Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

BATTLEGROUND and SPA by Iwog

• Iwog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• False accusation of rape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Iwog today expressed that "This page is overflowing with errors, deception, and bias and I think it's worth going to war over regarding an issue on False accusation of rape ([1]). This user has edited solely on this article and its associated talk page. They made a few edits initially over the presentation of percentages in the article's lead and later adding a sentence to the lead that, to me, appeared to be a tendentious edits to try to comment about the "flip" of the topic ([2], [3]). This user has repeatedly opined about the "bias", "lies", and "dishonesty" in the article and that the lead is "written intentionally to deceive".

I am requesting admins and/or the community review this user's behavior. To me, this user's behavior seems very disruptive. I know I have stronger-than-average feelings about this topic, so I'm also asking for a "reality check" that this user is indeed being a problem and that it is not my own stances on the issue making me view their behavior as such. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with your assessment. It seems like this editor is more interested in pushing their POV rather than interest in verifiability. In fact, this editor mentions "accuracy" multiple times in edit summaries [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. In the third diff, the editor engages in the fallacy that the truth is always "somewhere in the middle". Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and it's clear that this editor isn't here to contribute to the project but to crusade against perceived underreporting of false rape. The editor even says they're "going to war", which is good evidence that they're viewing this as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and not engaging with the project in good faith. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 22:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The main complaint against me seems to be one of semantics. Since I'm new here, I was not aware that "going to war for truth" made my contributions into a battleground and you will find the rest of the subject is treated objectively. Although links were given for my use of the word "accuracy", no links nor any quotes were given that in any way indicated I was insisting "the truth is in the middle". I am well aware that this topic is rife with strong emotions on both sides which makes it vitally important that it is treated coldly and objectively. IMO the article is far from objective and contains much bias which I have detailed in great length. The accusation that I am not here to contribute is false. I am only here to contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwog (talk • contribs) 23:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

After reviewing my actual quote, "The actual number lies somewhere in the middle", I will clarify that my intention was to say the true number can lie anywhere within the data set bracketed by both known ends of the spectrum. I can see how this was misinterpreted. At no time did I ever intend to claim a number was half way in between or located anywhere within the set of unknowns. This is not a fallacy, in fact it's a statement of mathematical fact. Iwog (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Can I suggest to you that maybe you should start with topics you don't feel so strongly about first, then? You should learn the ropes first before diving into articles that have the discretionary sanctions warning. For example, read up on WP:V. Accuracy is not a standard for inclusion on Wikipedia. You can believe whatever you want is "accurate", but we only include content that is verifiable. You don't seem to have a grasp of basics like these so I recommend that you edit in other areas first rather than edit war against multiple editors. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Once again I have to take issue with your use of semantics here. I am not using the term "accuracy" to indicate anything other than adherence to the citations being presented. In short, the way I am using the term is ONLY about statements on the page being verifiable.Iwog (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Added: This is the first instance you cited: [9] It is clear that I am arguing for the inclusion of a large set of unknowns which is present in every single study being referenced. It's obvious that "accuracy" here means adherence to facts that can be verified. Iwog (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

We've actually already explained to you that including the conviction rate with the fully intended implication of "any report that doesn't result in a conviction is or could be false" is a WP:OR violation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes you've explained it but you are wrong. Currently the implication is "any report that cannot be prove false is true". Please explain how this isn't a WP:OR violation since every study admits unknowns exceeding 80%? Iwog (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

That implication is also present in virtually all of the published research on this and every other kind of crime victimization: crime stats are usually based reported crimes, and these victimizations presumed true unless there is evidence that an assault did not happen. To be clear, "evidence" is a much lower standard than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" - the figures reported in the research don't represent "proven" false allegations at all, they represent allegations where there was a good reason to believe the accusation was false. Perhaps you think we should record crime victimizations differently, but Wikipedia adheres to reliable sources. Nblund ^talk 15:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are not correct and the implication that you are stating is completely absent from any study cited on that page. In most cases, allegations are only deemed false when law enforcement deems an allegation as unfounded or provably false. Considering the liability taken on by law enforcement when they make a wrong determination, the VAST majority of cases where there is any question of legitimacy will be kicked further down the line for investigation and/or referred to a prosecutor. In fact we can cite RAINN itself to see how rare this is. RAINN reports that a mere 3% of all cases have enough legitimacy to be sent to a prosecutor. This citation proves, by itself, that the presumption CANNOT be 5% in any study. How in any conceivable universe can an actual 5% false allegation rate co-exist in the world with a real 3% prosecution rate ASSUMING POLICE ARE THE ONES MAKING THE DETERMINATION IN ALL OF THE STUDIES?? I'm sorry but the preface in this section is grossly misrepresenting the data. Iwog (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Iwog, in this revert that you describe as "far more accurate," you add text reading Likewise it is also generally agreed upon only about 1 to 5% of total rape allegations will lead to a conviction by a court of law and can be presumed to be true. This asserts, without evidence, that "conviction by a court of law" and "can be presumed to be true" are synonymous... yet a failure to convict can occur because the jury thinks an accusation is true but is not convinced beyond all reasonable doubt. It can occur when 11 jurors are utterly convinced and one hold-out is being stubborn for reasons unrelated to the case. It can occur because the evidence relating to sexual assaults can be thin as such crimes often happen in private locations without witnesses and as victims may not immediately report, resulting in a lack of corroborating physical evidence. Convictions can also occur when the evidence is thin and the jury is biased - look at the number of unsafe convictions that have occurred due to racial prejudice, as one example. Do you maintain that a jury conviction is needed for a victim's statement that s/he was raped to be presumed to be true? EdChem (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

No I'm maintaining that it is absolutely absurd to claim 5% of all rape allegations are false, a conviction rate (including a citation) is 1%, and the remaining 94% of all cases can be assumed to be true. It is outrageous that this implication is made in the preface considering no study used as a source is claiming to contain the actual false accusation rate, only those deemed false by law enforcement. Furthermore I've laid out how the opening paragraph wrongly connects two completely different concepts and makes it appear to be talking about the same thing. I've had no response at all to that specific and provable claim. At the very least, it fails high school grammar and I'm not being hyperbolic. Name the subject of the second sentence if you don't believe me. Iwog (talk) 04:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Iwog is a pure WP:SPA and obviously came into WP hot; this is pretty obvious subtweeting of the Kavanaugh matter. I propose a TBAN for anything related to gender-relations under the gamergate DS; any admin can do this. This person needs to stay away from this topic that is too-charged for them, and try to learn what we do here and how we do it, on non-controversial topics. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I would support this. Iwog's userpage suggests a pretty close connection to the Men's Rights Movement - I don't think this necessarily precludes them from ever editing productively on gender issues, but they clearly have more passion than knowledge and they need time to learn the ropes elsewhere. Nblund ^talk 15:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't believe men's rights activists can ever productively edit on gender topics unless they show proof that they're genuinely remorseful and denounce it. Men's rights activism is hate speech and has no place on the encyclopedia. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree++. Suggest topic ban from gender and sexuality, broadly construed, per the GamerGate Discretionary Sanctions--Jorm (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? Misguided, misinformed, and sometimes-to-frequently used as cover for sexist beliefs and language, but "hate speech" is an overkill claim, as is the notion that people who don't share your beliefs should be barred from editing certain topics. That's really not how WP is supposed to work, unless such people are bringing disruption with them, which should be decided on an individual basis. Statements like this just serve as fodder for the "left is out to get us" conspiracy theories, anyway. Grandpallama (talk) 11:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is unfriendly enough to women and other minorities as it is. If you want Wikipedia to offer safe haven to misogynists on gender topics, then by all means, advocate for misogyny. It's my personal opinion that hatred has no place here. And no, I don't want to ban people that disagree with me, or I'd be asking for bans against everyone who voted differently from me on WP:AFD. Please don't mischaracterize my opinion as "ban people who disagree with me". – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 18:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Characterizing people on the conservative end of the sociopolitical spectrum as engaging in hate speech is not appropriate, unless they engage in actual hate speech. Implying that I'm advocating for misogyny is dangerously close to a personal attack and also not appropriate. Pointing out that you are suggesting you'd like to ban people from editing on this topic who disagree with you is a perfectly accurate characterization of the extreme position you laid out, including the expectation that there should be public apologies that demonstrate "genuine" remorse. Wikipedia should be a safe place for everyone who edits it, and those who engage in any unacceptable behavior should be immediately addressed, but expanding the definition of that behavior to include positions you dislike by trying to classify them in a new way while also expecting displays of contrition in order to earn the right to edit again is misguided. And, as I said, it feeds the trolls who seize upon such statements as proof that Wikipedia is some sort of weird leftist hotbed, which it is not. Anyway, this is tangential to the specific behavioral question that was brought here. Grandpallama (talk) 09:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

What in the world? You realize I'm not saying "ban all conservatives from Wikipedia for being misogynists", right? Mens rights activism was specifically identified by the SPLC as a hate group. It is not controversial to suggest that hate groups like white supremacists, male supremacists, and Nazis should not be allowed to edit in areas where they have an agenda of hate to push, and I would like you to reconsider the difference between advocating that hate be restricted from certain areas on Wikipedia and restricting people I disagree with from talking. There's a world of difference between the two. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

What in the world is right, as I think we're not exactly so far apart. As I said, hate speech should be restricted, but it should also be recognized that the SPLC (and even our own page on the so-called MRM) draws some distinctions between "male supremacy" (which is what it categorizes as hate groups/speech/activity and what I now think you were specifically saying you'd like to see outed as such) and the men's rights silliness, and acknowledges (as I did) that there are some legitimate voices in the latter that don't necessarily fall into the former. Every male supremacist is into men's rights activism, but not all of the goofy men's rights activists are male supremacists. Most of the ones I encounter on a daily basis who describe themselves as men's rights activists are just anti-feminists or traditionalists who exhibit some ignorance or poorly thought-out positions, and say largely stupid (but not really hateful) things, rather than seek to advance some sort of actual ideological creed. I actually think we're on the same page and just disagreeing over a point of semantics. If you are saying that male supremacy is hate speech and has no place on the encyclopedia, then we're simpatico. Grandpallama (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The only thing the MRM has had even a remotely valid point to make about since the mid 1990's is that father's are more frequently given the short end of the stick in family court and that some feminists occasionally say hysterical things. Literally everything else they go on about is pure misogyny, and misogyny is absolutely "hate speech". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

And if we see something hateful said, misogynistic or otherwise, we should respond accordingly. But there are a lot of people who self-identify as men's rights activists who are really just highly conservative. I'm not advocating giving any room for hate speech. Grandpallama (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I dunno, @MjolnirPants: I was waiting in line for the toilet the other day, and I was thinking "Man, if that thing with Chandler seeing a woman walking out of the men's room and she said that there was someone in the ladies' room and she just couldn't wait actually happened, she'd totally get away with it, but if a guy did the same thing and tried to use the women's bathroom he'd be immediately tagged as a prevert, even though men who would want to go into the ladies' room for a reason like that are probably a much smaller minority of men than men who legitimately really needed to go". :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Bah, I used to go into the ladies rooms all the time and never got much more than a curious look. Of course, at the time, I was pushing one of my sons around in a stroller that carried a certain malodorous aura that any parent would recognize, and there was no changing table in the men's room. But, to be fair, I'm 6 feet tall, was around 230lbs at the time and had a beard, two arms full of ink and just all around looked about as scummy as I am. If I didn't have the kid with me, I might as well have tattooed "convicted rapist (and occasional drug dealer)" on my forehead. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support any and all sanctions that are on the table I've gone on record as rejecting the usefulness of TBANning SPAs, so I would support a community indef block, or a block with a broad TBAN set as the unblock condition. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Changed to just block the NOTHERE sock-abusing troll. Nothing more needs to be said. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Possibly related: although Iwog has largely gone silent, a MugyuToChu (talk · contribs) was created this morning sided with Iwog in her first and only edit about 20 minute later. I'm not crazy for thinking this seems like a very hamhanded attempt at trolling or concealing sock puppetry, right? Nblund ^talk 22:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you User:Nblund for pointing this out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I just saw this notification at the top of the page. I am a feminist and one of the first articles I looked at was this one because of the Kavanaugh issue going on right now. I'm surprised at the rude reception I'm getting. If I understand what the BATTLEGROUND law means, then Jijiri88, Roscolese, and Nblund definitely seem to be violating it with how they're treating me. It's a shame, because looking at their edits all three also appear to be feminists. Can't we all get along? MugyuToChu (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Obvious sock/troll/joe job blocked indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Here's Iwog on their hobby horse: "Likewise it is also generally agreed upon only about 1 to 5% of total rape allegations will lead to a conviction by a court of law and can be presumed to be true." One step at a time: there is no "likewise". One source, this source, cannot establish "generally agreed upon". Where is the "1-5%" on this page? "Total rape allegations"--the source provides data from the US; globalize, Iwog. Finally, "and can be presumed to be true" is complete BS: it's original research, POV commentary. Iwog will have us believe that 95 to 99% of rape allegations are likely false? And all this in the lede (or lead, whatever...). So, we have here a toxic soup of SPA, POV, OR, and possibly CIR (every step I laid out involves incompetence of some sort--rhetorical, logical, situational). Place a topic ban, or (someone) impose something useful via Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN for gender-related topics under the Gamergate DS. A clear SPA for the area, with continued disruption and a lack of a learning curve. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

So, when is somebody gonna block this guy?

