hearing that kind of ethical relativism. I'm tired about hearing about "context" every time someone refuses to act like an adult on this project and they (or others looking to preserve an emerging status quo where they are allowed to behave like surly little nitwits) advance the argument that in the face of real vexation, they couldn't be expected to behave better. Yes, you most certainly can:


 * If you think you are unique in the level of tension you face on this project, you are almost certainly wrong. In the last six months on this project I've had to engage with avowed racists, scores of socks and other blatant abusers of process, and a group of LTAs trying to promote the sexual abuse of children in our articles. That in addition to dozens of simpler editorial issues which were turned into quagmires by an ornery contributor or two willing to game process--the sort of thing we all have to contend with constantly here. If I could get through all of that without telling someone to fuck off, you most certainly can too. Nor am I saying my experience are particularly unique or represent a highwater mark of frustration: that's just my point--this project can and will test your ability to remain calm in the face of provocation (either intentional or implicit in what you are hearing the other party say), and if you cannot pass that test, this just isn't the project for you.  You weren't under an especially high level of pressure when you blew up, because you accept when you work here that you will face such situation and uphold community standards in such a way that you don't contribute to the disruption. And that standard goes tenfold for administrative privileges. If you can't stay especially cool, you're not the person to have the bit--period, end of story. If you have a mop, you are expected to keep it clean and not drag shit all over our floors, which is exactly what you do when you tell someone to fuck off. Even if not for the high levels of tension you are expected to face and still act like an adult capable of showing self-restraint in the face of conflict, "context" is still a pathetic argument to advance to defend one's position. Because regardless of context, we have  standards , and the standards are there precisely for the purpose of making sure the "context" doesn't devolve into an increasingly disruptive state of affairs, which most certainly will happen without rigorously enforced restraints. There's also the fact that, as noted by others above, the "give a pass for context" approach is disproportionately and inequitably applied (for obvious reasons) to different classes of user, additional reason (if any were needed) to view it as a dubious test for excusing incivility.


 * All of which is to say I support a shortterm block for Guy until they can argue persuasively to an unblocking admin that they understand the problem with their behaviour and will endeavour not to repeat it, same as we would expect of any less accomplished and recognized editor in these circumstances. I'd additionally not be opposed to an inquiry for their fitness for the bit, insofar as our admins are expected to show a high standard of conduct and there is at least something of a question of a potential attempt to abuse/leverage tools in the context of a dispute. Let me be clear that I don't expect there is any realistic chance that either proposal will go far.  But as regards the block, I'd support a short block for a non-privileged editor in these circumstances (unless of course they could acknowledge the issue sufficiently to convince an admin to unblock), and I see no principled reason not to apply the same standard to Guy, just because he's an admin and we like him.  And as to the bit, I'm sorry, but even if the question of Guy being WP:INVOLVED here is resolved in his favour, I am personally of the opinion that any admin who tells and editor to "fuck off" has called into question their basic competency in the elevated position they hold in this community.  We need admins who douse the fires of others in ice cold water, not those who drop gasoline on such situations--regardless of their degree of involvement. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 18:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This behaviour is well bellow the standard ... Is it, though? I thought there was an RfC at which consensus was reached that telling each other to fuck off is not below the standard of civility (the fourth pillar) required on Wikipedia. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 19:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Below standard" (whatever that means) or not, it's still inappropriate, and especially so for an admin. What possible benefit to the encyclopedia is derived from telling another editor to "fuck off"? In my view though, it's the threatening nature of the faux-template which is particularly inappropriate behavior for an admin. Paul August &#9742; 20:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Nope, no such RfC ever arrived at such any such conclusion, not by a mile. There was an RfC about a year back (held at WP talk:Civility, but inspired by a report about concerns with longterm civility here at ANI, in which an eager but uncautious editor but forward the question: "Should telling someone to fuck off be sen as a per see violation of WP:CIV" (I'm a paraphrasing, but that was the main thrust.  I told that editor at the time that, although I agreed that they behaviour that inspired their RfC was inappropriate, that they had just made a huge tactical error that the community of volunteers working at ANI and other administrative spaces would have to deal with for years, because from now and until the end of time, people would be erroneously asserting (either through mis-remembrance, willful misinterpretation, or seeing what they wanted to see) that we had an RfC that found that "telling someone to fuck off is alright". But that was most certainly not the outcome of that RfC: there was no firm consensus in that discussion, despite long and involved debate.  Indeed, the closer noted (accurately) that a majority of editors felt that in most circumstances telling someone to "fuck off" would be blatantly inappropriate.  However, because of the imprecise manner in which the RfC OP framed the question, a lot of contributors were anxious that !voting to endorse it would lead to over-application and that the policy would become a vulgarity filter--basically these editors were concerned that the policy would thereafter be used to create frivolous reports of any use of the word "fuck" that was used in good humour amongst friends in a collegial fashion.  But if you look at the balance of the sentiments expressed by those same users in the RfC discussion, it is clear that almost all saw an expressed a limit to using such vulgarity where it was blatantly incivil.


 * The actual relevant question here ("Is it a violation of civility to tell someone to to "fuck off" in the context of an editorial or personal dispute ) has never been put before the community, mostly because it doesn't really need to--as a matter of longstanding practice, such comments have been routinely met with community intercession and sanctions. And honestly, that question is no brainer--telling someone to "fuck off" in a dispute is manifestly inappropriate for a work environment, being aggressive, disrespectful, hostile, incendiary, and frankly just plain juvenile, serving no productive project furthering purpose--just an expression one's anger towards another party and an indication that the person saying it is done even attempting to comply with our conduct standards at even their most basic level. Indeed, it's hard to imagine a comment which is more plainly and incontrovertibly against both the spirit and wording of WP:CIV, and I don't know why we would even bother to have the policy if even such a blatant refusal to comply with it cannot justify community response. So, no, there was no such RfC that says "it's ok to tell someone to fuck off", nor do we need an express RfC to arrive at the conclusion that this behaviour breeches our conduct standards--all of the relevant community consensus is already enshrined at WP:CIVILITY, WP:DISRUPTIVE, and numerous other policies--and this standard has been applied many thousands of times against newer editors who have received blocks for that exact phrase and similar expressions.  And if anything, the standard should be even more rigorously applied to admins. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b>


 * That's a good point and so I went and looked back. The RfC question was "Should the "repetitive usage" of the term "fuck off" by an editor targeted at other editors be considered "sanctionable"?, and the close was ...most of us agree that "fuck off" is definitely uncivil in many contexts, and incivility is sanctionable, but consideration should be given to the surrounding context of each instance before deciding to apply sanctions. Mitigating factors could include extreme provocation and whether the phrase was used as part of non-serious banter, but it's ultimately a case-by-case determination. I remember learning about it here, where it was discussed in relation to (among other similar incidents involving different editors), which was held as an example of non-sanctionable conduct. I agree with that, and so I have a hard time applying a different rule in this instance. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 01:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, except some incidental discussion in an RfA that expresses the opinion of one (or even a handful) of editors does come remotely close to being a significant enough expression of community consensus community consensus as do our relevant policies, representing standards adopted in a much broader fashion over a much longer course of time--the most significant of which policies, indeed, a  pillar  policy, is WP:CIV--to whit, and from the lead paragraph of that policy: "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." No which part of "Fuck off" or "go fuck yourself" or any other variation which is starting to plague our edit summaries and user talk page resources (and very soon, article talk and ANI?), do you find jives with that standard? In fact there's about two dozen more quotes that one could pull out of that policy which make clear (with substantial specificity) why this kind of behaviour is against our community's expectations.  I suggest anybody who is prepared to argue that this kind of behaviour, when done in the context of a user dispute, is appropriate and non-sanctionable, to go to that policy and pull out a quote that even raises the suggestion or some ambiguity to the situation.  While they're at it, they might take a moment to consider how we explain this to the many thousands of problematic/ill-tempered editors who have been blocked for much less plainly aggressive and disruptive behaviour, because they didn't have a high enough profile to fend off the ban hammer when their expressly hostile language landed them in trouble.


 * I honestly don't mean to be incivil myself in saying this, but your segment of commentary in an RfA is supremely unimpressive when held up against the plain wording of our central user conduct policies and equitable standards. I take a different interpretation of the RfC close you qouted there, but even if we adopt the part you chose to emphasize with your qoute, we are still left in the same place: a case-by-case analysis. In that light, I've seen enough evidence in this case to say that Guy's use of "fuck off" was inappropriate, needlessly hostile and likely to inflame the matter, and below the quality of "calm and reasonable, even in heated debates"--to say nothing of what we expect of them given that they are an admin. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 03:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Also just a note: I certainly don't view this as the worst kind of incivility ever on this project, by any stretch of the imagination. I've suggested an approach under policy because I feel the behaviour was sufficiently bad enough that I would be willing to endorse that community response as against an unknown/newer editor, unless the editor in question spoke up to make assurances that they understood why it was a problem. Therefor cannot see any alternative but to urge the same for an admin.  There's also, as has been noted both above and below, intersecting and arguably more important issues relating to WP:INVOLVED and tools. I have not found the time to review those issues in super fine detail (and may not before this discussion is resolved), so I won't speak to them primarily unless/until I do. But what I can say is that "there is an accepted community standard that an admin telling someone to fuck off is non-sanctionable" is a clearly and massively erroneous statement, completely out of whack with every policy directly on point, and the underlying community consensus formed therein over many years.  Again, no offense intended. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 03:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * No offense taken, and I actually agree with you about how things should be, but let me ask you this: who was the last admin to be sanctioned for telling someone to f off or anything like that? (Honest question, I don't know the answer.) My impression–and it may be mistaken–is that admin and other editors are given a ton of leeway when it comes to cursing at each other and such. I think that should change, I've just always thought I was in the minority. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 06:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I wouldn't say you're by any means in the minority there. When I first joined the project as a regular contributor about nine years back, there would have been just no question about whether telling someone to fuck off was appropriate or not--it never would have been given a pass (now, even then, and admin or a popular editor might have gotten away with it on some rationale or another, but no one would advance the argument that the comment itself was within the perview of reasonably civil conduct).  Standards have slipped a little since then, of course, but I still believe the vast, vast majority of editors favour the standards laid out in WP:CIV and when questioned on the matter, find outbursts of invective cursing to be completely inappropriate.  What has changed more than anything is the culture of the spaces where this kind of misconduct is weighed by the community.


 * Here at ANI in particular, there is a "birds of a feather" effect, wherein editors who have a "I am entitled to say whatever I want so long as I feel it was justified in the moment" mentality see community action being considered against other contributors who have conducted themselves in in a similar fashion and with similar disruptive outbursts, and oppose any sanction which looks like its the type they've had to face down in the past. Now these editors are a slim minority when compared to the editors who provide more nuanced opinions here and in other administrative spaces--which editors may or may not support a sanction in particular cases but do not in either event engage in minimzing policy or concerns--but the members of this small minority are heavily invested enough (and consistently present enough in process spaces) that despite their numbers they manage to muddy the waters enough to degrade the consistency of enforcement in many cases where they feel entitled to argue "Oh, he couldn't help saying 'fuck you and fuck the horse your road in on, asshole'--the other guy made him do it." As if that were an adult or reasonable argument. Still, vocal as this minority can be, it doesn't change broader community consensus nor the plain reading of WP:CIV, so I'd feel quite comfortable, if I were you, in knowing that most users want that policy followed closely and see repeated and/or severe violations as a problem, whoever's conduct it happens to be.


 * That said, your point is taken as to admins, in practice, having a degree of "process armour". And honestly, that makes a certain degree of sense: we are used to seeing problem contributors respond to any administrative action with histrionics and further disruption, so we get in a habit of giving admins the benefit of the doubt. But that doesn't mean we should adopt a formulaic/dogmatic approach to such questions or just accept that admins will get a free pass because its too hard to hold them to account. It may be difficult (indeed, probably in a majority of cases outright futile) to get the same standard applied to admins (or editors who have made a large number of connections on-project, for that matter) as is applied to a neophyte editor who acts out. But I think we still need to try to insist on that response, or else the immunity to having their conduct reviewed becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 07:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Snow Rise. Your comments here have changed my mind on this and given me renewed hope about civility on Wikipedia. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 16:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I would like to encourage JzG to be nice to people. Many people do not interpret an imperative to "fuck off" as being nice.  It would be helpful for JzG to cultivate other turns of phrase.  Beyond that, it appears to me that the underlying conduct dispute is proceeding along reasonably fruitful lines at this point.  Uninvited Company 18:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think it's time for JzG to step away from certain topics for a while, he has shown himself to be very abrasive and I agree with Snow above as well as Oshwah, the behavior is unnacceptable from anyone, and certainly not from an admin. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Also agree that some action should be taken, by JzG or otherwise. I've noticed chronic incivility by this user, such as the stuff mentioned above, these rude messages or edit summaries telling people to get off his talk page, this personal attack, another one, and probably more. <b style="color:#090">Semi</b><i style="color:#099">Hyper</i><u style="color:#009">cube 21:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

IMO an admin saying "you may be blocked" (with no other notes saying otherwise) will often be interpreted as a possibility that the admin would block, and the person writing it knows that. So IMO doing such is using the position to intimidate or influence the situation. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with North800. For an admin to use blocking language, with the power to do so is bullying. On the other hand, ElKevbo is getting in conflicts quite frequently, and blows his top when people don't agree with him. They both need to think about civility and the the level of maturity they are(n't) showing.Jacona (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a formal warning on civility for both then? Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n! 23:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * With candor, I think that's the best resolution we are likely to land on here. Personally, I'd support something a little more likely to catch the attention, but given the overall context here, I view that as an unlikely outcome.  So a message expressing the community's concern with the behaviour is perhaps the best of limited options at this stage. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 04:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The "you may be blocked" language is part of our standard edit warring notice which ElKevbo also issued to Guy. If our templates our written in a way that is interpreted as intimidation, then that is another discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 10:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

-but over-agressiveness and WP:INVOLVED. Both here and chronically and repeatedly over the years in the sort of situation SemiHypercube has pointed out. I've dealt with almost as much promotionalism as JzG, and I've been equally annoyed, and I do sympathize with this feelings about it, but I've never thought any degree of rudeness necessary. In fact, it is counterproductive--the more polite the explanation the more likely they are to realise there's no point bothering further. And, in particular, an admin has enough power in dealing with promotional and other improper editing, that any display of personality will always appear overbearing. So I agree with Snow and Oswah. At some point we need to give a clear message that this must stop.  DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is not civility as such -- I think an admin should never be deliberately vulgar in a dispute here, ever, but that unfortunately may not have consensus-
 * There is no WP:INVOLVED here. I took no admin action and none was ever going to be taken. Remember: the trigger event was that ElKevbo, who has consistently reverted my edits removing self-sourced promotional content, left a template edit warring notice on my talk page when he is the other party in the edit war - I copied this and changed it to an obviously satirical hypocrisy warning. It was a sarcastic response to an aggressive act. Guy (Help!) 07:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I have not participated in this discussion after a few initial comments; I stopped reading this discussion and removed this noticeboard from my watchlist after the initial responses were so disheartening and disappointing that I considered taking a break or leaving altogether. I do want to make it clear that I have no general objection to rough language; my objection in this instance is the aggressiveness of the specific language used in the context of a message from an administrator that included a warning that I might be blocked.

I also don't see where in these interactions I have been uncivil or edit warred. I don't think I'd necessarily characterize JzG's article Talk page discussion as uncivil, at least not in the usual sense that we mean it; it's only when he posted to my User Talk page that he crossed a line. I also think an examination of the article's history will show that JzG is the only editor who (until at least recently; I have also removed that article from my watchlist so I haven't kept up with recent events) began edit wars by reverting other editor's revert and he did it multiple times to multiple editors. Someone else in this discussion has noted some of these actions and I agree with their characterization of the WP:BRD cycle that was violated with JzG's reversions of reversions.

If you'd like further input from me, please ping me or drop a note on my User Talk page; I am not continuing to monitor this discussion as I believe I did my part in bringing this administrator's conduct to the attention of the wider administrator community and I trust that you will act on this as you see fit. ElKevbo (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, there you go
I went to ElKevbo's user talk to apologise, since he very obviously failed to interpret my sarcasm for what it was and interpreted it instead as a threat, which it was not. However, he has asked me not to post there (along with some others who were attempting to offer him helpful advice). That rather limits my ability to fix anything. If it wasn't blindingly obvious, I would not have blocked ElKevbo, not only because of WP:INVOLVED but also because the dispute doesn't rise anywhere near that level. There's a sensible debate going on at the talk page with additional input from RSN, I don't really see this as needing additional escalation, but clearly ElKevbo disagrees. Le sigh. I don't propose to say any more about this unless people specifically ask me to. I should know that sarcasm doesn't translate.

Happily, is doing some good work on the root cause of the problem int he article. Hopefully ElKevbo will accept him as an honest broker. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You know sarcasm is never really helpful, at its best it's insulting. But a "sarcastic" threat of being blocked, coming from an admin is particularly inappropriate. In power imbalances, the "I was only joking" defense doesn't cut it (consider sexual "jokes" from a boss to an employee). Paul August &#9742; 11:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you acknowledge that it was inappropriate behaviour from an administrator?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm going to call you out on this post. You call this an apology??? In my opinion, you need to take on board that in posting that template, you were wrong, you were 100% wrong, and the only editor who was wrong was you. I can't speak for anyone else, but had you made a real apology, I would have voted no action instead of voting for a warning. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 16:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed solutions
Per above conversation, several options appear to have traction. I thus present 3 possible solutions to the issue. As proposer I neither endorse nor oppose any option at this time. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 06:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I have only written proposals 1, 2, and 3. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n! 18:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a math problem here. The "some action needed" "vote' is split amongst 4 items, the "no action needed" "vote" is concentrated on one possibility. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well as always, a !vote should be based on consensus, not who has more votes (easy to put in writing, harder to put into practice). But you are right, that does give a bit of mathematical disadvantage. Perhaps the first vote should have been "Do something" vs. "Do nothing", but that seemed an extraneous step? Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n! 19:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * At this point, the close can still analyze them that way, in essence interpret them as "how far are you willing to go? and see what there is a consensus for. E.G. 100% will be willing to go to at least doing nothing, 70% to at least a warning, 40% to the next more severe step, so the consensus got lost after "just a warning". <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Warn
Both JzG and ElKevbo are given formal warnings about civility and edit warring. JzG reminded that sysops are held to higher conduct standards than regular users, and to refresh their reading of WP:INVOLVED.

Proposal 2: Temp block
JzG is temporarily blocked and expected to give a convincing unblock reason that shows they understand the situation and will work to correct any issues the community has highlighted. ElKevbo still warned about about civility and edit warring.

Proposal 3: No action
The matter is dropped.

Proposal 4: Admin status
It's time to question whether Guy is fit to be an admin. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 5: Tban from American Politics
JzG is topic banned from any article related to American politics, such as Liberty University is. This would go a long way to ease up on civility. I know this is a long shot, but a good chunk of the issue is Guy and this specific topic area.

!Vote

 * Support some sort of formal warning for . As for being uncilvil, can someone please supply diffs? Paul August &#9742; 11:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Proposal 1 per the above situation, and Proposal 2 if continued per WP:ROPE. <b style="color:#090">Semi</b><i style="color:#099">Hyper</i><u style="color:#009">cube 11:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Proposal 4 would be worth doing, but oppose proposal 5 as JzG has said he generally avoids contributing to US politics articles (here and here) so there might not be much use in enforcing something voluntary. <b style="color:#090">Semi</b><i style="color:#099">Hyper</i><u style="color:#009">cube 20:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Proposal 1 - not to "punish" JzG but to remind him what's expected of us. Deb (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Proposal 3 Storm inna fucking teacup. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 12:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support proposal 3 per the Dog: this section is rather unnecessary.  ——  SerialNumber  54129  13:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support proposal #1 Something needs to be done but it's not a huge deal. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support proposal #1 A think a formal warning is needed as what is "blindingly obvious" to JzG may not be to the person at the receiving end.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support proposal #2 Seriously - MjolnirPants and TenPoundHammer get blocked for telling other users to fuck off (or similar), and Guy gets off with a slapped wrist? No. Be consistent. However, I'll take option #1 as a compromise. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To be fair, F&K has summarised why it is consistent rather well. ——  SerialNumber  54129  14:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * MjolnirPants was blocked for something that required oversight, which was not because he dropped an f-bomb. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support proposal #3 Giving an admin an EW template is pointy; with all the good faith in the world, it's hard to believe that ElKevbo genuinely thought JzG didn't know that edit warring was a thing, so why template except to wind him up? JzG should probably have risen above it, but replying with a sarcastic template is not something that needed bringing here. He's accepted above that it wasn't the best possible response, so I don't see what purpose a warning would serve - drop it and move on. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  14:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support proposal #2 (for a short-time block). JzG's combative attitude and frequent "sarcastic" personal attacks have for a long time been extremely exhausting to other editors in various places (e.g., Talk:Sci-Hub recently). I believe JzG needs a clear signal that they should temper down, as Wikipedia depends on COLLABORATION and not fight. I am against #1 as I do not think ElKevbo should be met out the same treatment as JzG, a contributor with a long history of complaints. — kashmīrī  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  14:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As it was added after I cast my !vote, I may also consider supporting proposal #4 – to discuss desysopping Guy, but without prejudice to the outcome of the discussion. It needs clarification whether Guy abused admin tools or status. To be clear, I have not seen examples of this, but if the majority feels there are grounds for #4, I will not oppose. — kashmīrī  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  18:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I also oppose #5. The problems with Guy's editing are not specific to American politics. — kashmīrī  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  18:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Resolved This was resolved (IMHO) 30 minutes after the original post. I told Guy to knock it off, I told ElKevbo where to report the edit warring if he wanted to, and I assured him Guy wasn't threatening to block him. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you mean this, I don't think it resolved that much as ElKevbo thought you and other editors were making fun of him and we're still here two days later.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I still think Floquenbeam's solution was good. Their answer was concise, witty, and kept things lighthearted while still solving the issue; i.e. that Guy cursed once, but will likely run into more trouble if he uses bad language against ElKevbo again, on any page. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n! 19:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I still support fining Guy 45 quatloos. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n! 19:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Proposal 1 (but not for ElKevbo) – Per F&K via SN, this is not comparable to MP or TPH. It's not serious enough for a block on a first offense without a warning first, and I'd probably vote no action if this was a non-admin editor. But per Snow Rise's and others' comments, we can't just ignore incivility, and while I thought it was funny and I generally like Guy, when I step back, "Should an admin be allowed to tell an editor to fuck off?" is a question with an obvious answer. Wherever "the line" is, it was clearly crossed here; a formal warning is due. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 16:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose proposal #2 – it's been nearly 48 hours since this happened. If I reported a vandal to AIV 24–48 hours after their last edit, I would expect it to be declined as stale. So I think this is not recent enough for any blocking, more so because we are dealing with experienced editors who are not vandals here. And with that in mind, there has been discussion here of templating the regulars. In my opinion, blocking the regulars is similar to templating them. Why? See the lead section of the DTTR page: When novice editors breach policies, it is quite possible [...] that they are unaware of them, and educating them is helpful. On the other hand, most editors who have been around for a while are aware of these policies. [...] Sticking to the "did you know we had a policy here" mentality tends to be counter productive in resolving the issue, as it can be construed as being patronising and uncivil. Other problems with blocking experienced editors are highlighted at WP:UNBLOCKABLE: They will argue that the previous short blocks failed to stop the user from engaging in the problematic behavior, so nothing short of an indefinite block or an ArbCom case is likely to help. Conversely, if you make a long block this same admin will reverse it as being too harsh or on the basis of "time served" if it's been a few hours. Now, since discussion has taken place in this thread about JzG's civility, and we know he has read it because he has replied to this discussion, I think that that means he has de facto been warned about his conduct and so I doubt that a further warning on his talk page is necessary, for now at least. Linguist111 my talk page 16:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You might be confusing preventative blocks, which are used in situations of ongoing vandalism and which indeed should be fresh (although I never heard that 24h makes one stale), with punitive blocks which we are discussing in this case. So, your "policy"-based oppose doesn't sound convincing to me. — kashmīrī  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  17:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless I've misread our blocking policy, I don't think that punative blocks are a thing. It specifically says that blocks are not intended to punish, only to prevent disruption. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If JzG has any sense (which I presume he does, as he is an admin), he will, by reading this discussion, understand that his behaviour in this situation has been disapproved of by multiple other experienced editors and he will not continue it, and therefore no action will be necessary. If, after reading this discussion, he doesn't understand and continues that behaviour, then there'll be reason to take action. At the moment, I don't see how blocking JzG is particularly preventative. Linguist111 my talk page 17:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think 's mis-remembering WP:PUNITIVE. ——  SerialNumber  54129  17:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oops - not as bad as me misspelling it... Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  18:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries :) That is an essay, and legal discussion goes somewhat deeper – one role of punishment is to deter. As most will have understood, here I tried to differentiate between vandal blocks, intended to immediately stop imminent damage, and short-term blocks intended to dissuade an editor from engaging in persistent low-level activity detrimental to the project. —  kashmīrī  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  18:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, most editors wiil have understood your remarks to fly directly in the face of policy: WP:NOPUNISH. And the "depth of legal discussion" is, how you say, at best a distraction.  ——  SerialNumber  54129  18:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed - WP:BP is policy, and that's what I had in mind. Blocks are not meant to be punitive (spell check - tick), that's policy. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  20:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , 48 hours? This ANI report was posted 20:45, 11 March 2019; the fuck off template was 20:42, 11 March 2019. Three minutes. Not stale. This isn't a vandalism report, it's a civility report; staleness means something different for civility than for vandalism, right? Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 17:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean that right now it's been nearly 48 hours, so I don't think that it is appropriate to give out a block right now since time has now passed. Of course, civility is important, but I don't think that blocking this particular user at this particular time is preventative. Linguist111 my talk page 17:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that a block is not appropriate right now, but I disagree with your reasoning about the fact that 48 hours have passed since the report, because by that logic, we could never block anyone for incivility unless somebody did it right away, and that would discourage discussion prior to blocks, which I don't think is a good thing, especially in civility cases, which, unlike vandalism, often require some careful analysis of context to determine culpability and seriousness (as has been occurring here for the last 48hrs). Generally speaking, the preventative reasons for an incivility block after 48 hours are: technically, it prevents the editor from making uncivil comments for the duration of the block; it prevents future incivility by giving an editor a cooling-off period to reflect on their conduct; it acts as a deterrent for the editor who presumably will be more careful so as to avoid future blocks; and, it acts as a deterrent for others, who will see that incivility results in blocks. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 18:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair points. What I am mainly focusing on is the following question: "Is blocking this user the only feasible action that could prevent, or help to prevent, further misconduct?". My answer to this question would be "no". Linguist111 my talk page 18:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Really, why doesn't someone who gets on with just go to his talk page, ask him to read over the latest version of this thread and ask for his takeawy: if he tells us what he draws from it I (almost) guarantee it will contain something to satisfy everyone and their issues here, and we won't have to worry about blocks—bans—warnings—templates—or Section 4.5.3a-c...  ——  SerialNumber  54129  16:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support proposal #2 as first choice. Also support proposal 1 for definitely not for . Admins should be held to the same standards as everyone else - if not higher and he was a total instigator. I would go far as supporting giving GUY a topic ban for his action or to be de-modded AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support proposal #2 then #1  Sir Joseph (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support #4 We need admins, not bullies. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Only ARBCOM can desysop. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Which would begin by consensus here to file such a request. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Proposal #2- I'm sick of admins getting a pass just because they are admins. They should be setting the example here which is why i also would also support proposal #4, but I don't believe it can be implemented here.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, wanted to clarify that regardless of what option is chosen, I oppose any warning for ElKevbo. I really don't see what he did wrong here.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * 3 as a first choice, 1 as a second. Neither user has demonstrated a long term pattern of behavioral issues unlike the counter-examples cited earlier. Given that, I prefer 3 over 1 because the purpose of a warning is to inform someone who may be unaware that they are doing something wrong.  I think both parties are quite aware by now, given the length of this discussion and their participation in it.  We don't need to have out blocks or sanctions yet, and this discussion is quite warning enough. If this becomes a repeated problem in the future we can revisit it.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Jayron, I'm sorry, but WADR, Guy has shown repeatedly that in this area he often resorts to this non-civil language when conversing to people he disagrees with. This is similar to his Politics sub-page. Other people have also pointed out how he talks to people in this specific subject area, it's not a one off. Regardless, it is conduct unbecoming an admin. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * #3 I suggest some people take some time off from their witch hunts and go find something better to do that involves less drama. Nihlus  19:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting, in that at WP:AN by the other thread involving civil language you commented quite differently. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , you're mistaken. Nihlus  07:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose #5 A topic ban is not the answer here. This is an issue of general, not topic based, conduct. It doesn't appear that this issue is about a certain area of editing, unless someone can show a convincing pattern with diffs. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n! 19:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Question Should the proposals be changed so as to strike Both JzG and ElKevbo are given formal warnings about civility and edit warring. from Proposal #1, and to strike ElKevbo still warned about about civility and edit warring. from proposal #2?. I realize that I may have misinterpreted the situation here. I couldn't find any specific instances of uncivil conduct by ElKevbo. If anyone can provide diffs to the contrary, please do. I think this thread has been warning enough, and ElKevbo's responses have shown competence and understanding. I think those lines should be struck from the proposals, since the issue that folks are most riled up about is Guy's conduct, not ElKevbos. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n! 19:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I hold myself partially responsible; if I'd realised that you've been here five years with 3000 edits—but only 63 of them to ANI and those only beginning in January...I would have suggested adjusting and / or opposing all your proposals from scratch. I think you're beginning to recognise that it's not quite as simple as playing Pontius Pilot: It's more like tring to trying to stop the brooms multiplying. And now you want to change your proposals—even those which have already been subject to commentary? I'm sorry, I don't see much of a way out tbh.  ——  SerialNumber  54129  20:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thats a fair assessment, and thats my bad, not yours. I wrongly thought this was fairly routine, and see that it has now become a major policy issue. I apologize for making the brooms multiply. I will step back from this discussion if need be. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n! 20:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Proposal #3 and hope some lesson about civility and collaboration is learned by both, and that Guy takes a second thought about the weight even a joke about blocking by an admin carries. I think many of us feel, like Leviv, that we need to up our standards on civility.Jacona (talk)
 * Comment for all those saying do nothing, please do a search in the archives for "Jzg civility" and read, it's not a new one time issue. This has been going on for years and the fact that Guy is an admin should not be a defense, and indeed, that was one of the reasons for not blocking him in the past. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support 2 Ugh, this is a really problematic manner in which to have formatted an !vote/proposal section and I think it's going to make it even more difficult to arrive at a concrete consensus for an already complicated issue. That nitpick done, my preferred approach would be a short-term block, per my reasoning above: this is the standard approach that we would use for an editor with repeated issues in this area who made that particular comment while displaying a certain level of battleground mentality, and I see no compelling reason to adopt another standard because the editor in question here is an admin. Indeed, this is without even considering the additional sources of concern about potential abuse of status, and focusing just on the content of the comments themselves, which sufficient enough to warrant a block, given the community has made its concerns known in the past.  Actually, I was just about prepared to downgrade my stance to a warning when I saw how they approached what they describe as an "apology" to the other editor (detailed above).  There's clearly enough WP:IDHT involved here that I think an attention-grabbing block is warranted and in the best interests of the project. I'd also support looking at the user's admin status, but a short-term block seems to me to be the most balanced option at this juncture. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 22:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Proposal 3. As someone above said, the witch-hunters need to find a new hobby. Also, if your problem is with the word "fuck", it's ONLY being used as the name of the template, so just change the fucking name, and the "problem" is fucking solved. --Calton &#124; Talk 23:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)--Calton &#124; Talk 23:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Template:Fuckoff doesn't actually exist. What I think happened was: after ElKevbo templated JzG with uw-ew, JzG copied the transcluded Wikitext, manually edited it to include  in place of  , then pasted it onto ElKevbo's talk page . You can compare the messages here.  Linguist111 my talk page 00:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * There is no such template--a template with that title would never be tolerated, precisely because we don't allow that kind of inflammatory language on this project--rather, Guy inserted that language himself when creating the formatting of a false template, which makes it very much his words and his express choice to put forward that message/voice his discontent in exactly those terms.