Sorry to paraphrase the worst extra ever, but the above-cited WP:DUCK behaviour is grounds for immediate indefinite block of both accounts. @Yunshui: Sorry to ping you, but you're kinda my go-to for sockpuppetry issues, and buried at the bottom of a relatively stale ANI thread this ran the risk of not being noticed before getting archived. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but it's not going to be me (nor Drmies, who has also run an inconclusive CU with regards to this). There's no technical evidence linking the two accounts, and as yet I don't think the behavioural evidence is sufficient (suspicious, yes; suspicious enough to warrant the check - but not enough to warrant a block in the absence of anything else). No comment on the rest of the above. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The sock that turned up the other day, was CU'd to be User:Architect 134, a notorious false-flag trouble maker in the Nsmutte vein. This could be similar, although it's quacking loudly - who spells the first paragraph of an article "lede" with their very first edit? Black Kite (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Yunshui is correct--that is, there is no support for a CU block. And while some editors deserve to be blocked for one single edit, this is not yet the case. Black Kite, I believe you are correct too: this is a troublemaker, and it certainly quacks, but given the repetitive nature of trolling, who knows. At any rate, if this ever turns into an RfC or a more formal discussion, an admin/seasoned editor will know how to weigh such drive-by comments... Drmies (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding on to the WP:DUCK, there's this diff [10] that Simonvino immediately tried to undo when they realized they'd given themselves away as Iwog. Pretty sure the "talk page discussion" and "dragged to ANI by agenda motivated editors" is Iwog forgetting that they're on on the Simonvino account. Not to mention this really silly edit on User:MugyuToChu's user page [11]. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Er no - Simonvino wasn't Iwog, they were User:Architect 134, that was proved by a CU. It's actually pretty typical joe-jobbing by A134 - writing something that "gives them away", then immediately reverting it as if they've suddenly reaslised what they've done. User:Nsmutte has been known to pull the same trick. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh. Well, that's weird. I guess I should've known better. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 18:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• This person has not edited since Sept 28, per their contribs. Gone to ground, or gone? I still think an indef is appropriate. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• I would like to point out that nothing I have ever written is as personally slanderous or as indicative of a battleground violation than many things contained on this very page. I wonder how the rules are applied these days? Iwog (talk) 04:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• ah it was gone to ground. They are back in the same battering style as before. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see any indication that this will stop on it's own. Nblund ^talk 19:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• I note that Iwog has posted a response above to my question. As far as I can see, Iwog is not stepping away from the edit / revert (described as "far more accurate") that conviction by a court of law means a rape "can be presumed to be true" – implying that the absence of a conviction raises doubt about whether a rape actually happened or suggests that an accusation may be / is false. An editor who can't see why this is a problem should not be editing an article like false accusation of rape. The latest Iwog edits on that article's talk page are also not encouraging. Some action is needed. EdChem (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

User:E-960

Problematic POV pushing. Page blanking against WP:Consensus at Blue Army (Poland). 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Article has been fully protected. This'll give the users involved an opportunity to discuss everything fully on the article's talk page and work things out. I see back-and-fourth reverting that goes back at least a few days, so this appears to be the right and fair way to stop the disruption at this time. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: - there is a longer term pattern of abuse here. E-960 has been attempting, against consensus, to excise coverage (in the lede and body) of anti-Semitic attacks by the Blue Army (which reliable academic sources treat at depth, often as the primary subject of their coverage of the Blue Army (or Haller's Army)) for years - e.g. 17:51, 24 November 2015 (shifting blame to Ukrainians along the way), 06:31, 6 March 2017, 15:07, 25 May 2017 (an edit summary full of OR - referencing a PRIMARY contemporary source - which was composed in 1919 - 2 years prior to the peace of Riga in 1921), 15:30, 26 May 2017, 21:37, 20 October 2017, 08:26, 22 September 2018, .... 06:09, 8 October 2018, 17:17, 9 October 2018. All this - against talk page consensus and RfCs - e.g. Talk:Blue Army (Poland)/Archive 6#RFC: use of a reference source that was taken down by the encyclopedia from May 2017 which discussed the language used in the lede. They have engaged of canvassing of editors involved in WP:EEML - 13:25, 8 October 2018, 13:21, 8 October 2018 (this after - 07:56, 8 October 2018 a highly non-neutral stmt to NPOV/n apparently attracted the wrong sort of editorial attention). An editor that thinks that 200-300 casualties in 3 years of fighting and 200,000 soldiers, that's insignificant, and only confirms my concerns that some editors just want to stack this article with biased one sided statements (again - wrongly referring to Morgenthau's mid-1919 number (the Morgenthau commission did not have a crystal ball) which estimated 200-300 killed through 1919 (casualties - including wounded and abused - would be much larger of course). They have also misrepresented sources - 06:01, 9 October 2018 (not only is Lvov in the Morgenthau report, using David Engel (1987) to rebut a 2005 book is a tad odd - and in this case completely unsupported by Engel (who actually, in his footnote addressing Morgenthau , writesthe opposite). An editor acting against consensus (on the same issue) for years, and who considers widespread antisemitic attack by an organization to be "insignificant" (despite widespread coverage - to the point that some sources primarily cover the Blue Army in the context of antisemitism) - should not be editing the topic area. Icewhiz (talk) 05:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Right, where you have no arguments and are trying to deflect from your own disruptive behavior then... you bring up "EEML", a ArbCom case from freakin' ten years ago that has nothing to do with this article. You know that's just more evidence that you're not editing in good faith, right? Volunteer Marek 14:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I would like to make a critical statement, thought not in an effort to point fingers at anyone and not in bad faith, however a frank dialogue needs to take place. There is a persistent bias on topics related to Polish history, how can any one that is truly for Wikipedia neutraliry say that an article is balanced when it contains 3,100 words 900 (30%) are devoted to just one issue and this also happens to be a contriversial topic. When a few days ago I opened a disscussion on Neutral Point of View Noticeboard to see if the disputed text can be condenced, cynically user Icewhiz responded by adding two more paragraphs to disputed section (also pls see user Icewhiz history, as he has been accused of POV pushing on topics related to Polish-Jewish history in the past). Also, the disputed text is almost all exclusivley the work of one editor user Faustian, who over the years blocked any attempt to make the section more neutral or balanced. Now, Wikipedia guidlines clearly state that undue weight can include depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of text and article structue. So, how can anyone argue that one issue taking up 30% of the article is ok. In no other Wikipedia article would that be allowed. Instead you have artificial "consensus" where the same few editors jump in to support each other, and establish "consensus which clearly violates Wikipedia guidelines. I as that sevral admins to actually look at the Blue Army article and say that the text meets Wikipedias neutrality standards, when the article focuses on just one ethnic group which sustained the least casulties in the war as a result of the army's actions (around 500), while other ethnic groups count their casulties in the THOUSANDS and there is just one passing statement devoted to them. --E-960 (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It would seem neutral, reliable, secondary academic sources treat the Blue Army's antisemitic atrocities against civilians (abuse, cutting of beards, pillaging and robbing, maiming, and killing) at great length in comparison to their performance on the field of battle. We follow sources - not editorial opinion that such atrocities are "insignificant"(diff - 10:33, 8 October 2018). Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for making that statement user Icewhiz because it unmasks your POV pushing, since there are pleanty of sources which say the Blue Army turned the tide of the war and that is the center of their material. However, the sources you champion just focus the the abuse, besides this is not the first article you are trying to impose your POV to the objectin of other editors, no sure what the point of that link was since we are talking about UNDUEWEIGHT.--E-960 (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, it's pretty clear that if anyone is trying to use Wikipedia to "RIGHTGREATWRONGS", it's not E-960 but you. E-960 is making a straight forward policy based argument about DUE WEIGHT. You can disagree with that (the real question is whether this article should spend 1/3 of its space on this issue even though the subject is notable for other reasons, or whether that info belongs in a different article), but there's no need to attack them or insult them or falsely misrepresent their actions, like you're doing by accusing them of RGW (I don't see ANYTHING in their comment which would suggest that). On the other hand, pretty much everyone familiar with your editing history has a pretty good sense of your WP:ADVOCACY and pattern of POV pushing in this and other topic areas. Volunteer Marek 16:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that if E-960 really was concerned about undue weight, he would have taken all that time he spent trying to get this information about atrocities against Jews removed, and instead applied it towards building up other aspects of the history of the Blue Army. Instead he has, for years, just tried to get this information removed. So his actual motive is to remove information he doesn't like, and not make the article weighted as he sees fit. The percentage of the article devoted to these atrocities would have been much smaller had E-960 spent a couple hours in the library doing research and adding other information to the article, rather than spending hours trying to remove information. So let's not pretend that he cares about undue weight. He just wants to remove referenced information that he doesn't like and engages in edit warring and blanking (see here: [12]) while doing so.Faustian (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Faustian, what you are doing is Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, literally no changes have been made to the disputed section in YEARS, because you sit on top of that article and revert all attempts to change the text or even seek a compromise solution (that's not even an exaggeration, the text has been frozen for YEARS due to your stonewalling). --E-960 (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

By "no changed" in the disputed section you mean, your repeated attempts to remove information without consensus. If you are concerned about undue weight, why not build other sections rather than remove reliably sourced info from this one? I doubt you really care about undue weight. You just want information that you don't like to be removed.Faustian (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

This article does indeed have severe undue weight issues. Interestingly I have also checked the sources used and for example Prusin-he doesn't say anything about rapes and burning books by Blue Army soldiers and explanations of the situation have been cut out by the editors adding the information about killings.I compared this article with the article about West Ukrainian People's Republic that exised in the same time and area which engaged in mass opression of Polish population, up to setting up internment camps for Polish population. It is quite interesting to compare the two articles.While here we have almost half of the page devoted to these events, the mass persecution of Poles in WUPR is passed over and blamed on "Polish sabotage". I can't help but notice the radically different treatement the two articles about similiar events in the same time and area and conflict receive.So to summarize-I do believe there is undue weight here and comparing this to other articles on the conflict with similar events there seems to be bias involved.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

And what matters is not what our articles say, but what RS say. So if there is an imbalance maybe this is due to an imbalance in reliable sources saying something. Again if there is information left out of an article that is relevant and can be sourced add it, do not remove sources material from another article in the name of balance.Slatersteven (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• We are back to the theme of trouble in articles on the subject of Polish-Jewish relations. As far as I’m aware there are three editors banned from the area at the moment, and E-960 was editing with them, on the same articles. Whether or not one agrees with this editor on article content, what we're required to do here at ANI is consider conduct. This particular case comes within a context, which I'll start to show some of here.
• For the record, at WP:AE the administrator NeilN has already advised E-960 “to be more careful when reverting” in the conclusion to a WP:AE revert-warring case: [13]
• This came after another WP:AE revert-war case where administrator NeilN asked E-960 to voluntarily abstain from the page in question for 72 hours, in light of E-960’s assurance that they will be more careful in future: [14]
• MyMoloboaccount has recently asked E-960 to “chill out”. [15] .
• Slatersteven messaged E-960 in May to say their conduct was starting look like WP:TE: [16]
• K.e.coffman messaged E-960 last month to say: Hi, I am leaving a quick note to let you know that I did not find these Talk page comments to be helpful: [17]. Talk pages are for discussion of content, not contributors. I would appreciate it if you did not unnecessarily personalised disputes. This could potentially drive off other editors if they find the atmosphere too unpleasant. Thank you. [18]
• I myself disengaged from editing and discussion with E-960 around 15 months ago, at the Poland article here: [19]
• In December, E-960 by their own account alleged a "Planned POV attack on the Poland article" which goes a long way to explain the perception issue here, which seems to motivate the behavior. User:BytEfLUSh responded by saying "I fail to see how someone saying that they intend to improve the article could be viewed as POV-pushing. Also, regarding 3RR, you might want to check the article history and look at the timestamps of your reverts... " Unable to leave alone an editor who had swam away from the WP:BAIT, E-960 added: "This reminds me of several incidents in the past where an editors/suck-puppet dumped information on unusual topics/minutia (normally not covered in other country articles) such as traffic fatalities in the country." I am the editor who had added road deaths to the Poland article (because no matter how embarrassing to the country, they are notable in reliable sources - including Polish news coverage and political discussion - because they are the highest total in the EU), before leaving it per WP:DISENGAGE. E-960 produced no evidence that I am a "suck-puppet". [20]
• Since then I have suspended work on an article subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBEE), named Collaboration in German-occupied Poland, in response to an edit by E-960 there. To my mind in breach of the spirit of these sanctions, E-960 reverted [21] my addition of sourced content [22] which I had discussed my rationale for on the Talk page first, and part of which François Robere had endorsed with a public thanks, meaning E-960 was pointedly disregarding consensus. As you’ll see from the Talk page, the aim of my addition had been to establish article stability by at least having a definition of controversial terms that in my view was causing editors to argue at cross -purposes; E-960’s edit summary shows their own definition of the term Polish “collaboration” rules out Polish “anti-semitism”, as if E-960’s knows the universal truth.
• At times E-960's Talk page discussion has been misleading. For example, at the same article subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies, their "I agree with Chumchum7... Unfortunately, user François Robere wants to..." is not an agreement at all but a case of putting words into someone else's mouth, because I had made a general statement about how we might be able to build consensus and stability, and I had not taken sides against the editor E-960 happened to disagree with: [23] Similarly misleading communication has been witnessed by Paul Siebert: [24]
• The common theme with all these articles is that E-960 has an axe to grind about Poland’s reputation and Polish-Jewish relations in particular, but they do this with the appearance of trying to intimidate, win and control, and often with projections of bad faith and a personally disrespectful tone, which is at odds with the ethos of our community. While I happen to agree that the allegation of Polish antisemitism is sometimes exaggerated and has led to stereotyping and is an aspect of prejudice against Poles, it is equally true that Polish antisemitism is sometimes downplayed, denied, justified or whitewashed. The solution in Wikipedia is to try to find a consensus solution which represents the sources fairly, because it is a fight which will never be won: those who insist on fighting about it will be stopped.
• This has gone on too long. It’s stealing our time and warnings are not being heeded by the user in question; it may even be that our tolerance is feeding their conduct. This ANI needs to be seen in the wider context. Similar sanctions as those applied to User:Icewhiz, etc, may be worth considering. As far as I recall, veteran administrators on issues such as this are Sandstein and User:EdJohnston, who might be available for consultation as well as NeilN .Best luck, -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Chumchum7 - I'm sorry but comparable "evidence of misconduct" could be constructed against anyone who edits Wikipedia. I will highlight that you spent over 3 hours (from 5AM until 8AM [25] - [26] [27]) on scanning for and picking anything that may appear to look perhaps actionable, causing otherwise a standard editor look bad.GizzyCatBella (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, you're one of the three aforementioned editors topic-banned from the same subject area of Polish-Jewish relations in WWII (in your case for misrepresenting sources) where E-960 has been editing. This includes the article subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBEE) on Collaboration in German-occupied Poland, mentioned above. You're very much involved. Please bear in mind the possibility of appealing your ban in December. Your position that the same things here could be said about 'anyone who edits Wikipedia', and your allegation that my use of diffs is 'causing otherwise a standard editor look bad' is understood. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The debate here and the topics are E-960, WW1, and Blue Army Chumchum7 and thank you for recognizing that similar data could be found in most editors edit history not only E-960. Nothing extraordinary there.GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