 * Also, please try to avoid needlessly inflaming the debate even further by using denigrating language like "witch hunters" to describe the other community members here providing their good-faith input on a community matter; your having a laissez-faire attitude towards the conduct in question here does not mean any other community members who feel differently here are by default acting out of some frivolous or nefarious mob mentality, and your implying as much is WP:PA-ish in tone and does not help to resolve the issues amicably and without further disruption. Indeed, I think if you want to support Guy here, you do his position a disservice, if anything, when you are dismissive of the concerns of others in this kind of name-calling fashion. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 00:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this is the second person to call it a witch hunt. I am reminded of this link, where I was threatened with a warning by Drmies for calling something a witch hunt. As always, it really does depend on who says it. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose poll ElKevbo misunderstood the sarcasm. The situation was explained by Floquenbeam and everything after that is pointless drama. Apparently ElKevbo thinks it is perfectly to ok to edit war and template your opponent, and could not recognize the tone of the reply. Johnuniq (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose all as resolved. Needless drama and bureaucracy. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support proposition #2: A 6-month block (long enough not to just sit it out) would show that the community had some integrity, it might even make some of the traditional rally-to-the-cause folks think twice before filling a discussion about JzG's arrogant responses (e.g. Good luck with that...) with further obscenities.  It is written in the Guide that "The best way to make The Established Editorsundefined more civil is to block them periodically."  (so they can eat humble pie & request an unblock like everyone else) SashiRolls t ·  c 01:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose all. Jesus Christ, what a shitshow. To all the here - I'm most entertained, but now that you've expressed your outrage, let's move on. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for anyone else but when the best arguments your allies have are calling others or claiming there is a witch hunt, it's pretty clear that you are in trouble.  If you are trying to help JzG, you might want to try a different tack.  Addressing why it's okay for JzG to have done what he did would be a good start rather than just tossing around insults. Hobit (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * personal attack redacted. If you use that word to refer to other editors on Wikipedia again, I will block you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak support for #2 JZG claims that this was sarcasm, which is well and fine, but you can be sarcastic without telling someone to fuck off. There's nothing funny about that, nor is it an overreaction to think he should have some time to think about why civility is necessary for an online community. Comments like this can be extremely off-putting to those considering whether or not to join our faltering community, and even to current contributors who might consider being more active within the community. Points can, and should, be made without resorting to childishness and incivility. I'd support #1 as my second choice. Elspamo4 (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support 1 for  or just Support 3. Per the reasons outlined by and  above. I think blocking Guy or even consider removing him as admin rather extreme. He could just simply *not* do it again, and this whole thing would be fine. I oppose warning  because what is there to warn them about? To tell the truth, I felt that Floquenbeam took care of this whole thing rather well. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 03:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, "don't template the regulars" probably applies, So ElKovbo was a bit out of line. But I do feel JzG was being disruptive.  The "sarcasm" from a non-admin would have been problematic, but from an admin, it's not unreasonable to take that seriously.  And then the apology that wasn't makes me think that he really doesn't get it.  I'm fine with a formal warning to JzG (so #1 but only JzG).  And I think a short topic ban (say it could be appealed at 30 days) from American politics for JzG would be a good idea.  I tend to agree with JzG on most things in that topic area, but I find him to be abrasive at best and lacking perspective to the degree I'm not sure he can edit in a NPOV way in that area at worst (so weak support for #5).  On #2, I don't see what that helps and I'm not sure it's within policy.  #4 I'd hate to see as he does a fair bit of darn useful work around here last I checked.  But I'm opposed to #3.  If this were his first time up for an issue like this, sure.  But it isn't.  And given the issues, I think something needs to be done to grab his attention and realize that he should not be behaving like this. Hobit (talk) 03:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support 1. In and of itself, a block is excessive and unnecessary in this instance. While warning JzG is objectively pointless as he will ignore it (as he has ignored all the various admonishments he's had over the years).  To note, in just a few minutes I found five reminders/admonishments from arbitration around civility:
 * JzG is admonished
 * JzG is specifically admonished
 * JzG warned re civility
 * JzG is warned
 * JZG is warned
 * Most of these are from many years ago, and over those many years, none have resulted in any sustained improvement, and so depressingly I can't imagine a warning will make any difference this time, either, but we are compelled to try; administrators should be held to a higher standard of conduct than other editors, not a lower standard. I'm almost convincing myself to say "yes, block" but I recognize Guy does do a lot of good work.  That is a pat phrase, but I'm focusing less on the term "good work" and more on the word "lot", because we must consider sample size - JzG is very very active, and that high level of activity is in often-fraught areas of the encyclopedia. If (say) 99.5% of everything he does is absolutely positive and in line with the community's civility standards, which I'm pretty sure it is, that 0.5% where it is not and Guy crosses a line is relatively going to result in a larger set of diffs or set of issues which will have upset a larger number of editors (who tend to be more upsettable, if that's a word), than most other admins.  So I will say a warning ought to be sufficient, with the hope that Guy will listen and learn rather than shrug it off, fail to acknowledge this discussion has even taken place, and go back to Righting All The Wrongs, and perhaps a reminder that this persistent, long-term, battleground-style approach is not the only way to do things. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  10:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes,, I see your concern about the project's benefit. But then we are bumping into another Jytdog situation: can lots of good work justify a different standard of treatment than with regard to an editor who does less of that work? Should those who do not do that many good edits be automatically sanctioned more severely? I am just wondering how many good editors were effectively driven away by JzG's incorrectable attitude. — kashmīrī  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  10:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, as I say above, I am not saying those who make lots of good edits be treated differently when they transgress. I am, though, noting that people who make a lot of edits are likely to make more bad edits than those who do not make a lot of edits, particularly if that lot of edits are in some very fraught areas where tempers fray more readily. JzG's 0.5% (or whatever) of bad edits is larger than my 0.5% of bad edits or your 0.5% of bad edits (all of us make some bad edits eventually), and it's objectively and provably easier to find examples of these bad edits with JzG, as you can see in my above post. We can't prove how many, if any, good editors have been driven away by JzG's attitude, this is impossible to substantiate, but we do know generally that a more civil way of working is better for everyone.  <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  11:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It was a joke, everyone. While I take no position on the content dispute, I very much doubt ElKevbo was traumatized for life. Guy clearly did not intend to threaten ElKevbo with a block. Once it became clear that ElKevbo did not catch the sarcasm, Guy clarified what he had meant. Simple misunderstanding that could have been solved without resorting to the ANI. All the virtue signalling and holier-than-thou posts here are, quite frankly, sickening. Let's drop this and pretend it never happened. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * 3. —Cryptic 12:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Proposal 2 With JzG's history in the subject area, including that essay he wrote belittling those who hold views he is skeptical about, I think a block is appropriate. These actions would earn any non-admin a short block, and I see no reason not to apply it to admins. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Please help me
User DBigXray is reverting my edits (SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jaggi_Vasudev&action=history ). Can you please allow me to state my views there, s/he is trying to censor it ? Thanks for any kind of help 2O19 (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , it would be much better if you do self-inform us about your previous editing adventures over here. You seem to be extremely competent in that you have discovered ANI by your third edit.
 * FWIW, I have no clue about why 2O19 was refactoring my comments and pasting an user t/p thread over the article t/p. Thus, the reversion was wholly apt. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 12:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The banner at the top screams When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.. Can't see your abidance. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 14:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Winged Blades of Godric I am sorry, for being too lazy to as were you to push your into self-evaluating the history of Jaggi Vasudev. Are you Offended? 2O19 (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Winged Blades of Godric I am sorry, for being too lazy to as were you to push your into self-evaluating the history of Jaggi Vasudev. Are you Offended? 2O19 (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * You seem to be extremely competent in that you have discovered ANI by your third edit – Perhaps I'll start WP:Incompetence is required. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 23:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The ANi way: if they're an incompetent newbie, we block 'em. If they're a competent newbie, we accuse them of being a sock of someone competent. Damned if ya do, damned if ya don't... Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n! 00:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ANI is two clicks from the main page. WP:Dashboard, which includes ANI threads, is the first link on WP:Community portal. How many edits does one need before they're allowed to find ANI? Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 01:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It wasn't too long ago that I was accused of being a sock due to "extreme competence" for wandering backstage too soon, and now look what has been reaped (and wreaked): I've stayed at ANI. I figured if I'm so competent that everyone's convinced I must be a sock, then I must be competent enough to go backstage. Now you have haiku closes and my opinion on everything. So think about that the next time you accuse a newbie of being "too competent". You might get stuck with another Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 01:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Closing AN/I threads with haiku is wholly inappropriate, whoever does so. ——  SerialNumber  54129  14:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't be such a dud! Can't you see I'm Daffy Duck and you're Elmer Fudd? Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 15:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Guys, the account wasn't blocked because they were too competent, they're blocked because they're obviously a sock of one of the many banned editors polluting the India-Pakistan topic. We do overreact to some new accounts "finding this page" too early, and that's a problem, but this is not that. You should find a different windmill to tilt at. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not criticizing the block, just the comment about newbie competency, which is "that" problem. It doesn't matter whether the accusation turns out to be true because the accusation is read by other editors who are not socks. Did WBG's comment help admin figure this one out in any way? No? Then there was no reason for it. I wish you'd join me at tilting at this windmill, actually. Sock accusations based on newbie competency should be discouraged outside of SPI regardless of accuracy. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 15:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with this comment. New editors just can't win: if they're not being berated for getting something wrong, they're subject to suspicion for trying to do things properly. Deb (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Also agree. If a new account coming to AN/I is seen as suspicious behavior, perhaps we should indefinitely semi-protect AN/I? <b style="color:#090">Semi</b><i style="color:#099">Hyper</i><u style="color:#009">cube 01:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , this is why we need a union. Right, ? Really though, I try to not post here unless I am somehow involved at this point. People don't like newbies here for various reasons. So, yeah. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 03:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ixnay ethay unionay alktay, eforebay eway etgay ockedblay. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 04:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a problem with India-Pakistan, I think this is a problem with the article Jaggi Vasudev specifically. Did the MRV discussion ever get closed?  That was open for at least six weeks. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 01:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Commenting since this is my block. Sorry I didn’t before, I don’t watch ANI, or I would have responded earlier. I don’t think I’ve ever blocked an editor for editing ANI early before. This block was for two reasons: first, the account was clearly created to further a specific content dispute and target a specific editor who is fairly visible in the India-Pakistan area. That is WP:NOTHERE behaviour. Second, as said, this account is clearly a sock of one of the nearly endless number of banned and blocked editors in the South Asia topic area, and yes, a brand new account dragging an editor who is highly active in ARBIPA to ANI before they are even autoconfirmed is behavioural evidence of that and should be taken into account. We don’t block accounts for being competent and new. We block obvious sockpuppets created to avoid scrutiny and harass a specific editor. If they happen to do so in a competent manner it doesn’t really matter. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I clouded the issue. It's not about the block, it's about the attitude of some long-term editors that a person can come to ANI too soon because - for reasons that are unclear - they shouldn't know about it if they are new. I don't think a sock can be identified on that basis, and I'm sure that's not how you spotted this one. Deb (talk) 08:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As Tony said, the account having arrived at ANI on their second (?) edit was only a contributing factor here, part of the banned editor's pattern which more importantly includes the editor they picked on, and the article being disrupted. We really don't (or at least I, an experienced SPI clerk, do not) take seriously the accusations of sockpuppetry that come just from a new account finding particular project-side discussions, and I think there are a number of long-term editors who I have told off and a handful that are banned from SPI for frivolous accusations of that nature. It's the rehashing of old disputes and arguments, and obvious attempts to settle old grudges, that are taken into account. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
I posted this on the vandalism reporting page, but it got removed by a bot (perhaps because of wrong formatting in my request?).
 * This IP address User_talk:207.241.251.130 has recently been used again for vandalism - and as far as I can see by some spot checking on previous contributions, never used constructively.

I don't think that 4 levels of warning at this point would help, based on the pattern of erratic vandalism. If never used for proper editing, is there any reason why it shouldn't be blocked? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I see one edit in the last 6 months from the IP (check contribs). AIV is still generally the right venue to report vandals. If you had difficulty filing a report, you could try using twinkle to make reporting (and many other standard Wikipedia tasks) easier. At this point, the report would be considered stale however, and it is possible that a bot removed your report because it was already stale when filed. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n! 21:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * See above. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n! 21:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . I do have Twinkle but haven't tried using it for reporting as yet. When is a report considered stale? (I know that this IP has only made a few changes over the years, but they have all been disruptive, so thought this may be reason enough for blocking.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The blocking policy for IP's can be found here. Since IP addresses tend to be dynamically assigned, an IP address may be used by many, many individuals. Furthermore, the IP at issue is from an educational institution, which means that it could be a public computer or assigned to any number of folks. Possibly hundreds of folks could be that IP address. If the IP is not actively and persistently causing disruption, they are unlikely to be blocked. Even if blocked, IP's are usually only blocked short periods. Indeff IP blocks are very rare. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * yes, I noticed that it said that it was an institution, but thanks for the link to the policy. If the only people trying edit are being disruptive, I thought that there might be a case for a longer block. Oh well, here's hoping they don't return. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If they do return, take them to AIV (reports go stale 4-8 hours after being reported btw), and if the problem persists, bring em here again. One edit in 6 months usually won't get folks blocked, but several in a day is definitely cause for a block. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks . I'll try to remember to check again over coming days. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Incivility from EEng
In this discussion, it seems like EEng has just decided to heap abuse on another editor for no apparent reason. This comment calling the editor a "narrow minded scold" seems particularly personal, and (possibly unintentionally) a bit sexist. Fae noted as much and was given a rude response. I seconded the opinion, and suggested EEng should strike through the personal attack, and was met with more obnoxiousness. I assume that there's some kind of history here I'm not aware of, or else EEng is just having a day, but it's not moving the conversation in a helpful direction and I would appreciate it if someone else would step in. Nblund talk 03:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * FYI I have notified EEng of this thread since Nblund seems to have missed the bright orange box mentioning the need to do that. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like they did so after I made my post. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You beat me by two minutes. I was trying to figure out the template.  Nblund talk 04:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec)How have you attempted to resolve this dispute before coming to ANI, Nblund? Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 04:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I asked EEng to strike through the personal attack here. The response is linked above. IMHO, it didn't seem like posting another polite request was going to accomplish much. Nblund talk 04:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * If "scold" is uncivil but "fuck off" isn't, I have no idea what's going on here anymore. In any case, the discussion was already off the rails by the time EEng jumped in. I don't see anything remotely sanctionable here to the point of almost thinking this is a waste of time. SportingFlyer  T · C  04:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Although this thread might not have led to any action, I believe its closure by Legacypac was premature and improper, and the wording of the closure was unhelpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is not a chance in anywhere that this is actionable. EEng is being pretty kind considering the pontificating going on in the linked thread. Liz knows better than to modify comments. Legacypac (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Your use of pontificating degrades women and reflects your subconscious identification with the hegemony of male-dominant religious oppressors. Watch it or the gendered-meanings police  will be on you.  <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 10:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC) For the record, I don't think  modified anyone's comments. Perhaps you mean Fae.
 * FWIW: I don't think any sanction here would be warranted either and I didn't really think that was the sole purpose of this noticeboard. I was looking for someone to intercede in a discussion where one editor seemed to be taking a needlessly personal tone. Nblund talk 04:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean like —
 * What a bizarre personal attack to make against all editors with an opinion different from yours
 * and
 * the same old suspects trying to provoke and trigger editors with opinions they do not like to see freely and logically expressed so that their targets fall foul of Wikipedia policies
 * and
 * your own fantasy anti-trans conspiracy theories
 * — stuff like that? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 10:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, no - not exactly. It seems like the tone was out of hand in general, but those comments lack the name-calling and personal tone of your comment about how unpleasant someone's workplace must be. Maybe you think the other editor has it coming (that seems to be Legacypac's attitude), but as someone who doesn't really know or care about the history, it just looked to me like one editor was kind of bullying another for no reason. It's obnoxious to read and it looked mostly one-sided to me. Nblund talk 11:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Legacypac also closed the recent MjolnirPants ANI thread and all its subthreads, which was then reverted twice. This is especially problematic if premature non-admin closures are used to shut down discussion of issues without admin accountability. So perhaps stop doing non-admin closures at ANI unless they are just technical closures, or alternatively run for adminship. Thanks.--Pudeo (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That maybe your opinion but it does not impress me. Two different Admins closed down discussion about GiantSnowman claiming nothing to do and yet when taken to ArbComm he was put on probation and restriction because there was an issue. Admins don't have any special powers to assess consensus better than experienced editors. Sometimes it is better to have a a regular editor close threads and it is certainly allowed by policy. If you are offering to nominate and support my RFA then my opinion of this may improve. Legacypac (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You know - if people want to discuss, let them discuss this. Maybe sanctions are warrented here. Legacypac (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No comment on the substance, but as the discussion is clearly not finished I have reverted Legacypac's close. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

As I noticed that Legacypac reopened this thread on EEng's request on their talk page, diff, it may be worth adding the same reminder here that I added to the GENDERID discussion before it turns into forum shopping.

As a general antidote to heated discussion, how about everyone takes a chill pill and consider Arbcom's reminder to everyone in a very similar case, more than 5 years ago: "All editors [...] are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions on Wikipedia, and to avoid commentary that demeans any other person, intentionally or not."' ref

This would include making provocative statements like "Shouldn't you two be at a seminar somewhere? Oh, sorry... an ovanar?", even if intended as a very funny joke which accidentally has the effect of demeaning women. diff

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, he did not ask me to reopen the thread. I reopened it because several people were into the whine and cheesy. Now what do people want to do about Fae's behavior? Legacypac (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Am I reading you correctly, by "whine and cheesy" you appear to be saying you would like to create more drama.
 * I disagree, there have been enough "jokes" at the expense of others in the GENDERID discussion. I recommend reducing the drama, rather than asking for more to be piled on.
 * In that spirit, I'm taking a break from it. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Fae did not read me correctly. Legacypac (talk) 11:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Iridescent: you realize Fae didn't bring this to ANI right? I'm confused about the feedback here and that's definitely not a fair description of my complaint. Are personal attacks toward this particular editor permitted because they've irritated people, or was all of this totally fine talk page discussion? Nblund talk 15:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC) edit: In case it's not clear: I've interacted with EEng a handful of times on the past, and I've never interacted with Fae and I have no interest in side taking here. It seems like there's an attitude of "we didn't ban this person, so now it's just open season on antagonizing them". That's probably not fair to Fae, but it's really unfair to other editors who don't have a dog in this hunt and who just don't want to slog through a long Festivus-style-airing-of-grievances on an article talk page. At the very least, please post a memo so that uninvolved editors know that we've all decided to just let these editors flame each other at will, and efforts to intervene will be met with condescension and insults. Nblund talk 15:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone please close this; I'd do it myself except I commented in the Arb case request which in Fae's mind probably makes me 'involved'. We are not going to introduce "nobody is allowed to make any statement with which Fae doesn't agree" into policy, and these constant attempts to redefine "incivility" as "had an opinion different to mine" are starting to cross the line into intentional disruption. &#8209; Iridescent 11:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * EEng is a popular editor who frequents ANI a lot. Complaints about his insults will get you nowhere, I'm afraid.  I agree entirely that calling a female editor a 'narrow minded scold' is wholly inappropriate, sexist, and insulting, but you'll never get a retraction, an apology, or any action at all.  Gender-based insults are the last bastion of acceptable prejudice on Wikipedia. Back to the kitchen, girls! <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  16:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, bullshit. Who's a female editor? Fae? How am I supposed to know that? Not two weeks ago I got it drilled into my head that they're a they ; now I guess I'm supposed to know they're a she, and adjust my diction accordingly.If you really want to know, I literally learned the word scold as a noun from this passage . in which William Bennett is referred to as such; I had no idea the word was "gendered". But yeah, if you're gonna act like a dyspeptic old woman I'll treat you like one, whether you're male, female, or unknown. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 16:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) Scold...
 * 2) *Oxford: (archaic) A person, in particular a woman, who nags or grumbles constantly.
 * 3) *Merriam-Webster (underline added): a. one who scolds habitually or persistently; b. dated, now sometimes offensive : a woman who disturbs the public peace by noisy and quarrelsome or abusive behavior
 * 4) *Dictionary.com: a person who is constantly scolding, often with loud and abusive speech; common scold.
 * 5) *Collins: a person, esp a woman, who constantly finds fault
 * 6) *Vocabulary.com: "Scold can also be used as a noun to describe a person who irritates people by finding fault in everything. Your great aunt Merna, who during the holidays complains about her gifts, criticizes your weight, says the turkey is too dry, and the stuffing is soggy? She's a scold. Maybe she's cranky."
 * 7) *Cambridge doesn't even seem to have a noun entry for scold at all.
 * 8) *Wiktionary's definition of scold: "A person who habitually scolds, in particular a troublesome and angry woman." Ahh, the dictionary anyone can edit.
 * 9) While we're talking about civility on that thread, am I the only person bothered by this: Let's be honest, because we all know the real reason... the article exists only because of their trans status, in violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL by trans activist editors.? Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 17:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How about you quote the primary definitions instead of archaic and unused examples. Hyperbole much? Valeince (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Those are the primary definitions of the noun "scold." Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 19:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've checked the links for what you posted and found this: Oxford: "Remonstrate with or rebuke (someone) angrily" No gender mentioned. MW: "one who scolds habitually or persistently" No gender mentioned. Collins dictionary: "If you scold someone, you speak angrily to them because they have done something wrong" No mention of gender. These are the primary definitions from your links. Not the ones you listed with the archaic use towards one gender. Valeince (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @EEng: have you considered the option of just refraining from name-calling all together? Nblund talk 19:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For Oxford and Collins, you are quoting the definition of the verb, not the noun; for Merriam-Webster, that portion was quoted by the poster. isaacl (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

ViperSnake151
<div class="boilerplate archived" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

He had reverted my edit again because of his actions. My edit was on the article “Entertainment Software Rating Board”, and, although I put based in the United States, he had to still revert it. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MetricSupporter89 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Your POV issues relating to North America were quite obvious in that edit, as you distinctly removed the statement that it was an "American self-regulatory organization" because it is used in other North American countries.  ViperSnake151   Talk  15:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b>  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question about the Christchurch Mosque Shooting New Zealand
Hi, I want to know that can we add an external link to the incident's video on the talk page ? As there is an ongoing discussion at the talk page of article and no is pretty clear and some of them are taking about consensus. Can you admins please make it clear. Thanks Dog-pox-is-a-disease (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Jesus fucking christ no. We're not MurderTV.  What is wrong with you?--Jorm (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Leaving out my own feeling (which is the same as Jorm's), it's not an admin decision and you have to wait for and go with the consensus (whatever that is - I haven't looked). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OP is now checkuser blocked, fwiw. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Some eyeballs on 2016 Oakland warehouse fire
Looks like politicin’ and legalizin’ and conflictin’ of interestin’ Qwirkle (talk) 02:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. An edit topic that has moved to the talk page for discussion keeps getting reverted after sourcing, even trying to resolve a objection revert, then the reverter reverting, without the reverter discussing. P37307 (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you pointed out the problematic edits with diffs and the name of the editor which brought you to this page. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 02:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Another user edit was made that included that the fire department Battalion Chief in charge of the fire scene intentionally decided not to send firefighters in even after learning as many as 25 people were inside and intentionally didn't tell responding crews. Qwirkle reverted saying it was actionable. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Oakland_warehouse_fire&diff=887652863&oldid=887652382 I edited to include the quote, his actual quote, which included his rationale, from the Chief in the citation. At the same time a discussion was started by the orginal editor on the talk page. Qwirkle reverted again https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Oakland_warehouse_fire&diff=887663569&oldid=887661874 giving the reason "No, no attempt was made to rescue them because they were obviously already dead, donchaknow" without discussing and I assume came here at some point. The discussion is ongoing here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2016_Oakland_warehouse_fire#I_added_information_about_the_prevention_of_a_rescue_attempt_and_it_was_removed to avoid an edit war and come to a consenus with the main objector Qwirkle, who started this notice, not participating. Qwirkle is disrupting editing without participating and then coming here for your attention/resolution? in the matter P37307 (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Qwirkle has been exhibiting the same sort of behavior on Lynching of Shedrick Thompson - objections for the sake of objecting, personal attacks, and ignoring requests for support for his positions. Of course he sees it differently, and will probably tell you what a biased, irresponsible asshole I am. Currently being discussed on POV noticeboard. deisenbe (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Jutting your dispute with him elsewhere into a completely unrelated discussion (especially one where he happens to be right) just so you can try to score points against him doesn't really help you not look like a biased, irresponsible asshole 38.68.203.42 (talk) 08:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The source does not support, and in fact, refutes, a significant portion of the objectionable edit — the claim that "no attempt was made to rescue people inside." The source instead states that firefighters did push inside the building in an attempt to make interior attack, but because of smoke and debris, the fire commander made the determination that it was unsafe to proceed further. I agree that some form of the material belongs in the article, but the original version did not present facts in a balanced way, and instead attempted to fix unwarranted blame on the fire commander. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not a complex editing situation that requires diffs. Simply look at the sequence of about half a dozen edits that took place on March 14. The background is that a fire in a building that all reliable sources describe as a firetrap killed 36 young people attending an unpermitted dance party. The immediate controversy has to do with the conduct of a fire commander, James Bowron, who led the response to this inferno. This is a serious BLP issue because recent edits include innuendo implying that Bowron's inaction prevented a rescue of the victims. All based on Bowen's frank assessment to a conference of professional firefighters about the catastrophic debacle that he faced that night, and his attempts to prevent the deaths of firefighters he commanded. Any content added to this article about Bowen's role must be the product of careful consideration leading to consensus. A man's career is on the line, and we must be very, very careful about this content. Full disclosure: I visited the site of this fire a few weeks later and two of my photos of the wreckage are in the article. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this is a very serious issue. Friends and families of the 36 victims want to know who is responsible for their deaths. In addition to Bowron's career being on the line, so are the lives of the 2 defendants, Derek Almena and Max Harris who are about to go on trial for 36 counts of involuntary manslaughter and could spend the rest of their lives in prison. The official Origin and Cause report http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/ceda/documents/report/oak064503.pdf states on Page 5 that when firefighters arrived at the scene approximately 7 minutes after the fire started "Some people were outside the warehouse, stating there were still people inside." Everyone who was attending the concert knew that it was taking place on the second floor. That is where the majority of the victims were. The Firehouse article states "Bowron's main focus given the difficulties with gaining entry was to keep the fire contained to the warehouse and avoid losing the whole block to the blaze, and he quickly struck a second and then a third alarm." Why wasn't his main focus rescuing the people trapped in the building, isn't that an important job of the fire department? Buildings can be replaced, people cannot. Bowron states in the article ""As I'm making my way toward the alpha side and toward the bravo side, I'm getting people coming up to me and they're telling me, 'Hey, there's people in there,' and I'm just trying to take it in and make sure I can stay task focused and get my lines placed and my people placed."" So he admitted ignoring the people who said there were victims trapped in the building. Bowron further states ""Had I made that announcement that there might have been 50, 60, 70 people in there, my crews—which had already pushed and pushed and pushed as hard as they could— would have probably made decisions or pushed themselves to a further limit which may have caused potential loss of life for the fire department on our end."" There are some very important issues here. The first is why Bowron didn't tell the crews before they "pushed and pushed" that people were trapped in the building. Another is why didn't he tell the crews the victims were on the second floor, so the crews could focus their search there. Bowron also stated ""As I was doing my 360, what I could see was that the only access into this building was a man-made door that was cut out of a commercial roll-up. And it's not like it was a clean door that was welded up all nice and neat."" He was very wrong, there was another door on the west side of the building. The Origin Report on Page 25 states "A victim was located within 10 feet of the west wall door opening". So one of they victims died 10 feet inside the side door. All of this raises serious questions about whether Bowron's behavior was negligent. And my statement that he intentionally prevented firefighters from knowing there were a large number of people trapped in the building is backed up by Bowron's statement that he didn't tell them, to prevent them from attempting a rescue. Firefighters train for mass casualty events, and unless I am mistaken, the number one goal is saving people's lives. This is not the first time a building caught on fire, there are established procedures for finding if there are people in a building. From what I read in the Firehouse article, Bowron seems to have completely ignored procedures and in addition somehow missed a very obvious side door where at least one victim died. He seems to have completely discounted the pleading of the witnesses that he save the people trapped in the building. I think these are important issues that should be discussed. There is no evidence whatsoever than any of the victims were already dead when firefighters arrived. To the contrary, an MD has stated that it "seems likely" based on the autopsy results that some of all of the victims were still alive and could have been rescued if the fire department had attempted to save them. If you friends or family were trapped in a burning building and the fire department ignored your pleas to save them, what would you think?Russ Tilleman (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * All of the above falls under WP:Original research, and can't be included. You are giving analysis and ascribing motivations which are nowhere to be found in the source (which is a primary source, anyways), and thus it doesn't belong anywhere close to Wikipedia, being more suited to maybe a blog post or something like that. ansh 666 22:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk about confusing and Template:TheFinalBall
Can someone take a look at this and make sure that I'm correct with what's going on?