No, I did not recognize that similar data could be found in most editors' edit history. I said I understood your position, which is a different thing. For the record, that position and your subsequent misrepresentation of what I said indicates that you are not learning from your topic ban, which will be dealt with elsewhere. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation Chumchum7 Now I understand what you meant by saying " my position is understood" I would also suggest to assume good faith and restrain yourself from issuing threats.GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't want to get involved, but well... I agree with what Faustian, Slatersteven and Chumchum said, and regret the latter's decision to stop contributing to said article. I just have two things to add:
1) As you can see, this discussion already pulled in a user previously topic-banned from "history of Poland during WWII" for anti-Semitic comments and edits using a single-purpose account dedicated solely to editing articles about the World War II history of Poland with a view to... making them more sympathetic to right-wing Poles - [a form of] tendentious editing [that] is, in and of itself, incompatible with the fundamental conduct aspect of WP:NPOV [28] (the other admins had more harsh words on the matter, but that's the gist of it). The ban, I'm afraid, was ill-defined: The user should've been banned not from "history of Poland during WWII" but from "history of the Jews in Poland", which would've included both world wars. A ban that allows a user to join in on exactly the same kind of discussion because the events took place 25 years earlier is flawed.
2) E-960 tends to assume others have hidden agendas, and too often for my tastes "casts aspersions" (see admin's comment here), and blocks benign changes because they fear they're intended to malign the Polish nation. Some recent examples:

1. [29] A simple CE blocked because it looked like material was removed.
2. [30] A simple CE - accusation of "massive change" and trying to "sanitize" text.
3. [31] A list of reversals with accusations of "POV pushing" and the like. Notice that despite the length of the discussion, little is actually discussed - most of the changes are just blocked without further explanation. They're later joined by two other editors, but those two don't offer explanations (in fact, one of their comments is so out of place it refers to something that wasn't even discussed). Despite further "stonewalling", 3/7 changes were eventually accepted when other editors became involved, and I suspect others will pass in the future.

Bottom line: When simple CEs are blocked because someone, somehow feels they're driven by ideology, they're showing "battleground mentality" that isn't helpful for Wikipedia. François Robere (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@François Robere - I'm assuming good faith, and I will accept that you are unfamiliar with the judgment and why I was topic banned [32] - could you then kindly cross out this false story composed by you above? --> topic-banned from the history of Poland during WWII for anti-Semitic comments and edits. Thank you.GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I feel unease about Chumchum7 using my comment to E-960. To be frank I said to E-960 to chill out, because I have feeling other users are provoking him into making statements that will be used to push for sanctions. Seriously at this moment some users are doing what can only be described as spamming numerous articles with every exaggerated detail about alleged atrocities by Poles, leading to situation where 30-40% of the article lenght is being dedicated to every claim that can be found, no matter how outlandish.I don't mind covering these topics at all, but at the moment it is getting out of hand and seriously is getting non-neutral.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Article was protected. E-960's proposed changes and opinion of the article were discussed here: [33] Two editors supported him, six editors disagreed. So consensus was 3:6 in favor of not implementing E-960's proposed changes. Protection was lifted. E-960 immediately made the changes that were rejected by most editors. I restored it (talk here: [34]). So it goes.Faustian (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

In E-960's revert, not only did he defy consensus, he also introduced WP:OR -- The Jewish Yearbook of 1920 does not support In an effort to curb the abuses- the source says JULY 2. Warsaw: Anti-Jewish riot; fifteen Jews wounded, and one killed.—Warsaw: General Haller publishes proclamation in the Poranna, signed by Polish, English, and French representatives, ordering his troops to stop the cutting of beards of Jews.. - Haller order his troops to stop (before foreign representatives), however nothing in the source says this was an actual effort to effect a stop. Even, worse Soldiers involved in confirmed acts of antisemitism did receive punishment for their abusive actions. To counter some of the false or exaggerated claims of antisemitism that were reported by the press is not supported at all, and is in fact contradicted, by the cited source - page 227 in Carole Fink's book (who scare quotes "immediate investigation" on the Polish government response to reports of violence by the Blue Army, and then describes a Polish publicity/propaganda campaign). Beyond source falsification, attributing such a statement to Fink (via citation) is a rather serious WP:BLP issue vs. Fink. The issue of misrepresentation was clearly conveyed on the talk page and in the edits that modified content attributed to Fink. Icewhiz (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Faustian this text was added by Icewhiz on 05:26, 9 OCTOBER 2018 [35] and 05:59, 9 OCTOBER 2018 [36] in the middle of the edit war, there was NO CONSENSUS on the talk page to include this NEW text in the article — this is NOT long standing material, see last stable article version form 02:19, 9 SEPTEMBER 2018 [37]. --E-960 (talk) 06:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Incorrect - both on lack of consensus, and regarding the claim of addition. In both cases - as evident in the diffs - [38][39] - this was content that was long standing in the article but which cherrypicked/ORed (the Jewish Yearbook) or grossly misrepresented to the point of being defamatory to the cited author (Carole Fink) - which was corrected to faithfully represent what is actually written in the cited source. I will note that the gross misrepresentation was retorted by E-960 in a blanket revert on 21:31, 13 October 2018. WP:Verifying sources is important.Icewhiz (talk) 07:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• This sequence - beginning with 10:17, 3 March 2018 is symptomatic of E-960's editing - with the false edit summary of "moved training company photos down" E-960 modified the section title from the long-standing Anti-Jewish violence to Reports of anti-Jewish violence. Subsequent consensus on the article talk page section - is clearly against this title (raising of false doubt and NPOV issue - and one should note - no credible source disputes the Blue Army's widespread violence against Jews - at best some marginal sources dispute the scale). Subsequently, and against consensus - 07:22, 15 October 2018 and mis-marked as a WP:MINOR edit (a personal attack? Seems to be insinuating vandalism) - E-960 restores the title he previously sneaked in with a false edit summary. Icewhiz (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Although Icewhiz has a history of conflict with E-960, if their allegations above prove to be accurate, for what it's worth I would support a 3-month topic ban for E-960, based on the precedent of the simultaneous ban for Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek [40]. This is now a matter of (i) helping a disruptive editor to learn, (ii) fairness to previously-banned users, (iii) restoring discipline as well as (iv) the ongoing credibility of the process. If for bureaucratic reasons a filing needs to be done at WP:AE, I would support whoever does it. But I would urge administrators to finish this here and now. If as MyMoloboaccount points out, it is true that E-960 is being goaded, the tormentors need to be rooted out and assessed themselves. But they provide the disruptive editor here with no excuse. Responsibly for behavior is held by the individual who conducts the behavior. One always has the option of WP:BAIT and WP:DENY instead of allowing oneself to be provoked. -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

To the extent that it takes two to tango, and considering that E-90 is not the only one with a "history" here, and that as has been pointed out, users like Icewhiz are goading him, a similar sanction on Icewhiz - basically an extension of his previous topic ban from Polish-Jewish issues during WW2 to ALL Polish-Jewish issues - would also be in order. Volunteer Marek 06:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

No evidence has been presented for any such "goading". Ample evidence has been shown for edit warring (over a period of years) by E-960 against consensus, canvassing (e.g. [41]), misrepresenting sources, and using misleading edit summaries. I will also note this personal attack by Volunteer Marek against @Winged Blades of Godric:, and VM's very long "history" in this topic - harking back to WP:EEML and his recent ban as well. Icewhiz (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I have no remote interest in the topic area but I'm all for assuming good faith and that VM, certainly did not intend it to be a personal attack against me.∯WBG^converse 07:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

To be precise, I would recommend the said topic ban apply to all Poland-related content, not just Polish-Jewish relations. After all the problem appears to be extreme personal attachment to Poland's reputation in general, rather than anti-Semitism or a particular obsession with Jewish matters. This would also be to avert what François Robere identified above: that if the topic ban covers too small an area, the flow of trouble just redirects elsewhere and we all have to go through all this time-wasting again. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree completely. François Robere (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This isn't kindergarten, boys. You don't get cookie points for being "goaded", and you risk getting your cookies taken for falsely accusing someone of being a goad. François Robere (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't think much of this discussion, but read through - one of the editors is pointing out a pattern of modifying maps on Wikipedia such that they under-represent German presence or influence (though at least on that occasion it wasn't without merit). You'll notice this bears some similarity to another discussion from some weeks ago. François Robere (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Uh... removing an WP:OR map created by a indef banned user [42] - who was indef banned for extensive sock puppetry, long term abuse, and pro-Nazi edits - ... and you, have a problem with this Francois? Care to explain why? Volunteer Marek 05:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Not at all, which is why I wrote that at least on that occasion it wasn't without merit. "On that occasion", as later in the thread another case is mentioned which isn't so justified. What bothers me is what's in common for both discussions: the emphasis on ethnicity, misunderstanding census data, and disregarding conflicting sources. François Robere (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I am starting to wonder whether the essay WP:NOTTHERAPY could be helpful reading. Perhaps troublesome editors in the WP:ARBEE area could all get together and agree that they love their grandparents very much, wherever they came from (it could even be an entrance requirement). And that it is high time to get out more [43]. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The barnstar for a good sense of humor to you Chumchum7 (lol). GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems that the issue of the map of German language use, pointed out above by Francois, on enwiki at Talk:German language#E-960's edits ceased after E-960 was blocked at commons on 17 August. Looking through their contributions (and record on various admin boards) at commons, it seems that much of their contributions there involve removing ethnic minorities from maps involving Poland - in the modern era (e.g. German - 1950, or various deletion requests (rejected as in use) - [44][45][46][47], Russian -[48]),, but also at 1 AD. Icewhiz (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

User:E-960 just blanked more info that he did not like here: [49]. Faustian (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Ahmedadan1951

Ahmedadan1951 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• Ahmedadan1951 (not pinging)

See his talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barawa_District&diff=863587274&oldid=861918419 adds a link that I do not believe is real. As he seems to learn from my cues, I'm not going to publicly say why. But if you look at my history and his talk page, you probably know who to trust. And I'm not even interested in Somalia. I only got caught up in this shitstorm because he uploaded an image that I mass-tagged with a template without even looking at it, putting it on my watchlist.

For clarity, either the user is real (which I highly doubt) and it's some rebel leader in Somalia who shouldn't edit anything due to COI, or, more likely, we are dealing with a bored teenager. Alexis Jazz (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, he just restored his unsourced crap on some articles like Barawa (and added unsourced crap to others). Alexis Jazz (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Please notify subject that you have posted here about them, as per instructions at the top of the page when you post here.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: can/should I post somewhere else where that is not required? Any information he gets just helps him evade detection. Alexis Jazz (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

How exactly? At any rate, they edit so sporadically, they won't even notice a short block. They've had a couple for (wait for it) making unsourced edits. I'm a little trigger happy, but leave it to the regulars for now. We aren't in a hurry.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: When I look at your history, it looks like you follow them around.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: not exactly. After his messing around with made-up flags a few months ago, Barawa and some related pages ended up on my watchlist. But it wasn't until now when he made an edit to Barawa that I noticed he woke up again. So I just undid his unsourced September edits. FYI, Ahmedadan1951 (or someone extremely close to him) operates the websites for which he adds links to articles about Somalia. https://www.parliament.gov.so/ is the real website of the Somali government and I doubt they would consider any of this very funny. Alexis Jazz (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

What I meant with my history is: I'm a decade+ contributor who is obnoxious, rude, likes MjolnirPants and burns things. But I've never screwed you over. Ahmedadan1951 registered 9 months ago and gave us nothing but unsourced homemade crap with a sauce of edit war. Alexis Jazz (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

As there's no discussion here and the only answer I see is to indef Ahmedadan1951 until they respond to issues, I plan to do so if no one objects. They have not edited since before this is posted. Short term blocks have not had an impact.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Sounds reasonable. This is pretty bizarre behavior.  Swarm  talk  00:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

TBH, I forgot aboutt his. Will deal with it tomorrow is no one beats me to it.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Xayahrainie43

• Xayahrainie43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has drawn concerned attention throughout their short career here. Of the current WT:WPM discussions, four concern Xayahrainie's edits (the two on which Xayahrainie is named explicitly, and also List of polygons and n-ary). Many edits tend towards large-scale, systematic changes to some article or sets of articles, with no discussion; often, against an existing consensus. So far there have been several clean-up efforts following their edits; here is the most recent one, but earlier there was this (there are four or five relevant discussions on that page; all the "-ary" discussions and also Hyper6) as well as some AfDs. The user's talk page is full of good-faith, non-templated advice and encouragement to discuss; so far this has generated no success. One can see in some of the RfD and AfD discussions their real lack of understanding of what it means to discuss notability or policy, and to reach consensus; see here for the most sustained example.

So far all warnings and attempts at discussion have failed to make an impression, so I request a short block (with possibility of escalation if there is no change in behavior). I do not watchlist ANI, please ping. --JBL (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think a block is needed yet, but would support a short TBAN against this user creating redirects. They should not be creating more redirects similar to those being discussed at deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It is not just about redirects; check out this recent article creation (currently at AfD). Or creating hatnotes for non-redirects for special characters (dealt with by me eventually). --JBL (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • To add: I do not understand the idea that a short block is more invasive than a topic ban. This user's problem is failure to communicate and to appreciate existing consensus -- this leads to disruption wherever they work, and needs to be solved by a method that will convince them of the seriousness of discussion in the WP process. I would not support a T-ban for this user (even in the absence of a block), it will not solve anything. --JBL (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
• The disruptive edits of this editor are far not limited to redirect creations. Many are aimed to name or list, as far as possible possible, objects that are indexed by integers, such as n-gons, n-ary. In this sequence of edits, they tried to extend from 8 to 12 the explicit examples for low n. I have reverted these edits because they add nothing from an encyclopedic point of view, and also because they contained some mathematical errors. Fortunately, they do not tried starting an edit war, and I considered the subject as closed. However, it is useful to mention it here, for having a global view of the problem. D.Lazard (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• The deleted version of this user's user page (if you can see it) will give you a very clear and typical idea of this user's contributions (I believe also as an IP before creating this user account): piles and piles of original research, both as walls of text and big tables of numbers, added to articles with zero references (or with only OEIS as reference), and with a special emphasis on base-12 notation. Or for a non-deleted example, see Special:Diff/863227170 and scroll down to the part starting "searched up to 1048576". Also note the complete lack of usable edit summaries. If this junk is removed by other editors, the same editor will come back days or weeks later to re-add it. I think WP:NOTHERE and WP:COMPETENCE are in play. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• User:Xayahrainie43/duodecimal illustrates the fascination with base 12. Johnuniq (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Links: Xayahrainie43 (talk · contribs)

  Something drastic is needed because enthusiasm can waste a lot of time. I explained a problem at the user's talk here but got no response. That talk has been edited 72 times—three of those were by Xayahrainie43. That level of collaboration is not satisfactory. The suggestion above about a topic ban against creating redirects is not sufficient because other problems exist (see my "here" link for example). Johnuniq (talk) 04:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Johnuniq (and others above): A block is necessary. An indefinite block. Lifted only when he agrees to stop the problematic edits and to actually respond to talkpage notices. It's unclear whether he can be rehabilitated, but at the very least his editing (50+ edits per day!), which is highly problematical, has got to stop. Softlavender (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
• Is it possible to permanently disable write access (including creation and move rights) to article space (including redirects), but not to article and redirect talk pages and to draft pages?

If so, this might be a solution to the problem, so that s/he can still participate in the project by proposing changes on article talk pages (and thereby will be forced to learn to motivate/discuss changes so that others will accept them), but cannot cause disruption by changing article contents, mass-creating undesired redirects, etc. This way, noboby would have to monitor and cleanup after this editor, and still the project could benefit from the editor's knowledge. The editor's particular dedication (obsession?) with certain topics might even help us to round out some topic areas with aspects overlooked by editors without this dedication. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

They're working on that feature, but it's not available yet. A straight indef is the only option. All they'd have to do to get unblocked is start communicating though, so it's really not the end of the world. They have not edited since another admin has asked them to respond here, but if they fail to do so in a timely manner, or if they make any edit that isn't responding here, I am going to block them.  Swarm  talk  19:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a new 17 October edit by Xayahrainie (later than the above statements) so I think User:Swarm's criterion for issuing an indef block is now met. Xayahrainie has made no response to my last-chance advice from 16 October that they might respond to this ANI to avoid a block. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Swarm has administered an indefinite block, with further encouragement to engage. --JBL (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit war at City Rail Link

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

---

An ip, who has changed ip address at least once, began a slow edit war on 29 August. Tonight he/she is continuing at a rapid pace. I left an explanation about the term "car" in one of my earliest edit summaries, and have tonight left an explanation at the ip's talk page, to no avail. The edit war has continued. The editor either has serious competence or language difficulties, or is deliberately being disruptive. Either way, a block is needed. Due to the time zone I cannot find any New Zealand admin online (it's 3:25 am as I write this). Requesting a block.

No doubt someone here will say that I should have reported this at the 3RR page. Let me tell you that that page is very user-unfriendly for those like me who use iPads. The amount of copying and pasting required is almost impossible on an iPad. Akld guy (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The only issue here (as this is clearly a content dispute) is that both editors are currently in violation of WP:3RR in that both have 8 reverts to the article within 24 hours so Akld guy may wish to duck for the WP:BOOMERANG.

This is clearly a WP:ENGVAR issue because trains are made up of 'cars' in US English and 'carriages' in British English. Since the article is about a New Zealand railway, it should be whatever term is used by NZ railways (most likely the same as Australian railways which I believe is 'car'). The only other observation is that AG has attempted to WP:COMMUNICATE whereas the IP has made no such attempt in any of his incarnations. TheVicarsCat (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

This is not an ENGVAR dispute. As I pointed out in the edit summary of one of my earliest reverts, the term "car" is used in the reference. Australian usage has nothing to do with the topic. New Zealand is not part of Australia, and does many, many things differently. The term used in NZ for Auckland's electric train sets (which are self-propelled) is "car". Akld guy (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm highly annoyed that TheVicarsCat has attempted to turn this into an ENGVAR issue and has forced me to respond on that side issue. Please look at Tangiwai disaster and scroll down to the "Public inquiry" section. Notice that the official investigation in 1954 used the term "car" in reference to the carriages. NZ does not necessarily follow UK practice. Akld guy (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

In a dispute like this the winner is the first one who stops. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I've protected teh page for two weeks. Now the two have no choice but to argue/debate someplace other than in the article. Have fun with that... TomStar81 (Talk) 17:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I requested to TomStar81 to remove an edit on the article but I probably should have come here first. I had also participated in the article editing, removing one of the users edits while Akld guy removed the rest. Ajf773 (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes this is an WP:ENGVAR issue. Certain English variants use 'car', and others use 'carriage'. If New Zealand used 'car' for self propelled vehicles and 'carriage' for non self propelled, then it is unique in the English speaking world. Further, the words used by the source are irrelevant. One expects words used in a source to be translated into the language in which the article is written (if different). TheVicarsCat (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I am very sorry that I came here to complain and will never do so again. It would have been better to have waited until the NZ admins, who have better appreciation of NZ terminology, got out of bed and then complained to them. Or, I could have continued the edit war on a slow basis, probably dragging on for months until the ip lost interest. My attempt, knowing that the term "car" was correct and used in the reference, to bring the matter to a head by exceeding 3RR and getting quick action here from overseas admins, has backfired and very nearly resulted in my own blocking. I will never again risk a boomerang by coming here. Meanwhile, the ip who caused all this and has uttered not a single word anywhere, gets off scot free. Akld guy (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Akld guy, edit warring is never an acceptable solution to such a problem. Never, ever, ever. So please change your attitude about that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you going to tell that to the ip too? The ip who, thanks to page protection and the fact that I quit first, has actually won for the next two weeks so that the article now uses the wrong term. Akld guy (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm also disappointed that unregistered user edits (with no history) appear to have just as much weighting over those of a regular and active registered user. Ajf773 (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ajf773: IP editors have as much right to edit Wikipedia as registered editors. As in: "Wikipedia - the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit." I have observed in the past, that any editor who tries to 'discourage' IP editors ends up being blocked. When you say the IP has no edit history, how do you know this? The IP is a dynamic IP which means that it changes every time he logs onto the internet so may well have a long edit history (whatismyipaddress.com is wrong on this point, but then what it reports is based on user submitted data). TheVicarsCat (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

As a registered user my history is all there for everyone to see, whereas an IP hopping non-reg user does not have a history without using the fancy IP searching tools as you describe. In my experience of editing non-regs quite often are disruptive users primarily because they are either newbies who don't understand how WP works or they are previous banned users. In this case, those edits were definitely disruptive and Akld guy and I were right to revert those edits. Ajf773 (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ajf773: In every case, a user who uses a dynamic IP address has no control over their IP address. They get a different one every time they log on and there is nothing that they can do about it. There are many IP editors who do not fall into the categories that you list (and in my experience: probably the majority). I myself was an IP editor for many years without problems until I had to create an account to raise an SPI complaint (as IPs cannot create new records). That they appear to have a short edit history is not their fault and purely a knock on effect of the way things work (Wikipedia has no problem as long as the differing IPs are not used to !vote stack or support each other - though it is usually very obvious when this happens). The usually touted position that they should create an account is not, as of this time, a requirement of Wikipedia and therefore cannot be a requirement of you or anyone else. Another oft touted claim is that, "IPs cause more disruption than registered editors". A check of this page on any day invariably shows more complaints against registered editors than IPs (as of this time 15 for registered editors but only 6 for IPs).

Your categorisation of the IP's edits as disruptive is irrelevant, and a poor defence of your own equally disruptive behaviour. You and Akld guy had no right to serially revert the IP in the way that you did. You were edit warring just as much as the IP was. The nature of the IP's edit was not an accepted exemption to the three revert rule. The fact that many English variants use 'carriage' for railway vehicles means that the IP's edit must be assumed to be good faith in the absence of any other evidence (possibly mis-guided but certainly good faith). TheVicarsCat (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

When pages are protected, the admins are not endorsing any particular version over another. They protect the page at whatever version it was at merely to force the combatants to discuss the matter on the talk page and come to a consensus. That is what you now have to do to get the article changed. Though to be fair, it was the IP editor's responsibility to initiate the talk page discussion after your first revert (per WP:BRD). TheVicarsCat (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

These are the units involved. For those on this board who have no comprehension of rail systems and have probably never taken a train ride in recent times, they are self-propelled units, not pulled or pushed by a locomotive. Notice that the article uses the term "car" throughout, which is the common New Zealand term for self-propelled units. Akld guy (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Akld guy, what's with the note that you left on the ip's talk page? Namely, "Please note that you are not anonymous - look here". Quite ominous, without explanation. Moriori (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• This is clearly an ENGVAR issue, and I'm not really sure why Akld guy is so upset at that notion. Part of ENGVAR is WP:RETAIN, which prohibits the sort of arbitrary wording changes the IP was performing. To be clear, AG should have opened a discussion on the talk page explaining his reverts, and then reported it to WP:AN3 if the IP didn't engage there (it's hard to communicate with someone without a stable user talk space). You could have and should have done things differently. That said, it's pretty apparent that AG is willing and able to communicate and the IP is not, the IP is making unexplained ENGVAR changes contrary to MOS, and the IP is willing to edit war to a degree that seems like trolling, so I don't think locking AG out of the article for a significant period of time is beneficial to the project. I've converted the full protection to semi-protection, and you can restore your version, since you have a legitimate reason and the IP did not have one, but please only do so after you have made a section on the talk page explaining why "car" is correct and "carriage" is wrong, and refer to it in your edit summary. If the IP really wants to contribute in good faith, they can start by using the talk page.  Swarm  talk  20:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you Swarm. Exactly my reasoning as I was trying to convince some of the other editor here. Ajf773 (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, thank you @Swarm:. Someone sensible at last who recognises disruption. What a stupid nightmare this page is. Akld guy (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

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

The return of User:Daniel C. Boyer

Because of a pretty good edit filter we haven't had much trouble recently from frustrated unknown artist and LTA self-promoter Daniel C. Boyer, who was community banned last year [50]. But he's reappeared recently as Special:Contributions/2604:2000:E860:5500:30CE:29B1:3721:C3C9 with some edits that escape the filter [51] and insertion of a "work" of his own that resides at Commons [52].