Last month the TfD discussion involving Template:TheFinalBall as closed with the outcome being determined as delete. Today, following a request on WP:BOTREQ by, I filed a Bot Request for Approval to remove all of its transclusions and successfully completed a trial run of 50 edits. Around 6 or 7 hours later I received this message on my talk page bordering nonsensical, to which I requested clarification. Following this, reverted the bot edit (this time placing the full URL). I subsequently warned Talk about confusing that its re-addition was contrary to consensus and requested that they do not restore. However, they have continued to revert the bot edits. -- The SandDoctor Talk 06:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC); updated 06:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ping was broken by typo ^ -- The SandDoctor  Talk 06:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There was clear consensus at the TFD discussion that that template should be removed and the source should not be used (in any form) because the website is non-RS. is disruptive. GiantSnowman 08:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The bot was so bad, it had fails all over the place. I think I found about 10 errors.
 * I called the owner, but wasn't given any sensible reply. 12:35
 * I knew that the templates Final Ball, ogol, zerozero profile were being deleted. I didn't see that the underlying site was in danger.  Nor did the message on bot said nothing.
 * I got nothing from anybody after the "clarification" from user:TheSandDoctor. Nothing from anybody.
 * I've got better things to do than this. Talk about confusing (talk) 09:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know if the point they are trying to make is that the bot is removing the template but leaving a set of  tags in the edits they have reverted? This was never explained by them though, and the attempt above is similarly opaque. Spike &#39;em (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at the interim version of the page (just after the bot edit and before the revert), it had a big red cite error where the template was removed: As of 15 December 2017 Cite error: There are   tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Spike &#39;em (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The bot code being not quite right is not reason to blindly mass-revert and add back a source deemed to be non-RS. GiantSnowman 09:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it would have been far easier for everyone to remove the tags and raise it with a clear explanation of what had gone wrong. Spike &#39;em (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was requesting clarification from you as it was unclear what you wanted with that message, not giving you clarification. The issue with the empty ref tags is being investigated and I believe I am fairly close to a fix. The issue overall affected 19/50 (39%) of the edits made and was acknowledged at the BRFA once I discovered it through the similarities between reverts. -- The SandDoctor  Talk 13:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC); updated 13:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It appears that I have been able to correct the programatic problem in a couple sandbox tests and have now requested an extended trial to trial these fixes. -- The SandDoctor Talk 16:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I endorsed zerozero (and the same site that under other web domain) is not reliable as user-generated content., if you like, after cleaning the template, we can start a thread which may be snow close for adding those sites to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. It had consensus to remove it in the past and if you like , in the future in the black list. If you don't know the consensus , here is the chance to know it. Matthew hk (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Users:user:Semarmesem123, user:Midnight-Blue766, User:Jingiby

 * For the article on Tartary, these users have been engaging in Vandalism. Midnight-Blue-766 first deleted all the information added recently which provided sourcing as to Tartary possibly being a country. When I warned him against Vandalism on his talk page he claimed that his "edits were in good faith" and were "not vandalism" when in reality the opposite is true due to his edit summary being "These recent edits seem to be based off early modern rumours that claimed "Tartary" was a country rather than a region"[]. This is clearly not neutral. The second user Semarmesem123, then vandalized Wikipedia in this edit []. As soon as I undid the vandalism by that account another user by the Jingiby went and also vandalized the article removing maps,book and dictionary sources about Tartary[]. Mountain157 (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If I am allowed to defend myself here, I would like to say that my edit summaries show I was not simply vandalising the wiki, but was a genuine attempt to correct what I percieved as factual errors. To quote WP:VANDAL, the formal definition of Vandalism is "editing (or other behavior), which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge". Even if my edits were found to be counter-productive, I only wished to improve the factual quality of the site. I also do not believe my statements violated WP:NPOV, as it only applies to actual article content, not commentary and discussion on the article, nor do I believe that disputing a critical point in the article content via commentary like edit summaries count as violating NPOV. I, in turn, believe Mountain157 to be violating WP:AGF by consistently assuming the worst in my intentions, and believing anyone who disagreed with their interpretation of the article to be acting in bad faith. Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes you did modify the content of the article by deleting alot of sources of information. That counts as a violation of WP:NPOV. You clearly were not acting in good faith since not only did you just remove sourced information related to Tartary but also removed extra regions/areas that Tartary spanned such as the Tibetan Plateau, Manchuria and East Turkestan in this edit[]. When I discussed the topic on his talk page he again blatantly showed he was not neutral by comparing the existence of Tartary to the existence of "Prester John" and a "kingdom full of dog-headed people".[].Mountain157 (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It appears the only user here that actually was vandalizing was in fact Semarmesem123. Midnight-Blue's edit seemed just part of a content dispute, and Jingiby's edit appears to be actually quite constructive. This appears to be a content dispute over whether or not Tartary was a country or a region, and at what points that was. This was Semarmesem123's first edit, which seemed to be a joke edit based on a popular video game. I have warned them on their talk page. They have made no further edits. If they continue to vandalize, the right venue to report run-of-the-mill vandals is WP:AIV, not here. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. However I believe that Jingiby's edits were not constructive. Entire maps were removed by that user as well as among other sources such as Antique books including this one [] that show Tartary as country along with others such as China,Japan, Siam and Persia. Well at least he still left information that up until the 18th century Tartary was considered a vast country compared to Midnight-Blue766, who blatantly showed a lack of neutrality and simply deleted everything back to the plain original version, for which there was absolutely NO citations. Nevertheless both users edits appear to be Vandalism, at least from what I can see. Mountain157 (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe that Jingiby removed the sources because they were poorly formatted, their reliability was unclear, and no page numbers were provided. While perhaps they shouldn't have straight up removed them, I see why they did. Additionally, the article had an excessive number of pictures to the amount of content. Again, not sure if all of them needed to be removed, but I see why Jingiby did. I ask that you assume good faith from editors if their intentions seem unclear. Just because someone did something "wrong" or undid your work or made a mistake doesn't mean that they are a vandal. Instead, talk to them and try to understand their reasoning, and work together to improve the article. I don't believe that Jingiby's actions were vandalism. This still boils down to a content dispute, which you should discuss at the talk page of Tartary, or seek dispute resoloution for.   Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your contribution, CaptainEek. We are already discussing the issue on Dispute resolution noticeboard Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not too sure about Jingiby's intentions but for sure I know that Midnight Blue was not at all neutral in his edits even going so far(as I have said before) to remove the regions that Tartary encompassed. We have been discussing it for quite some time now but in his responses he will keep basing his edit off of other Wikipedia articles,for which I let him know was a violation of WP:WINARS.Mountain157 (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To offer my point of view as a counterpoint, my understanding of WP:WINRS are that they are only go so far as to citing in-article sources, not in private discussion that I brought them up in (and I have found non-Wikipedia sources to support my POV). That I disagree with your interpretation is not necessarily a violation of WP:NPOV. Maybe I was wrong in removing the list of areas Tartary allegedly encompassed, but I am not sure what policy was specifically broken in that error. Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal:Indef block on Semarmesem123

 * Support This is appears to be a Vandalism only account.Mountain157 (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Suggest you strike the second half of your above support lest you violate your topic ban on casting aspersions of sockpuppetry. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Semarmesem123 has made exactly one edit as of this posting. I have warned them on their talk page to be constructive in the future. This is hardly indeff territory. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked socks need talk page access revoked - Evlekis
See Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis. Blocked sock needs to have TPA revoked per this, because Evlekis will just keep on adding crap on the talk page until TPA is revoked (just like all of his socks do...). - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 09:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The same goes for per this. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 09:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * is yet another blocked sock of Evlekis needing TPA revoked for posting the same crap as the ones above (see their contribs...). - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 09:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Got it. For vandals like this I suggest not bothering reverting until after TPA has been revoked - they just enjoy the recognition and the edit warring. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ... and now it's, for the same reason as the others... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 10:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep lining them up... ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * . He's obviously keeping a record of all of his old socks, this one was blocked almost three years ago... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 10:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Might as well remove TPA from these too, before he decides to use them again. They were all CU-blocked as Evlekis socks on the same day as the one above (21 April 2016), but still have TPA enabled:
 * - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 10:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Was just going through and checking them - I've got all of those now (and a bunch more). As an aside, he doesn't need to keep a record of his old socks, as we helpfully do that for him at the SPI (and if he always uses the same password...) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've reblocked about 20 accounts from around that period which still had TPA enabled. Obvious lesson - always block Evlekis socks with TPA and email disabled. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * is a brand new sock, see contribs. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 11:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, and Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ... and he's now using, blocked about three weeks ago with TPA enabled (see contribs...). - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 11:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. I have to go out for a bit now, so just list any new ones and someone else will get them if I don't. There's no rush really - his puerile ramblings are harmless (and are amusing nobody but himself). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 10:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Was just going through and checking them - I've got all of those now (and a bunch more). As an aside, he doesn't need to keep a record of his old socks, as we helpfully do that for him at the SPI (and if he always uses the same password...) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've reblocked about 20 accounts from around that period which still had TPA enabled. Obvious lesson - always block Evlekis socks with TPA and email disabled. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * is a brand new sock, see contribs. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 11:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, and Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ... and he's now using, blocked about three weeks ago with TPA enabled (see contribs...). - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 11:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. I have to go out for a bit now, so just list any new ones and someone else will get them if I don't. There's no rush really - his puerile ramblings are harmless (and are amusing nobody but himself). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. I have to go out for a bit now, so just list any new ones and someone else will get them if I don't. There's no rush really - his puerile ramblings are harmless (and are amusing nobody but himself). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * is yet another Evlekis sock that needs to have TPA revoked (check their user talk). - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 15:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

GA/FA nominations by user Векочел
has a history of nominating Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine articles for GA, MILHIST ACR, and FA that have mostly been written by other editors. While this is permissible, it is at least expected that the nominator will have a knowledge of the subject so as to assess its completeness prior to nomination, as well as the knowledge, will and ability to deal with any issues that may arise during the reviews. This is where the particular editor fails.

Instead of actually engaging with an article, the common editing pattern is that of a "takeover" of an existing article, with a slew of copyedits to get some work done (and give the appearance of having edited it), and then a nomination. Typical examples are, recently, at Basil I (some superficial edits on 10 March, followed by a GAN on 12 March, and this in an article where even a layperson can see that it is nowhere near GA content-wise), and, most egregiously, in the abandoned Sons of Antiochus VIII article, which is an indiscriminate mash-up of several other articles in an effort to create a main article for an eventual featured topic. I note here, as I did at the discussion there, before it got deleted that he failed to consult the author of these articles (Attar-Aram syria), he failed to attribute the copying over of the material, but felt competent to rearrange and rewrite large portions of their densely cited text without doing any research on the topic himself (he began work on 28 February and moved to mainspace on 8 March, a timeframe that renders utterly impossible that he consulted even a sample of the sources in the "new" article he "wrote").

Indeed, this highlights the user's very problematic relationship with sourcing his edits. Perfect examples of this can be found at the ACR on Marcus Aurelius here (by Gog the Mild) and by myself and various other editors in the second FA nomination of Basil II, where the user merely copyedited around after a previous failed nomination by a different user, but without a clear grasp of the topic ("I admit that my knowledge about Basil is rather basic.") and without the ability to make proper use of primary and modern sources, or even distinguish which sources are reliable and which note, despite repeated pointers (example). This also shows a typical problem when dealing with him: when confronted with a fundamental problem during a review via an example, he always takes a minimum-effort approach, by "fixing" (by adding/removing/moving around, often without much context or insight) the example in question, but without actually taking the time to consider the actual problem being pointed out, which is his editing pattern that consists mostly of excessive copyediting, adding random tidbits from various sources, and then nominating and hoping to pass under the radar. For example, he now has 788 edits (65%) on Basil II, but the article's structure, content, and even size, are still fundamentally the same as they were before he started systematically editing it in October!

Unfortunately, the editor in question appears to be WP:NOTHERE: he focuses on getting GA and FA stars, rather than actually writing quality articles for an encyclopedia. Regarding his choice of topics, it is clear that he lacks the necessary knowledge to write about them, as well as lacking the ability to discern the quality of his sources, or differentiate between primary and secondary ones and incorporate them accordingly in his articles. It is therefore very much also a WP:COMPETENCE, issue, and neither I nor the other editors involved with him can be expected to tutor him line-by-line into writing an FA. These problems have been repeatedly pointed out to him, but to no avail. I therefore ask that Векочел be banned from nominating articles himself for any level (GA, ACR, FAC) that he has not himself substantially written (not simply copyedited to death), in the hopes that he will learn how to actually write articles first. Constantine  ✍  15:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support by Attar: Sadly, the editor in question does not care about ruining the quality of an article as long as he can edit it. He created an article called Sons of Antiochus VIII by copying the featured articles of those sons and merging them together. He then went on to add wikilinks in those featured articles into his newly "created" article, but not into the article of Antiochus VIII himself! Thats because the article of Antiochus VIII is of low quality, and the editor is only interested in high quality articles written by others, which he try to take over, hoping to get a golden star eventually for them.
 * Several times, he added mere synth or wrong information to featured content (such as here, where the source does not state what the editor wrote) or inserted photos that dont fit, or have no context or dont actually represent whom they were said to represent (see Talk:Cleopatra Selene of Syria, the photos discussion). As long as he can edit, then its all fine, even if its just the deletion of an Oxford comma (which he likes to delete). But his most worrying behaviour is those nominations. The editor was also able to bring Ptolemy IX Lathyros to GA even though the article is missing practically most details about the reign of that king!. To mention a few: no word about the circumstances surrounding the marriage to Cleopatra IV which led Cleopatra III to force a divorce. No word about the campaign of Ptolemy IX in the Levant which culminated in a regional war that included two kings of Syria, the king of Judea, Cleopatra III and Ptolemy X in addition to Ptolemy IX himself!!! No word about Ptolemy IX's role in elevating Demetrius III of Syria to the throne...etc etc etc. It is not the duty of the reviewer to know that stuff are missing. The nominator should make sure that his article is ready before nominating. But when we have an editor who simply pick an article because it looks good and copy-edit it and inflate it with photos then nominate it, then its no wonder that articles that dont deserve a GA or an FA status end up acquiring it. The reviewer of Ptolemy IX, Gog the Mild, agrees with me. This behaviour really damages Wikipedia as the articles advertised to be the best, are in reality not!.
 * I therefore agree with Constantine. I ask that he is banned from nominating articles himself for any level (GA, ACR, FAC) that he has not himself substantially written. I also ask that he is notified that a featured article should not be mass-copy-edited with no good reason that can be explained in the talk page, and by good reason, I mean a new scholarly source that can change the knowledge already in the article.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support: I'm afraid I would have to agree with Cplakidas. The Roman-Byzantine and Hellenistic era are topics of interest, so I'm aware of about every single GA/FA nomination. I can't help but to admit that "Векочел" efforts mainly look like point-scoring, rather than actually "building" this encyclopedia, a core WP policy. Veteran editors such as Cplakidas have spent time to write heaps of text to adress their concerns (hoping he'd improve his editorial pattern per WP:GF) but they get little more in return than short, unsatisfactory responses. Unfortunately, this charade has been extremely time consuming, and it needs to end. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've just completed an extensive c/e of Basil II requested by Векочел (talk · contribs) at WP:GOCE/REQ here; the request shows s/he is certainly capable of communicating clearly when it suits her/him. I also noticed the user rarely uses edit summaries. It doesn't mean s/he's not here and there's nothing on the user's talk page trying to engage the user in discussion and telling her/him that communication is not optional. Another user informed Векочел about copying within WP on 9th March this year; there are no earlier warnings or discussions.


 * I also can't seen any discussions about the editor's GA and FA noms on his/her talk page; that would be a good place to start a centralised discussion about problem or disruptive nominations. If s/he still refuses to improve his/her style and/or discuss his/her edits, that's a cause for escalation. I think it's a little early to start dishing out topic bans though.


 * I normally stay off the dramah pages but my c/e makes me marginally involved, but I'm happy to strike my comments if required. I've informed Векочел of this discussion on her/his talk page. You're welcome. ;)  Baffle☿gab  19:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, the attempts to engage him/her were made on the articles' talk pages after he make un-helpful edits. I did not want to bite new comers, so I did not open a whole case in his talk page (to which he would have replied with a oneliner, if he reply at all). So, here you see me asking him to use the talk page and after asking I opened a dicussion. He totally ignored it and few days later made the same edits, so I begged again for a talk page discussion and finally got a oneliner. You can also read here and here to see attempts at telling him what he is doing wrong. Also, you can read here where both me and Constantine tried to give some advices, but did not get much replies (actually he simply blanked the page, but it was restored by an admin). Not to mention two clear requests on the editor's talk page asking him to use edit summaries, and a long text from Constantine explaining why he failed Basil I and what should be done, also on the editor's talk page.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the diffs Attar-Aram syria; without trawling through his/her almost 9,000 edits, I can't see any disruptive GA, A-Class or FA noms that would warrant a topic ban from these areas of the project. Being a major contributor to the nominated articles is nice, but is not required. I *am* seeing a lack of communication on the user's talk page saying "hey, your edits and noms are disruptive; please stop". Pinging an editor to a discussion doesn't guarantee s/he will see it; I have pings turned off—a note on the user's talk page is more likely to be seen. Cplakidas didn't even inform her/him of this discussion, which is mandatory. WP:BITE doesn't say "never post a note or complaint on the user's talk page". Finally, if a topic ban is to be enacted, the requesting parties need to show a clear pattern of disruption at those venues; at the moment this to me smacks of "this is our little topic area, please go away". Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  00:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * because I had faith that he will evenualy understand the way to create good material, I did not spread those warnings on his talk page so he will not think that Im against him. Plus, he have those pages on his watchlist because he used to edit them everyday! Maybe that was a mistake. As for "little topic area go away", I cant see how this statement is warranted, but ofcourse everyone gets to think how he wish. No one have a problem with any editor trying to get the quality of articles higher. But when you see an editor nominating articles randomly whithout improving them even though the GA and FA processes have clear instructions how an article should be, and when other editors take the time to review those low quality articles and their time is wasted, and when an article about Ptolemy IX, a king in power for more than 20 years, include nothing about the most important events in his reign and still pass as GA, then this is desruption. You can see the editor in the talk page of the FA nominations asking why he needs to wait 14 days after his last failed nomination to nominate again.... I just wonder how many articles he will nominate without first making sure they are ready when it comes to comprehensiveness and sourcing.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose partially per Bafflegab above: GAC, FAC and PR are crying out for involvement and it is completely perverse that we are actively looking to topic ban a keen editor when some good may come from their involvement. Yes, they should ask the major contributors for permission, and failing that, at least give them a co-nom; but I'd rather assume that they are doing what they're doing because they want the project to have more quality material. One could of course assume the opposite. Combined with the fact that no-one's actually talked to them—and WP:ENGAGE goes both ways.If anyone's scared that they will get "free" FAs as a stepping stone to adminship, then they haven't been to RfA lately :) In any case, if they willing to immerse themselves in moribundity and work at FAC for the long-term, then a little training and encouragement will be a greater help to WP than their exclusion. And if they're trolling as some believe, well—that's what WP:ROPE is for.  ——  SerialNumber  54129  19:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * normally, I would totally agree; and I think myself, Attar-Aram, Gog, LouisAragon, and every other Wikipedian want to see people involved with bringing articles up to speed and getting GAs and FAs. But let's be frank: articles concerning a Byzantine emperor or an obscure Hellenistic ruler are not exactly the mainstream of Wikipedia. This is not a field where one is likely to get an FA by jumping in in media res, without prior knowledge, and without researching the topic, which is an experience that can only come from actually writing a few articles from scratch. Векочел doesn't have that knowledge, and hasn't demonstrated the patience to acquire it (witness the nomination of Basil I, it is entirely spurious; note also that the first thing he did after bringing Sons of Antiochus VIII to mainspace was a GA nomination); he goes for the quick-and-dirty approach, hoping to slip through because, let's face it, on these topics, there are very few people on Wikipedia who actually know or care enough what to look for in a review, in order to satisfy the two must tricky criteria (comprehensiveness and sourcing). If I hadn't weighed in on Basil II, it probably would long have passed FA now; if Gog the Mild had not done in-depth detective work on Marcus Aurelius' ACR, likewise. Now, I also have done FA reviews where I have (largely) AGF'd on sourcing and coverage, but this was always with nominators who had actually brought the article from Stub or Start to the brink of FA, in other words, who had researched it, obviously knew the topic, and could be assumed to also care to do a proper job of it (else why invest the time?). I don't see this passion and ability here, not yet at least. And with the whole Sons of Antiochus VIII story, and the comments of Attar-Aram, speaking for myself, I no longer trust this editor to behave ethically. And as long as Векочел is going to meddle in these obscure topics, it will mainly fall on me and a handful of other editors here to actually be vigilant about whether his nominations are actually up to scratch. But this is not our job, it is the nominator's. Until he learns the ropes, and proves he is able to write an article from the bottom up (and experience what that entails), we all have better things to do than cleaning up after him.  Constantine   ✍  21:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Try teaching them instead. ——  SerialNumber  54129  22:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have some experience teaching at a university, and there are, broadly, two kinds of students. Those who will understand, when you explain a problem, using a couple of examples, what they did wrong, and, out of a desire to improve themselves, learn and correct the rest of their mistakes accordingly; their skills may vary, but there is sincerity to do a good job. And then there's those who care only about getting a passing grade, no matter how, and will keep returning to you with infinitesimal tweaks to the same old stuff, hoping to either wear you down or elicit precisely what they need to change to get a passing grade, essentially having you do their work for them, only much less efficiently than if you had done it yourself in the first place and simply given it to them, or if they had devoted the same amount of time and effort to do a proper job of it. That is not teaching; it is frustration, and that is how I have come to feel after several months of interaction with Векочел. I don't like the fact that I am making this proposal, but I see no willingness to learn, not when the same mistakes are being repeated again and again, not when I and others have to repeatedly clean up after him. If it were just me, I'd think that I am weird and perhaps too demanding; but I see the same frustration with everyone who gets a closer look into his work. What I want to achieve is to remove the temptation of the "passing grade" in articles that he has not substantially written himself (it bears repeating, I don't propose to ban him from all nominations), and get him to work on an article for the article's sake. That is IMO the only way for him to learn how to do this properly. And if he does, I'll be the first to support lifting the ban. Constantine   ✍  00:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Serial Number 54129. I agree with you, generally. But in this case, we are not talking about an editor who is improving articles. Just copy editing (and not always resulting in a better version) and spread images in an article is not an improvement. It only mean getting a bad or an unready article to the nomination page, only for other editors to waste their time reviewing then declining it, or passing it when it does not deserve to pass, rendering the whole FA and GA's processes useless. So this isnt because someone is afraid that the editor will get stars, its because we dont want an article that it not featured material to become featured. Allowing the behaviour of the editor is damaging to the FA and GA, even if they are crying out for involvement, because some involvements are damaging. I agree he/she needs to be guided and taught, but this means that they need to start an article from scratch, learn how to collect sources and use them, rendering them unfit to involve themselves in GA and FA articles anyway, until they can produce a good quality article.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Support Extremely reluctantly. I enjoy training up new GA and FA editors and usually have a few on the go. Other editors cut me a tremendous amount of slack when I was learning the ropes. However, I am currently into the 14th hour of work on what I had thought would be a simple ACR source edit. This is not a typo. Anyone making a decision on this proposal may care to read through WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Marcus Aurelius and WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Marcus Aurelius. They will see Векочел repeatedly failing to address points, tinkering with peripheral points instead of addressing very clear issues, ignoring very clearly phrased requests until the forth time of asking, after the review has been failed, when suddenly, "I'm sorry, Gog, if I had some trouble understanding your comments". My AGF has been stretched to the point of incredulity. Since this thread opened I have reviewed Marcus Aureleus as it was before Векочел's involvement. I suspect that his overall input has been to make the article worse.

The proposed remedy may be over the top, and/or premature. In an ideal world Векочел would voluntarily desist and enter into one or more mentoring and training arrangements. It is what seems indistinguishable from a deliberate and sustained attempt to game the system which is riling me, and probably other editors. That, together with what seems a disinclination to learn, leaves me as a reluctant backer of this proposal. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate instructions from more experienced editors. I do not wish to ruin Wikipedia. Векочел (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. We appreciate it and realise that it is not an easy thing to say. I am about to go to bed, but I will try to get back to you tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, we do not doubt that you mean well. But writing articles is not easy, and the only way of learning how to do it is by doing it yourself, not relying on others' work. Our problem is with your methods, not your intentions: specifically, when you edit an article and want to bring it for review, you simply must have done some research and know the subject. That is something that takes years, and you obviously, and by your own admission, lack that knowledge. If you lack that background, you cannot judge whether it is complete, or whether the sources you use are trustworthy. Also, and ultimately, it is a matter of experience; particularly in the area of assessing the quality, reliability, and suitability of sources, where your work is unfortunately sorely lacking. Taking an almost-ready article and simply copyediting around or adding a few tidbits here and there, without at the same time researching it yourself, is bound to lead to trouble of the kind you are now facing. Instead of launching GA/FA nominations, take time to research, go to some WP:PEERREVIEWs, and only if you are absolutely certain, based on your own work, that the article meets the criteria, submit it for nomination. Constantine  ✍  16:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose A GA topic ban at least. Don't know what ACR (something to do with A class I presume) is and FA people are probably best to deal with FA competence. We have a newish editor, but not a complete newbie (9 months and 9000 edits) interested in our quality processes. That is not a bad time to get into editing good articles. The Basil I article is a long way from some of the worst articles that get nominated there. Talk:Faisal of Saudi Arabia/GA1 is pretty standard as far as reviews go. As the OP says there is nothing stoping someone nominating articles they are not the main editor of. It seems like a keen editor and given the above exchange one that is now willing to listen. I am not seeing the level disruption or previous discussion to justify a topic ban. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 07:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose a formal ban at this time, Векочел appears to appreciate there is an issue and has expressed a willingness to listen to others, this more gentle and collegiate approach can/should/could have been tried without a formal ban being mooted first. If those attempts fail then by all means come back here, but to start the dispute resolution at ANI, suggesting the concerning behaviour is chronic and intractable, is going at things the wrong way round.  <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  10:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Again with the promotion of Brent Alden
Referring to the the Dec 2017 case Promotion of Brent Alden, False Alarm band, rangeblock needed and the Jan 2018 followup case Rangeblock for Meg Maheu?...

Promotion has resumed at various pages including the NOFX and False Alarm (band) pages, with a similar range of IPs sand also a named account User:BrentAlden. The name "Norman Alden" is being added here and there, without any reference. List of involved IPs below. Binksternet (talk) 09:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Involved IPs



 * A range block here is problematic - you're looking at 2600:1:b100:::/40, which is a big chunk of Sprint mobile Internet. There is a lot of Mr Alden from this range, and quite a lot of vandalism, but there are also good contributions as well.  I've ECP'd the False Alarm page, and watchlisted NOFX, but in the end probably the only way of hitting this problem properly will be with an edit filter. Black Kite (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, huge range. A filter would also be difficult because the disruption takes various forms. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's see what Special:AbuseFilter/975 gets. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Offensive and disruptive comments by User:Calton
User:Calton made offensive and disruptive comments on my talk page User talk:AndreyVorobyov. He wrote this: "Your inability to understand Wikipedia policy regarding edit-warring, reliable sources, and due weight -- not to mention your inability to count, write English prose, or understand the templates you copy-and-paste -- is not my concern". I did a mistake with making reverts while editing an article. I apologize for this, and I've already been blocked for this situation for 24 ours. Admin explained on my talk page that I was wrong trying to find a consensus on User:Calton page, and that in English Wikipedia I should discuss on an article page if 2 opponents involved. I didn't know this rule, because in Russian Wikipedia, where I mostly edit, you can choose: to discuss on a opponent user's talk page or on an article's page. I wrote suggestion to discuss an article in a wrong place, on User:Calton talk page, he ignored it. Yes, I did a mistake, but it doesn't give the right to any user to leave such rude comments. I feel that comments User:Calton left on my talk page are offensive or disruptive.
 * What does it mean - "your inability to count, write English prose or understand the templates"?
 * I think, it is not polite and very rude to talk about person's "inability". Yes, my editing and is not perfect, but I'm trying to do my best. User could simply explain me in polite manner, that in English Wikipedia this rule - all consensus discussions should be on article page, and not on opponent users' page. I want to edit in Wikipedia further, and I honestly believe that this project should be aware of editors who use such rude offensive phrases. I feel it is absolutely uncivil.
 * It is not the 1st time User:Calton did it. There was repeated use of derogatory racial epithets in edit summaries by User:Calton.
 * When I asked user Calton on my talk page to stop it and discuss an article: "Dear Calton, you write abusive phrases, but you don't reply to the main question", he wrote this: "Free clue: I don’t work for you".

I therefore call on any administrator to indefinitely block User:Calton until he acknowledges the gross misconduct involved and publicly commits to the community that he will not commit such misbehavior again. --AndreyVorobyov (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Another custom on the English Wikipedia is to put new messages to an editor on the bottom of the talk page, not the top. I have moved your messages to where Calton might see them. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 23:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

--AndreyVorobyov (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Talk!, my suggestion to discuss an article was added to user's page before notice, at 12:32, 14 March 2019. Notice was added at 23:13, 15 March 2019, . Why did you put older message at the bottom of the page? I will correct how it should be in English Wikipedia - I will put new messages on the bottom. OK?
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Having gotten EVERYTHING wrong, Andrey -- and let me add sockpuppetry to the list -- wants revenge. Note that he STILL hasn't gone to Talk:PayPal. --Calton &#124; Talk 00:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Calton, you are mistaken about revenge. Many users argue, and discuss, and revert... it's not the reason. 1st time in my editing history I report user, and it's you. And I want clear explanation on why you say about my "inability". PayPal page protected from editing, and I don't have a wish to edit that page anymore. --AndreyVorobyov (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * you are mistaken about revenge
 * Nope, I'm going to stick with that.
 * PayPal page protected from editing...
 * Essentially, you're complaining that you're now unable to continue your sterile edit-warring.
 * Yes, the page is protected against new and IP editors SO YOU CAN USE THE TALK PAGE. In fact, the article was semi-protected BECAUSE you REFUSED TO USE THE TALK PAGE. In fact, in your entire time on Wikipedia you have NEVER used an article talk page. --Calton &#124; Talk 01:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

--AndreyVorobyov (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC) --AndreyVorobyov (talk) 02:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Calton, I'm not going to fight with you. My sourse added to PayPal page was not reliable, I agree that I was wrong with a source. Here is another topic, and you changes it to fight, again. I apologized for my behavior on PayPal page in the begging of this topic. And I don't understand, why you are changing the topic. I still need your clear explanation about why you talked about my "inability".
 * Calton You reverted my edits on your talk page, which I did as Liz suggested - I added my messages in order as newest should be in a buttom. Why did you revert it? My suggestion to discuss PayPal page was previous this notice. And why did you archive all messages where other editors talk about your personal attarks to another users?


 * I came here because you left a message on my talk page. And I have reviewed the info above.
 * My conclusion is that that AndreyVorobyov was way out of line: edit-warring to add a clearly non-reliable-source. In substance, Calton was entirely right.
 * Calton's comment, which forms the substance of this complaint, was all accurate. However, AndreyVorobyov  is a "new" editor (only 96 edits in 5 years), and WP:BITE applies.  Calton should have been much less bitey, and sadly Caltons' block log shows a long history of uncivil communication.  I really wish Calton would remeber that this is a collaborative project, and policies/guidelines like WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL and there to keep it working.
 * But even considering Calton's poor track record, this incident doesn't need a sanction.
 * I say WP:TROUTs to both parties, a quick close.
 * AndreyVorobyov: don't ever edit war, and do read policies and guidelines. And Calton, don't use a stick when a civil explanation would suffice.  -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

--AndreyVorobyov (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review! Do you also think that my English is so bad, that I can't edit in English project? I've translated some Russian articles to English, and added them. Do you think, that I have "inability to write English prose" or "to count"? Even if my English is not perfect, I still feel, it's offensive to say about "inability". I want user Calton apologize for these words.
 * Andrey, you can't force an apology, and there are not going to be any sanctions against anyone here. I think User:BrownHairedGirl has got it just about right, and I think you should just learn from the experience and move on. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Boing! said Zebedee I ask apology from this user not only for me, but for the Wikipedia community.
 * Look at this blog log for Calton:.
 * We can see that Calton was blocked many times for the same reason: systematic regular personal attacks and harassment.
 * But in spite of this, user Calton didn't learn. He continues attacking users and giving editors offensive epithets.
 * His talk page is still full of people who claim harassment and personal attacks, only for years 2018-2019 there are plenty, , , , , , , ,.
 * In my opinion, it's not good for the project when editor attacking people regularly, especially after many blocks for this reason.
 * Calton mentioned my "inability to understand Wikipedia policy". He should read Wikipedia policy once again, especially WP:AVOIDYOU. Because it's undermines the image of Wikipedia, when editors use rude, offensive and disruptive comments.
 * He makes grammatical errors by himself. Why do you think he can blame people about their "inability to write English prose"? What does it mean that he wrote to me about "inability to count?"
 * I want him learn from the experience, and to explain community why he is continuing doing personal attacks to different editors, continue harassing uses, and continue leaving offensive and disruptive comments. If I can't ask apology, OK, but I need clear explanation from him.
 * Wikipedia is a project, where rude phrases shouldn't exist.