We need a block (or range block -- experience shows he'll keep coming back once he's found away around the filter). If someone wants to tinker with the filer, take a look at User_talk:Daniel_C._Boyer#Oct_2018_socking. Pinging John from Idegon, Beyond My Ken. EEng 02:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Good grief, is he still about? He was spouting garbage right back at the very dawn of Wikipedia; you'd think he'd have got bored by now. ‑ Iridescent 03:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I blocked the ip for a week. I guess for a range block we need an evidence that they have used more than one IP.--Ymblanter (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

My vague understanding is that there are some low-order bits that are almost always a block of addresses for a single customer or whathaveyou. Anyway, let's leave this thread open a few days to see if he comes back in another guise. Any edit filter wizard who has a minute might want to follow the link a gave earlier to get an idea of what's needed as far as extending the filter. EEng 04:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

My goodness, he's nothing if not persistent. Revert and block on sight, I think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Didn't know I was dealing with a celebrity. Just thought it ludicrous that we are supposed to accept that there is a new form of surrealism that involves cutting holes in photographs without a source. John from Idegon (talk) 05:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I see that thing has been marked {{cn}} since 2009, and the only "sources" I could find which defined it were just copies of what the Wikipedia article said. Nice to see it's finally been expunged, but it's a shame it's been there long enough to taint so many other sites. I also see it was added to Ted Joans in 2003 (where is has also always been unsourced) with the edit summary "(adding from outagraph)". Outagraph, which was deleted in 2005, was created by Daniel C. Boyer in 2003. I've also removed the claim from Ted Joans now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Portraits of the artist as a pretentious dork: [53][54][55]. His latest work is "The Green Woman with the Tiara Does Not Elope but Marries the Man with the Seventy-Dollar Ears". So deep! So avant-garde! So boundary-challenging! It's even acrylic and gauche! EEng 05:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• à chacun son goût -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I think they used to call it "the disease of kings" -- Henry VIII and so on.. EEng 07:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• I just noticed that the current version of the Consensus reality article he created way back in 2002 includes An Analysis of the Metapragmatic and Therapeutic Dimensions of Vampiric Live Action Role-playing as a 'source'. Someone should probably look through those pages he created over the years and see how problematic the rest of them are, regardless of whether or not they're direct spam for him. ‑ Iridescent 14:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  I can't face the thought of that today, but here's a list of his page creations in case someone wants to formulate a plan for dividing up the work. [56] EEng 21:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  I checked the A's and the B's and didn't find anything. EEng 21:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  I did a randomish dip sample—there's a lot of drivel like Fax art and Arsenal/Surrealist Subversion, but I'm not seeing much that's problematic. Because his main burst of activity was over a decade ago, it looks like for once Wikipedia's model has functioned as it's supposed to, and the garbage like Mattila Square, Quad-ruled paper and J. Karl Bogartte has been removed by Wikipedia's natural processes of article patrolling. ‑ Iridescent 01:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  Arid desiccant, I've been meaning to ask you for some time: what's the difference between a dip sample and a just plain sample? EEng 04:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  Are not all desiccants, by nature, arid?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. It is the natural destiny of desiccants to lose their aridity in the performance of their duty. EEng 05:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

très tragique-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@EEng For a dip sample, you take the whole list and select entries from it at random; for a representative sample, you divide the list into chunks and sample one entry from each chunk. Usually when people on Wikipedia say they've checked a sample, they mean a representative sample as the way contribution histories are displayed makes it easier to keep clicking "older" and sample one entry from each 50-entry page of results, but in this case I genuinely did pull up the whole list and click on it at random, which IMO is a fairer method when you're looking to see if there's a pattern of problems (representative sampling top-loads your results towards either the oldest or newest edits depending on which way you're working through the list, as even if one starts out with the intention of checking the entire history one tends to abandon the checks once a pattern becomes apparent). ‑ Iridescent 12:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Potential socking on Lethal Weapon TV series page

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

---

Hello everyone. There's a small issue on the Lethal Weapon TV series page that I would like to bring to your attention.

Long story short one of the shows stars earlier this month announced that he was leaving the show when the shows filming wraps in December. However recently the series received a two episode additional backorder and according to the source [57] the stars concerns were addressed and that he would feature in these episodes and potentially further seasons if the show is renewed.

However a user called Dibol is adding (seasons 1-3) to the credits of Damon Wayans despite being told that this is factually incorrect. When I reverted him the first time an IP address appeared within half an hour and restored his edits, see [58]. When another user reverted, Dibol appeared to revert them [59]. Now today this same IP has appeared to restore Dibols edits [60].

I'm fairly sure this editor is using his IP as a sock and is attempting to force their changes through without discussion. Could an administrator please take a look at the Lethal Weapon (TV series) page history and take action. They're clearly the same person. Esuka323 (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

My statement below about empty talk pages not withstanding, I'd note that in this case that Dibol appears to have broken 3RR if this is true, but no one else reverted more than twice, but the socking means I'm not sure if this would be easily dealt with on WP:AN/EW if it really did occur. Nil Einne (talk) 02:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thankyou, It appears the issue has calmed down from when I first made this report. It also doesn't look like Dibol/IP will participate in this discussion. I wouldn't be against this discussion being closed, but if an admin could suggest where I report this user should they become a problem again before doing so that would be greatly appreciated. Esuka323 (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Repeatedly remove and add non-sense without explanation

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

---

• 101.13.165.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 49.216.135.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 49.219.147.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 115.82.66.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.15.218.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 49.217.6.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 180.204.195.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.9.131.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 49.218.8.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.15.133.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 49.216.129.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Han Xinyun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It seems the same person who changes his IP every day to make vandalism. And I found surprisingly he has made vandalism for a long time. He likes to remove Chinese in the article and distort the content including ranking time and again.

Here are his vandalism: [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72].

Could the article be protected and the vandal be banned? 14.220.230.65 (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

given the almost complete lack of sources in that article, how is anyone supposed to know what is or isn't vandalism? 86.147.197.124 (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) A lot of the IPs you listed appear to be stale so I'm not sure they are actionable. Just checked the page itself, and the amount of disruptive editing doesn't appear to high either. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 20:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Daweibj

• Daweibj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• StarTimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Access to Satellite TV for 10,000 African Villages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user has mainly edited these two articles, and I couldn't find any single sentence of criticism against both subjects. If the user is somehow related to the StarTimes company, I'd like to declare it's against WP:COI, but I couldn't find any sufficient evidence. (I do believe these articles need to be retouched, however.) JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 19:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

JSH-alive, I haven't looked into this yet, but I'm just letting you know (if you don't already) that there is also the WP:COIN, which investigates these matters, if you get no traction here. Softlavender (talk) 07:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, we can't really do much here if there's no clear evidence of wrongdoing. For further investigation into whether the editor has a COI, WP:COIN is the proper place, and for further consideration of POV concerns, WP:NPOVN is the place for that. If you come across any clear evidence of bias or POV, we can certainly do something about it here, but if you need help digging into the users articles and edits, you'll probably have more luck at one of the other noticeboards.  Swarm  talk  21:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

70.178.127.37

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

---

Since this ANI thread was archived with no resolution, the anon has continued his mean streak. Reverting correct information, edit-warring on that, repeatedly. I made an attempt to show the anon where they were wrong on the WAZR page, for example, and was accused of "stretching market definitions" (whatever that means).

The anon has ignored logical information, for example, WELY uses the branding "End of the Road Radio". It is listed on the station's website, it is listed on their Facebook page, on their Twitter page, and of course they use it on their live stream (which is a simulcast of their broadcast transmission). The anon claims all of this "unsubstantiated AND out of date", "outdated website and a stream". The anon does not explain, though, how the website and stream is outdate. Perhaps he was thrown by the "2013 MN Twins Radio Affiliate of the Year!" in the lower left.

The anon has also repeatedly removed any instance that the station's signal can be picked up across Lake Superior] in Cook County, Minnesota and Thunder Bay, Ontario. WGLI is located on Michigan's Western UP. Their is a source for this, but the anon ignores it because he claims it doesn't show the information. Ignoring the fact that stations can and do exceed their broadcast coverage areas and go past their 40dBu signals into a 30dBu signal (which does exist).

It is abundantly clear, especially from this post, that the anon is not interested in communicating, working with others, but only OWNing articles and putting information that is correct only to him. I would be greatful for any help that I could get. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:01 on October 15, 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not going to say anything regarding the content dispute itself, except to say it's highly inappropriate to issue a 3RR warning to someone that you yourself are engaged in an edit war with. Also, as per this discussion, there's no evidence that either of you have heeded User:Marchjuly's suggestion by taking the discussion to Talk:WAZR to get a consensus from a wider array of editors. Even if the IP didn't want to discuss things, you still didn't try to discuss things with anyone else as suggested by User:Marchjuly. Without saying who's right one way or the other, I'm just going to say that this ANI thread is evidence that you failed to take whatever course of action that was recommended to you, so you can expect others to look at not just the IP's behavior but your behavior as well.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with Mythdon here. As I've often said, the article talk page being empty is never a good sign when you're trying to get someone blocked for edit warring or not discussing (barring simple 3RR which don't generally belong here). Getting into semantic over who should discuss first per WP:BRD and other policies and guidelines generally misses the point. And while it's helpful to try and engage an editor on their talk page, especially a new or possibly new editor, people respond to such attempts in various ways and discussion over article content ultimately belongs on article talk pages. The best way you can demonstrate that the other editor is the problem tends to be by ensuring people can easily see you made a good faith effort on the article talk page and received no response. Nil Einne (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

And I think there is good evidence here for why it's quite helpful to at least attempt discussion on the talk page. While we don't rule on content disputes, in one of the disputes cited above namely that relating to coverage having looked into it I'm currently siding with the IP. I don't see where the map shows the claimed coverage as I've pointed out in the article talk page Talk:WGLI#Coverage. I assume the OP isn't saying we should ignore what the source actually says because we should know from our own OR that coverage is often wider than that given in the sources we use. Instead I assume what's being said above is that the info is somewhere on the source, simply less obvious but I haven't yet figured out where the source shows this info. If this was already explained on the talk page, I wouldn't be so perplexed, but it's not. Nil Einne (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Looking into this more, it seems the IP has raised similar concerns on the OP's talk page although then decided to remove their post (doing it poorly at first) [73]. While this discussion should have been in the article talk page, since the initial discussion begun on user talk pages it's hard to completely blame the IP for the mess. And while the IP for whatever reason decided to remove their comments, so they could not be directly responded to, the simplest solution was simply to explain on the article talk page where the source actually shows this coverage in the claimed areas so that all of us would know that instead of staring at a map which does not seem to show what is being claimed. Nil Einne (talk) 02:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mythdon: Sorry for the delays in response, work plus 495/66 traffic. I never really considered the "consensus" thing because FCC coverage maps don't require consensus. The FCC, part of the United State Federal Government, is one of the most highly reliable sources we have. So establishing consensus on a highly reliable source seems rather redundant. I decided to "cut out of the middleman" (ie: the WAZR talk page) and talk to the anon directly. We see how that went. I have also tried to talk to the anon on Osawah's talk page as well, that turned out just as well.

@Nil Einne: In the case of WGLI, apparently it was missed, "that stations can and do exceed their broadcast coverage areas and go past their 40dBu signals into a 30dBu signal (which does exist)". A station's coverage area doesn't make a dead STOP at the end of their 40dBu coverage. It keeps going until another signal on the same frequency stops it or it just statics out. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:15 on October 15, 2018 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: It really comes down to how you're both interpreting these sources. For example, while you're probably correct that "WGLI's signal can also be picked up across Lake Superior in Cook County, Minnesota and Thunder Bay, Ontario.", this coverage map doesn't show it's signal touching Thunder Bay at all meaning "A station's coverage area doesn't make a dead STOP at the end of their 40dBu coverage" is your own interpretation of the source which requires consensus. While some stations do reach outlying areas, you'll have to provide a specific source (that explicitly states WGLI can be seen in Thunder Bay) that doesn't require someone with specialized knowledge to interpret how far that signal reaches. "A station's coverage area doesn't make a dead STOP at the end of their 40dBu coverage" is your own specialized knowledge/interpretation/whichever and cannot be inferred by just anyone taking a look at the coverage map, so it's not about the reliability but rather the interpretation of the source. You have to consider how other readers will interpret the coverage map and not just basing it on your own specialized knowledge of radio stations, if this adds to my point as to why I say you should seek outside input on the talk pages as others suggested. You could even start a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations and see what they say.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, "specialized knowledge" (I like that) and 12 years of Wikipedia experience is how I can say this. We could do consensus here. All of us (US and Canada members, I can't speak for how radio stations "behave" in other countries) have that one station (or many) that we aren't really suppose to get. I will give you an example, this station, WIYY in Baltimore, is receivable at my home with no real issues (unless I park in front of a building blocking the signal). I live in what would be considered the 20 to 30dBu coverage area. I technically should not be able to receive this station according to this map, but I can. So, does it serve my area (I live in the Northern Shenandoah Valley) or is it an illusion?

Here's another, and a more perfect example of what I was talking about that a signal "keeps going until another signal on the same frequency stops it or it just statics out". WVSB-FM 104.1 out of Romney, WV is heard clearly in my area (I would be in the station's 30 dBu coverage area) over Washington, DC's WPRS-FM, also on 104.1. WPRS has no issues in a neighboring county, but here (just 15 miles away), you get WVSB.

This is where knowledge of distant radio stations, knowledge of how radio waves "play" with mountains, valleys, and other land formations, and knowledge of stations themselves come into play. Not just blindly looking at the data and acknowledging that it is correct, but expanding on that with the knowledge that you have. The anon clearly doesn't have that and I am not tooting my own horn here. Radio stations and all about them is what I know.

I can "establish consensus" of a 30dBu signal until the cows come home, but it will not satisfy the anon and to be honest, I don't see it as a colossal waste of time. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:29 on October 16, 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) When you post things like I never really considered the "consensus" thing because FCC coverage maps don't require consensus, We could do consensus here. or This is where knowledge of distant radio stations, knowledge of how radio waves "play" with mountains, valleys, and other land formations, and knowledge of stations themselves come into play. Not just blindly looking at the data and acknowledging that it is correct, but expanding on that with the knowledge that you have. The anon clearly doesn't have that and I am not tooting my own horn here. Radio stations and all about them is what I know., it gives off the impression that you are arguing that content be included just because you're a (self-proclaimed) WP:EXPERT. Your opinion would be given much more weight if you can show that reliable sources generally consider you to be an authority on source matters; otherwise, it's just going to be considered WP:OR in a Wikipedia sense. I think the point Mythdon is making is that an FCC map doesn't require consensus that it's an FCC map, but how an editor interprets the map is WP:SYN unless reliable sources can be cited to show the map is interpreted in such a way. I'm not trying to insult you or claim you're not knowlegable about radio stations, but that's just basically how Wikipedia treats such personal knowledge and experiences. Moreover, a comment like I can "establish consensus" of a 30dBu signal until the cows come home, but it will not satisfy the anon and to be honest, I don't see it as a colossal waste of time. (I think you meant "I do (not don't) see it as a colossal waste of time") seems to be a bit of WP:BADFAITH with respect to the IP and kinda missing the point of WP:CONSENSUS. If you make the same arguments on the article talk page and others agree with you, then the IP will be expected to honor that consensus; if they don't. they run the rist of being seen as WP:IDHT or WP:NOTHERE. At the same time, if the consensus turns out to be in support of the IP, then you would similarly be expected to honor the consensus.