--AndreyVorobyov (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Andrey, I really think you need to drop this now and move on. That's my advice and it's the last I'll say here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC) (Well, almost the last. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC))

--AndreyVorobyov (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice! I'm moving on. I already don't have a wish to continue edit after User Calton's rude comments. And I don't think that Wikipedia should be with such rude phrases. Just imaging if he will continue doing it under articles, and not at users talk pages? It will go directly to search engines, to google. And reputation of Wikipedia will go down. This is not good for the project. I will move on from English Wikipedia, if you insist.
 * Andrey, you misunderstand what I mean - I have replied on your talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

thewolfchild – abrasive interaction issues at Requests for bureaucratship/DeltaQuad
I'm reaching out to understand how to proceed out here with respect to the. In my opinion, the editor seems to have an abrasive and overly aggressive attitude towards anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with their viewpoint at Requests for bureaucratship/DeltaQuad, to the point of having a chilling effect on opposing views from editors such as, , , , and. My discussions with the editor on my talk page also ended up on a route it should not have gone in (and I would probably take the blame for it as I should have ignored commenting back). I should confess; I might be the one completely wrong in assessing the issue, in such a case, would of course step back. Feedback from my fellow editors would allow me a dispassionate view of the issue.

Some relevant diffs:
 * The editor has a background of being blocked 9 times in the past for reasons ranging from aggressive attitude, personal attacks, edit warring and similar.
 * A few diffs of Thewolfchild's recent interactions at the RfB can be seen here:
 * A few examples of recent interactions on various editors' talk pages can be seen here:

Thanks, Lourdes   04:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * the idea that all we are doing at RfXs is trying to appropriately deposit our feces is a rather amusing one to me Crazynast 11:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll admit that I had thought about this same of course of action myself. I had thought about proposing a TBAN from commenting at RfX with an exception carved out for asking two questions of the candidate only and posting a !vote. I agree with Lourdes' assessment that TWC is abrasive at RfX, and will add that this has been a pattern for some time. I mean, just refer to Iridescent's pre-emptive comment at Requests_for_adminship/Sir_Sputnik. I mentioned a series of diffs at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_bureaucratship/DeltaQuad in my latest post which I think highlight their passive-aggressive demeanour at that RfB. It appears to me that TWC needs to be notified that they are not arbiter of appropriate !votes, comments or questions in any venue let alone at RfX. Either through their own volition, or by sanctioned remedy. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Lourdes - I think that many of his responses (while I definitely would have worded them better) are an attempt to make fair arguments in rebuttal to others, but responses like this one (and many others listed here) show a very battleground-like attitude and he's definitely bludgeoning the process there. When he goes as far as to accuse you of making certain edits and changes to spite him and because of the discussion at the RfB and with no real evidence to back this up, you know that there's a problem and he's taking things way too far. This edit he made here is unacceptable.


 * Regarding your discussion with thewolfchild on your user talk page: I don't think you did anything horribly and utterly wrong, but I think that many of your statements in response to thewolfchild caused him to become more frustrated and more angry instead of attempting to diffuse the situation properly and attempt to work with thewolfchild to take care of things. Editors who resort to using words and phrases in order to be passive-aggressive and disrespectful toward one another and in order to trade blows aren't demonstrating the civlity and respect that we expect of all editors, and the responsibility that we have as administrators to set the example for others regarding how to handle situations like this. As you of course already know, I have to respond to editors while they're spitting hate, insults, uncivil anger, and... other fun remarks towards me all the time. We have to put those comments completely aside and out of our mind and remain 100% calm, collected, civil, and respectful in our responses and regardless of the discussion or how heated others are.


 * I think we need to ask thewolfchild to stop with the passive-agressive battleground-like mentality and attitude, or to step away from the RfB discussion for awhile. He's definitely treading in the realm of being able to be blocked for uncivil disruption and bludgeoning the process.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   08:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * As I see it, TWC is wasting a lot of precious time of other editors. We have a choice: either ignore it and move on – the likely result will be that their trolling and attacks will continue, albeit perhaps with regard to other editors than us – or try to rein it using the tools we have. I admit I favour the latter and like the TBAN proposal put forward by . — kashmīrī  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  11:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to such a proposal being brought forward. I think it warrants a discussion at least.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   11:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * When I recently said I need good evidence to block an established "content creator", TWC said, "What kind of horseshit is that?" with no further explanation. Nice.... When I tried to discuss the issue with him, he didn't want to know. While I have disagreed with Lourdes' view of DeltaQuad here, I think she is perfectly entitled to express her opinion without abuse. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   12:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what they are talking about this in my talk page, but it is obviously pointless:
 * OK. And... what do you expect to accomplish with that question? - wolf 22:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they are unfamiliar with how RfB processes Hhkohh (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think TWC desperately needs an attitude change, and at this rate, it's going to take a block or some similar sanction to enforce that.--WaltCip (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * "I had thought about proposing a TBAN from commenting at RfX with an exception carved out for asking two questions of the candidate only and posting a !vote". I support this. Twc's Rfx comments have become just too much. Aside from the fact that they seem oblivious to the Streisand effect - wtf does one oppose out of 200 matter unless dragged out into a pointless to/fro - it's downright rude and uncivil. I sympathise to a degree - they've been carried away by this bizarre notion that an otherwise "pristine" Rfx must not be "spoiled" or "sullied" by any 0.5% oppose vote, and that anyone casting such a vote must be pilloried. The proponents of that ludicrous way of thinking ought to consider that this is where that leads... -- Begoon 13:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I can see the argument that if an RfX is on (10/1/0), someone might want to challenge the oppose and bring in new insights to stop it becoming (10/5/5), for example. However, by the time a RfX is over 95% support with 48 hours left, there really is no need to badger the opposition - it's a complete waste of time. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Propose topic ban for TWC
From making any edits to any RfX page, excepting one !vote and two questions for the candidate. Since there appears to be some appetite for this above, I'm formalising the proposal. —— SerialNumber  54129  13:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Conditional support Iff twc undertakes to voluntarily cease pointless badgering and shows some understanding that it does more harm than good then my support is withdrawn. -- Begoon 14:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Confirming that my support still stands. "I apologise for one of the many comments I made but still think I should be allowed to do that, although I'll stop for a bit if you all insist" doesn't meet my requirement of "understanding that it does more harm than good" or demonstrate the introspection I was hoping for. -- Begoon 13:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support in view of the long history of personal attacks, including several blocks for the same (per Lourdes). In addition, given that the majority of TWC's disruptive editing took place outside RfA, and in disregard to earlier blocks, a short block (of a few days' duration) might also be helpful to serve as a final warning. — kashmīrī  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  14:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support - Per . I honestly thought he was being disruptive myself when I was having a discussion with him. The only reason I didn't do anything is because I thought you were simply allowed to act that way in RfX pages. I didn't realise this was not the first time either. Regardless, if Wolf learns to stop it, we could give him another chance. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oof... we definitely have an issue if the incivility and negative conduct is causing other editors to believe that this kind of behavior is allowed and considered part of the norm when it comes to this process. :-( I appreciate you for providing your honest input and thoughts.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   15:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "I thought you were simply allowed to act that way in RfX pages." Absolutely not - despite perceptions, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are also policies at RfA / RfB. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well it looks like you learn something new everyday. Thank both of you. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – I was actually considering raising the issue myself as I found the badgering of the opposers quite disruptive, both in the current RfB and in recent RfA's. –FlyingAce✈hello 15:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as a wake-up call and because the negative atmosphere at RfX is a serious concern, and not only with respect to the candidates, and moving discussions to the talk page is demonstrably insufficient. I'm concerned by 's not having responded here as well as by mentions of previous blocks that a topic ban may not be enough to get them to stop. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To be fair, TWC hasn't edited since 0142 hours this AM, and this discussion was opened at 0421, so I guess for the time being we should assume they haven't seen it. ——  SerialNumber  54129  20:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. As someone has pointed out above, I've previously described TWC's attitude as a "school bully routine", and I've seen nothing subsequently to suggest I was wrong; their contributions at RfX have consistently been a mix of self-importance, unwarranted aggressiveness, and needlessly personalising disputes, which needlessly makes a process stressful when (despite the beliefs of some) it doesn't need to be. I have very little doubt that TWC's reaction to being restricted from RfX will be to take the battleground mentality elsewhere, and that we'll be having this same discussion in a couple of months regarding their conduct in some other venue, but they deserve the chance to try to prove that they're willing to respect the views of people regardless of whether or not they agree with them. &#8209; Iridescent 18:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. RfA and RfB are areas that can really do without aggressive bullying behavior, regardless of whether it's towards candidates, towards supporters, or towards opposers. Carrying it out so insistently, in the face of obvious concern from other editors, leads to only one sensible solution, which is this topic ban as proposed. There's also the obsession with "having the last word" that seems to have become a hallmark of this user's editing. Unfortunately I also have to echo Iridescent's comment above; a recent trip here to ANI for the wolfchild ending with Anna Frodesiak summarizing that Editors who behave in a hostile manner for too long, wear out their welcome. How many more blockable or ANIable (yes, it's an adjective too!) posts will bring an indef? but generously hoping that thewolfchild's editing displayed an improving trend. This latest disruption does not show much sign of such an improving trend. MPS1992 (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would also support, as my first choice, Lourdes' proposed alternate wording below. wolfchild's "reply" is unconvincing; it starts with the vapid, continues with some meandering, and concludes with redefining any restriction as being on their own terms as a voluntary thing. That's not what's needed, given the behavior that has happened. MPS1992 (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: The evidence supplied above shows a fairly persistent battleground mentality with regard to taking challenges to the !votes of others to a badgering and even disruptive extreme. Many of the responses are aggressive out of the gate and the responses in the back-and-forth discussions that follow are not particularly well calculated to help the parties arrive at a meeting of the minds, but rather are so combative as to virtually guarantee further entrenchment. It indeed makes me wonder if there is a more fundamental change needed to TWC's interactions on-project in general (especially seeing that block log and noting how many times they have been a disputant in ANI threads) but we can certainly start with a more targeted approach of a topic ban from this area that seems to get them particularly fired up. I do appreciate that TWC's efforts in this area are tied to their wish not to see someone volunteering for community service be put excessively through the ringer (we all know what RfX processes are like), but it's not justification for needlessly aggressive argumentation and honestly, I can't see how their approach really helps such candidates, who may actually face a backlash if there is a perception that "oppose" !votes are being shouted down. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 20:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support for reasons adjacent to what Foxnpichu and Oshwah discussed above. I had actually wanted to discuss some of the opposes but held back feeling it basically wasn't possible to join in without becoming part of an ugly pile-on. Upholding behavioral norms at RfX so that a constructive conversation there is possible would be really welcome, and a tban, when there's a recurrent problem with a particular editor's participation, seems one of the only effective ways to do that; other strategies I've seen, like responding directly or refactoring personal attacks, seem often necessary but not sufficient. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Lourdes's modification seems to me to be in everyone's best interest. Especially given TWC's acknowledgement below, which I appreciate, I'm hopeful it'd be understood an RfX tban means, don't just find another venue to keep pursuing the same issue, but, fairest and most efficient (i.e. in hopes of not winding up back here debating parameters) to all to make it clear up front. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I worry that as Twc did in my case, or in the case of, Hhkohh and probably others, Twc will follow editors from the RfX and continue arguments on the talk page or other forums. Or he may berate other editors through the questions allowed to Twc in the RfX. So if there is appetite for the same and if the community agrees, I would hope the TBAN is modified as "From making any edits about any RfX across the project, broadly construed, except for one !vote and two questions from the candidate during any RfX, without alluding to any other editor's !vote or comments within the RfX.". Thanks. Lourdes   01:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Given that it takes a certain amount of courage to post against mounting consensus, we ought to be thanking editors instead of attacking them. And we ought to be addressing attacks when they happen. --valereee (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - hounding participants in project-side discussions is poor conduct, but so is calling an editor in otherwise good standing a troll, particularly so when the editor delivering the personal attacks is an administrator. Everyone's been fairly warned, in my opinion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , you know it that I would never disregard anything you say. So I'll accept your comment completely. I'll be honest. For me and for others on Wikipedia, Twc is not an editor in good standing after multiple blocks. I called his posts trolling at the RfX after he had come to my page and left the statements that are mentioned below, where he used terms like "obnoxious revert", "for fuck's sake", "petty bullshit" etc. I struck the comment of trolling soon after. Do please go through my post below to understand the specific context. Warmly, Lourdes   01:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I suppose this can't hurt, although since TWC doesn't recognize he's done anything wrong, I don't understand why people think this will solve a problem; won't it just continue in some other venue? Also, want to record somewhere that User:Lourdes' smug condescensionto TWC on her talk page is noted, and probably made things worse.  Yet another person who apparently thinks "civility" consists of not using bad words. She should really calm down and have a cup of tea, and introspect why she enjoys baiting an intemperate editor; if she'd like my assistance in understanding how not to be so passive aggressive on Wikipedia and in her normal life, I'd be happy to assist her with that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, sure, I'm open to suggestions. Let this stuff get over first. I really have less patience with "'em boyz" ready to land at my page attempting to give their loser spiel. Anyway, will connect when this gets over. Warmly, Lourdes   05:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * TWC has replied below, and more importantly offered what seems to be a real and sincere aplology. They appear to understand what went wrong, and have even offered to take a timeout from RfX. I don't think that a topic ban is needed in order to protect the project at this point. In my opinion, raised a fair point in her oppose, and on the other end of the stick there were certainly !votes, and comments that were without merit, or possibly even a basis in reality. It's fair that sometimes these comments need further discussion. We should remember that the policies WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and maybe most importantly, the behavioral guideline WP:AGF apply project-wide.  SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  17:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going to Oppose a topic ban in the light of TWC's reflection, apology and voluntary proposal to disengage from RfX below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose in light of the comments below and Lourdes' inability to handle this situation in a manner expected of an admin as demonstrated by their comments on their talk page. Nihlus  19:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support the revised proposal. I do not find the apology to be genuine, given the track record on various Talk page pages and at ANI. Random samples: This is not a revert, it's just you being obnoxious for some reason. Grow up and find something better to with your time, mmkay?; Actually, you can't seem to help yourself. It took less than an hour for you to post another obnoxious comment with your desperate must-have-last-word-itis. Good luck with that; btw - you can only pull that so many times before it bites you in the ass, so watch it and so on. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Some specific context would be helpful for the community:
 * Thewolfchild landed on my talk page and the first post they posted consisted of: "I could say it was because I called you out on your ridiculously ill-conceived, and now utterly embarrassing, '!vote' at RfB, you decided to make this needlessly obnoxious 'revert' in return, but I won't say that. I will instead suggest you move on to more useful contributions and stop this petty bullshit. You're admin ffs, you're supposed to be above this type of behaviour"
 * This outburst by Twc was a result of this edit of mine, where I had added a source for a line that had been added earlier by a new editor and Thewolfchild had reverted earlier as the new editor had not added any source.
 * This outburst by Twc was also a result of this edit of mine, where I went and warned the new editor with the following words: "While what Thewolfchild says is absolutely right, I've gone ahead and added a source for your addition. Next time, please remember to add a reliable source whenever you add any material to Wikipedia. Thanks"
 * Thewolfchild believed that the one edit to the particular article proved that I was tracking their edits across Wikipedia.
 * Thewolfchild landed on my page because of this edit and accused me as mentioned above. I responded to Thewolfchild saying that their post is "Incoherent", "Nonsensical" and that Thewolfchild needed to "calm down".
 * His past and current editing are replete with the same comments on other editors' talk pages using the same words, for example, as mentioned by K.e.coffman above: Multiple editors in this section have said they were considering opening up a TBAN discussion on TWc (and not for twc’s discussions on my talk page.
 * Well, I take on board the comments of Ivan, Boing, Floquenbeam, and others. I probably have very less patience for editors who land on my page and believe that they can practise on my talk page what they probably do in their real lives and slam words like "obnoxious revert", "for fuck's sake", "petty bullshit" and more in their first post – I've already mentioned at the start of this post that I should probably have remained quiet; although I really don't remain quiet in my real life when such individuals land up in my space – and I would recommend the same to others. Having said that, it's imperative to know that Twc's behaviour is not just with me, an administrator, but with editors across Wikipedia. Saying that his behaviour is okay because an admin said Twc's first post on their page sounds nonsensical, incoherent, is absolutely not okay. Look at what editors like are mentioning – that they now believe that attacks against them by editors like Twc are allowed on Wikipedia. We cannot allow such behaviour to be overlooked because multiple apologies and assurances over the past so many years by this editor (after 9 blocks) have not resulted in any change.  Lourdes   01:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - I read TWCs apology below and offer to take an enforced voluntary break from editing RfX pages for 6 months. My immediate concern with this proposal is that the last time that the community agreed to such, it backfired spectacularly. Any sanction needs to be a logged enforced community sanction. I do not want a repeat of the TGS fiasco. I have no issue with adopting their blanket TBAN proposal so long as it is logged as such, though I think a note could be added in such an entry that TWC had voluntarily proposed the sanction against themselves. My initial concern out of the way, I want to address the contents of TWCs apology. Of the six that have opposed, I asked four of them once to clarify or explain their oppose !vote <- this is not an honest reflection of what TWC did at the RfB. Their first comment was to lecture Lourdes about nitpicking the candidate over communication and heavy-handedness and to propose that Lourdes should just be neutral. There was no request for clarification. Their second and third comments were to attack Foxnpichu for being untrusting of a candidate who had, in the candidates own words, made a stupid block against them. It would be generous to describe TWCs interactions here as anything other than snide superiority. Their fourth comment was where a bureaucrat had had enough and had stepped in and removed it. This is the only comment that TWC has attempted to address. I have previously pointed all of these comments and two others on top of it and asked TWC if [they] consider these passive-aggressive comments "seeking clarification"? They responded about my "musings". I'll add here that their challenge of Athaenara's oppose was put together reasonably enough. Also, for the first time, I did ask one editor to clarify the reason for his question <- This is not an honest reflection of what TWC did either. Why did she "have 3 RfA to become an admin?"...? Why don't you just read them for yourself? What do you expect to accomplish with that question? Seriously. <- The demeanour in this statement is, as with the other comments I've cited above, passive-aggressive. Obviously so. It is insincere to suggest that you were "seeking clarification". In sum, I think TWC realizes that they've upset a number of editors. But it does not, from their apology, appear to me that they are any closer to understanding what it is that people are finding objectionable with their behaviour. I cannot in any faith, good or bad, not support a sanction. I'll add here that Ritchie333's and Floquenbeam's comment give me pause. I had been under the erroneous impression that the issues were localized to RfX, a generally hostile area of Wikipedia. This doesn't appear to be the case. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - and yet another example of why threaded discussion should be prohibited at RFx. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I do not think an enforced TBAN resolves conduct issues at its core, this seems punitive at best. However ingenuine an apology (ffs assume some good faith?) you might think it is, it takes a lot to apologize on the most viewed page of Wikipedia. I agree with Floq's view of the matter partially and I think we need to not enforce something that can easily be implemented voluntarily. Imo TWC should stay away from RfXs completely for a period of 1 year and go through a simple ANI process after its expiry to gauge if their civility issues have been put to bed. (Pinging for thoughts on the matter) --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK  ( 後  ☕  桜 ) 20:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should put that up as an alternative proposal. I don't know if anything is likely to reverse the established consensus above, but I would probably !vote for that more middle ground approach. Like you, I have no problem assuming TWC's apology was sincere: it seemed perfectly genuine and fullsome to me, even without the need for a generous application of AGF. I understand that a history of similar interactions has made many skeptical that TWC fully understands all concerns, but that is a separate question as to whether they made a good accounting of what went wrong in this particular case and how to remedy it, which I feel they did. The reason I couldn't adopt TWC's counterproposal is that I felt like it asked for too much.  It's one thing to ask for the ban to be labelled "voluntary"; so long as TWC agreed to stay out of those areas here, they wouldn't be able to violate that promise willy-nilly and if an editor wants to avoid a formally logged TBAN, I can understand that.  But on top of that, TWC also wanted the ban reduced from indefinite to six months.  The combination would have been a significant dilution of the remedy the consensus has already more or less endorsed above and would allow no community assessment as to whether issues had been resolved before editing resumed in those areas. Your variation, representing a middle ground between the consensus above and TWC's counter-request, seems reasonable to me: a formal ban, appealable in 1 year, essentially. I could change my !vote to that, though I do kind of suspect we might be too far along at this point to change the mind of a sufficient number of community members. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 10:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per Iridescent. This has to stop, and RfA is already stressful for candidates as it is. feminist (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

twc reply
Well, it seems I have arrived late to this. If enough people feel you are being disruptive, there is no point in saying "no I wasn't". I can, however, try to explain why I ask questions of opposers. First, I feel we should be able to, and clearly I'm not alone in this. This isn't about "safeguarding any pristine voting percentage" (who said that again?), I don't even know these candidates. I'd like to know if there is a legitimate reason to oppose, in which case I may reconsider my support, or is the oppose is just based on something benign or some personal grudge, in which case, should it even be there? Of the six that have opposed, I asked four of them once to clarify or explain their oppose !vote. The remainder of my posts are replies to posts directed at me. I will admit that one of my comments was quite crude and needlessly so and I openly and unreservedly apologize for that. I was at the time, as I'm sure others were, taken aback by an oppose that had no context, or text period, just a diff, forcing everyone to read through an entire ArbCom case and decipher how a particular vote (part of the majority, btw) somehow provides reasoning for a candidate not being trustworthy. I posted a much simpler comment seeking more info to which more info was indeed provided and I left it at that. Also, for the first time, I did ask one editor to clarify the reason for his question. I asked on his talk page and didn't see it as being rude. It has since been described as "badgering", but that word gets thrown around a lot so perhaps we need a community definition for it. Anyway, taking on board all the comments here, I'm offerring to take a self-imposed ban from all RfXs, knowing full well that violating will result in an immediate block. Following this, should I participate in any RfXs, I will keep all posts to community standards and refrain from making any comments that are rude or off-topic. I would suggest 3 months, but gauging the discussion, I'm thinking 6 months would be more acceptable to those that have chosen to join in here. Will that suffice? - wolf  21:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thewolfchild - I highly acknowledge and respect that you took the time to come here and try to explain, as well as apologize for your recent behavior. I don't want my response to you here to discount or brush that off in any way. It takes a lot for someone to apologize, and I give you my tip of the hat for doing so. Unfortunately, most of what's been discussed here (and ultimately what users are discussing regarding the proposed topic ban) isn't just a reflection nor is it an expression of concerns regarding your behavior at the RfB. The comments provided in this discussion, your extensive block log and history, and your contribution history - show that incivility, disrespectful remarks and passive-aggressive tone and demeanor, battleground mentality and conduct, bludgeoning of discussion and process, and unfounded accusations toward others is a long term and consistent issue with you, and the community is starting to take the necessary steps in order to formally disallow you from participating in discussions that are critical to the project due to your negative behaviors and your habit of causing hardship upon the discussions at-hand and the editors who participate in them. With this in mind, I think that any topic ban that's imposed should be on the terms of the community, and not yours. Your long-term pattern of behavior has shown that you have a very difficult time with exercising restraint, and keeping an eye on your emotions, your comments, and your words - and any fences that you put up yourself will be more easily taken down. I think that topic ban that's imposed by community consensus and formally applied (should any such topic ban be applied) will have a higher chance of success than one that you propose and then promise to comply with on your own.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't really looking at this as a "my terms" vs the "terms of the community". A ban is a ban, right? Whether I say here at ANI I will not post at any RfA/B for x-months as part of a voluntary-ban, or there is a consensus-registered restriction that says that I can't post there for x-months, what's the difference? (Other than, say... some good faith) Either way, if I post there during that period, I get blocked for violating the ban, right? I'm not looking to get blocked. As messed up as the RfA/B process is, it's not that important to me. - wolf  01:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * peanut gallery comment If twc voluntarily accepts a ban with consequences, which is endorsed by the community and gets logged at WP:RESTRICT then that is as good as a community sanction. --Blackmane (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive IP sock of blocked user
The IP 97.71.138.2, almost certainly the sock of the recently blocked vandal Fiji123, has taken to adding bad-faith PRODs to articles created by editors who have reverted him. Examples:, ,. See also the IP's latest comments/edit summaries at User talk:97.71.138.2:,. Pinging who blocked the named account on March 7. Voceditenore (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was on my way to block them for the "assburger" comment but Drmies beat me to it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked, indeed, but I see no evidence of socking. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Drmies, Fiji123's last edit was vandalism to Maurice Ravel . Three minutes after it was reverted, the IP PRODs it and then PRODs another article created by the editor who reverted the vandalism at Maurice Ravel . Voceditenore (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Voceditenore, Interesting. I have a magic tool, but it's possible that there's other users who know better how to wield it. In other words, a real CU. I found no connection. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My personal opinions on this are (1) Drmies is perfectly capable of shaking the Magic Checkuser 8-Ball; and (2) when you have an indeffed editor and an IP doing things that would get them blocked regardless of what logged-out editor they might be, there's no purpose in running CU. It also tends to be against the checkuser policy to compare accounts with IPs. I didn't do much evaluating for sockpuppetry here because it was not a good use of time that could be better spent pushing block buttons. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

IPs removing references to MH17 and MH370
I'm not sure if this goes at SPI, AIV or somewhere else, so I'm reporting it here. Someone seems determined to remove references to the downing of MH17 and loss of MH370. Pops up every couple of days from a (slightly) different IP, removes the same content, and uses similar summaries (eg Remove unrelated content). Is a rangeblock possible? IPs involved: Special:Contributions/2001:D08:D9:6054:B009:6F7C:436A:9395 Special:Contributions/2001:D08:D9:6AC8:4126:7AF9:45CF:F435 Special:Contributions/2001:D08:D9:6AC8:49A:F255:7D39:77CE Special:Contributions/2001:D08:D9:440C:C941:D626:E9DD:E915 Special:Contributions/2001:D08:D9:7306:934:60E3:D02E:16F9 Special:Contributions/2001:D08:D9:56A9:60F3:A227:2241:6010 Special:Contributions/2001:D08:D9:654E:18CA:7125:18C8:A2B0 Special:Contributions/2001:D08:D9:5F70:3F:E9FF:E7A3:3044 Probably not related: Special:Contributions/219.92.42.162 Special:Contributions/219.92.43.151 Question: Is there an exception to the requirement to notify editors when reporting them at ANI if it's a bunch of ips? I'll go ahead and template them now, wondering for the future Hydromania (talk) 08:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Procedural note, it's probably impossible to notify an editor whose IP changes that frequently. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Every edit from the associated /48 since December 3 seems to be this same vandal (see Special:Contributions/2001:D08:D9::/48). I put a one month block on the range. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Awesome! Hydromania (talk) 08:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's effectively impossible to notify an IPv6 editor (the long hexadecimal ones) because their discrete IP can change with each edit, and you can't notify a range. Our guidelines don't consider that technical detail. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Persistent Non-Free Content violations
I went to leave a message on this user's Talk Page... It is flooded with WP:NFC notifications (which they have obviously chosen to ignore). There was even another notification added last night.  Dark Knight  2149  14:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Another one of these. Zero edits to talk pages, scores of image warnings.  I have indefinitely blocked the editor until they decide to communicate.  WP:CIR. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  16:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging who seems to spend a lot of his time adding all the fair use licensing information to the various images this editor uploads and may have a view on whether this user is contributing any actually useful content. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  16:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of this users uploads were being used in an appropriate way when I came across them and I believe the majority were kept. Whether the articles were lacking images before the User uploaded them or whether they were replacing existing images that I am not sure of. I can say though that the uploader put no effort in the upload, not even a description or source. Salavat (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Review of block I imposed on
I have just blocked for 31 hours because I believe he may still be abusing multiple accounts.

I was reached out to by email from an anonymous user who has presented evidence of continued socking. After reviewing it, I have come to believe that there is reason to believe that the claim is true.

On January 30th, 2019, filed an appeal on behalf of the user and unblocked them to allow participation in the appeal. The appeal was closed as successful by Oshwah on February 11, 2019. The thread can be found [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=882875659#Standard_offer_unblock_of_User:My_Lord? here].

On February 13, 2019, started editing making the claim that they are a long term IP editor with no registered account. They also left an edit warring warning to.

On March 13, 2019, left this warning on 's talk page linking to the warning the IP left Gazoth's talk page with the claim of having already warned them before.

Not sure if this was intentional or not, but I'm left with the impression that something is still amiss here. It also seems behavioral evidence is really similar between the IP and My Lord. Even if this is stale, it would suggest the issues were still ongoing while the appeal was open.