Finally, continuing to engage the IP at User talk:Oshwah#70.178.127.37 is not going to help resolve things one way or another. Either discuss the IPs behavior here or discuss article content on the article's talk page, but at this point there's nothing gained by responding tit-for-tat everywhere the IP posts.

Just so it doesn't seem as if I'm singling you out, everything I posted above pretty much applies to the IP as well. They should discuss any issues they have with your behavior here, and any issues with article content on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC);[Post edited by Marchjuly to change "a FCC" to "an FCC". -- 06:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)]

(Non-administrator comment) "I think the point Mythdon is making is that a FCC map doesn't require consensus that it's an FCC map, but how an editor interprets the map is WP:SYN unless reliable sources can be cited to show the map is interpreted in such a way" - Precisely my point and I also agree with Marchjuly that continuing to engage eachother in this manner is only going to complicate things further. Although I'm not a completely neutral party (as I'm part of sister project WP:TVS), I'll say that escalating to ANI without prior attempts at discussion/dispute resolution is central to the reason no administrator has bothered to action anything involving this.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: I read what you said when I wrote my initial reply. It sounded a lot like you were saying we should ignore sources because of our own OR. I was initially going to say that it sounded like what you were saying. But I've seen your name around enough before so assumed you were an experienced editor so I AGFed that I must have been wrong and the source did somehow support the claim (although left a little of the original sarcasm intact).

I am astounded that you are instead confirming you think it's okay to apply WP:OR and misuse use a source claiming it supports something it does not. I don't know and frankly no longer care what else the IP has done. This is a major WP:Boomerang to me. Since you're experienced and should know better by now, it sounds like we have a major case of WP:CIR.

I'm very close to calling for a topic ban for you from anything to do with broadcast coverage if you don't undertake to follow our WP:RS requirements and stop all WP:OR. (I mean at a minimum, if you are going to do OR, don't claim sources say something they don't. Leave your OR uncited, or better yet, tag it as OR.)

As others have said, if you really are an expert, feel free to publish you coverage maps/areas elsewhere. If the community agrees you are a subject matter expert, we may then choose to use your published information. What you cannot do is publish your info here based entirely on your own additions to the map and expect it to be okay because you are an expert. I can't say again how disturbing it is that an experienced wikipedian thinks that's okay.

(By additions I mean even accepting a 30dBu range, how did you determine what areas receive a 30dBu signal considering the terrain etc? To be fair, in this example it may be fairly flat. But there are surely other examples where it would not be and so 30dBu is way more complicated than simply a wider area outside the 40dBu coverage. I'm not asking for an explanation BTW, rather pointing out why as an uninformed outsider I can easily see why it's not a a simple thing and would indeed require a subject matter expert or alternatively testing. As I said perhaps you are that expert, if so publish your research somewhere and let the community decide if your research is reliable and cite it.)

Nil Einne (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Straight-forward question: Is the Federal Communications Commission a reliable source under WP:RS? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:47 on October 16, 2018 (UTC)

• Christ, everyone stop it. Seriously, this is not the place to discuss content. The above exchanges are absolutely ridiculous distractions. Whether or not we personally know content to be "true" is completely irrelevant as a matter of policy. Content must be verifiable, unsourced content can be removed, and it can only be added back with a source, even if it's confirmed to be true by an editor. That's just policy. So any complaints about the IP removing content that may be "true" but isn't actually directly supported by a reliable source can go out the window. It's not even worth discussing, and certainly not here. Furthermore, the personal attacks are way over the top. NH appears to be an experienced and highly established editor, and casually throwing around terms like BOOMERANG and CIR without serious cause is not okay. There are legitimate complaints being made that should be examined, and that's what this board is for. Neutralhomer please boil this down for us a bit. On which articles is the IP currently removing sourced content?  Swarm  talk  00:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with Swarm here. What it boils down to is that content-related discussions need to be held on the talk pages of the articles that they directly involve. Neither user is engaging in vandalism, and it's uncivil behavior to state that the other is doing so and to report them to AIV even after other editors have said otherwise, including the admin who declined the AIV report stating the same thing. As stated by Marchjuly in the discussion between you two on my user talk page here, it looks like you two are going in circles over these disputes and your discussions, as well as back-and-fourth repeatedly on the articles directly involved (which is edit warring and something you both have been repeatedly warned about). It looks like the best solution to these disputes is to have other uninvolved editors weigh in on them to come to a consensus. The back-and-fourth arguing in your dispute discussion is obviously going nowhere, and the repeated back-and-fourth reverting on the affected articles is becoming very disruptive. You both have received more than your fair share of warnings regarding edit warring; engaging in further edits like this will result in being blocked without any further notice. I would fully protect these pages, but because the ones I looked at haven't been edited for over two days, I'm going to hold off. Please take the input and recommendations that have been given to you both, don't edit or revert these articles any further until a consensus has been reached via discussion, and be respectful to one another at all times. Thank you, and good luck. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

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

User:FilFootyGuy

• FilFootyGuy (talk · contribs)
• 2018 Bangabandhu Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:2018 Bangabandhu Cup

I don't see any hope he will stop his disruptive editing. Refuse to read the consensus in the talk page of the article, refuse to leave any word in Dispute resolution noticeboard. After the expiry of the temp block, disruptive edit the article again (Special:Diff/863577825, Special:Diff/863990580). Please let us know how to deal with the issue. Matthew_hk tc 01:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Das cray. I don't know what to do about the problem, I only know what to do with the editor--a week-long block. I don't if there is an iron-clad consensus on the issue; that talk page section isn't perfectly clear. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
• Just a heads up: This guy smells like the banned User:Banana Fingers. Can anyone with the right tools check on this? Howard the Duck (talk) 12:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Drmies can, actually.  Swarm  talk  00:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm the last confirmed Banana sock is from 2014, so don't get your hopes up. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• OK, here is the thing. Howard the Duck, the Footy dude has a double, User:InternacionalFutbolista. They are a perfect match, they overlap, they will both be blocked. I have a strong feeling that this is your Banana, but I am going to leave that final determination to whoever will finish the job (and I hope that's you, or maybe User:Matthew_hk), by adding to the SPI and making the case. When that is done, and a determination is made (on behavioral grounds) that Footy is Banana, they can all be tagged appropriately, and there's "fresh" CU information for what seems to be a regular socker. Do NOT ask for CU at the SPI--there is nothing more to see, no older accounts, etc.--so a regular admin can handle it, and maybe that speeds things up. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Filing SPI with behavioural ground need exact diff comparison. Since I haven't encountered the user exactly. (Unlike Antony or the Belgian weather box vandal), I don't know where to start to look for , which went to look like witch hunting job. Matthew_hk tc 09:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

This is noted, and I'll do the bureaucracy when this user causes ruckus again. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Legal threats by IP 1.42.39.16

User:1.42.39.16 has recently posted some legal threats on their talk page (replacing several warning templates, including a final warning, if that's pertinent). Not sure what to do about it, not even sure if anything needs doing, but figured I should report it here. Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 03:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih reverted them without fueling the fire. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

RefDesk header urgent

Nasty vandalism affecting the RefDesk header. Look at the desks or at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/headercfg. I can't work out where the vandalism actually is. DuncanHill (talk) 09:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Found it - this edit by User:Seckroots. Please can they be blocked forthwith? DuncanHill (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Someone really needs to block this editor now and carry out appropriate revdel.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked by Materialscientist mere seconds before I could.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Great Land o' Goshen!. I'm at work and won't have the opportunity to revdel this mess.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

That's a very weird account history Special:Log/Seckroots. I thought it had been created ~104 days ago to get around the RD protection but it seems it was actually in 2009. The edits for autoconfirmed happened just before the spree. I'm not really sure what happened but I'm assuming that means a CU to look for sleepers will definitely be useless. Nil Einne (talk) 10:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

If someone is using for this purpose an account created in 2009, it is quite likely that this individual has been actively disrupting Wikipedia in many ways for a long time, including currently operating multiple accounts. I therefore wouldn't rule out the possibility that a checkuser will be able to find something. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be another sleeper, created in 2010 (now blocked) Mirroringelements (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I think it's almost certain that this user has other accounts, including "good hand" ones. DuncanHill (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm about 95% certain this is Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Ref Desk Antisemitic Troll. They haven't otherwise mentioned Nazi-ism, but everything else about the nature and ferocity of this attack matches him quite well. Using registerred sleeper accounts, deep familiarity with various ref-desk regulars, and repeatedly hammering the desks to force protection all match perfectly. --Jayron32 16:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

See also Special:Permalink/864011166#Reference desk protection. One of the "disallow" filters was modified on Sunday afternoon. This is a public filter and it's not stopping Soft skin. A private filter was modified last night which disallows phone numbers but it's not stopping him either. This is unsurprising since he's adding fictitious Los Angeles numbers whereas Medeis lived in New York. Another private filter was modified yesterday afternoon and another on Sunday afternoon. We now have desks protected for a month. This is unnecessary. Soft skin has apparently encountered a filter which stops him writing "Medeis" in edit summaries. So he writes "M E D E I S" instead. Might I suggest unprotection combined with the following filter modifications:

• Stop IPs inserting "M E D E I S" into edit summaries in project space
• Stop IPs inserting Medeis' fictitious Los Angeles postal address into edit summaries in project space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7986:D200:D81B:21A3:5CE2:CA75 (talk) 08:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't deal with edit filters, but it seems fairly obvious that the edit filter is going to have to stop more than simply spaces, surely including substituted letters etc. Nil Einne (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering if there was any chance the editor had somehow acquired a bunch of old accounts created by someone else e.g. on the dark web or whatever. But the other account actually asked a (fairly innocuous) question on the RD around creation time so I suspect they must have been created by by the abuser themselves for possible future use and/or for existing minor disruption. Although I haven't seen as much as admins and those dealing with this, the connection with the stated LTA seems likely. An interesting point is that 2009 or even 2010 AFAIK predates the first signs of this editor that I know of, I think that was in 2013 or maybe 2012 or 2011 at the earliest so there was obviously something going on before the later problems. If CU finds something that would be great. Main reason I was wondering is because at least for their anonymous edits, the editor seems to use a lot of VPNs or proxies or whatever & thought they would be careful not contaminate their old accounts. But I forgot how many sleepers the editor tends to have. Given the age, let's hope they don't manage to get any account through to EC status. BTW, with the VPNs or whatever there's probably not much they can do, but is the foundation aware of the recent problems? Nil Einne (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I hope making transphobic comments isn't the cool thing to do here...

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

---

This and this right here are some examples of this "exceptional" user making the extremely transphobic claim that being trans amounts to surgery. The whole verifiability issue is a whole separate thing that I've been discussing with another editor, and have come to understand. On the other hand, I don't plan on being okay with someone saying "[she's] not trans because [she] hasn't had surgery!" any time soon, thank you very much. An actual biological woman (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see that user making the statement "[she's] not trans because [she] hasn't had surgery!", nor anything else I would characterize as transphobic or bigoted. He has simply stated that the the surgery has not been performed. Otherwise, this looks like a normal editing dispute. Saying this is not saying that his intended edits are factually correct (they may very well not be, I haven't looked into it), but I don't see any evidence of bigoted comments. Maybe there are other, more explicitly transphobic comments, if so, can you link to them as well? --Jayron32 15:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

"he was not operated" is literally right there. Your editor friend used the wrong pronouns and the fact that Kublbock was "not operated" was his rationale. What more do you need? An actual biological woman (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Yes, you did revert war which, as you acknowledge below, was not the best action to take, but that comment was as explicit as it gets. (I am not familiar with the case, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Gender_identity is clear on the use of pronouns and other linguistic expressions of gender identity.) --bonadea contributions talk 15:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I acknowledged that. However, Serols does not, anywhere state "[she's] not trans because [she] hasn't had surgery!" which you claimed. Can you link to that? At no time did he say the person was not trans in the comment you linked. --Jayron32 15:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jayron32: That's exactly what he said when he used the wrong pronouns. Splitting hairs won't make you cool. An actual biological woman (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be cool. I'm trying to assume good faith on the part of all people involved in the dispute while I extract more information from both to understand what the nature of the dispute is. --Jayron32 16:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say you were(it was more of a "that's not cool/that's messed up" statement). What I was implying is that you've been going to great lengths to cape for someone who made a transphobic comment. An actual biological woman (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, when you said "Splitting hairs won't make you cool" what I thought you meant was "Splitting hairs won't make you cool". I apologize for reading your words exactly as you wrote them. --Jayron32 16:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Wow, nice! You've outed yourself as someone who resorts to condescension once they realize they've probably screwed up! An actual biological woman (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I've done nothing of the sort. Look, insulting each other is not a productive way to move this discussion forward. I apologize for carrying this side discussion too far. I think we've gotten off to a bad start here, and gotten lost in the weeds. I don't believe I have screwed up in extending good faith to both sides of this dispute, though I do generally agree that if Serols is justifying his edits by claiming that if the person has not had an operation, they could not be transgender, then that would be 100% wrong. Based on the background provided below by others, I am leaning more-and-more to agree with that characterization. Otherwise, I am sorry for insulting you above. It was wrong of me, and I apologize without reservation for doing so. --Jayron32 16:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I apologize for the insults too. It's just that trans issues are something I care very much about and have much respect for(and personal experience with), and therefore want to get right. Also, just as a headsup, "transgendered" isn't a word. An actual biological woman (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. So corrected. --Jayron32 16:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

An actual biological woman, you broke 3RR. Your political/personal beliefs don’t matter in edit warring; someone disagreeing with you in good faith isn’t an exception to 3RR. Vermont (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with beliefs. The user was not acting in good faith. Forgive me for not taking a cis man's opinions on trans subjects as gospel(!) I'll freely admit to reverting too much though. An actual biological woman (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

That might depend on if we count her as dead for the purposes of WP:BLP - BLP edits are exempt from WP:3RR and this could easily be considered a BLP issue as in her home jurisdiction, she can't be declared dead until she's been missing at sea for six months. So no. It isn't an unambiguous WP:3RR violation. It is a content dispute. In which some comments that at least border transphobic were made. Simonm223 (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For the purposes of the policy people are to be presumed living absent confirmation of their death in reliable sources. Missing =/= dead. But even if they are confirmed dead, WP:BDP very likely applies here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:An_actual_biological_woman_reported_by_User:Jake_Brockman_(Result:_Page_protected). Black Kite (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Err forgive me if I'm missing something but I can't actually see any reliable sources confirming this person was transgender? GiantSnowman 15:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment So far I'm not seeing any source in the usual places, including Pink News - but that doesn't mean that An actual biological woman is wrong. Especially considering how fraught gender transition can be for somebody in a position of celebrity. And honestly, whether they identify / identified as male, female, or genderqueer, doesn't change that some of the statements from Serols regarding whether they'd had surgery are borderline at best. Simonm223 (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: It was mentioned in reflist 7, 16, and 17. Could we possibly find better, clearer sources? Yeah, probably. An actual biological woman (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

There's no need to quibble about what technically defines "living"--BLP covers recently deceased people as well, so BLP can certainly apply to this page (though to which side, I don't know).