I submit to the community to review my block. I made this block with the best of intentions for the project, so if this is a bad block, I, or any admin, will happily reverse it.— CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 16:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I find ML's explanation that their warning to PakEditor was a cut and paste of the IP's warning to Gazoth, and not an indirect admission of being the IP, to be credible. Also, afaik, the IP geolocates to a different country than ML's. As a side note, I am wary of evidence concerning Indo-Pak editors being emailed around since in the past I have seen photoshopped documents being presented, and while that may not be relevant in this instance we should note that there were apparent attempts to set up ML as a continuing sockpuppeteer as recently as Feb 12. Pinging  for further input. Abecedare (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , That is definitely good to know. So it's possible I may have simply fallen for the setup. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 17:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * but the accounts that were possible technical matches on the ranges I checked while reviewing the current block did not look to be My Lord when I looked at the behaviour, to the point where I'm not even going to bother to list them here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , and on that note, it's safe to say I fell for a bad report trying to get him blocked. I have unblocked him. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 17:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The block issue seems to have been resolved while I was edit-conflicting with everyone, and I have nothing new to add anyway so I'll just leave it at that. On the subject of South Asian editors anonymously emailing allegations of sockpuppetry to apparently random administrators, I advise any administrator who receives such a message to forward it to the Arbitration Committee. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , Noted. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 17:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And regarding the IP, I personally find it doubtful that the same person wrote "interminable obfuscation and stonewalling" as wrote "What you meant from Do not add text that is still under discussion? Neither I have to entertain your WP:IDHT nor you WP:OWN this article." But those were both the same edit. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What I mean to say is the "long term IP editor with no account" is being fed false accusations by some third party meaning to cause trouble, a very clear violation of WP:MEAT. This is not the first time we've seen this on this board. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something they should be sending to the functionaries' email list and not Arbcom. The checkusers should not miss the information by diverting to Arb. The Arb members can see it there. We need to see what is being said. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  19:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If it involves off-wiki accusations involving privacy, arb is likely better, which is what I think Ivanvector was getting at (and if he wasn't, my apologies for reading it that way). Yes, the functionaries list would also be a good place to send this. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, functs is fine, but as far as I know there isn't a convenient way to email that list on-wiki. I guess that's not a good point since you'd be forwarding from your own email anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The title of this thread leads me to ponder the theological question, "Can God impose a block that He can't overturn?" <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 21:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, because he's not an admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nor would he pass RfA. In the Old Testament he had tons of meatpuppets and in the New his sockpuppet gets community banned. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Might be overlooked given the strong history of content creation. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 02:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Exhibits ownership and Battleground behavior. Also Original Sinthesis. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 06:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Only against legitimate POV pushers and COI editors, and always with the best interests of the wiki at heart. Anyway, doesn't need the tools as he's already a member of the founder group. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 15:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Innocent Conflict of Edits Issue Needs Ace Editor
I'm working on my draft article for the NIH Sexual and Gender Minority Research Office which was finally submitted it for first review earlier today. This afternoon I improved there article with NASEM source material from last month and much of that work was lost to the ether. I don't see what I attempted to publish in the page history but I do see the +53 character reference citation correction made by some unknown party (to me at least). I have not hit any save button since only made attempts to recover my edits which where side by side with another version when I made a switch to vista editing and it all went kaboom. Please don't make me reinvent the wheel. I got a notification that my work was saved somewhere but I can't find it.Mrphilip (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So what probably happened there was that someone made an edit while you were making an edit, and they published it before you did. When that happens, a page will open where at the top is the revision by the other user, and if you scroll all the way to the bottom is your version. That then lets you reconcile your version with the new version. If you have already left that page however, your content is likely gone, and there's not much an admin can do to save it, as your revision was saved on your computer's cache and not Wikipedia servers. It sucks to lose edits like that, I've been there. My advice is to save often, or work on the edit in your sandbox and then copy it over once its ready. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If the edits aren't in the Edit History or are deleted edits, there is no way I know of to recover this content. Like the Captain says, this is the result of an edit conflict, when two editors are trying to edit the same page at the same time, and it happens frequently on noticeboards like ANI. You can cut & paste your edit if you are taken to an error page but after you've moved on from the page, the content is gone. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 23:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * More at Help:Edit conflict. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * is there a way we can ask for these conflict pages to be more visual edit friendly for future contributors? I like the left right portions but they can be disorienting when looked at with upper and lower text. Might it be possible for an algorithm to intercede and asses significance of conflict edits, which both could be meaty, but as in this case, fixing a reference date was given preference over 1,000+ characters. Shouldn't a draft article writer (specifically) be granted first veto power over the lessor edit, as opposed to the BOX WARNING SUGGESTING NOT TO HASTILY COPY AND PASTE all your work (which I should have done before hitting the visual button.) Or can we minimally improve the system to offer better advance notice of multiple users working on one project not as of yet approved for public viewing before either editor hits publish? Simple thoughts for preventing replication of efforts.23:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrphilip (talk • contribs)


 * answer=yes Mrphilip (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Competence issues
His draft was deleted Copyvio so he is User_talk:RHaworth yelling at User:RHaworth, complaining at the AfC Helpdesk and at Teahouse  all lecturing experienced editors on how the site works. I reverted his post at Jytdog's talk. as that is a randomly inappropriate place to discuss his issues. WP:CIR Legacypac (talk) 05:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Legacypac I posted on Jytdog's talk page unaware of his block. He left me this message suggesting I do just that thing when an article refers to something involving Health, which my article does. National Institute of Health Sexual and Gender Minority Research Office. I was asking for advice on quoting legislation verbiage from the 21st Century Cures Act of 2016. I did not discuss any other "issue" It might have been more helpful if you addressed the question raised instead of just deleting a credible query. I don't believe tasing for help suggests incompetence nor making others aware of unnecessary overly swift G12 deletion of a draft article when older versions of an article history might have lived on? Mrphilip (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

=
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sourcesas references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC) ====== Mrphilip (talk) 05:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Jytdog is no longer an editor here. Legacypac (talk) 06:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

8chan link - revdel needed
included a link to 8chan post by the Christchurch shooter in an edit summary here:. Should it be revision deleted? Otherwise, it seems that the article page history is used to promote the manifesto. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was not promoting the manifesto (I haven't even seen it myself), but I was just providing source to my edit, an edit that had been undone before, concerning the fact that the manifesto was not published on 8chan (which is not possible, one cannot post documents there). I have no problem with deleting the edit summary, although I don't really see a reason to do so. My point was the difference between the manifesto being posted on 8chan (which it wasn't) or linked to on 8chan, and that difference should be acknowledged. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC).


 * I'm not sure what the policy is, but I'd invoke WP:IAR regardless and remove it. Many - most? - news organisations have intentionally not published it. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Revdel needed. In addition, user should be blocked or admonished the same way as the users who tried to insert links to that massacre video earlier. <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:#DC143C">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * If an admin is looking at this, this edit should also be probably be rev-deleted: . Someone inserted the link to the manifesto into the body of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed the edits. I'm not going to block or admonish Jürgen Eissink, because I'm sure they won't add the link again. Also, more admin eyes on this stuff please. There's some nasty stuff lurking in the background. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am truly shocked by the call – even after I gave my intention – for a block of my account. I thank zzuuzz for his or her moderation. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC).

Please read the banner on the top of this page: "Do not report breaches of privacy, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here". By posting a request for revdel on this board you only gave the link more views. --Pudeo (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Uncivil interactions
Hello all, I have grown tired of this editor acting constantly uncivil and throwing out personal attacks to editors that disagree with their innapropriate edits. This user's main problem is adding speculation and WP: OR of sources into List of Impact Wrestling personnel. Everytime someone tries to revert him and point him to Wikipedia policy on unsourced content or OR, he just yells at others for being "Wikipedia police", "beaucrauts" or "bullying him with jargon" I would like to point to these discussions as examples of this behavior: 1 2 3 4 5, 67 8 and examples of uncivil edit summaries 1 and 2 The user also logged out to edit war not that long ago and, and he has been blocked in the past for abusing multiple accounts. They were also notified of general sanctions in the past, so I am hoping this will be more than just a slap on the wrist. StaticVapor message me!   22:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

If you'll excuse me, dear administrators, while my interaction with this user and his 2 cohorts has not necessarily been the most professional, you will find that on the page he has linked to, himself and two specific other users seem to be working under the idea that myself and 2 others must answer specifically to them. For example, recent edits by the user he is attempting to character assassinate me on behalf of have removed important links from the List Of Impact Wrestling Personnel page. Rather than agree that these edits are unhelpful as he would were they done by another user, StaticVapor simply chastised the user Chaosithe for trying to fix these edits instead. Multiple times, I have made correct edits to this page complete with sources, yet StaticVapor and his cohort HHHPedrigree have continuously interfered with my edits in an unhelpful fashion citing that simply because in their opinion, they disagree with the source, only for me to turn out to be correct. Rather than apologize, they continue with this unhelpful behaviour. As you will see from my interactions with the user StaticVapor is trying to tattle on behalf of, this user was intentionally being obstinate and passive-aggressive. I would not be as annoyed as I am and interact with these users as I do were it not for the reasons listed. If they were more fair and reasonable rather than bureaucratic and arrogant, these problems would not occur to start with.

Damolisher (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Wrestling again. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 22:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Incivility again. Natureium (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That too. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 02:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Gonna need an electron microscope here soon Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Now please, explain to me which part of being unable to take blame is not provoking me, exactly? Damolisher (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:EEng I understand that while I was on Wikibreak that you guys dealt with a lot of drama, but I had no part in that. Sorry I am not going to sit by and have to deal with disruptive editors in wrestling articles. More complicated reports at WP:AIV always go stale. StaticVapor message me!   03:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand. I'm just trying to reinforce that something more has to be done about the constant, relentless craziness in this topic area. A reconsideration of what constitutes a reliable source in this area, with an eye toward radically reducing the number and scope of articles, has been talked about now and then. Now back to our regularly scheduled program, already in progress... <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah I kinda realized if AIV doesn't work once, I have to start bringing issues here if it's not direct vandalism. So don't be surprised to hear from me again lol. Especially with general sanctions in force, this stuff should not be happening. Our Wikiproject has recently been focusing on what is and what are not, so I feel like the majority of the constructive editors have a grasp on reliable sources. Whenever someone doesn't, I'm always quick to attempt to get through to them, but it doesn't always work with everyone. StaticVapor message me!   03:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

And as I stated above, "disruptive" is harassment of other users in addition to removing justified edits. Damolisher (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The idea that Wikipedia editors are "cohorts" instead of working independently is absurd; I always try to practice good faith, but I will also call out and dispute accusations such as this. My involvement in this incident was that I merely utilized named references to make multiple uses of the same inline citations per WP:CS and WP:REFNAME, which Damolisher repeatedly referred to as unhelpful. When I suggested that they read up on those Wiki policies, they responded by snarking back at me. Some productivity, like familiarizing themselves with said policies, would have been more helpful. KyleJoan talk  05:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I read all the diffs and more. The main problem here is not Damolisher's incivility although that is a severe complicating factor. Instead, the really big problem is that this editor aggressively disregards Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and has nothing but contempt for them.

This editor repeatedly dismisses Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as "technical jargon" and "pointless rigmarole". Evidence of Damolisher's contempt for policies and guidelines is "Ask anyone who edits these articles and they don't have the foggiest as to what the hell "WP BLEH BLEH" is." Another example is "Y'know, just a word of wisdom, citing "WP" articles doesn't *actually* have any effect on me." A third example is "Don't give me that "DA ROOLS THO" BS either." I see no evidence that this editor has ever read or tried to understand the policies and guidelines that they reject out of hand. Those are the very policies and guidelines that have made Wikipedia the #5 website in the world, so this editor's refusal to engage with them is both mystifying and unacceptable.

When Damolisher encounters other editors who try to explain the importance of our policies and guidelines, this editor calls them "bureaucrats", "bullies", "obnoxious" and  "passive-aggressive". This editor accuses them of "hairsplitting", "harassment", "arrogance", "wasting my time", "one-upsmanship", "bloody gall", and "being obstinate". Evidence of Damolisher's contempt for editors who attempt to convince them to comply with policies and guidelines is "So, ya gonna send that memo to your pompous little friend who won't stop trying to bully people into her stupid hairsplitting and then telling tales when they're wrong?"

An editor who engages in mild incivility in defense of our policies and guidelines can be excused with a request to continue their work in a more civil fashion. An editor who is consistently uncivil in the process of battling against and undermining our policies and guidelines is an entirely different matter. Accordingly, I have indefinitely blocked Damolisher, while noting that "indefinite" does not mean "forever". In order to be unblocked, Damolisher must read and understand our policies and guidelines, and make a firm commitment to comply with them 100% of the time in the future, and to take the path of collaboration rather than contempt toward their fellow editors.<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My name is <b style="font-family:Century Gothic"> Dloh Cier   ekim </b> 06:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC) and I support this block. <b style="font-family:Century Gothic"> Dloh Cier   ekim </b> 06:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on the unrepentant response to the block on his talk page, I don't see an unblock happening anytime soon. WaltCip (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Abusive IP
Also fond of watering down quackery. Could use some admin attention. Alexbrn (talk) 08:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've given them a week off for the edit summary abuse (now rev-deleted). My spidey-senses are tingling too, with vague memories of similar previous abuse from a Singapore IP (but can't remember if it was related to quackery). Feel free to let me know if you see more of it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Should this edit summary be rev-deled too? [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cupping_therapy&diff=prev&oldid=888154807] See Diu (Cantonese) for an explanation. Note while wiktionary says it's normally translated as "fuck you", my understanding is that the implied meaning is closer to our article or the literal meaning. Nil Einne (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so, thanks - it's gone. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks admins! I see the IP has apparently now switched to a different address and then to probably a mobile phone. I've requested that the page be semi'd. Alexbrn (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've given it a one-week semi-protection, but would not object if anyone thinks it needs longer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And I've blocked that IP - if they hop again, it looks (at the moment) like a relatively small range that could be blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Re-created drafts of a G5-deleted page
The recently created draft pages Draft:Suparat Bencharongkul, Draft:Suparatana Bench and Draft:Sup Bench appear to be a re-creation of the page Suparatana Bencharongkul, which was G5 deleted as a result of this SPI. I don't know whether the drafts are identical copies. Should the drafts be G5-tagged as well, and the creators added to the SPI? --Paul_012 (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * All four pages are substantially similar. Blocked and  for being obvious socks. MER-C 09:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Tvurta - again.
Straight out of a 31hour block by Ymblanter on 11th March, Tvurta is again adding unsourced interpretations to Harry Potter articles, with no indication of changing their behaviour
 * Addition of "Professor" to Snape's name - after being reverted on this before
 * Addition of OR for occupation on Harry Potter article

Tvurta is still not responding to any request to discuss their edits, nor are they using edit summaries - in fact a look at edit history shows that they've never used an edit summary, but they have been asked to do so here.

Edits were made to HP after an L4 warning was placed on their talk page

Given the number of attempts to reach out on the editors talk page - and talk pages of the various articles - nothing seems to be getting through. Chaheel Riens (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Since this editor is fresh off a block and immediately returned to various types of disruptive editing, I have blocked them for one week, with a firm admonition against resuming these behaviors. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Vandal-only IP range needs blocking
Nothing but disruption has come from the range Special:Contributions/2605:FE80:2100:A01E:0:0:0:0/64. Is it time for a rangeblock? Binksternet (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Webhost block of Special:Contributions/2605:FE80:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 renewed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That'll get it. Binksternet (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Paid editing and Mike Duffy article
During the 2015 trial of Canadian Senator Mike Duffy an individual named Mark Bourrie testified that he had been paid to edit Duffy's article. According to the National Post article "Mike Duffy's payment for combating Internet trolls was funnelled through a friend's firm, court hears"


 * "I thought it was Mike Duffy’s money,” said Mark Bourrie, a freelance writer and historian who once occupied the desk next to Duffy in Parliament’s workroom for journalists. The two were friends long before Prime Minister Stephen Harper put the CTV broadcaster in the Senate in 2009 and Bourrie had been happy to help Duffy get vicious claims about him removed from his Wikipedia page and YouTube videos in which he appeared.this news item).

It appears that this never came to the attention of Wikipedia. I have noticed that there are editors heavily editing both articles to this day and I'm wondering if admins and checkusers can look into it and the articles? 96.44.212.221 (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I have looked at this for a little while and found some, shall we say, coincidences. When I've written it up, I will contact a couple of ArbCom members and checkusers via email, though I suspect checkuser will not be useful due to the length of time that has passed since the original edits.  I am not going to post it here per our outing policy. Black Kite (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

User:SteveDehner repeatedly adding original research and making personal attacks
I have already reported at No_original_research/Noticeboard, which has the edit links. This user added original research to several articles, left nonsense personal attacks on my talk page, and has now made more personal attacks in the reverts of my removals of the OR. This user clearly has no interest in being a respectful contributor who can follow the rules, and I have no interest in continuing to interact with him. Reywas92Talk 00:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this Copyvio?
User:Michaelmarilyn appears to be adding copyvio text to the article Tara Chambler and possibly other articles as well. Can someone please look?: 8.37.179.254 (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's clearly WP:COPYVIO, but seems to be confined to this one article. The pattern of inaccurate edit summaries is universal however. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Page semi-protected by BOZ . However that might not do the trick, as User:Michaelmarilyn is already auto confirmed. Temp full protection may be needed. Note that User:Michaelmarilyn using misleading edit sums to add clear copy-vios  . In fact a look at their contribs shows that the only edit sum they've ever used is "Fixed typos". I've warned user .  Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n! 21:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping per your recent page protection, page may need temp full protection instead of semi. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n! 21:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for letting me know. I already have the page on my watchlist, so if the user ignores the warnings I think it is fair to block them instead of resorting to further protection. That said, do you think I should remove the protection from the article? BOZ (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If there is only one problem editor, then per WP:PP In addition, administrators may apply temporary semi-protection ... when blocking individual users is not a feasible option I think the page could be unprotected. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n! 21:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I have revdel'd the copyvio's. <b style="font-family:Century Gothic"> Dloh Cier  ekim </b> 06:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Third report about RBL2000 and Venezuelan articles
Summary: has disruptive discussion on Venezuela-related talk pages for the third time

Diffs:


 * Use of the term "censor" against the admonishment to not to "use 'you', 'censor,' or 'revise history'" 1
 * Unreliable sources: 1, 2
 * Assuming bad faith on other editors: 1

Information about previous warnings:
 * Special:Diff/884265375 - Level Four Warning by
 * First incident report by
 * Second incident report by

Background: Yesterday I filed a checkuser request of because their behavior led me to believe there was enough evidence of an edit pattern of a sockpuppet account. Now that the checkuser demonstrated that the accounts are unrelated and that investigation was closed, I think the best course of action may be to open again a discussion regarding if an administrative action is needed. RBL2000 was given advice on how to improve editing, but they didn't seem interested; on the contrary, when notified that the discussion was closed because "the posting editor agreed to a 'last chance.'", they replied by saying "Wish it was also last chance for him, lying SOB." RBL2000 started editing on Venezuelan-related articles with a similar pattern as before only five days after the discussion was closed. If I count correctly they have already been given two "last chances", so a community ban may be in order. I'd recommend to examine if any of this behaviour is repeated in articles about North Korea. Pinging involved editors: --Jamez42 (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * You couldn't get 'em with a SPI, so you're trying again here? How does the clean SPI report improve your position? <b style="font-family:Century Gothic"> Dloh Cier   ekim </b> 08:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't about "getting" an user, I'm notifying the admins and the users involved that the behavior has not improved despite several warnings. Quoting the last closing user, "RBL2000 should be aware that if the other editors do not see improvement, they will probably bring them back to ANI and the result will probably be different." Sockpuppet investigations only discuss evidence related to other accounts, regardless of policy violations; for example, as it can be seen in the investigation request, I provided diffs on bare URLs referencing as evidence, even though it hasn't been discussed in the noticeboard. I think that other users that have followed better the case should give their opinion, but I thought it was important to bring the issue to the noticeboard. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * SandyGeorgia is right. The NYTimes is more clearly reliable than the grayzone. You should try a more neutral voice using the Times. <b style="font-family:Century Gothic"> Dloh Cier  ekim </b> 08:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I can see how other editors have problems with your sources. Why are we here? Again? A dispute over sources? It shouldn't need ANI to sort this. <b style="font-family:Century Gothic"> Dloh Cier  ekim </b> 08:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a collaborative project. People offering feedback about collaboration and problem areas is not stalking. People are trying to work with you. <b style="font-family:Century Gothic"> Dloh Cier   ekim </b> 08:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * RBL2000 has not edited since Monday. Hard to have a conversation. This is our third thread. <b style="font-family:Century Gothic"> Dloh Cier  ekim </b> 13:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * On the bright side, RBL2000 has been better at discussing than before and has branched out into less controversy ridden areas. Be nice to here from MJL and . <b style="font-family:Century Gothic"> Dloh Cier   ekim </b> 13:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I will be honest edits like this concern me. If we are going to say that the CIA had any involvement in a break-in on a North Korean embassy, then we certainly can find better sources than El País to cite for it. I will defer to 's judgement in the matter, though. I rather would want to hear from since I haven't a clue about anything concerning this. Hope that helps some! :) &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not see anything wrong with using one of Spain's best newspapers as a source for something that happened in Spain. The story has since been picked up by BBC, Tbe Guardian, Fox News and other outlets. TFD (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with using El Pais here; there are, though, in the diff given above real indications of the WP:CIR issues that have been a factor in this situation all along. For starters, there is copyvio in the text sourced to El Pais. Since there have already been FOUR (not three) reports of the ongoing problems here, with exactly ONE admin paying attention while non-admins close and archive discussions, and many people promising to watch over and help this editor, yet doing nothing when the problems continue (as they have), I find little point in using my editing time to work up all the diffs. Just before Jamez42 filed this report, RBL continued personalizing on talk, as they have since Dlohcierekim's first warning. If someone deals with the copyvio, and deals with the fact that the very first warning given in the first thread has not been heeded and continues to be breached, and if any one of the people who claim to want to mentor this user actually do that, follow their edits, and remind them to stop personalizing discussions, then maybe it would be worthwhile for me to weigh in with all the diffs.  I also find it curious that we do not hear from .  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well said &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Note:, I am (global rename). The best way to ping me is to now , , or . Cheers! &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 13:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You might have put that on Jamez42's page, rather than here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Jamez42 saw it, so I think I was good. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I get what you mean now. That's certainly noted for the future. Thank you, &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism by Tnypr
Persistent vandalism and edit warring. Last time, this user continually added unsourced year and mislead the chronology to the James Blunt singles "High", "Goodbye My Lover" and "Wisemen". He is still changing the release year and chronology. I've also request a protection but is denied it. The user has been warned multiple times in this case in his talk page. He is acting on these page now. See the link for his recent disruption:

"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/887271432". 51.75.95.140 (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Lawsuit talk by Cold Fusion 2019


This user contacted (aka jzg) about an ongoing lawsuit against Wikipedia. WP:NLT seems to apply to this, but I'm honestly not 100% sure.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you mean jps? -Roxy, the dog . wooF 19:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I did... I don't even have a good excuse for that.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, you have a decent excuse for that; CF19 left an identical message for JzG. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh! That's where I saw that... somehow mixed up ජපස's signature with  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've indef'd Cold Fusion 2019 for NOTHERE. Their ONLY two edits are to post about a lawsuit filed against Wikipedia? Chances are it's very likely a sock as well. Either way, block applied. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my guess is SF-banned User:Abd. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw this elsewhere. CF2019 is not the one doing the suing. I am not sure NLT applies in this case. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;"> spryde |  talk  19:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just because CF19 says they aren't the ones doing the suing, doesn't mean they aren't the ones doing the suing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI if you're interested in the plaintiff's perspective - I couldn't access the actual lawsuit. [] <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really. I just remember him from long ago in the WP community and other groups. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;"> spryde |  talk  19:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if this is not the person pursuing the legal case, they are making demands based on the legal case, and I'd say NLT very much applies. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

IMO, the WP:NLT policy says that "while you may sue in a court of law, Wikipedia is not the place for legal disputes" and that users "are typically blocked from editing while the threats are outstanding". A block is removed if the threat is "genuinely and credibly withdrawn". Should a user make good on their threat, and the lawsuit is unresolved, I think a block would still be appropriate is the same spirit as this policy. And the parallel for a "genuinely and credibly withdrawn" would be the legal resolution of any lawsuits. (Maybe this could be proposed as an amendment to NLT through a discussion at VPP?)  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * How to put this. "I ain't da guy, sees? But what you did to dis guy was bad, sees? So, if you know what's good for ya, sees." Clearly a legal threat and clearly a ham-handed attempt to disown it. <b style="font-family:Century Gothic"> Dloh Cier  ekim </b> 05:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Technically it's not a legal threat if the lawsuit is already filed. The same NLT principles apply, though. Ongoing litigation shouldn't be discussed on-wiki because, inter alia, anything that's said about the lawsuit could be used as evidence in the lawsuit and that would make WMF's lawyers pull their hair out (if they have any). Maybe NLT should be updated to say explicitly that making legal threats or discussing ongoing litigation is prohibited. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 15:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe that, if it becomes necessary for ජපස and JzG to defend against this suit, the WikiMedia Foundation should help them do so. (I realize this may not be the best place for this comment. But, where is the best place?) Cardamon (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Osanna M. Kazezian-Rosa' auto bio
Since the last week or so, the user User:Osanna M. Kazezian-Rosa has been trying to create an autobiography of herself. The page was deleted more than 4 times, and yet is being created. People have explained her about notability policy but she doesn't seem to have read it or understood it.


 * Based on her talkpage, She seems to be a children's book author. Her nearby library decided to have a site with all their authors having links to a wiki page of their own(just the link). This user too has her page on that site and created a corresponding wiki page since she believes wikipedia to be a catalog, I genuinely believe its not vandalism, but a case of a misinformed user. But she does not seem to be responding or caring about the warnings at all.Daiyusha (talk) 05:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * She practices yoga and enjoys hiking in nature. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 11:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I used to practice yoga and still enjoy hiking in nature. I left her some more educational material. She still has a sandbox up that needs sourcing. <b style="font-family:Century Gothic"> Dloh Cier  ekim </b> 04:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

User Nelatti
User has been first informed, then warned and finally blocked — three times — for insisting on adding unsourced and interpretive content. The user is just as difficult to work with in the Commons — I know it is separate project, but it bears witness on the editor's attitude of not playing by the rules. My gratitude to the admin who has patiently monitored this case so far. Regards, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 12:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * To add some meat on the bones of this ANI report, Nelatti has added tons of original research at List of South African slang words, for instance. Though we don't censor, I think the latter example is tonally questionable: "...a polite way to say you need to shit as soon as possible." The bulk of this user's contributions seem to be editorial in nature, pulled from his own experience or knowledge rather than sourced material. Efforts to convince him to add references have not been successful. See this discussion from 2017. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Christchurch mosque shootings
There is currently an RFC ongoing about whether the suspects names can be included in the article (Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings). One of the suspects names has been widely published and it is becoming difficult to keep it off the page. Considering this is a BLP concern is it possible to create a tempory edit filter to prevent the name bring added until we reach consensus at the talk page. More eyes would be useful in any case. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

If this is not possible could we at least get an edit notice? AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I posted five good references. so long as it is worded appropriately there should be no problem. it's unlikely to cause problems because major international news outlets have already published the name. furthermore, it will become difficult to edit the page because they've started using the name in the headlines and the name is likely to appear in any new references anyway. the arguments against it were that by using the name will only grant power to the forces of evil. Verify references (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say the main argument against was WP:BLPCRIME (policy wise at least). AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 09:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

This has been interesting. The consensus is clear at the rfc. In fact if anything it is even clearer since posting this. And I say that as someone on the other side of it. This page is probably the most watched page in the encyclopaedia and BLP and consensus are supposed to be our most sacred tenants. Yet nothing. Maybe its a weekend thing. No one gives a shit about a mass murderer and its not like we are in danger of upsetting him anyway (he livestreamed it for fucks sake so is obviously up for attention). I know RFC is a bit of a hit and run process and I would not blame anyone given the massive shitfest the talkpage has become (someone running through with oneclickarchiver would be doing a huge favour - I feel too involved myself). Anyway the name has been prominent in the article for a while now and I haven't noticed any objections (its a pretty hard page to follow so apologies if I missed some) outside the RFC so it may as well just stay there unless someone feels in an enforcing mood. Not sure if this is an issue to be concerned about with other less obvious cases, but that may be something for another day. Anyway I will try to keep out the names of the other less prominent suspects for now. This can probably be closed. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 09:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Does the RfC apply to the current events portal?
While the main thing here seems resolved... What about Portal:Current events/2019 March 15? Does the RfC apply there? If not, should there be one? Madness Darkness 13:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it wouldn't. ansh 666 19:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

my talk page is being vandalized
review my edit history. look at the articles i've written for context. make a decision. I dont want to participate in the wiki project anymore if it's like this. I dont see any substantive reason for the warning and the warning message is written to make me look bad. I'm not getting any reasonable replies. all or nothing, just delete this account if you think it's inappropriate.

Verify references (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Howdy hello! I understand that warnings don't feel good. But the warnings are just that: only cautionary notes about behavior. Even folks who've been on this project for years and made tens of thousands of edits still get warned about things. The warnings on your talk page asked that you be civil and not use pejorative language. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and we prefer to keep curses and pejoratives out of interactions. We invite you to continue editing Wikipedia, but remind you that there are standards for editing and interacting. TLDR: you are free to keep editing, but please don't use slurs. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki//b/tard
 * https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=%2Fb%2Ftard
 * https://gawker.com/5609419/4chan-founder-tries-to-explain-b-tard-to-federal-prosecutors
 * it's not hateful language by any means. it's a term used with ownership among his community. the content i posted was specifically about that. if you want to debate that stupid people make bad choices, i'm happy to dig up old books i havnt read in 10 years for references to debate it but i stand by what i said. The shooter is just a retard from the internet not some ex-mil serbian nationalist like news sources were suggesting earlier in the day.
 * Verify references (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Uh oh. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 22:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you don't see how using the word "retard" as a pejorative is offensive, then we have a problem. Competency is required at Wikipedia, and that term is highly offensive for people with intellectual disabilities, and those who care for people with intellectual disabilities. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you think its offensive, consensus on Wikipedia holds that its pejorative use is very offensive. My recommendation to you is that if you'd like to continue editing Wikipedia, you should pledge to not use offensive language and to be civil, retract your above statement, and not attempt to argue whether or not it was offensive. You were warned already by DrMies to never use the term ever again, and yet you immediately and brazenly disregarded that You are on very thin ice here.  Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

imagine you made an edit to say...Arab–Israeli conflict and all people could see was a warning description saying, "NEVER CALL PEOPLE THAT NAME EVER AGAIN" you may as well be banned because people will only twinkle the **** out of anything you post anyway. the notice should reflect the offence. Verify references (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that the notice did reflect the problem. The warning template was a template warning about disruptive editing. While you may not have intended to be disruptive, its outcome was disruptive. An action that impedes the building of the encyclopedia, such as using a conversation stopping slur, is considered disruptive. Thus you were given a standard disruptive editing warning, with an addendum dealing with your specific action. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about the incivility of calling someone a tard if the person in question is the mosque shooter. But yeah, Verify References, we supposedly aim for a more decorous writing style when we can manage it. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

If Verify Thinks that that Word is Ok then I think we Have a Boomerang Situation Jena  (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Intriguingly, this user reminds me of, whom some of you may remember, and who retired at about the time Verify references got started. Also similarly, Verify references has now retired. <b style="font-family:Century Gothic"> Dloh Cier  ekim </b> 05:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Something that Beyond My Ken also noticed in the last, almost boomerang inducing, ANI filed by Verify. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * IMHO, if we so lack in an ability to collaborate collaboratively on a collaborative project, and if we hand out words that require oversight in our edit summaries, it is perhaps for the best if we retire from the field so to speak. <b style="font-family:Century Gothic"> Dloh Cier   ekim </b> 05:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As the user has "retired", I'd like to indef block them until they affirm they will not use offensive pejoratives in the future. <b style="font-family:Century Gothic"> Dloh Cier   ekim </b> 06:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Augurar
Diffs:


 * Previous discussions:


 * Arbitration Enforcement Request
 * 3RR noticeboard


 * Previous Augurar warnings:
 * Discretionary sanctions in post-1932 politics of the United States articles
 * Templating the regulars
 * Discretionary sanctions in Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
 * 3RR warning
 * 1RR warning


 * Previous IP warnings:


 * Relation to IP:

Background:

Yesterday I expressed my concerns to user that they have been using a dynamic IP to edit after they have received several warnings edit warring and reminded about discretionary sanctions regarding post-1932 politics of the United States and the Syrian Civil War. They recently have edited about the US stance on Venezuela, although the interest in the topic goes back months. I fear that this could be to avoid detection and administrative actions. Pinging --Jamez42 (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Canadian IP socks
50.115.180.226 is another Canadian IP sock that is doing disruptive editing. There has been quite a few of these. Last night, I needed my talk page protected. It might be time to put Mark Bourrie under page protection. These socks have targeted my talk page and that entry in an outing campaign. I suspect it's one obsessed person. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Shakil9600


The concern I have regarding this user is that they are consistently removing the R2 speedy deletion tag on the mainspace version of the page (1st page link) after I had moved the page to draftspace (2nd page link). I have sent them messages asking them to be patient with the deletion of the mainspace article and edit the draftspace version instead, however they have ignored my pleas and continued working on the page in mainspace without even acknowledging the version in draftspace (with the exception of the single submission without further improvement). I was originally going to send the page to AfD, but decided against it favoring a redirect per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Obviously, this attempt failed. I just want to see to it that this user acknowledges that their work is still present in the draftspace and edit that version instead. Jalen D. Folf  (talk)  19:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User is clearly unsure how Wikipedia works. They want the page deleted yet they continue to remove the deletion templates. I left a message on their talk page telling them what was going on, because they left messages on the talk page on the . I don't think they are acting maliciously.--Breawycker (talk to me!) 20:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * not sure it is log out edit or not, just restart the article from the redirect, and blanking Draft:Bajpara High School, effectively cut and paste move to revert the drafting (see Drafts, it is legit to do so). Matthew hk (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * BTW it looks like logout edit or meat sock, since the ip also edited in Uthali Union, an article created by Shakil9600. As a separate issue, Afd had started at Articles for deletion/Bajpara High School. Just there is no problem of blanking again. Matthew hk (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * for making the AfD. Should have done that myself. I'm surprised I haven't heard back from them about them about the whole speedy deletion thing. Wasn't trying to imply what the IP was doing was wrong was just trying to ask the user if that was them. Probably shouldn't have used that template.Breawycker (talk to me!) 21:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

LTA cross-wiki targeted harassment - global rangeblock needed
meta:Special:CentralAuth/Slursbawls meta:Special:CentralAuth/Allanpooh meta:Special:CentralAuth/Liremoles meta:Special:CentralAuth/Osmanliked and apparently forgot to log in here

Same behavior as before. Unless there is a global rangeblock, theoretically this user can continue harassing me forever. Cross-wiki abuse in this fashion seems like a particularly exploitable loophole that hasn't been much addressed. Might be someone who got themselves indeffed here previously. Would CU/LTA page be necessary? <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:#DC143C">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 00:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to go to SRG to report cross-wiki abuse. Unfortunately, English Wikipedia admins can't do anything about it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Should I file a global steward CU request first? <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:#DC143C">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 00:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's probably not necessary. Checkusers and stewards usually do that automatically when it's necessary.  I didn't realize how busy the checkusers were until I became one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the (currently blocked) range for our favourite ranting idiot over here is 99.203.28.0/23 - which unfortunately is Sprint (though it does seem to have had some effect here, so...). Black Kite (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought I was your favorite ranting idiot :-( Leviv <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 03:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Need more eyeballs – Amerocentric disruption from Greater Chicago
A new user and an IP range from Greater Chicago have been changing some statements in music articles to have the opposite meaning, without any supporting references. The IPs have been doing this stuff for a couple of months, but today the username was registered to revert back to the IP versions.