Regardless of the charge of edit-warring and the BLP considerations, though, I don't think we should dismiss AABW's concerns so readily. I think "transphobic" might be too harsh a word, but it is certainly misguided to only classify post-op trans people as trans people, and that is definitely the implication behind this edit (that AABW links to above), where Serols reverts pronoun changes with the edit summary "he was not operated" as justification. Weak sourcing is not a bad reason to revert pronoun change, but "he was not operated" definitely is a bad reason. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

If Serols were stating that we "only classify post-op trans people as trans people", then I would be right with you there. He never said that. Now, as I noted above, his edits may or may not be correct for various other reasons that need to be examined, but I have not seen any overtly bigoted or transphobic comments. I agree that if his edits are incorrect, they should be open to scrutiny for reasons of being, well, wrong. If the sourcing does not support his edits, for example, or whatever, that should be examined. However on the narrow charge of being "transphobic", I'm just not seeing that here. --Jayron32 15:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Quick question, how much experience do you actually have with anything trans-related? An actual biological woman (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Jayron, I think the main point is that Serols used "he was not operated" as the justification for reverting from Dana to Daniel. That would be a nonsequitor if they didn't mean that Küblböck couldn't be Dana if they hadn't had surgery. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why Serols wrote what they did. I was looking at the content. You may be right there, and if you are I would agree that Serols is not correct; but until they respond, I don't know what they meant; the comment itself contains no text I would characterize as "extremely transphobic" as initially characterized. --Jayron32 15:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• (e/c) Perhaps "trans-uninformed" rather than "transphobic" would achieve the same results with less pushback. @Serols: as several people have told you now, having/wanting surgery is not the same as gender ID. Also, please don't report good faith editors at AIV. Regarding what state the article should be in while this is discussed on the talk page: This is a more complicated case than is typical; there is apparently some question of what was going on during the last days of their life, and what Küblböck's actual desired self-identity was. Each editor could make a case that they are trying to enforce BLP. Based on what I've seen so far, I'd suggest reverting back to the reliably sourced "Daniel" for now as the status quo ante. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Floquenbeam: If editor person was just uninformed, the rationale would be different. I think it's pretty clear what Serols thinks about trans people based on the rationale provided. But I do mostly agree with what you've said so far. An actual biological woman (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't know; I can imagine myself saying something like that 10 years ago, not out of malice but out of a complete lack of understanding. You've had to deal with this crap and I haven't, so maybe you have a better ear for it than I do, but FWIW it struck me as more clueless than mean-spirited. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not familiar with the article subject we're talking about, but no, transphobic commentary is not welcomed here. Deliberately misgendering someone is transphobic bigotry, and the surgery comment could easily be interpreted that way. However it's also policy to assume good faith, and the comment could just as easily come from a place of good-faith ignorance and misunderstanding as being a deliberate hateful action. Nevertheless, one editor's opinion of a person's transgender status is 100% irrelevant; what matters is reliable sources, and as such this is a content dispute and should be settled by discussion on the article's talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Seconded. An actual biological woman (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any of these comments as transphobic in this context; rather there's a dispute over whether this person was transgender (I'm not sure if any of the sources make any claims beyond this person identifying privately as "Dana" for a few days before jumping off a boat in an apparent suicide). That content issue can be discussed on the talk page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not surprised you don't see it. An actual biological woman (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

What the hell is that supposed to mean? power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I meant I'm not surprised you don't see Serols' comment as transphobic. although Serols literally said "he was not operated". An actual biological woman (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Reverting the article to use he/him pronouns with the summary "he was not operated" is at best ignorance about transgender people. Serols has not yet responded to this discussion so it's hard to know if it's ignorance or transphobia. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Ignorance or malice, is there really an excuse in an environment like this? An actual biological woman (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Excuse, no, not really. But it's a distinction worth making because it should affect the outcome of this discussion. If it was ignorance, hopefully Serols can read a little bit about transgender people and understand that it was a flawed argument to make. If it's malice, then a topic ban should be considered. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Wait, "he was not operated" was in the article, not the talk page? I missed that detail. That's much more concerning. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, in the edit summary: [74] GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The Edit summary is not in the article. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 16:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood—I thought power was asking if Serols had used that argument in the articlespace (which he did, with that edit summary) rather than just on An actual biological woman's talk page. You're correct that he did not insert that text into the article, if that's what power actually meant. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

my bad power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@An actual biological woman: if you don't stop these personal attacks [75] [76], I'm going to ask for you to be blocked. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC) @Power~enwiki: I just don't think it's right that when it comes to things like race and gender, some people want to WP:LAWYER and think problematic comments need to be cartoonishly overt in order to be taken seriously. If some of the things I said were taken as personal attacks, then I apologize for that. Is there any need for threats? An actual biological woman (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC) Apology accepted, and I apologize for being a bit on-edge. This whole thread has too many comments. I'm not sure escalating this with block threats is productive. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC) OK, maybe somebody else can hat even more of this (basically everything except the first comment about Serols is unnecessary). power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Küblböck was in Germany only known as Daniel, not as Dana. Please note the German Wikipedia and his offizielle homepage http://www.daniel-kueblboeck.de/. Regards--Serols (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Serols: Did Küblböck ever identify as a woman or as trans? Do you believe it's possible for a person assigned male at birth to identify (and be identified) as something other than male even if they never had reassignment surgery? 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:453A:6CA3:45E8:F907 (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Checkuser note I blocked An actual biological woman indefinitely as a sock account prior to being aware of the hullabaloo raised here.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I see the OP has muddied the water by being a sock of a blocked user. While there is always the risk of getting sucked into a dispute by a troll, there's also the risk in letting something slide because it was pointed out by a blocked user. I'm pretty dissatisifed with Serol's answer. @Serol: could you go back thru this ANI thread and re-read it? I think you missed the entire main thrust of the concerns. The problem is not that you changed it back to "Daniel". The problem is:

• You said that they couldn't be "Dana" because they had not had surgery. You said that. Please address that comment.
• I also notice you edit warred on their talk page to leave the exact same vandalism template 3 times. Then you reported them at WP:AIV when it is clear they were not vandalizing. Please address this.

I'd hate to think that this will all blow over because the OP was socking. There is still some learning and/or explaining that needs to happen here, whether or not the other editor was socking, in fact, even whether or not they were concern trolling. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Can I just say for a second that anyone with a user name like OP is probably trolling or not here to build an encyclopedia? It's needlessly confrontational. --Tarage (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Tarage. I've been waiting for someone to point out that OP's username sure looks like a transphobic statement itself, but I guess that's a moot point now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

They are also refactoring their block decline notices - maybe time for talk page access to be revoked?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Second comment from the peanut gallery. I don't think Serols's first language is English. Perhaps this is a translation issue. Can we close this block now that OP has been blocked and have one of our German speaking editors go and talk to them? I think that's going to be a lot more fruitful than continuing this here. --Tarage (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
• He may not have known MOS:GENDERID, additionally there are very few sources that present an actual self-description of her gender ID (many talk about how she posted pictures in women's clothing, but that isn't sufficient for MOS:GENDERID). The only one I could find was this which describes herself as having introduced herself as a woman to other passengers. That would seem to qualify, but it is also something that would be easy to miss. -Obsidi (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
• I don't think we should close this, as regardless of who brought the complaint up, the merits of the complaint (that Serols is misgendering a person based on his own, incorrect criteria, for how we should refer to someone's gender) has not been directly addressed as yet. Enough good-faith editors have raised that concern that I'd like to see Serols himself unambiguously address the point. His only comment (regarding the Dana/Daniel issue) has been evasive so far. --Jayron32 18:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, I think language is the issue here. You're going to get a much better result talking to this editor one on one as opposed to dogpiling them on ANI based on a filing from a blocked user. But who am I to stop a dogpiling... --Tarage (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, anyone can make a mistake. Have we heard back from Serols? If they could refrain from reverting gender on pages like this, that would be great. For the most part, I think they do good work. I don't think they were pushing a POV, just made a mistake. Probably needs to slow down a bit. And I had to read that edit summary three times before I got it. (derp on me) I stay off those pages unless I'm protecting 'cause someone is violating the MOS.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Yep, definitely needs education and to refrain from that sort of misconception.-- Dlohcierekim (talk)

If the user wasn't being actively transphobic but presented that way because of language constraints, perhaps they should familiarize themselves with the language before they participate in this particularly fraught topic. Simonm223 (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

By no means am I an expert in the language, but it does not appear that the "transgender = has undergone reassignment surgery" misunderstanding is a German vs. English thing, but it may simply be a misinformed editor. I think Serols does owe us an acknowledgement that they understand that one's identity as cisgender or transgender has nothing to do with surgical operations, or else should be topic banned from gender-related discussions so as to avoid this sort of conflict. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Unless there's a backstory that I'm unaware of, this should have been discussed directly with Serols before being brought to ANI. A good-faith editor would acknowledge and correct their error when it was pointed out. This is a complex issue that should be hashed out at article talk, and if Serols chooses to participate in that discussion it will quickly become clear whether or not they are willing to follow consensus and adhere to our behavior expectations. Let's wait and see if the behavior continues now that it has been called out and discussed. –dlthewave ☎ 19:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
• The OP was blocked as a sock. Why are we falling over ourselves to investigate the veracity of a sock's complaint?--WaltCip (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, agree this thread should be closed. The sock name of "An actual biological woman" was clearly chosen to be disruptive, let's not throw more fireworks into the crowd. --Fæ (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Braxton C. Womack

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

---

Braxton C. Womack became a rollbacker on October 10, but the user used his rollback rights on 2018 Atlantic hurricane season. In my opinion, User:PatriotsFOREVER126 just count the deaths from Spain as the fatalities of Leslie, see Special:Diff/864168319. This is not an obvious vandalism, and it is inappropriate to use rollback rights. --B dash (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see where, on User talk:Braxton C. Womack, you asked them to elaborate on their use of rollback in that single instance. It looks to me like you made no attempt to converse with the person or resolve the problem before coming to ANI. Generally, ANI should be a place of last resort, not first, when you have a concern or a dispute. --Jayron32 16:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

It looks to me like they've used rollback exactly twice since being granted the permission ([77] [78]). I would not call either edit unambiguous vandalism. @Braxton C. Womack: as a reminder: WP:ROLLBACK is only to be used to revert edits that are clearly and unmistakably vandalism. In all other cases you are expected to provide an edit summary explaining why you are reverting, such as "these are false names" or "these numbers do not match the source given". Continuing to use rollback to revert edits which are not clearly vandalism can result in your access to rollback being revoked. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

My apologies for that revert. It was my mistake, I will make sure the information is accurate before coming to a conclusion in the future. – Braxton C. Womack^{talk to me!} 18:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Hell, I've made mistakes with power tools. The thing to do is recognize the error, apologize to the injured, and glue any parts back on. Hopefully the user will wield the tools more proficiently in the future.-- Dlohcierekim (talk)

Thanks for trying to learn to be a better editor, and use rollback correctly. I think we have reached an amicable conclusion. --Jayron32 18:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Louise Bourgeois' page is a mess

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

---

A ton of grammar errors, random quotes dropped in as if they weren't quotes, poor citation, and a bunch of personal analysis of her work. This analysis is shallow, out of place, and entirely devoid of explication or clarification. Random claims with big art words are made out of nowhere. The page kinda sucks right now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.70.253.22 (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

...So fix it? --Tarage (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Tarage, I left them a message explaining this at their talk page. Home Lander (talk) 19:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

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

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

I suppose I am more than likely as versed as I need to be on your vandalism rule. I made some really great edits on the Fort Mill High School page. I adjusted the alumni, giving them accurate links to wikipedia pages as well as creating more understandable definitions to why they were "notable". I also helped out the achievements section by removing confusing verbiage and unneeded words, making it more of a list rather than a paragraph summarising all the achievements. What am I not getting here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PCPrivilegeChecker (talk • contribs) 22:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@PCPrivilegeChecker: You may want to check out User:ClueBot NG/FalsePositives for stuff like this. In the mean time, I reverted ClueBot NG's edit for you. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 22:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

...Anyone else concerned about that user name? --Tarage (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't look at all like a POV-pushing sock at all to me. Natureium (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I just gave them a username warning[79]. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Urgent help needed

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

---

Could someone please review User:Sakaimover's recent edits? They are restoring vandalism and BLP violations across multiple articles. I've blocked for now but am very late for an appointment and can't review further. Kittens and pints for everyone that helps out!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ponyo: I have done a few reverts of edits, but I have stuff to do, so I can't do them all. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 23:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted many of these edits, based on edit summeries is appears that Sakaimover is responding to his editing abilities being insulted by making POINTy reverts of all his good anti-vandal edits, but I do not know of anyone who insulted him. However, concerns were raised on his talk page that he was adding false refs, and some of his self reverts are removing refs he added, so I am not reverting these.