The IP range is Special:Contributions/2601:243:400:F535:0:0:0:0/64. Examples of disruption include:
 * Making rock 'n' roll start in the 1940s instead of the 1950s
 * Making heavy metal originate from the US instead of the UK
 * Reducing the origin of thrash metal to just the US
 * Removing the UK as a founding location for industrial rock
 * Deciding that indie rock started in the US
 * That "America invented punk"

Apparently, Honethefield98 is angered by seeing his favorite music genres represented as having originated overseas. His Amerocentric stance is not supported by the writings of music journalists and musicologists. Combined with the IPs, he is past 3RR now. I'm signing off for the night, so I hope someone can look at this mess and figure out what to do. Binksternet (talk) 07:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * What are you even talking about here? YOU are angry that your favorite music genres didn’t originate in the UK or elsewhere. Punk started at CBGB nightclub, and was pioneered by The Ramones and Iggy and the Stooges. The US invented punk, it is safe to say. The Punk Rock Wikipedia article has been appropriately written to say so. Indie rock was a term that is interchangeable with Alternative Rock, describing the same type of music that was popular and arose in both countries throughout the 80s. Their pages say this. I’m sorry if I removed the UK as a founding location for industrial, I meant to add the US because the article itself mentions Chicago as an originating location but failed to include the US in its “country of origin” section. Thrash Metal was a sub-genre started in the US. I edited the Heavy Metal section to include the US, as the History section of that particular page explicitly mentions a vast array of originating American acts and genres. Rock ‘n’ Roll first arose in the late-1940s. All of these edits you’re taking issue with are literally just expansions on what people have already written. I’m not stating facts or statistics that would need to be backed up by sources. You are the one getting mad at me for being “Amerocentric”...yes, I am literally talking about American musical history on an American Popular Music page. How do you honestly think you have an argument here? My behavior wasn’t contrarian or aggressive. I expanded upon what the article already said and deleted incorrect information that 1) wasn’t true and 2) didn’t bother to talk about the American involvement of invented a certain popular music genre on an “American popular music” page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honethefield98 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Swarm beat me to it, but it's clear that there's POV pushing and other disruptive editing that's occurring by this user. The account has been blocked for 31 hours indefinitely.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked indef - Per OP. The 31 hour block was actually a mistake, and I have indeffed, per my original intent. Glad to see Oshwah agrees with my call here. The user is free to appeal and offer amends, via the normal unblock process. ~Swarm~   {talk}  07:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Swarm - Ah, perfect. I thought that an indef block was more appropriate, but I didn't bother to ask about it. ;-) I agree that the user needs to go through an unblock appeal or unblock request before being allowed to edit again (hence the indefinite block). There's too many past issues (edit warring, neutral point of view violations, addition of unsourced content, etc) as well as uncivil messages that he/she left Binksternet on his/her user talk page. Action was definitely needed in order to prevent additional disruption to the project.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Large scale vandalism being committed on Requested articles/Arts and entertainment since 04:43, 14 March 2019
Not sure who I should report this problem since it is very unusual. It appears that some person(s) is/are rapidly creating new accounts for the express purpose of creating mischief on Requested articles/Arts and entertainment and possibly other pages. Many of the accounts are being used for just one or two edits before being abandon for a new account, so a simple editing block on these accounts will not stop this behavior. Someone will monitor this page for at least a few days. Below is a list of just some of the suspicious contributors:



This is just a small sample since there are probably ~dozen or so user accounts that not list above that can be found in the history page for Requested articles/Arts and entertainment that are following the same pattern with more being created every day. Not sure who has the administrative power to find out the true source of this vandalism and shut it down since this distraction interferes with legitimate requests. Thank you in advance. -- 108.71.214.235 (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've only gone through some of the listed accounts above, but so far it looks like the users are crossing suggested article items off the list to say "I'm going to write this article", followed by attempts to actually do so. All of the attempts I've seen so far show the user(s) starting to try and write something in a draft or their sandbox page, but then stop part-way and without finishing or publishing anything. I would suggest undoing the edits crossing out the items from the list if the article wasn't written and saved to the mainspace. So far, however, these seem like good faith edits and attempts to write an article, not something that sticks out at me as being vandalism or bad-faith disruption or abuse.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It appears this may be for an educational project, which might explain why all the accounts were registered near the same time and all chose a topic off a list to write about. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I don't see anything bad-faith here...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Possible account hacking (not sure if this is an appropriate board)
Hi, there was an edit made to the users sandbox using my account. I have already changed my password but would like to find out how was that possible? Was my account hacked? Are there any tools to locate an IP from where this particular edit was made? Any help or advice will be appreciated.GizzyCatBella (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A checkuser needed Checkuser can look to see if another IP accessed your account. The little flag pings them, so hopefully one can look at this.  But in my experience, this is much more likely the result of an accidental mouse click causing an unintended rollback.  Were you looking at that page, or that user's contribs, or was that page on your watchlist, or do you review pages in the recent changes log? If so, then the likelihood of a misclick goes up even more. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC) I meant to add: if you use a touchscreen to edit, the likelihood skyrockets... --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems to be an isolated Twinkle edit. Is that relevant?  Esowteric + Talk  15:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Checkuser comment: I see no evidence that your account was accessed from a device or IP other than the one you've been consistently using for the past three months. Might you have fat-fingered that Twinkle rollback, or could another person have used your device? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As for being the appropriate board, it's fine. If you're concerned about privacy you can also email or email the Arbitration Committee to look into it privately. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have Twinkle installed (I think). That is a tool to edit Wikipedia correct? No, nobody else is using my computer so it was my fault then. Thank you all so much for your quick help, I really appreciated it. All sort of thoughts came through my mind. Thanks again. GizzyCatBella (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, the password change should eliminate any further possibility of unauthorized use. I also have my PC screensaver locked just in case. Hopefully it's a strong password. <b style="font-family:Century Gothic"> Dloh Cier  ekim </b> 15:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I always leave my computer unattended when I throw large parties. Then I have colorful signs in the house saying "Wikipedia hacking - follow the arrows". It's a bit Tolkienesque but many of my guests think it's far better than charades.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How do I get an invitation to one of these parties? Natureium (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I can be bribed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Nobody was using my computer, grandchildren still in bed, so it had to be me. I logged into my computer and soon after I received a message about the rollback. I didn't even know that I'm able to do rollbacks. Password has been changed anyway for something really good. Thank you all for your help again. I appreciate it. GizzyCatBella (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * None of this makes sense. First, you don't have rollback, but rollback wasn't used, Twinkle was. Second, you don't have Twinkle installed. Third, why on earth would you be editing Icewhiz's sandbox? It takes more than just a misclick to even be on that page. Finally, even if someone crept into your house and used your computer, I don't see how they could use your account to do perform the action at issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think you need to install Twinkle anymore; isn't it a gadget now? GCB has made edits with "TW" in the edit summary a few times this year.  That edit summary is a bog standard "rollback using Twinkle" edit summary; all you have to do is accidentally click "rollback" while looking at a diff, watchlist, contribs list, page history, or recent changes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe you're right. That was one of the points I made I wasn't confident in. I believe if you change the standard options for Twinkle, you have to have a subpage for that, and GCB doesn't have it. I also had looked through GCB's contributions but didn't see any Twinkle use - I must've missed it. Can you sort a user's contributions by tag? Anyway, thanks for the correction.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was curious too as to why a sandbox revision or my user contribs were open on the screen (for a cat or fat finger to press) - so I asked. However, they blanked the TP section which I thought was somewhat rude, I suppose I could AGF a RAT hack (e.g. Back Orifice) - however in that case their setup is still compromised (as a RAT hacker would have access to their logged in browser).Icewhiz (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think (but am not sure) that resetting your password also resets your session, so if someone was accessing a device you had left logged in, it would then be logged out and no longer an issue. In any case that's not what happened here. If a malicious program has opened a backdoor on their system, that's different, but this was one edit and pretty close in time to other edits they made. This is more likely accidental than malicious, in my opinion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Do you have cats? I don't leave my computer logged in at home when I'm away because my cats have done some incredibly odd things with it in my absence. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL, I have a cat, yes :). Not hard to guess. ---> GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

User:JohnTopShelf
I originally filed a AN3 report on the editor (here) for multiple 1RR violation in 48 hours, but upon reviewing their User talk comments, their incivility is glaring.

This user seems to have a history of inserting personal attacks, trolling, and snide comments under the guise of WikiLove messages. Just to name a few:. User account is 6 years old, was shown BLP and AP Ds notices back in August and February, but shows a complete disregard for consensus. The very rich history of warnings on their talk page isn't convincing that this isn't a WP:NOTHERE account. Actions may be required for this such rigorous violations. <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:#DC143C">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 03:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: I have blocked the user for 72 hours to stop their blatant, repeated edit warring. That should not prevent a discussion here about whether there should be additional or longer sanctions for their disruptive behavior. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In the latest edit-warring spat they have also violated WP:COPYVIO. Please see the details in my comment at the article talk. Dr.   K.  03:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I see this is JohnTopShelf's second block. blocked them for 48 hours in February. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have noticed this editor's behavior over the past few weeks. To me, he seems incapable of working collaboratively with other Wikipedia editors. His edit-warring and POV-pushing on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and ludicrous edit requests like this one - "of course, I understand that Wikipedia editors and administrators are overwhelming liberals who no doubt share the opinion that President Trump is a liar" - are really indications of little to no willingness to work with other editors . In addition, his WikiLove taunts fall way outside the boundaries of basic civility and respect that editors should be exuding here. Zingarese talk  ·  contribs  04:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I reverted this editor at a BLP about a month ago, and it resulted in a lengthy discussion split between my talk page and their talk page, which was a very pleasant disagreement in which I was left with two barnstars, two beers, a goat and a cookie. Unfortunately, the editor was blocked just a few hours later. Since coming off the block, there are more warnings on the talk page and now another block for edit warring. I haven't see any personal attacks from them myself–in fact they seem rather polite to me–and they clearly can communicate, write prose, and cite sources. While the account is old, they have very few edits, and mostly in the last two years. Their source selection is lopsided but other than a few Daily Mail links its mostly Fox News which is allowed. The POV is definitely there in their edits, but not to an unusual degree. The problem IMO is the editor's steadfast refusal to use or respect the consensus system that is used here in Wikipedia. If they went to the article talk pages, presented their sources, and shopped their copy like everyone else, they'd probably get a lot further. But they just keep edit warring and wikilove-arguing. I feel like they could be a useful contributor if they wanted to. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 04:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That discussion on your user talk looked like an intimidating wall of text with an astounding degree of WikiLove abuse and trolling. I'd remove it on sight per WP:DENY. <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:#DC143C">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've had such less pleasant conversations though, even with proper formatting and whatnot. I mean, haven't we all? He didn't call me any names or make any accusations. Calling another editor's statement "nonsense" and saying that Wikipedia has a left-wing bias are not outside the range of reasonable opinions to express. If it's trolling, it's very calm and polite trolling. I can live with bizarre wikilove messages if they're polite, but I can't live with habitual edit warring, and SPA POV pushing is also tiring. To me those are bigger concerns than civility or personal attacks. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 04:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The message left on my talk page was definitely sarcastic, but I sort of get the sense that this editor is under the impression that wikilove messages are the preferred way to communicate with other editors about article content -they've hardly ever used an article talk page. They also seem confused about the meaning of consensus. Maybe this is a WP:CIR problem, but I don't think they're purely trolling.  Nblund talk 17:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Copyvio update I have since found more extensive copyvios for the edit of the now blocked user. Please see this updated copyvio report for these paragraphs. Dr.   K.  05:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * More copyvios by the same user I am copying from my message at 's talkpage. It seems many of the large-scale edits to articles by this user are copyvios. Copyvio from Kansascity.com, copyvio from Washington examiner.com, copyvio from politifact.com, the usual copyvio about Greenpeace but pasted to a different article. In addition, Justlettersandnumbers has revdeled two additional copyvios from the Alexandria Cortez article: copyvio 1  and  copyvio 2.  Dr.   K.  23:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ by the same admin. ~Swarm~   {talk}  08:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding dozens of non notables to article lists


Editor was alerted to this last year by. Has responded to my concern thusly:. Many of the non notables are linked to family surnames, so as not to appear as redlinks. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I can say that I'm definitely not pleased to see Castncoot's reverts here and here to your edits and with the edit summaries he left, essentially calling your edit vandalism, implying that you're a product of sock puppetry, and that you have no policy knowledge. Have we tried going through each article and removing the people listed who don't need to be there? :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   14:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, Hi Bob! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   14:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NOTABILITY constitutes the potential for a standalone article, not that there must already be one. 2) I do suspect sockpuppetry here but cannot prove it. 3) In an article entitled "Korean Americans in New York City", a Korean surname is most certainly pertinent and notable for wikilinking, as long as it is done just once per surname. Castncoot (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please take any concerns regarding sockpuppeteering to SPI, and desist from casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Many thanks. ——  SerialNumber  54129  15:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Castncoot - I agree with your understanding of notability and the fact that it establishes whether an article should exist for the given subject. Having a requirement for a subject to already have its own article in order to be considered notable would be...... an infinite circle of logic and would make no sense, since that would mean that nobody would be notable due to the fact that having an article requires notability and then establishing notability would require an article.... lol.


 * I can assure you with the upmost confidence that this user is absolutely not a sock puppet, and he possesses a very high level of policy knowledge, experience, and dedication to the project. Can you please share the information and evidence you have that supports your accusation that this user is a sock puppet?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   15:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Initially I was going to say that I don't see how we can complain if Castncoot is including a reference for each one. But some of the references are broken and/or don't demonstrate that the person in question is a New Yorker or even that they have made more than one journalistic contribution ever. So although s/he is correct in saying that there may be potential for an article, there must be considerable doubt over whether that is actually the case. Deb (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Basically, lists of people that have a potently to be indefinitely long (such as a list of Koreans living in NYC, compare to a list of Nobel Prize Laurats), then in combination with BLP, the only people on those indefinitely long lists should be those with blue-links with very limited exemption. Otherwise these lists can attract anyone that can provide minimal sourcing to prove they exist (which is not the same sources that we require by notability). --M asem (t) 14:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please also check the sources that are intended to establish notability; there's a linkedin and links to personal websites. The notability of persons I removed from the Korean Americans article is far from established--merely being a journalist isn't enough. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm going through the lists so far, and I do see some problems. Don't get me wrong: I think that Castncoot is a good editor and he's doing a great thing by creating these lists. Compared to the editors and issues that I'm normally am asked to handle and resolve, the problems that we're seeing here with these lists are definitely minor when comparing it to someone causing vandalism, abuse, harassment, or disruption... lol. I just wanted to make that clear. :-) We just need to fix these issues that we're seeing so that these lists demonstrate and show the upmost quality, accuracy, and comprehensiveness that we can write and provide for viewing and reading. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   15:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And I have no problem with that. I only have a pet peeve when someone who's contributed nothing to an article before suddenly swoops in rudely and deletes thousand of bytes and potentially hours spent of hard work without significant discussion first. Castncoot (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Castncoot - That's completely understandable and I don't blame you for feeling that way at all. Can you and who I refer to as "Bob" (this IPv6 IP user) collaborate and go over things together so that you're both on the same page (no pun intended) and can work together to resolve some of the concerns mentioned? I'm willing to help too if required; just let me know. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   17:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * We should only include people who actually have articles in these lists because that's the only way we can be sure that we're not just including names willy nilly. And, no, it does not follow that we would end up in an infinite circle of logic and no articles at all. The fact of the matter is that articles on people are vetted by the community and survive only if the person is notable. Names in a list, on the other hand, are not reviewed by the community for notability and anyone can pop in a name and probably get away with it. I'm trying to assume good faith here but linking to surnames smells of trying to avoid having to deal with names getting removed because there are no linked articles. regentspark (comment) 16:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm taking one at random: "executive manager, five-star luxury Hotel Park Hyatt New York in Midtown Manhattan". Doesn't sound remotely notable to me and I, for one, would prefer to see a linked article to make sure that the person is actually notable enough for inclusion. --regentspark (comment) 16:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My understanding, then, is that the problem is that I "rudely swooped in"--sorry for the quotations, but there we are. The hours spent adding all those non notables now translates into a time sink for anyone who subsequently goes down the lines of inadequately referenced and unlinked people. The path forward would be for the editor who wishes to introduce the names to first create the stand alone articles, rather than deflecting by arguing that I've ventured into vandalism or using multiple accounts for no good. My first question is why these were all added to begin with. My second question is whether we remove unlinked names in these two articles en masse, or do a line item veto. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the accepted criterion for these lists is that they have to be shown notable in the sense of having an article or being  obviously  qualified for one, and there has to be evidence for their connection with the place or whatever. I normally remove any where the information given shows lack of obvious qualifications, but if there's no indication other than the name, I search to see who it is. It might be someone notable as Politician, for example. In that case I add the qualification and the reference, tho ideally I should make a stub article. (and for names removed from the list, it is unfortunately necessary to check they have not been added somewhere else equally inappropriately).  DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delayed response. First of all, requiring that there already be a standalone Wikipedia article about a notable person should be a non-starter. To begin with, this would require changing the definition of WP:NOTABILITY on Wikipedia. It would also be a great way of closing off expansion of Wikipedia when we should be putting our best efforts into growing the project, rather than stunting its growth. Now, let me also put another issue into perspective - the issue of what makes notability on this list. See, you have to remember that this is an article about notable Koreans or Korean Americans in the New York City metropolitan region. Therefore, people who are local journalists are notable because they cover the local NYC area news and will be familiar faces or names to the local population. That's what the whole purpose of these regional list articles is, to bring out people who are locally notable in their own communities throughout the world. So for example, a Jakartans in journalism article or a Koreans in Jakarta article would include people of local notability. I don't see the distinction between the notability of local politicians, who are explicitly spelled out in local Category:Municipalities in New Jersey articles, even without their own standalone articles, versus journalists. There should be no distinction between a politician and the journalist who covers those politicians (not to mention other matters as well). I hope I've explained my rationale clearly. This will encourage the growth of other similar local and regional articles as well. If you shut the process down with arbitrary rules, it's simply a disservice for our readers not to be able to refer to information about local communities by putting a chilling pall on expansion. Castncoot (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, no on all counts. We don't include people because they're known by some people in a local area. Wikipedia has notability guidelines, and those aren't moveable goalposts simply because you or I have seen someone on local tv or read their articles in the local paper. Then there's the contention that there's no distinction between a politician and the journalist who writes about them, which is amiss on a fundamental level, per WP:NOTINHERITED. We do expect that a standalone article precede a listing, as several administrators have concurred here. That's a fundamental and non-controversial premise. I'm glad I've brought this here; the misunderstanding of notability guidelines is profound, and suggests a more thorough look through the edit history, beyond the two articles I've noted. As arguments for expansion, they exist outside the realm of our guidelines. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The regional lists are not to show people that are notable in a region, but to show people in a region that also are notable beyond that. We are not a who's who database, which is the argument that you are using. We avoid having articles on people that are only known locally since we are a global encyclopedia. --M asem (t) 00:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not every admin in this thread concurs that there needs to be a pre-existing standalone article to determine notability, as you see in the discussion above. I'm obviously not an admin, but I've expressed my opinion for whatever it's worth, in the event that a policy or guideline is in the works now to be communicated to all Wikipedia editors, many (if not a plurality) of whom likely have the same understanding I do. It seems to be a circular argument with a fundamentally flawed premise that there must be a precedent standalone article to determine notability. It's the presence of adequate sourcing which determines the potential for an article and its notability. That's precisely why we don't use other Wikipedia articles as reliable sources. Also, this is a global encyclopedia to learn about locally and globally significant topics. Castncoot (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that's just not correct. Notability is based on independent coverage from secondary sources. And because of the promotional issue, WP:AUD says that topics that can only be sourced to local sources are not considered notable. We're also a who's who - just because we might be able to make these lists of all documentable people in an area doesn't mean we should.
 * This doesn't mean we absolutely need a blue-linked article, but the evidence to include should show a high likelihood that we would create a bluelinked article in the future. Such as if the person met WP:NBIO or if you can show a couple secondary sources. Keep in mind we do not have inherient notability, so just being a local politician or journalist or the like is not sufficient at all. But most of the time, these lists will only contain blue-linked names. --M asem  (t) 02:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I've added a third article above. And I've only gone back to mid-February. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added a fourth article. Take, for example, the two Hofstra university professors in the list. If we added every Indian American professor (even just the tenured ones) we'll have a book length article in place. The "locally-known" argument is completely against policy not only because it goes against our definition of notability but also it implies that an editor could add anyone they happen to know as long as they can attach a profession to their name and, perhaps, a website somewhere that verifies the existence of the person, a bar that includes almost everyone today. --regentspark (comment) 02:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's standard to only include people/objects on a list that have an article written on them. I thought that was a given. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, no. I agree with you that that's a good rule of thumb but it is not currently, to the best of my knowledge, a requirement. The only requirement is "notability" in the sense that the person would qualify for an article on Wikipedia, even if one does not correctly exist. We probably need an RfC on this but, in the meantime, I think we can safely delete names that are not sourced to independent sites that demonstrate notability. I also think that we can use WP:BRD to push the onus for demonstrating notability on the editor adding an item to the list since we're only removing names from a list rather than deleting an article. --regentspark (comment) 05:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I saw this before but wasn't totally sure that ANI is the right place to discuss it. But since we are, I think we should try to separate the issues. From what I can tell, nearly everyone agrees that for a list of the sort outlined above, every entry should be notable. This means that an article could be created on the subject that would survive AFD. I think most of us also agree that at a minimum, every entry needs a ref that establishes this notability. If someone adds a bunch of names either without sourcing or without sufficient sourcing to establish notability then they should stop. Some random hotel manager is probably not notable without further evidence of notability. There is disagreement on whether it's useful to add people who are notable before articles exist. From the little I've seen, the community has often rejected such lists when they get unwieldy i.e. there are too many people who lack articles. This is in part because with sourcing, it can be confusing to contest notability when it's not in the form of an AFD. AFAIK it isn't unheard of to impose a requirement that only blue links are allowed.  While it may seem WP:LISTPEOPLE technically only covers stand alone lists, it makes no sense that such a requirement may exist for a stand alone list but not a list within an article where it generally matters more it doesn't get unwieldy. Besides the next section seems to refer to articles. By the same token, a common solution is that all entries should be wikilinks, whether red or blue. (To articles on the subject.) This tends to make it clearer that there is a problem i.e. too many people have been added without articles.  This does create BLP risks, if we link to the red link Axe Murderer intended for the future article on the Korean American in NYC and then someone with the name Axe Murderer gets famous for something dodgy, like killing people with an axe, and one of our editors creates the article without checking existing incoming links. But still, I don't think we ever agreed red links on LPs are banned and it's not like people don't sometimes blue link a LP without checking the target is the right subject.  I definitely don't think the whole name of the person should be wikilinked to articles on their surname. These sort of WP:easter egg links are too confusing to the reader. If you click on a link for "Michelle Yeoh", you expect to end up on an article for Michelle Yeoh and not Yang (surname). If there is really cause to link the surnames, this should be only on the surname not the whole name. Frankly I'm not convinced there is sufficient reason since it's not like there will be a direct link once all the articles on these notable people are create.  I also question how well the information has been verified if we lack a stand alone article and we're just relying on one or two sources. As always, editor WP:OR should be discouraged. For example, someone with a Malaysian Chinese father and a South or North Korean mother living in New York may very well identify as a Korean Americans in New York City so may reasonably be included in such a list. They may also identify as a Chinese in New York City or something similar, but even if they do, there's no guarantee all sources are going to note that, nor the info on their parents. If their name is Jennifer Lee, linking to Lee (Korean surname) could be weird if their surname actually comes from their father's Li (surname 李).  Nil Einne (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Some good points raised by people above. But I would implore people not to turn Wikipedia into an elitist platform, but rather one that really is open and relevant to everyone. Unfortunately, the stark reality is that local journalists and businessmen of prominence within Kigali, Rwanda simply don't have the same platform to become prominent in the same way that people under the glaring lights of NYC the media capital do. If we don't encourage the acknowledgement of their local notability, IMO we are depriving the people of Rwanda and states within its vicinity the encouragement and motivation to join the Wikipedia community en masse. Wikipedia abounds with obscure local human-geographic as well as local non-human geographic topics; why can't this same notability leeway be extended to local human non-politician non-geographic topics?...something to think about. Castncoot (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To the last sentence: WP:Other stuff exists. We are certainly aware that there is bias towards the developed, English-speaking world on en-Wikipedia, but we simply can't afford to extend notability to "people who could potentially be notable under our current rules if they were located elsewhere" - that would be entirely unworkable. ansh 666 03:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Before this gets archived, is there a consensus on these articles and edits? It doesn't appear that Castncoot accepts the policy yet. 2601:188:180:1481:DC58:C3F7:4619:B4D9 (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Since we are a reliably sourced encyclopedia and not a crowd sourced one, we cannot add people to these lists with a "I happen to have heard of them" logic, whether they be from Kigali or New York. Reliable, independent sources must be made available. I don't think we need consensus to say that you can remove anyone who has an uncertain notability and leave it to the editor adding the names to demonstrate notability by providing reliable independent sources that support that assertion. That's totally in line with our policies on WP:V and the WP:BIO standard. Some "common sense" leeway is probably acceptable but a reliable, independent source is definitely a must (in other words, merely providing a link to an organization homepage is not enough). --regentspark (comment) 07:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I've done a lot of list maintenance since noticing several years ago their particular tendency towards being spammed without anyone removing the spam. To ensure we have encyclopedic lists and not something that falls into WP:NOT (directories, yellow pages, link farms, spam, guestbooks, etc.), we have things like WP:CSC and WP:LISTPEOPLE (and, well, WP:N). We don't want lists that are all inclusive with very few exceptions. Generally, it's ok to include some redlinks/blacktext in a list that can be exhaustive (discographies, lists of contributors to a work, lists of heads of state, list of letters in a given alphabet) but not for a list of examples. For those, we need to have a standard. On Wikipedia, we separate things in terms of what's notable. That doesn't, at least in an absolute sense, mean that lists of examples must all only contain blue links, but it does mean they should contain notable entries (established by our notability criteria, and supported by references that demonstrate that notability). As with anything else across Wikipedia, there's always a preference, but not a requirement, to search for sources before removing insufficiently sourced content. That goes doubly for lists of people as per LISTPEOPLE. Lists are articles where our policies and guidelines often go out the window -- many of them have few people watching, and they're very easy to say "hey, I'll add myself/my band/my company/my grandparents/someone I know who lives there". Wikipedia's policies do reproduce a lot of systemic bias from the rest of the world. To some extent this is unavoidable. The successful projects to address systemic bias work within Wikipedia's rules to ensure the representation of people from underrepresented peoples/subjects/areas who are notable according to our guidelines. It's an imperfect solution (hardly a solution at all), but while it's important to understand and keep systemic bias in mind for certain kinds of edge cases, it's hard to use it as an argument to simply put aside this or that guideline... All of this said, I don't know why we're talking about this on ANI. :) &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 13:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Several administrators have voiced skepticism as to my bringing this here. I was clear about the rationale, which I think is adequate: I attempted to remove non notables from two articles (we've since added two more articles to those above), and had these edits reverted with the suggestion that I was vandalizing or a sock puppet (?). Then I added two appropriate maintenance templates, which were also quickly removed. The issue involves a prolific editor's misunderstanding of policy. I'd like to have a record of discussion here, should I be challenged again on non controversial removals. Thank you, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Logged out editing: IP 82.165.86.117
Appeared out of the blue and leaving DS alert on user pages, lawyering, and reverting on obscure Wikipedia essays. Ignored requests for them to log in on their talk page. Need a block and a SPI. <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:#DC143C">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Without commenting upon the merits of all this, the IP is quite right to complain about the way anonymous editors get treated (which is, like garbage). Madness Darkness 22:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yawn... show where the IP is being distructive or doing something wrong. Legacypac (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe their (very short) contribs history? This: (twice) is pure disruption, especially given Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_9.
 * And don't use "Yawn..." as a prefix when you've been too damned lazy to look for yourself. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I already watchlist that page - saw the reverts before this was filed. The editors that reverted the IP should really discuss the issue on the talkpage first. I already looked at all their contributions before posting so don't call me lazy. Legacypac (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * (edit conflictx2) Did you seriously use the fact a user was editing from an IP as your explanation for reversion? WP:HUMAN Madness Darkness 23:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not disruption. If you have a redirect to a Wikipedia page, and a deletion discussion closes with no consensus, then there is definitely no consensus for having the shortcut in the Wikipedia page, and if there is no consensus for a shortcut then it gets removed, obviously.Lurking shadow (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not how "no consensus" works. There was no consensus to delete the redirect. You're in the opposite position here.--Jorm (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Deletion of pages does not happen with no consensus, usually. I didn't do that. Removal of shortcuts is obviously something different - shortcuts should be universally accepted(they suggest that you can use the shortcut without problems) plus the shortcut is longer than the page name(which renders it meaningless).Lurking shadow (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this redirect, as was obvious for every editor at the RfD, was to be used from this page. It's not a typical mainspace redirect, it's a WP:ALLCAPS one. And there was no consensus to remove it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So your "Yawn..." doesn't mean "Just ignore this, it's only tedious low-level vandalism" it's actually, "Don't mind them, they're just a logged-out experienced editor doing my 3RR and 4RR for me"? Is it you that we need to run a CU on?   Seriously unimpressed with your behaviour now. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

(Multiple ec) User:Andy Dingley accused me of sockpuppetry. SPI is the correct forum for that accusation, and I want them to retract the accusation here. Legacypac (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hip hop music disruption from Ohio needs another rangeblock
The range Special:Contributions/2600:1700:E7A0:4FC0:0:0:0:0/64 has been blocked twice by, and now the Ohioan is back at it, genre warring and generally removing stuff he doesn't like, and adding stuff he does like.

Looking for a longer block this time. Binksternet (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've extended the block to three months.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

User:RonBot trouble possibly in need of intervention

 * — xaosflux  Talk 03:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism explosion from IP 111.94.20.179
Someone please block, who is making rapid small vandal edits. For one example, at Thermometer he sabotaged the link to Daniel Fahrenheit by removing the last name "Fahrenheit". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ - though in future WP:AIV is a better venue. GiantSnowman 13:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Heh... 8 years here and that's the first I've noticed that venue. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:The Great Replacement conspiracy theory
I've semi-protected the talkpage due to the volume of trolling associated with this topic's relation to events in New Zealand and blocked a bunch of users and probable socks. A few more eyes on the subject would be helpful - there are a lot of people that are all stirred up. Nearly every subject involving racial conspiracy theories and racist extremism has seen a significant uptick in trolling, sealioning, and outright hate speech.  Acroterion   (talk)   20:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

And Unite the Right rally is seeing similar trouble.  Acroterion   (talk)   21:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Semi-protection at Unite the Right rally would be helpful. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 21:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've given it 3 days to see if it helps, and anyone else is welcome to adjust that as needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Watchlisted. MastCell Talk 14:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920 move warring
On March 9 I suggested moving a recently created page, one linked to by exactly one other page on Wikipedia besides the newly created redirects from the move warring. That suggestion was received warmly by the only editor of the article (besides a few technical edits) and no other comment was made on that for a few days so I moved the article. Concurrent to this, had been in an editorial conflict with me at Talk:Benjamin Netanyahu. Having lost that argument, with unanimous agreement against his position there, Wikieditor showed up to argue against the move at the previously discussed article four days later. I dont want to get too far into the weeds of the content here, but WP:RMUM is clear. When there is a conflict over a move performing that move is move warring. The editor knows full well that his chosen move target is contested, given it had already been reverted once. I request that the move be reversed and the article be move-protected. If this user feels his move target is appropriate he is free to open a requested move. Hounding my contributions to move a page in a way expressly prohibited by policy should not be one of the options. This is not the first time this user has hounded my contributions. To date the users only contribution to the Category namespace followed a conflict at another article. A reminder that WP:HOUNDING is inappropriate would also be useful in my view. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm adding move protection to the article now. Please file a requested move if the article should be renamed to something else. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thats only half of it though, the move warring should not be rewarded through protection. Ill file a move request if necessary, but violating policy should not result in a new status quo. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nableezy - Looking at the article's talk page, I don't see a consensus to move or keep the article title to a certain name - unless I'm missing something? Status quo isn't as important as stopping the move war and the disruption. Unless the current title violates policy or if there's a past discussion about this article's title and with a clear consensus to keep the title as a different name than it currently is, I don't favor one side over the other and I protect the page as it is (similar to WP:WRONGVERSION).  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Look at the dates of the talk page. I proposed moving the article. One user responded with agreement, with no other user saying anything until Wikieditor19920 hounded me there. The first user to say one word against a move was a week later. Yes, status quo should not be important, but this isnt a topic area where "no consensus" is not the majority close. Two users who have added absolutely nothing to the article besides changing "regime" to "system" are being rewarded through two moves that expressly violate policy. When I made my move there was unanimous consent, and complete silence for 4 days following. When both of the other moves were made they were in violation of policy. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nableezy - Fair enough. I'll go ahead and move the article back to its original title. This was not the original title, and I've moved it back to the actual original title.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nableezy - No problem. ✅. Continue the discussion with Wikieditor19920. If move warring occurs again or if the user performs any more page moves in a disruptive fashion, file another report here so that we can investigate, handle the issue, and (if necessary) take appropriate action. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nableezy has been misleading here, and this should not be rewarded. There was an agreement in the talk that "Israeli permit X" was factually inaccurate as the article was on the West Bank or oPt requiring an "in the oPt/West Bank". The STABLE version (prior to 12 March) is with "system". The "in" part was added following talk page agreement.Icewhiz (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz - Lovely..... lol. This is the reason why I just protect the article as it is and without changing anything, and then have the users involved file a move request if it needs to change. I should've stuck to that. ;-) Alright.... I'll change it back.... :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz - Can you confirm... what exactly was the article's title originally before any moves were performed? I'm trying to locate the original move log to make sure that I'm changing it to the title that it was. Thanks -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Israeli permit system from Feb 2019. First move is this diff. The TP has consensus it should be "in opt" or "in West Bank" (more or less the same). No consensus on regime va. System.Icewhiz (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

It looks like "Israeli permit system" was the article's original title, and if it was agreed upon that adding "in the West Bank" to the title was acceptable as Icewhiz pointed out, then yes - the article should be "Israeli permit system in the West Bank". I'm going to change it to this title and then that's it - any future renames will need to be performed at Requested moves.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * you are misreading the talk page. The article was created by at yes system. He agreed to the move to regime. And then there was unanimous agreement for a week, with no other users editing either the article or talk page. Thats fine, I get this is complicated. But you are very much rewarding out of process moves here, and hounding at that. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry... you'll need to file a move request at Requested moves; I'm not making any more page moves due to arguments made here by any involved users. The article title as it is right now ("Israeli permit system in the West Bank") is what the article was originally before any recent moves were performed, and is also what the title would have been had I just done what I should've done (and what I usually do when applying protection to a page) - and left it alone. Other than the move warring, is there anything else I need to look into?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine, do what you want, but you are rewarding move warring. That is unequivocal here. Two users made moves that are disallowed by policy and you are allowing it to stand. Based off an involved users dishonest summary. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't about who is correct and who is wrong; this is about putting an end to the disruption and helping everyone involved to resolve the matter appropriately and peacefully. Wikipedia is not about winning. I need to take the appropriate actions that are appropriate, fair, and (above all else) the right thing to do - and I believe that the action I took (not touch anything, the net result after the move I made and the second move undoing my first move) was the right thing to do here. I'm not doing this to "award any wrongdoers" or make life difficult or frustrating for you; I'm doing what's necessary to fairly and neutrally help resolve the matter and point everyone to the next step in the process. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   21:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Regime is a non-neutral title and should be avoided, that is why we should use system which also makes sense which is what it is, it is a permitting system. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * In terms of move warring here - there was a move on 12 March by Nableezy. It was objected to well prior to becoming stable (4 days). The 12 March move by Nableezy was OK - but it was challenged. The only user who moved the article twice was Nableezy - moving back on 19 March to regime after it was challenged. I will also note that this article was forked off the occupation article - which is well watched.Icewhiz (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * When you performed your move there was opposition to it. I reverted it. Please do not misrepresent this situation. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

As Icewhiz has, ironically, dishonestly accused me of being dishonest, Ill lay this out, with diffs and dates. I was not dishonest in my description Oshwah, Icewhiz was. And he performed a move that had explicit opposition to. When I moved the page there was unanimous consent and complete silence for four days prior. Please do not allow these gaming tactics of making assertions without evidence by Icewhiz to succeed. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Article created Feb 2 by Nishidani at Israeli permit system
 * Article is suggested to be moved March 9 by myself to regime
 * Agreed to by the only editor, besides minor technical edits, of that page, Nishidani
 * There being no other comment for three days, I then moved the page
 * The first opposition to that move came four and a half days later here
 * We do not work on a deadline, and no one OWNs an article. The 12 March move was an OK bold move, however 3 days of discussion (proposed 9 March) are not a typical closing time for any discussion type on enwiki. I (and other editors) watch many articles - I don't respond every day to every one. The bold 12 March move was reverted well prior to this being stable.Icewhiz (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You made moves with express opposition to them. That is a straightforward violation of the move policy. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nableezy - I'm not saying that you were being dishonest at all. In a nutshell: there was a discussion to move the article from "system" to "regime". One person agreed. After three days of no additional input, you performed the page move (which is too soon; discussions should be kept open for at least one week before closing them). Someone added opposition to the discussion after you performed the move, move warring started, and now we're here. We need to backtrack to the discussion and allow it to remain open for its full allotted time before it should be closed. Had you done so, the input in opposition for the name change would've been made before you moved the article and this mess would've been avoided. It's okay, things happen and people make mistakes. It's not a big deal, but we need to stop the bickering and finger-pointing, take a few steps back, and finish out that discussion.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   21:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it was not too soon, come on. There are still less than 30 watches of that article, Id bet it is still 6 as that as the number of editors. Yes, a requested move needs to stay open for 7 days. But when there is complete silence on a matter we do not need to wait that long. And there was another period of complete silence after that. But even with 7 days there was still unanimous support for the move. The only reason there was any dispute at all was that an editor got upset that he lost an argument elsewhere so he hounded my contributions to the permit regime article. I made a move that had unanimous support. Two users made moves that express opposition. Yet those moves are being allowed to stand. Its fine, Im not even blaming you. The problem is with the users such as Icewhiz who misrepresent the situation knowing that it will get too complicated to wade there. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Whatever, its move protected and I filed a move request. But please allow an I told you so when no consensus due to counting no votes (note not actual reasons) happens. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment, is right when he says that 3 days is really too soon for such moves regardless of how legit the said move is, some users only edit Wikipedia only one or 2 times a week. I'm quite surprised by this answer of yours : No, it was not too soon, come on., i think Osh just knows very well what he's talking about. Best regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  21:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

User:SMcCandlish disregarding ban from my talk
SMcCandlish posted on my talk to query an RFC close I had made, as he is of course entitled to do.

Two rounds later, he was making maliciously false accusations of bad faith putting into my mouth the words "I get angry when when my closes are faintly criticized, and will spin implausible interpretations of what someone wrote just so I can vent".

So I ended the discussion at 0043

At 00:47 I hatted it with a ping to SMcCandlish, saying "Stay off my talk".

Meanwhile, SMcCandlish had begun  a series of edits to one of my userpages which was clearly headed This page is for discussion by invitation of the User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria. If other editors who wish to express views on the draft, please comment at User talk:BrownHairedGirl.

Those edits were timestamped:
 * 0030
 * 0044
 * 0051
 * 0056
 * 0102
 * 0103

I reverted or removed all of those, using undo wherever possible to ping SMcCandlish, and noting every time which part of "If other editors who wish to express views on the draft, please comment at User talk:BrownHairedGirl" was unclear to you???

I replied to one of the group working on that who had posted If the User:SMcCandlish is going to be part of this working group I'm out of here. I agreed wholeheartedly; we had just had a live demo of the futility of trying to discuss a disagreement with SMcCandlish.

SMcCandlish then posted again on my talk page, despite being explicitly asked to stay off it.

Please can someone who speaks the McCandlishish language try to convey to him the meaning of that "stay off my talk page" and his page is for discussion by invitation means?

I have work to be getting on with, and don't want to waste time in a sprawling edit war on my own userpages with an editor who assumes bad faith. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * did you mean t his page? --DannyS712 (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes she means "This" page which is not for "It" to disrupt. Legacypac (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC) To address some of the above, here: "we had just had a live demo of the futility of trying to discuss a disagreement with SMcCandlish" – No, what you had was a weird over-reaction to someone criticizing one of your closes, then you ignored every single substantive thing I was saying about the RfC draft (which has nothing to do with your close or my criticism of it), and censored my input from the page you directed me to, pretended to "ban" me from your user talk, then demanded 5 or 6 times that I take the RfC drafting matters to your user talk (after supposedly banning from me it), censored the material again, ignored my e-mail trying to smooth this out with you, and instead opened this bogus ANI report. You're also engaging in blatant WP:FACTION behavior with Legacypac (note the above attempt to tie this to a completely unrelated kerfuffle from last week – this is about personalized vindictiveness, not substance). This is conduct grossly unbecoming an admin. All after I repeatedly made clear to you that my only intent is helping produce an RfC that is likely to come to an actual consensus, and that we're that many of these portals need to be deleted, than an RfC is necessary, and that the community does need to establish standards for them. All this pointless drama because I dared to very mildly criticize one of your related closes (and even conceded to every point of your rebuttal but one, the "mandate" line, in which you denied the reality of having said that). Look, you had an actual ally in resolving the portal mess, whom you instead decided to dress up in an enemy costume and shoot at just for your own stress relief. Very silly. I would suggest WP:BOOMERANG, because you can't bait an editor into a "you use my talk page but you  use my talk page" trap and then ANI them for it; but I think the AN thread will have this covered. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC); revised 03:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I was drafting a WP:AN report about BrownHairedGirl's behavior in the same "incident". BHG's diffs above are a very incomplete and misleading picture. Not only is the "ban" bogus (there's not actually any such thing, per WP:USERPAGE, and especially not for an admin, per WP:ADMINACCT; what there can be is a request to stay away from someone's talk page, then not abiding by it being considered a form of disruptive editing), BHG repeatedly made demands that I take the matter under discussion  after supposedly "banning" me from it, a blatant case of WP:GAMING. So, do we want to merge these ANI and AN threads?  I'm raising ADMINACCT and WP:ADMINCOND concerns in the AN I opened.
 * Cross reference this subtread Administrators%27_noticeboard Legacypac (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So uptight and seeing conspiracy around every corner they don't even find their own jokes funny. Not a productive contributor to the discussion. Legacypac (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds self-referential to me.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: I'm done for the day, and may not be back tomorrow, at least until late. I've said all I need to say about this here at the AN thread. The short version is that BHG awareness of her intents that I did not possess at the time, and nothing excuses the "you  use my talk page but you  use my talk page" trap-baiting. This ANI is unclean hands and vexatious. However, what I really care about is the RfC that emerges, as covered at the AN thread, which is broader than this ANI one (i.e., merge in that direction if we need to consolidate the discussions). The inter-editor dispute aspects of this can just go away for all I care. While I've raised ADMINCOND concerns, I'm not pressing for anything but an admonition, and have tried twice in e-mail to let bygones be bygones about all this "malicious" finger-pointing. But that really is an AGF problem; disagreeing with someone isn't "malice".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, your massive timewasting sprawl of bad faith, misrepresentations, outright falsehoods, character attacks, smears, dismissal of multiple requests not to post on my talkpages, and allegations that I am somehow gaming the consensus-building system are a disgrace.

It appears that you have decided to

A/ throw a tantrum because your misrepresentations and repeated assumptions bad faith make you impossible to work with

B/ try to throw up enough FUD to bully me out of my attempt to work with a small balanced group to refine a draft RFC whose specific stated aim is to to ensure that all options which may command support are presented here, and not to promote my preferences.

I will pick apart some of the lies in SMcC's para above:
 * 1) weird over-reaction to someone criticizing one of your closes No, SMcC, there is  nothing weird about breaking off communication in response to your malicious claim that I was spin implausible interpretations of what someone wrote just so I can vent.  That outrageous allegation that I am acting dishonestly in bad faith makes dialogue impossible.
 * 2) ignored every single substantive thing I was saying about the RfC draft It is being drafted by a small group. We did not invite your input, and given your conduct earlier I do not want to engage with you. I have no interest in dealing with any of the substance of what is said by someone who behaves as badly as you have done in the last 12 hours.  I am astonished by your extraordinary sense of entitlement that you believe you have some right to go to a page explicitly for the use of 5 editors, and post vast screeds to it, after you have already made bogus assertions of my bad faith
 * 3) You're also engaging in blatant WP:FACTION behavior with Legacypac. See User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Draft_RFC_on_Portal_criteria where I set out how I invited four people to work with me, not one, and how two of them are on the opposite site of the debate to me.  That's all publicly visible, on a page you edited many times -- so your alegation that i am faction-forming is quite transparently something which know to be false.  In other words, it is a deliberate, malicious falsehood.
 * 4) a blatant case of WP:GAMING#Gaming the consensus-building process. Again, malicious nonsense, easily disprovable. My aims are set clearly set out at User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria and User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria.  See for example my reply to Legacypac's suggestion that a section be omitted: Please remember that what we are trying to do here is to identify proposals worth presenting to the community, not to reach conclusions on whether any of us supports the proposal.
 * 5) nothing excuses the "you use my talk page but you  use my talk page" trap-baiting There was no such trap-baiting.  There was 1) a request for you to stay off my talk page, which you ignored; 2)  a page to which you were not invited, which clearly listed those who were invited, and which clearly said those who were not invited should not post them. That's not trap-baiting; it is either a comprehension problem on your part, or a choice by you to simply ignore what was clearly written.
 * 6) I've raised ADMINCOND concerns No, you raise a legitimate question about an RFC closure, and when I answered you honestly you chose to falsely accuse me of "spin and "venting".   It is no part of ADMINCOND to put up with malicious accusations of bad faith.

I have can only guess at what you are trying to achieve by this shitstorm of malicious misrepresentation, but it looks like the behaviour of a drunk spoiling for a fight and lashing out in bogus accusations because you had not comprehended plain English. I hope that you feel better in the morning, and that you do not repeat such shameful tantrum. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up notes

 * I've removed the personal recommendation from the close as closes are meant to be editorial and consensus-based in nature (none of which was made here) and not opinionative. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( 後  ☕  桜 ) 07:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I woke up early, and have a few minutes to go over this. "SmC to respect BHG's wishes on the two points listed above" is off-point, really, since I was clearly not posting there at all (to either BHG's talk page, other than for a WP:AN template, or to the RfC draft talk page, which is technically a subpage of BHG's talk page) after noticing her "ban". The close is trying to "stop and prevent" something that wasn't happening and won't happen.  I'll also add that our third round of e-mail has been a failure. Despite me reiterating that this has just been an assumptions-predicated communications failure we should drop, BHG threw this back in my face with another round of projective "malicious" finger-pointing, and ratcheted up the hate-mail tone with a strange accusation of being an "angry drunk" who should "sleep it off". The only one angry here is BHG (and maybe Legacypac for other reasons); my tone in this has been entirely matter-of-fact.  I'm not butt-hurt about this stuff, it's simply evidence that BHG is displaying a temperament unsuited to adminship. If it continues, it will lead to an RfArb, since persistence in assuming bad faith and seeking to intensify instead of rectify a dispute is an ADMINCOND failure, as was opening an ANI after baiting someone into a trap.  The close above is in obvious error in being one-sided.  It's not an error ArbCom will make.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That is your prerogative, but the thread has been closed and you have been asked to refrain from addressing BHG for a couple of days. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 13:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , the conclusion is you had best not contribute to BHG's user space, itemised as 1 and 2. Is this not acceptable? cygnis insignis 13:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Just to say that BHG and SM are both editors whose talents I value, and I hope they can, with time, put this behind them. Maybe, someday soon, they will find some little task somewhere they can collaborate on, and thus heal the rift. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 17:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be fine by me, but seems unlikely when one side is convinced (without any evidence) that the other is "malicious". I don't actually have a theory about why BHG is behaving this way (I'm not a mind-reader), but obviously nothing constructive can come of it.  I'm a big fan of WP:SHUN in such cases, but that means that BHG has to stop e-mailing me.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To answer Cygnis insignis's direct question: Yes, of course that's acceptable, but it was already the status quo. However, the one-sidedness of this close has had consequences already. I asked BHG to stop e-mailing me and told her that future rants from her would go unread. My filters tell me I've already received two more since then (I can tell they're rants since I get a preview of the content's first line). It's starting to look like an RfArb is inevitable. It's not permissible for a WP editor – much less an admin – to engage in offline harassment of another editor in furtherance of on-WP disputes. And the hypocrisy of it is just amazing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If this does go to arbitration, then part of my evidence will be the full set of emails, which will deminstarte that SMcCandlish's comment above is yet another bare-faced lie. (By "lie" I mean untrue as matter of provable fact which was known to SMcCandlish when he made the claim)
 * This discussion was closed at 07:12, 18 March.
 * My last email before then was timestamped 03:47.
 * The next email in the series is from SMcCandlish to me, timestamped 12:42. It's a rant, startring with the words "More projection".
 * I replied at 20:56 with two words "get lost".
 * So far from me engaging in offline harassment, the evidence will show that SMcCandlish continued to harass me after the closer here recommended disengagement, and that my response was "get lost".
 * It is utterly disgraceful that SMcCandlish continues to hound me at all, but it disgustingly despicable for him to come here and make a demonstrably false accusation that I have been hounding him.
 * I hope that some restraint will be placed on this barrage of malicious falsehoods from SMcCandlish. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: interaction ban and kick to Arbcom
Well, this seems like a thread which some editors won't let die, and the matter of unwelcome private communication off-wiki is one which by its nature can't be settled by the community. To put it to rest I propose: that BrownHairedGirl and SMcCandlish are mutually interaction banned, unless and until one of them files a case request with the Arbitration Committee to examine the alleged off-wiki communication and determine an appropriate course of action. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support SMcCandlish has acted in a despicable manner around the WP:X3 discussion but BHG is inflaming things. ADMINACCT and ArbComm was raised. Legacypac (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @Legacypac: AFAICS, the only allegation against me which falls within the scope of WP:ADMINACCT is that SMcCandlish initially approached me with a query about an RFC close, which is an admin action. Here is that discussion is in full, including my close of it.
 * In summary, I responded fulsomely and civilly until I was accused of bad faith, when I closed the discussion. Where is the failure of ADMINACCT in that? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I never suggested there was a failure in ADMINACCT only that it was raised, I think over in the TTH subthread. Let him/it file an ArbComm case rather than continue ranting. Legacypac (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither here nor there, I'm not getting into this dispute, but fulsome isn't a good thing; I don't think anyone will be confused, but it could potentially. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 16:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * BHG is Irish. While it may have negative connotations in AmEng, it has no meaning other than "copious" in common usage in England (it means something else in Scots), and given the similarities between the two I'd be fairly certain Irish English is the same. Characterized by being full of some commodity or material; abundant, plentiful; providing a copious supply, rich; (in later use also) complete, comprehensive., if you want chapter and verse from the OED. &#8209; Iridescent 16:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Oppose It's becoming fairly obvious who is at fault here. No problem with pushing it to ArbCom, though - indeed that might be a good idea.  Black Kite (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support some form of IBAN ARBCOM - Ivanvector's point is completely spot on. Given the inability for it to be settled and now accusations we can't examine ourselves, I'd rather we didn't just sit at an IBAN but had it progressed to resolve the issue properly - even if they just reformalise the IBAN. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd considered it before my initial comment, and have rethought post - who makes excellent points as regards the fairness of the 2-way proposed IBAN. I factored in, to a degree, wanting to just make it more practical while ARBCOM was processing off-wiki content. Given SMc's behaviour below, regardless of his behaviour elsewhere, I'd be inclined now to give him a full 1-way IBAN and just ask  to be extremely careful in areas both might be, given evidence is now significantly 1-sided. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Yes. Let's. FFS, grow up. Both of you. <b style="font-family:Century Gothic"> Dloh Cier   ekim </b> 00:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please. Don't send it to me. Please send it to ArbCom.
 * I think maybe BrownHairedGirl wants you out of her life and away from her userspace. Ya think? <b style="font-family:Century Gothic"> Dloh Cier  ekim </b> 09:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The evidence indicates to me that SMcCandlish is the harasser and BrownHairedGirl is the victim of the harassment. A mutual interaction ban is the wrong solution. Counterproductive. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  02:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't !voted yet, but I'm inclined to agree with you: a mutual IBAN normally suggests that there's a two-sided feud that requires a two-sided sanction, and it does feel wrong to invoke such a thing when the situation is alleged one-sided harassment. But, it seems like the only way to decisively settle this issue, given the existence of off-wiki evidence, is through ArbCom, and the intent of this proposal seems to be a temporary, short-term, unprejudiced, full stop on any and all problematic interactions, pending the advancement to that venue, at which point it will automatically expire. If is truly the victim, surely she wants her grievances heard and rectified in the only forum available to her, and would be fine with a straight IBAN in the meantime. Based on her comments here, she seems to be okay with it. So, I'm leaning towards supporting, but for the same reasons you share here. Thoughts? BHG, are you willing and intent on taking this to ArbCom?  ~Swarm~   {talk}  05:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * . All I want is for this shitstorm to stop. That is all I have sought since 00:47, 18 March 2019‎.
 * I would very much welcome an Iban, preferably a complete one rather than the limited version which SmokeyJoe proposed.
 * I have no desire at all to get caught in the massive timesink of an arbcom case. I have complete confidence that the evidence I can present demonstrates how I have bizarrely been harassed by someone who falsely accuses me of harassment and many other things ... but weeks of diff-farming while SMcCandlish continues to spout more lies until they are disproven one by one is no fun at all.  So I will not be opening an arbcom case, and if the next step in this nonsense is for that, then I will reconsider whether I want any to participate any further in Wikipedia.
 * I tried at 00:47, 18 March 2019‎ to WP:DISENGAGE with an uncivil, editor who was taking advantage of ADNINACCT to personally disparage me.  I am already utterly sick of this.
 * It is already surreal that having opened a discussion here about 30 hours ago to try to uphold my attempts to WP:DISENGAGE, I am still being dragged back in as my good name is further traduced. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , if is the victim of harassment here (as I believe based on the evidence I have seen so far, but I suppose I could be wrong) then such an interaction ban is terribly unfair to her and draws out this bizarre drama for weeks or months to come, as ArbCom ponderously considers the evidence, and the inevitable bafflegab walls of text trying to discredit her. What is needed right now is an uninvolved adminstrator who will examine the evidence and take decisive action promptly. I certainly do not want to lose BrownHairedGirl from this project which seems to be a real possibility at this point after the aggression she has been subjected to. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  06:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Your thoughts on a one-way Iban where SMC is banned from interacting with BHG? If SMC is the problem here, that might solve things, and perhaps more eloquently and justly than a 2-way. Regardless, I suspect the issue has become too complex for a single admin to swoop in and solve things – some kind consensus is needed, else its gonna go to ARBCOM (which would be drawn out, and painful... "In its belly, you will find a new definition of pain and suffering as you are slowly digested over a… thousand years"). Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Evidence. I have a screenshot of my mail index of the entire email chain. I think that it is sufficient to conform that I respected the interaction ban, apart from relying "get lost" to SMcCandlish's breach of it.
 * Please will all those supporting action against me read it?
 * @Ivanvector, @Legacypac, @Nosebagbear, @Dlohcierekim: I would email it to you directly, but the on-=wiki email interface doesn't take attachments. However if you email me, I will send the screenshot by return. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * BrownHairedGirl - I highly recommend that you keep this evidence for ArbCom only, and that you don't share it openly with others. One reason is that such emails and information could contain some personal identifiable information belonging to that he did not disclose publicly on Wikipedia, and sharing screenshots of this off-wiki evidence could inadvertently violate Wikipedia's policy on outing. Once it's shared, it can't be taken back... and this could put you under much more hot water if you're not extremely careful... Please be mindful, take all of this into thought, and make good choices.  ~Oshwah~  (talk)  (contribs)   02:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, :Oshwah. I will refrain from sending full emails other than to arbcom.  The screenshot is a narrow excerpt containing only the index to my email inbox, which includes the full sequence of emails since I BCC to myself every email I send.  Each entry contains only the name of each user, the first ~5 words of the mail, and the time.  No email address or other personal info. My email name is "BrownHairedGirl", @SMcCandlish's is "Stanton McCandlish", exactly as displayed on his userpage.
 * So I'm still happy to send that clipped screenshot. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * BrownHairedGirl - Okay, good. You appear to have looked carefully over this, double-checked, and made sure that nothing would be disclosed that shouldn't be, so I'll just respond here with, "be careful". :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * (newer bolded  !vote below) Support limited interaction.  Each is limited to 1000 characters per week, posted to or about or on the other's usertalk pages.  BHG is excessively prone to prickliness and an inability to be talked into calm, and SMC suffers chronic abrasive verbosity.  Apart from these little flare ups on isolate lines of disagreement, both are usually respectable, professional, and productive.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @SmokeyJoe, please can you revise that 1000 characters per week to zero?
 * Ever since I closed the discussion on my talk and banned SMcC from my talk, I have been trying to get his to zero, but have had to cope with a SMcCandlish shitstorm in 5 different places: two of my talk pages, McCandlish's lies here in response to my request that he disengage, his bogus allegations on WP:AN, and emails. So please, please, please, please: zero.
 * And yes, I am prickly when accused of bad faith. For personal reasons, I have a very low tolerance threshold for that. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I daresay, you weren't as nearly annoyed when he was only up to 1000 characters. To you.  About you.  Comments on your talks pages.  Email should definitely be included.  Yes, he needs to stop.  If you count his characters, how many weeks would it add up to?  If SMC wants to link his version of a better version of the Portals RfC for you to read, I should be allowed to do that, 100 characters?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * BHG's responses in here seem to have no sense of the actual flow of time. But whatever. No, no one needs a block. Yes, a mutual i-ban is acceptable to me; however, since we're both active at CfD, I would suggest that the i-ban be loose enough to respond  to each others' proposals there.  I was already going for WP:SHUN, i.e. a voluntary i-ban. However, I asked BHG to stop sending me hostile e-mail over  ago. Then these AN* threads closed, about 14 hours ago if I'm counting right. That's two signals to BHG to just drop it. But no. I got more hostile e-mail from BHG only 7 hours ago (1:56 Pacific Time) and reported that here, and BHG is right back at the aspersion-casting here again (see below), not sticking to facts but hypothesizing inappropriately about motives and personality.  By contrast, you'll note that I'm not making any  commentary of any kind, just laying out facts and their timeline. If BHG is "prickly about being accused of bad faith" she needs to stop doing it to others over and over and over again. It's really annoying. Having criticized one of her closes, and provided feedback on a draft, isn't bad faith nor an accusation of bad faith. The simple fact of the matter is I supplied some draft-RfC feedback in quick succession without noticing BHG was reverting it (much less that she'd "banned" me from her talk page). She repeatedly insisted I take that RfC feedback to her talk page  her "ban".  After tricking me into posting it there in "violation" of her preferences, which I had not seen yet since it was just in an edit summary (see WP:REVTALK) she opened this bogus ANI report. It's blatant entrapment and an abuse of process. Frankly, I have no more time for this nonsense. Busy week. I may be absent for most of a day or more.
 * For god's sake, SMcCandlish, cut the lies and the shit-stirring. What is wrong with you?+
 * You write here I got more hostile e-mail from BHG only 7 hours ago (1:56 Pacific Time) and reported that here
 * As noted elsewhere, my two word email to you said simply in full "get lost". It was timestamped 20:56 UTC, and it was in response to a lengthy  email from you timpestamped 12:42 UTC, i.e 5 hours after the interaction ban imposed here.
 * So at 12:42, you broke the interaction ban, but yet at 22:56 you falsely accusing me of offline harassment of another editor, and now you repeat that lie. That can all be verified if it does go to Arbcom, so I have no idea why you continue to try to smear me by denying it.  What is wrong with you?
 * And the rest of it is all about you coming to my talkpage, being rude and alleging bad faith on my part, and then refusing to respect my request to get off my talkpage. What is wrong with you?
 * You initiated the email correspondence, I have sent precisely one reply to each of your emails.  It is bizarre for you to accuse me of "harassment" for replying to email you sent me, and it is utterly malicious to repeatedly misrepresent at ANI a set of communications off-wiki which you initiated and which cannot be verified at ANI. What is wrong with you?
 * Your claim of "entrapment" is yet more malicious nonsense. You chose not follow the two pings in the two posts in which I told you our conversation was closed.  You chose to regard my note about the existence of page as invitation to post there.  You chose to ignore the instructions of the page you posted on, which made it clear that you were not part of that process.  And they you came back to my talkpage, and just below the closed section in which I banned you posted again, in defiance of that notice.  What is wrong with you?
 * You posted a long rant on WP:AN in which you falsely accused me of multiple sins, including the preposterous "Gaming the consensus-building process" by excluding you from private conversation on my usertalk. You seem to think that you have some absolute right to post on my talkpage, and that a restricted-group but entirely above-board, on-wiki conversation on my talk about possible paths to consensus for a major dispute which I explicitly labelled  as an attempt to put all options on the table is some huge breach of policy and of admin responsibilities.
 * This entire shitstorm you have created is outrageous. I know that lies left unchallenged risk becoming accepted, but am utterly fed up with having to spend my time producing the evidence to counter your serial fabrications and your maliciously false allegations.  What on earth is wrong with you? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Two-way interaction ban per Ivanvector. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( 後  ☕  桜 ) 05:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support IBAN, as support by both involved. Apply it ASAP.  It must include referring to the other, talking about each other.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's really going to matter all that much, but you have two bolded !votes here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC) fixed SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per BHG's comments. If this IBAN turns out to be indef pending an Arbcom case that never happens, that is a far superior alternative to losing one of the most valuable editors this project is privileged to have. Implement ASAP. ~Swarm~   {talk}  06:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't recall anyone talking about quitting; BHG's just angry at me (for entirely imaginary "maliciousness"). For my part, I just don't have any more patience for this silly game playing and drama mongering; it's unseemly. Neither of these are WP:HIGHMAINT "I'm gonna quit Wikipedia" things, just passing irritations that mutually appear crystal clear on one side and inexplicable on the other. [sigh] I would be open to sorting that out calmly, or just agreeing to drop it with zero further recriminations in either direction, but that's obviously not happening any time soon if at all. It can't if one side insists on assuming, and the other is assuming nothing but a bad mood leading to dispute-escalation behavior. I don't think even that's "malicious", it's just unconstructive and un-admin-worthy. I even trust that BHG will realize this when her irritation fades, and not repeat it in her next dispute with someone else. I'll try to pay more attention to the little "you have notices" icon at page top (easier said than done on a monitor this size). It's not like I would have intentionally kept posting to the draft RfC page if I'd noticed I'd been reverted at it; I didn't notice until I decided to re-arrange the material in section-number order instead of policy-priority order, only to find it was all reverted, with an edit summary of 'which part of "If other editors who wish to express views on the draft, please comment at User talk:BrownHairedGirl" was unclear to you???'.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no desire at all to get caught in the massive timesink of an arbcom case. I have complete confidence that the evidence I can present demonstrates how I have bizarrely been harassed by someone who falsely accuses me of harassment and many other things ... but weeks of diff-farming while SMcCandlish continues to spout more lies until they are disproven one by one is no fun at all. So I will not be opening an arbcom case, and if the next step in this nonsense is for that, then I will reconsider whether I want any to participate any further in Wikipedia. &mdash; BrownHairedGirl -- ~Swarm~  {talk}  07:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. I'm uncertain of the fairness of a two-way interaction ban. However, the community cannot examine all of the relevant evidence, and so pending an ARBCOM case I think this is necessary to minimize disruption. The IBAN should be complete, with the only exception being arbitration pages; the looser IBAN proposed above is much too complicated to be worthwhile. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There's nothing complicated about "it's okay to support or oppose in a CfD, RfC, etc., opened by the other party". Part of the erstwhile close above is an instruction to do just that when the draft RfC at the heart of this is no longer a draft. Anyway, I'm going to bed and hopefully this is just the end of it. I'm not sure when I'll get back around here given what's on my plate off-site in the upcoming days.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Cullen328. This should immediately go to ARBCOM. This has grown bitter and the community is at wits end. There is too much for the community to fix here, including private communications. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * BHG is not keen on the idea of initiating the draconian month(s) long public process that is an Arbcom case, and surely anyone can understand that. If a third party wishes to start one on her behalf, fair, but short of that, surely this is better than no solution. ~Swarm~   {talk}  07:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * BHG's above comments certainly make me reconsider. The project shouldn't lose a talented editor like her, and I agree that ARBCOM is a painful process. With that being said, if it doesn't go to Arbcom, I'm not sure if an interaction ban is gonna solve things long term. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I also don't really like the idea of a 2-way ban, per Cullen's comments. But as BHG herself is happy with the idea, I'll Support it . Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To clarify, that's support the IBAN but then no need for Arbcom. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Pretty much agree with Iridescent's comments below, too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I'm switching to Oppose a 2-way ban. It's becoming increasingly clear who's in the wrong here and not being honest, and BHG should not be subject to any bans - she can voluntarily keep away from SMC, but that's up to her. In short, Iridescent has it just about right. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Reluctant support. I take dim view of IBANs typically; I feel that if an editor can't find a way to comport themselves with regard to any one editor, their problems are unlikely to be addressed long term merely by isolating them from that person--and indeed, many IBANs involve one or more parties who ultimately go on to be regularly disruptive. In short, IBANs are the community's single most common (and probably problematic) means of kicking the can down the road.  In this particular case, I am further concerned by the fact that, having reviewed the comments and links here, and crediting both sides with good faith in their assertions, there is definitely one side who looks more aggressive in pushing and maintaining the conflict here, which makes a two-way ban not 100% palatable.


 * That said, this should go to ArbCom, and I wish we had an admin here willing to step up and shephard it there in a neutral way; not only will ArbCom have the tools necessary to discretely inquire into the email exchanges, but they will also be more systematic in deconstructing the exact timeline/sequence of events across multiple spaces and services. In short, they can arrive at actual outcomes, whereas the crossfire between the parties here accomplishes nothing. And yet it is clearly not going to stop here, short of a formal ban.  We could also add language to the close stating that this is meant to last until any ArbCom resolution of the conflict between the two and that the committee can undertake to decide whether the IBAN should be maintained, modified, or dissolved following the case. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 07:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Reluctant support I share previously expressed concerns about (a) effectiveness of IBANs in general, and (b) the justness of a 2-way IBAN in this instance. Furthermore, since the two editors share significant interest in some hotly-debated areas (CfDs, policy-crafting, and especially the current debate over Portals), I fear that if an IBAN is imposed admins will soon be grappling with the question of whether certain responses in a discussion (or, just the cumulative volume of responses) violated the IBAN or not. Willing to give it a try though because informal measures, lacking teeth, are certainly not working and because the two editors accept the remedy. Abecedare (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've notified Arbcom about this case via email, with CCs to both users. ~Swarm~   {talk}  08:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good call, just so they have a heads up and are aware of this ANI discussion and what may (or may not) be requested at ArbCom somewhat soon...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   08:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. We don't impose bans on people for being the of harassment. One or the other of BHG or SMC is clearly lying here, and given the increasingly fantastic excuses ("I can't see the "new messages" notification on my monitor so I wasn't aware I'd been asked to stop", "I wasn't aware that it might annoy other editors if I made major changes in their userspace without asking"…) it's fairly clear which it is. If SMC isn't willing to let this drop, then punt it up to Arbcom, but imposing a topic ban on the victim in the meantime for complaining about harassment would be wilfully perverse. &#8209; Iridescent 09:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose any action and suggest we let the issue quietly die. I don't think interaction bans are effective, usually leading to later blocks, bans, and squabbling. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I have read, at great length, the entire chain of discussion, and the whole thing is a bit of a mountain made out of a molehill. Both SMc and BHG have taken the most negative possible slant possible on various things each has said to the other and each post of their discussion spiralled further into "he said she said" and compounded this further.  I don't think an interaction ban is really warranted, although SMc does need to let this particular issue lie and trust that someone else will make any objections to the RFC that he wants to make if they are sound objections.  I don't, though, see why one spat should mean BHG and SMc should be banned from ever commenting on anything the other does.  IBANS are for long-term chronic differences that cannot be resolved any other way short of blocking.  I don't think this one disagreement amounts to that, and I can't imagine Arbcom would take much in the way of actual action at this point in time.  I note, though, that anyone opposing a two-way IBAN because "it wouldn't be fair to BHG" has missed the point that BHG herself is in favour of one.  <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  14:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Proposer comment - I didn't propose this because I think both editors are in equal standing here, I proposed it because as each of the above discussions were closed, someone (not generally one of the two editors named) left a parting shot which reignited the conflict, and because the "he-said-she-said" back-and-forth is difficult for the community to evaluate without making public all of the nominally private off-wiki communication between the two users. The proposal isn't meant to imply wrongdoing on either editor's part, but to get them to stop sniping at each other (and being sniped at by others) in a forum that's not equipped to resolve their conflict. Arbcom is the right venue for a dispute involving private evidence, and I think the Committee is also better equipped to get to the root of the problem and craft an intelligent solution. I totally understand not wanting to be subjected to a weeks-long case, though. If both editors think that the issue between them is resolved, whether that means they're just going to steer clear of each other or whatever it means, then it's fine by me to close this without any formal action. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, but please don't take me to Arbcom as well. I just don't like being wrapped up in big drama. A Dolphin (squeek?) 15:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - IMHO we should let this lie for now, If SMC continues it then send it to Arbcom but right now I don't feel an IBAN is warranted atleast not for BHG. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose any interaction ban until either this case blows over and then wakes up again, or ArbCom can handle. Support sending to ArbCom.  By the way, there should be a rule that the community can mandate that a contentious case be handled by ArbCom.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @Robert McClenon, anyone can request an arb case provided it can be demonstrated that all else has failed or there is very good cause to believe they will not help; on deciding whether or not to accept the case they will take into account, but will not be bound by, the views of the parties to the request. (SMC is well aware of this, as this was the situation regarding the dispute between himself and Fae a couple of weeks ago.) I personally think this is an utterly shitty rule, that if neither party feels an arb case would be useful then arbcom has no business unilaterally knowing they know best and taking the case anyway, and that had I thought through the implications of this line at the time I wouldn't have voted to ratify the change and the same probably goes for most of the other 17. However, whether we like it or not this is the policy we have, and given that getting the wording of WP:ARBPOL amended is roughly as easy as getting the wording of the Catechism of the Catholic Church amended, this is the policy we're stuck with. &#8209; Iridescent 16:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Alternative proposal-- 1 week block followed by mutual IBAN

 * Support Despite the significant value of each's contribs, the disruption is just too much and too on-going. Need to wake them both up. Whatever has gone before, neither sees the need to drop the poor, battered stick. <b style="font-family:Century Gothic"> Dloh Cier  ekim </b> 00:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. I'm not taking sides, but given the uncheckable (for us) nature of the e-mail accusations, if one of them is telling the truth and the other is lying, one may not actually have done anything wrong. Black Kite (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Per Black Kite. Whichever one is telling the truth hasn't done anything wrong since the close. Also, give whichever one isn't telling the truth time to recheck timestamps and apologize. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @Floquenbeam and @Black Kite, if either or both of you would like to review the emails, I will be happy to send them to you promptly in the most fulsome format I can manage. (I use MsMail for Win10, on a Gmail account). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be able to review them until tomorrow, and I'm not sure I'm the best person for the task (I've had my beefs with both of you; nothing earth shattering, but whoever disagreed could claim I was biased and then we'd just go 'round again). I'm not sure admins can actually do anything with emailed evidence anyway.  You might forward to Arbcom? --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Punishing the harasser and the victim is wrong. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  02:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Why block me?
These proposals for a block on me are shocking and hurtful. I have been pursued by an aggressive bully, accused of lots of bogus things .. and all I have tried is to break off dialogue while countering the public falsehoods.
 * 1) This started with a SMcCandlish posting on my talk to question a close, accusing me of "scare someone into silence" because I commended consensus-building
 * 2) I responded fulsomely and civilly, but SMcCandlish needled and insulted, until I realised that dialogue was futile, so I ended the discusison and banned him from my talk.
 * 3) I then discovered that SMcCandlish was busy spamming a private page of mine despoite a heading at the top saying not to, so I reverted that, and he then reposted it on my talk. I reverted that too
 * 4) I took it to ANI asking nothing other than that he desist; SMcCandlish took it to AN, and then he started emailing me. Stupidly, I did reply twice by email.
 * 5) This morning both the AN and and ANI discussions were closed with a recommendation to disengage, which I welcomed.  It is exactly what I had been seeking from the outset.
 * 6) Nonetheless, SMcCandlish posted again below the closed discussion
 * 7) SMcCandlish emailed me 5 hours after the disengagement was recommend here.  I replied with two word "get lost"
 * 8) Yet SMcCandlish falsely accuses me of harassing him

This is appalling. I have not followed SMcCandlish around talk pages. I have not visited his talk page. I have no invited him to my talk pages. I have not initiated email correspondence. I respected the close of the discussion here until a new set of allegations were made against me. I respected the interaction ban.

And now I am being falsely accused of breaching the interaction ban. If any admins are willing to examine the emails to verify what I have asserted, I will send the entire set. It will take about two minutes to check the timestamps and verify that I am telling the truth.

So why exactly am I being threatened with a block? Everyone here wants disengagement, and that is what I have been trying to do throughout. It's why I opened this ANI discussion in the first place.

I feel really fed up. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
 * BrownHairedGirl - For what it's worth, the proposal to block you is very far from reaching any kind of consensus (as of the time of this writing) withdrawn. It's frustrating for you to see such a proposal and I completely understand that... just don't let it overly distract you or get underneath your skin, and keep yourself focused on the primary goals of Wikipedia and doing the things you enjoy here, and everything will be okay - one way or another. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not an endorsement of anyone's behaviour but if SMC's actions are affecting you this badly, take time off Wikipedia instead of batting away at the wound. This is a general approach to any issues on Wikipedia honestly, it's just an online community and should not affect you to the point that you have to keep retaliating. Just my two cents. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( 後  ☕  桜 ) 05:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * True in most cases, but when the issue is alleged bullying and harassment, on what is supposed to be an academic project of collegial civility, respect and collaboration steeped in good faith, "take some time off" is not a particularly constructive solution. I can think of several damaging real-world parallels that should not be encouraged. ~Swarm~   {talk}  05:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We cannot expect no conflict in a place where collaboration is the principle itself - and at a certain point, things will get ugly. No one is encouraging any parallel, sometimes it's better to focus your efforts on places which require them, shutting out aspects you don't like is necessary, and escalating it at every step will simply make the entire situation worse. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( 後  ☕  桜 ) 05:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 removing valid warnings on anon talk page
The anon reverted a valid an edit by a new anon. I welcomed the new anon and after reading the notice placed a request that the IPV6 anon provide edit summaries.
 * "Notice: Not using edit summary on Prime Minister of Canada. (TW)"

That's when the protection started.


 * 1)  "Undid revision 888401889 by Walter Görlitz (talk) Good; carry on."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 888401402 by Walter Görlitz (talk) I'm afraid you don't get to edit war on this page; be mindful."

I started discussing, but go no answers.
 * 1)   "/* Seriously */ new section"
 * 2)   "R"
 * 3)   "/* Seriously */"

Is there any reason this anon gets protection from editors? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is simply Wikipedia:Etiquette. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * ANI? Really??? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 22:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to move it elsewhere. Where would you suggest? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The bit bucket. You could just let it go. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 22:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * please do not remove warnings from another user's talk page, regardless of how valid the warning is (I have no opinion on that matter). ansh 666 22:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for trying to close this, but the anon's edits are only peripheral to Walter's complaint. ansh 666 22:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Walter's complaint is a waste of time.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Then close it again with a summary that actually addresses it... ansh 666 22:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This "dispute" is so Wikipedian.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * This is so weird. Ansh is obviously right. One should never delete another's comments, unless in specific situations prescribed by the relevant policy. DTTR is not a violation, and as a "social" offense, it's relatively minor. Deleting others' comments, on the other hand, is a genuine policy violation that can get you into hot water. Aggressively edit warring over it makes it even worse. Surely Serial Number knows this, and was willing to risk getting blocked over it (not saying I would block, just that it is technically blockable). Then, when Walter comes here with a perfectly valid report that they're being treated inappropriately, he gets treated like the bad guy? Why does this IP need such hardheaded protection from being templated? They even have a warning box preemptively threatening users who would template them, that seems to be of dubious appropriateness. Maybe I'm missing something. ~Swarm~   {talk}  23:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned at Walter Gorlitz's talkpage, I'm having a hard time finding a grievous, disruptive policy violation worth bringing here in a small edit-war over a template for not using edit summaries. Is this what we need to bring to ANI? 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 takes a lot of warnings from editors who see an IP and immediately template, that's why the notice is there at the top of the page. Editors, registered or not, get sloppy sometimes and don't use edit summaries. All that justifies an edit-war and ANI?  Acroterion   (talk)   23:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I take no issue with this assessment, just with the disproportionate reaction (Walter being condemned, where he technically didn't do anything wrong, while simultaneously turning a blind eye to Serial's violations). It may be a petty issue, but I'm sympathetic towards Walter, who I don't feel was treated particularly fairly. Usually DTTR situations are not meant with summary deletion and edit warring, so I'm wondering what the big deal is with this IP, who is surely capable of responding to or removing templated messages at their own discretion. ~Swarm~   {talk}  00:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why my attempt to provide a constructive dissenting opinion was force-closed with another "waste of time" closing statement. The original close already did that, and I was making a point that I felt the response Walter received was a bit one-sided and not entirely fair. To have a respectful dissent to a close immediately shut down, with a closing statement that does nothing but flatly restate the closing statement that is being disagreed with, is a bit offensive and absurd. I have the time to comment on this, and I don't need a closer to tell me I am wasting my time by trying to make educational policy points and constructive criticism. If this is such a petty, unimportant issue, then there should not be these aggressive and repeated attempts to forcibly suppress commentary. That, to me, suggests not that the complaint is mundane and unimportant, but that tensions are far too high and people are acting without calmness and restraint in attempting to stifle a reasonable complaint. ~Swarm~   {talk}  01:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, this certainly was a valid complaint by Walter. No comment on whether the initial posting of the template was appropriate or not. Serial Number 54129‎ simply does not have the authority to remove something from another editor's talk page and edit-warring only makes matters worse. The only person who should be removing the template from the talk page is the IP user and if he/she has a problem with Walter they can bring forth the proper complaint, there is no reason for someone else to be acting on their behalf.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * JESUS CHRIST, JOSEPH, MARY AND ALL THE SAINTS AND APOSTLES, Walter shouldn't have templated a regular (even if it's an IP regular), and he should have realized that, at latest, when SN 4129 removed the message. But after Walter restored the message, SN54129 probably should have left it be (possibly adding a soothing counter-message of his own). So everybody did something inadvisable. OK? Now stop it. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 02:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Contentiously force-closing good faith meta-commentary on the contentious force-closure of good faith meta-commentary on a contentious force-closure. Well played. Credit where it's due, I do love a good absurdist comedy. Very well, I'll take my measured views, balanced responses, and objective considerations of policy somewhere that they won't evoke some bizarre level of hostility and outrage. This can be closed, again, since that's apparently what we're doing here for some reason. ~Swarm~   {talk}  05:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What EEng said, though Swarm has a point. <b style="font-family:Century Gothic"> Dloh Cier   ekim </b> 10:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Danny84willis


This editor has been making incorrect edits to footballers' infobox statistics since August 2017. When I noticed in August last year that they weren't updating the timestamps, I, and the following month. also regarding that issue earlier this month. That, in itself, may seem like a small issue, but when you have been advised three times of the correct process and ignored it, that does suggest an issue.

However, this is compounded by the fact that the stats the editor adds are simply incorrect much of the time. The edit pattern is replicated on others, but taking as an example Diego Lainez, which is one of the editor's most frequented articles, their last two edits have added and  that don't exist. Lainez has scored a goal in the UEFA Europa League, but this still doesn't make sense as the appearance data would be wrong for 'all competitions' stats. I've have nevertheless to Danny84willis that the infobox stats should represent the domestic league only, as is stated at the bottom of the box and in the documentation.

The main issue, though, is communication. Several attempts to engage with the editor have been ignored and I don't see that situation changing. My was again ignored, and the editor seems oblivious to the reality that every one of their edits is subsequently either fixed or reverted by someone else. I am therefore asking for a block until the editor acknowleges the concerns of other editors and agrees to communicate. Thanks, Nzd   (talk)  11:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * From what I see in the user's contributions, Danny84willis has made no edits other than problematic ones to articles. No talk, user talk, or Wikipedia edits - no attempts to communicate at all. I've indefinitely blocked the user for the repeated and persistent addition and modification of content without citing any reliable sources.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)  11:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Per the closure, I don't believe there's any suggestion of socking in this case. Nzd   (talk)  15:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Rogers Communications LTA.
Can anything really can do with the LTA from the ISP Rogers Communications? Write a LTA filing? Let see
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive981
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive981
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive981
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive981


 * Remove the Chinese word Limited (有限) from Chinese companies article
 * Engvar and date format vandalism, especially in species and airport (e.g. Special:Diff/887905462 at Hong Kong International Airport, HK use dmy and he changed to mdy)
 * Change the name of Cathay Pacific Airways to hoax value (see Special:Diff/850109976 in last year (Rogers IP, blocked), Special:Diff/879379397 in January (despite not a Rogers Communications IP) and this in March Special:Diff/887930659)

Matthew hk (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've semi protected both articles listed here for two weeks and temporarily blocked the IP listed.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   16:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I did not list Marsh Harbour Airport as i can't verify it was a good faith Engvar fix or not, and end up wrong. I will post it to page protection if something else happened. Matthew hk (talk)
 * Marsh Harbour was not good faith. Reference shows it as Marsh Harbour, and it's the Bahamas anyway which is en-GB spelling. Bizarre thing is, that's the spelling for Rogers Communications customers in Canada anyway. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 18:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Let me know if I can do anything else for you and I'll be happy to help. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   16:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

175.143.166.187+175.143.166.162 (same user)
Ip user on 175.143.166.187 was given several warnings to not add unsourced content to GeForce 16 series and Nvidia PureVideo. User has refused to stop removing the unsourced content (1650) despite leaving a message on their talk page. User also decided to make an attacking comment in one of their edits on the GeForce 16 series insulting the editors that reverted the ip's edits. Ip's edits also caused several users to request page protection for Geforce 16 series page. After issuing the warning, user decided to change to 175.143.166.162 to readd the unsourced info. Due to persistent addition of unsourced or improperly cited material and after being recommended by one of the admins on the requests for protection page to report the user here if it were to continue, i decided to post this message here since the user appears to refuse to remove the unsourced material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesmartbird (talk • contribs) 13:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

After some time, 175.143.166.162 decided to remove the notice and the warning by blanking the page. User proceeded to re-add the unsourced/leaked info that ip admitted to doing, on Geforce 16 series, Nvidia PureVideo, High Efficiency Video Coding, and High Efficiency Video Coding implementations and products. The user did not blank the page on its other ip, but has shown that it has disregarded the the avi notice and warning that was posted on one of the talk pages the user has access to. Thesmartbird (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * GeForce 16 series semi-protected for a week per WP:RFPP, but I'd like to see some discussion on the article talk pages.  Mini  apolis  23:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how effective that would be seeing that the user has jumped to another ip 175.143.190.121. On that ip, the user readded the unreliable info that was previously removed. Also on the Turing_(microarchitecture) page, 175.143.184.172 appears to be the same user as the other 3 ip's, having been previously warned by a different editor for vandalising that particular page. I placed the avi notices on the other ips. I'm not sure what action you would take, but it looks like that the user appears to not want to communicate at all (aside from the attacking comment it made on one of its edits on one of the ip's it used). Thesmartbird (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I've blocked the IP range 175.143.160.0/19 for 72 hours for the repeated addition of unreferenced content to articles. This was the narrowest range that I calculated from the three IP addresses provided here, and should hopefully put a temporary stop to the issues.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Range block needed again for Malaysian nationality vandal (the third ANI filing for the same range within a year)
5df5 had a short block (36h) recently within this week, but it seem it need longer. Matthew hk (talk) 08:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive994
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive997
 * (vandalize full name and change lede nationality )
 * (vandalize nationality to hoax value)
 * (full name vandal)
 * (the ip change Uruguayan to hoax value: Malaysian, just like last two ANI filings)
 * (the ip change Singaporean to hoax value: Malaysian )
 * (the ip change Singaporean to hoax value: Malaysian )
 * (hoax given name, change medal to hoax value to gold)
 * (the ip change Singaporean to hoax value: Malaysian )
 * (hoax given name, change medal to hoax value to gold)
 * (hoax given name, change medal to hoax value to gold)
 * (hoax given name, change medal to hoax value to gold)


 * Update. After 5df5 was blocked for 2 weeks, immediately ip hopping as usual to and vandalise Sporting Kansas City again. Matthew hk (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Latest is . Nzd   (talk)  19:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And now . Nzd   (talk)  01:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup, pass WP:DUCK test on yet again vandalize Mulan (Disney character). Matthew hk (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It became a ritual to list out how wide spread this vandal before getting someone else notice.
 * (full name vandal)
 * (unsourced full name)
 * (unsourced full name)
 * (unsourced change in name)
 * (unsourced change in name)


 * Matthew hk (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Now at . Matthew hk (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * New article victim Bryan Nickson Lomas. Matthew hk (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * --Matthew hk (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Now at Matthew hk (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I've blocked the IPv6 range 2405:3800::/37 for 3 months. This should put a stop to the disruptive editing observed and listed here.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   21:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Automated script being used by user without permission
A user, FR30799386 had resorted to using some sort of automated process to create more than a hundred redirects. I had emailed you'all about him earlier at which somebody had left a note on his t/p asking him to get consensus. However, he has disregarded it right now and has created more redirects right now.122.163.89.181 (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I added a link and notified the editor of this discussion, per the big yellow "you must notify them on their user talk page" advisory. Reviewing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this complaint is premature. They've created five redirects. They were all created at approximately the same time but it takes very little time to create a redirect, and they're all obviously correct. I don't see a problem. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No opinion on whether they're correct, but there are a lot more than five - see this editor's history on 15 & 16 March. GoldenRing (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looks like they were warned on 17 March for that. Probably should wait to hear what they have to say, then. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Just a clarification, there wasn't any automated script, it was just that I prepped some of them up in some browser tabs and then went clicking Publish Changes rapidly. <b style="font-family:monospace;"><< FR (mobileUndo)</b> 13:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring and personal attacks
I feel as if has been edit warring with me. He takes offense to almost any thing I do relating to Pakistan Super League. Most recently, he has used ad-hominem attacks against me as noted here. He wants to blank the pages I create and delete my entries for example and, but he refuses to use appropriate methods like WP:AFD as mentioned here and here. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * This seems to have been resolved (of sorts), with other editors adding content to the meantime. If any editor thinks that creating the page for the 2020 tournament is too soon, then they should take it to AfD.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 20:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE for User:Stevenhksar


There was an ongoing RfC for the disputed edit in Talk:PCCW, but he just not able to understand English and policy. Admin please have a look on his blanking of the section of the article. Matthew hk (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This looks like a WP:PAID relationship with the subject of the article:. That diff is not really good communication either: bad english and shouting when not absolutely necessary.Lurking shadow (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * There is a longer communications in User talk:Stevenhksar, which he blanked it all, after receiving ANI notice. I can use Cantonese/Chinese to communicate with him, but it is no point since this is English wikipedia. He also preformed bold merge of PCCW Mobile and CSL Mobile, but since he blanked that section of his user talk, i assumed he read that section and "understand" it should follow WP:merge. But for how hard i communicate, he still did not provide valid reason of cut a section of the article to another, or just blank it. It is not the matter which direct parent company that business division Cascade (did it ever equal to PCCW Engineering) was, it was the matter of keeping a brief section for the second-tier subsidiary of a company PCCW or not. He want to c&p to intermediate holding company Hong Kong Telecom, i disagree, i started WP:RfC for him, telling him internal email cannot be used in wikipedia as a reference, and he still not able to understand it and do his stuff again and again. Matthew hk (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * As a note. After this ANI was opening, he still posting internal email as well as section blanking. He clearly unable to understand. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The PCCW article has been fully protected so that and others can take the issues and the dispute to the article's talk page and sort them out. I definitely agree that the user has issues with understanding what reliable sources are, as well as in areas involving his repeated removal of content. They appear to me to be issues that stem both from inexperience along with trying to publish the content and venturing into the threshold of edit warring and without listening to feedback - which (as we've seen many times before) is a combination of issues that cause a lot of disruption if repeated.  ~Oshwah~  (talk)  (contribs)   22:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The article was suffered from suspected paid editing for so long. Many Hong Kong articles are deserted after the initial creator took wiki break or just retired. Many articles are with very serious problem of failed verification or in another spectrum, a relic of direct copying from source as copyvio. Some of the "paid editing" in PCCW may in fact voluntarily done by employee, but edits such as just c&p whole paragraph from the annual report of the company, or trim the article under the agenda of company promotional scheme, are unacceptable (at least, discuss in talk page after the group made a Matryoshka structure of companies which Pacific Century Group, PCCW, HKT Limited and subsidiaries PCCW-HKT, "Hong Kong Telecommunications (HKT) Limited" are in fact the same group as different tier). There was yet another request from teahouse to move Console Connect to Console Connect by PCCW Global due to unfamiliar to policy by the paid editors. For in specific, moving the article title of Gateway Communications to PCCW Global just due to Gateway was acquired by PCCW Global, is also unacceptable. To sum up, i really have no idea on dealing such paid editing as they are more familiar with internal document (but lack of sense of WP:V) and what the company want to promote (but certainly WP:COI edit are never able to WP:NPOV), which i am not sure lock down the article and then with a deserted RfC are the right move. Or it will became a battle ground to me when i tried to verify statements and add back citation to those so many deserted Hong Kong articles. Matthew hk (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Regular edit-warring from user:Jim7049
Has been warned since January against unconstructive edits, disruptive editing, edit warring and NPOV violations in their talk page. This user has also been blocked and unblocked multiple times by admins but again continued edit warring yesterday on 11 March 2019. Please look into the matter and determine whether this user should continue their Wikipedia editing. AmericanAgent (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've already warned Jim7049 earlier today for edit warring on Portal:Current events/2019 March 11, and the edit warring has stopped since then. I chose not to block Jim7049 in order to give him/her a chance to put the brakes on the back-and-forth reverts and to discuss the matter properly; Jim7049's contributions show that he's/she's added a discussion to the portal's talk page, which means that he's/she's attempting to do so. There's no block needed at this time, so long as the edit warring doesn't continue.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   13:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've also left him an in-depth explanation of policy, expectations, and how I step in and manage issues and disputes - see my resposne here.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   14:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You may want to revisit. 1 / 2 / 3 reverts of the same user on Portal:Current events/2019 March 15 plus an admittedly noncontentious rv of a second user. This edit (a third user) shows willing to engage with disputes on talkpages at least some of the time; but, "Please stop this kind of false editing which is completely fake and disrupting," is not really the way to begin a content dispute in a civil fashion. Jim seems keen to improve the wiki, but is skirting boundaries a bit and could maybe do with mentoring. Madness Darkness 19:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Same situation, long-standing, on Commons; multiple explanations since January now.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I had recently declined an unblock for edit warring. Jim7049 was then unblocked after affirming understanding what to do instead. <b style="font-family:Century Gothic"> Dloh Cier  ekim </b> 06:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Jim seems to have gone quiet for now, although I'm not too optimistic they won't resume their warring upon their return. Madness Darkness 19:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that, after 's attempts to get through to them without blocking, they proceeded to edit war at Portal:Current events/2019 March 15, over an editorial attempt to invoke the label "terrorism" without a source. This was not only edit warring, but a breach of WP:TERRORIST and WP:V (which dictates that contentious unsourced content that is removed can only be re-added with a source). This was while this thread was open. That, is aggravated further by the fact that they are already under a one month block at Commons for the same thing, to which their response was incredibly egregious. They falsely claimed that there was no reason for the block, and that the reasons given were false, and basically harassed into providing a lengthy-justification for the block, to which they responded by accusing Magog of being "hateful" and "bringing up past mistakes". Unreal. Seems to be a clear CIR case, with little chance of adjusting their behavior reasonably, so I will be blocking indef. If they want to continue editing they can go through the unblock process.  ~Swarm~   {talk}  20:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:209.221.91.108 on talk page
Personal attacks against other users on own talk page while blocked, request talk page editing acces removed. Redalert2fan (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * While I`m not usualy in for bumping threads this is getting a little out of hand. Redalert2fan (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)