My only interaction with this user was to revert and nicely warn him about unreliable sources, in this discussion [80] he seemed like a good faith editor, so not sure what went wrong (edit conflict as I was expanding my comment). Tornado chaser (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It may have been triggered by this message on his talk page. Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Has anyone checked the validity ofa ny ref's restored by reverting their reverts?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I just self-reverted one of the edits I restored. Based on a quick search on Google Scholar, it does not appear that the reference I restored (purportedly to an article in Ecology) actually exists. Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Did a little more digging -- the referenced article definitely doesn't exist. Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Aoi: Oh, I might have reverted the removal of fake refs. Could somebody revert them for me? ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 00:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@SemiHypercube: I'm taking a look at them now. As much as possible, I'm checking each reference individually to ensure that it is false before reverting back. Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I am incredibly frustrated that this happened, but I support the block. I don't know why they are incapable of staying away from reverting and vandalism hunting. I asked them several times not to, and to focus on ref work which they were very good at! Ugh... I'd support an unblock if and only if they accept an indef ban from vandalism hunting and reverting. It should not have reached this point and I'm pissed that my attempts to stave this off were in vain. I look away for 5 fucking minutes... --Tarage (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to point people here for some context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cullen328#Sakaimover

I'm also going to @Cullen328: because he has context as well. God damn I am frustrated right now. Taking a break. --Tarage (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

All that I will say is that I preceived this editor's contributions to be problematic from the beginning. I tried to steer them in the right direction, and ended up getting chastised a bit for being too tough on a person who says that they are on the autism spectrum. Have a cup of nice warm tea, Tarage, and thank you for helping to keep track of this. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps User:ItsLassieTime? Compare to User:RandNetter96 and the LTA page. ansh666 01:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  @Ansh666: I've filed an SPI report. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 01:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  ...that might be a bit premature, but ok. We'll see. ansh666 01:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed sock of Architect 134. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Clubintermiamifan moving article is problematic

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

---

I appreciate WP:BOLD edits, but I would have thought after the mess Clubintermiamifan (talk · contribs) made with Miami MLS team (see Talk:Inter Miami CF#Why the move?) the editor would have discussed before moving Chicago Fire Soccer Club. The fact that there were two moves shows that there was no forethought and the editor doesn't really know or have a source for the team's common name. The editor does not seem to have the competence to edit. Either a block or removal for the editor to move articles would be appropriate. As for adding team initials to the infobox, I'll point out Template talk:Infobox football club#Nickname, short name and other parameters. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, I've moved the page back to Chicago Fire Soccer Club, and will probably nominate the two leftover redirects for deletion. Home Lander (talk) 02:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there any merit to me contention that Clubintermiamifan is either in-line with point four of Wikipedia:Competence is required, or possibly WP:NOTHERE (Nos. 3, 7, 8 and 9), or should I just drop my WP:STICK? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

You could try talking politely with this new user on their user talk page instead of issuing a warning template and coming to ANI to imply they need to be blocked. Fish+Karate 09:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23 has blocked Clubintermiamifan as a sock of User:Charles lindberg. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Wombles vandal from Texas -- rangeblock request

There's a long-term abuse person from Texas who has been disrupting articles about The Wombles (band), Lily's Driftwood Bay, Huey Lewis and the News, Poppy Cat (TV series), and many other music, TV and radio articles. Can we get a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/2603:300C:182D:4600:0:0:0:0/64? A common connection is the identical edit summary, present much of the time. Involved IPs listed below. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Sep–Oct 2018: Special:Contributions/108.244.219.139
• Sep 2018: Special:Contributions/50.197.217.214
• Sep 2018: Special:Contributions/Verone66 (indeffed)
• Sep 2018: Special:Contributions/172.58.99.57
• Sep 2018: Special:Contributions/107.77.173.4 (blocked six months)
• Sep 2018: Special:Contributions/96.68.90.41
• Aug–Sep 2018: Special:Contributions/76.30.25.202 (blocked one year)
• Aug–Sep 2018: Special:Contributions/4.16.216.194
• Aug–Sep 2018: Special:Contributions/96.64.46.166
• Aug 2018: Special:Contributions/73.232.193.116
• Aug 2018: Special:Contributions/76.31.1.219
• Jun–Sep 2018: Special:Contributions/2600:1700:C370:7A00:0:0:0:0/64
• Jun–Oct 2018: Special:Contributions/2603:300C:182D:4600:0:0:0:0/64
• Jun–Oct 2018: Special:Contributions/2603:300C:1806:1200:0:0:0:0/64
• May–Oct 2018: Special:Contributions/96.91.42.38 (blocked two weeks)
• Nov 2017 – Sep 2018: Special:Contributions/2600:1700:1260:BD40:0:0:0:0/64
• Aug 2017 – Jun 2018: Special:Contributions/107.77.169.7 (blocked one year)
• May 2017 – Mar 2018: Special:Contributions/99.23.39.93 (blocked one year)
• May–Nov 2017: Special:Contributions/2602:306:3740:AEF0:0:0:0:0/64
• Oct 2014 – Mar 2016: Special:Contributions/98.198.137.139 (blocked 12 hours)

@Binksternet: I've blocked the two active IPv6 ranges (2603:300C:1806:1200:0:0:0:0/64 and 2603:300C:182D:4600:0:0:0:0/64) for three months each.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, that looks good. I will watch the articles of interest for future disruption. Binksternet (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Helomer

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

---

Has Helomer (talk · contribs) been allowed to return as Helomer3 (talk · contribs)? Celia Homeford (talk) 09:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked and reverted. Main account is actually Anonymus 88. GiantSnowman 09:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

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

User:2405:3800::/32

• 2405:3800::/32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (ISP: U Mobile)

The whole ip range was mostly nationality hoax, such as he did in Fernando Muslera, Rodrigo Bentancur. Block on single ip today was resulted in using another ip to vandal within hours. Despite it may had potential high collateral damage to other user that using the same ISP, most of the edits in that range currently are related to the same vandal pattern.

Those exception (not related to nationality), such as this one (Special:Diff/864265524) on Environmental engineering, is a vandal

While this edit : Special:Diff/861837676 still a vandal.

Only very small amount of edit, such as Special:Diff/861914724 and Special:Diff/861914641. So, would a range block is more appropriate to the matter? Matthew_hk tc 12:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Additional note:

He used at lease three ip today and yesterday:

• 2405:3800:82:E7FB:144C:A94F:7C94:7E2A (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2405:3800:481:569C:B5FF:6E7:37FC:4E8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2405:3800:82:FDB:408:3167:ACBF:B3CB (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

While on 1 October and 30 September he used

• 2405:3800:402:78:70FC:E51:2831:E8F9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• ‎2405:3800:200:f931:51cf:a251:d5cb:a052 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• ‎2405:3800:400:81a8:f806:34ae:10ea:437e (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2405:3800:401:240:9417:eef2:fce9:90bd (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

--Matthew_hk tc 12:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Second additional note:

Based on the page history of Sporting Kansas City, he also used those ipv4 ips

• • 123.136.116.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 123.136.117.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

While the range 123.136.96.0/19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) had more unrelated ip (even Special:Contributions/123.136.116.* and Special:Contributions/123.136.117.*), those ip were still involved in nationality vandals.

• • 123.136.116.4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

While this ip from the second range of the ISP, performed different kind of vandal.

• • 123.136.116.119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

––Matthew_hk tc 12:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The latest is 2405:3800:380:E6A5:ACE2:E809:1AFE:5DAA (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This is becoming a real chore. Given the similarity of IPs (v4 and v6), is there a 'safe' rangeblock that could be implemented? Nzd (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Using the 4 ips of this week alone in {{IP range calculator}}, the range would be 2405:3800::/37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), affecting 128M /64 addresses. Had collateral damage on 2405:3800:281:40e5:d4cd:f955:bebf:f06a (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2405:3800:502:2cda:edf7:d142:9028:3b53 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (which were last edited in late September). Matthew_hk tc 20:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Garbage articles created by blocked user

John Carter (who is currently blocked indef) has created 655 pages. So far, 103 have been deleted and another group are at AfD. They are nonsense. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabal ad Dayt for an example. I clicked on some of the notices on his talkpage about other creations that were deleted and they are nonsense as well. It would probably be a good idea for someone to review all of these articles, because this is a pretty poor track record. I do not want to go through 500 pages on my own. Natureium (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI Alexandermcnabb is meticulously combing through these. There are several threads on A's talk page regarding these including this one User talk:Alexandermcnabb#A cup of coffee for you!. MarnetteD|Talk 19:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Wow, what a saint. Natureium (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I accept the beatitude with grateful thanks. Mind, I could use some help. There IS some good in there, the odd nugget, but there's an awful lot of total rubbish and over the past ten years it's spawned hundreds, if not thousands, of WP-derived web pages in/about the UAE. Each of those damn stubs has, in ten years, created a virtual universe of non-existent places offering tours, trips, car hire, shoes - maps citing WP, WP citing maps. He made his whole own UAE on WP. I've been AfDing the articles individually (which has caused some irritation, I know, but a) I didn't know how to bulk AfD and b) I was scared of WP:Traincrash. There were a few of the 'settlement' stubs which had their staunch defenders despite the places totally lacking in notability, for instance this Dahir, Fujairah and this one, which is a residential block in the city of Ras Al Khaimah Al Mataf). I'm now trying to bulk AfD them where relevant but have to admit the task is Augean. I didn't know he'd created 655 pages and do fervently hope they aren't all UAE stubs because it's caused an immense amount of confusion and damage. Hey ho! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

These really need a Neelix-esque nuke approach. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I think I reached the end. He's created thousands and thousands of categories and redirects, but appears to have only (relatively) briefly focused on the UAE's geography. Someone may like to take a look at the rest of the creations... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Block or not block this Georgia Dept. Education range?

A lot of vandalism at [81]but it's not all vandalism. I think. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I've looked at everything from the last two months, and found two constructive edits, very minor ones, in a great river of typical school vandalism. I say block the range for at least three months, Doug. Bishonen | talk 19:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC).

This is obviously a middle school's media lab range. I mean, who could make a coherent argument that this edit was not made by a 12 year old boy (who was giggling while writing it)? I say block away: teachers who want to teach kids this young to edit WP can also teach them to create accounts. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Blocked 3 months. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Excuse my pedantry, but no not quite exactly. The Georgia Dept. range (it's a /14 range) spans the whole state and multiple, multiple institutions. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

But a /14 range block is larger than what is allowed, since the max range (is this because of the MediaWiki software, on all MediaWiki wikis, or is it just Wikipedia or all Wikimedia wikis) is /16. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 20:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The /16s have all been blocked before, meaning they can be range blocked. My point however is not to encourage a /14 block, but to point out that this is not a "middle school's media lab range". -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Is the/14 range constructive at all. It's a silly rule if it allows vandalism to go unchecked. Soft block and allow legit users to create user names?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Arguing against obvious hyperbole is generally not advised. I was not speaking literally. That being said, big institutions (like school boards) absolutely do block out IPs to whole districts earmarked usages like "media labs", giving more IPs to each school than it needs (I'll bet you can find large groups of consecutive IPs in that range that never have nor will edit). I don't know that GA does exactly that, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised. You could have just changed my "a middle school's media lab" to "some middle schools' media labs" and taken it from hyperbolic to literally true. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I didn't mean the first sentence to sound as dickish as it sounds, so please excuse me not including the link I'm giving it in this edit right off the bat. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Princess Eugenie of York

Sorry, guys, BUT: Way to lie about a BLP! This is bogus! Welcome to the wonderful world of needing to be big kids!2605:8D80:403:F5D9:2911:88D4:2E93:72EE (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This user is linking to a thread in which they (on a different IP) made personal attacks, and were blocked for it. The original block has not expired yet. Looks like the stick will be bent into a boomerang. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 21:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

"This user" is pointing out that a BLP has been changed without any proof whatsoever and Wikipedia requires a valid, third-party source for any and all changes. I'm sorry "this user" is following policy.2605:8D80:403:F5D9:2911:88D4:2E93:72EE (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The IP keeps popping up under different variants of the v6 IP address. What started out as a naming dispute and edit war seems to have turned into personal attacks and general disruptiveness.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an indeffed editor. I range blocked the newest IP range for a few days. I think that should resolve it for now. Let me know if it doesn't. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: As info, this is continued on new IPs after I reblocked 2001:569:77E2:3900:0:0:0:0/64 which had previous block expire on Sept 25, 2018. I also blocked 2605:8D80:403:51DA:0:0:0:0/64 earlier today/yesterday. -- ferret (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It's been a while since I dealt with this ISP, but the 2605:8D80 ranges typically require a /48 (or slightly wider) to stop the disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

 Comment: The title of the article isn't dictated by WP:BLP, and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Titles_of_people makes no mention of requiring any honourifics for article titles. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 21:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

True, but there's a bit of a local convention at WP:NCROY that leads us to bypass the usual rules of WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME for certain members of the royal family. I don't entirely agree with that, but it's stuck for some time now. (Also this isn't really the place to be discussing the content issue!)  — Amakuru (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I've left an oppose !vote on the talk page in question. I know it may seem out of place, but I'm just trying to establish consensus (not that I care). Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 23:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire300: BLP does absolutely and specifically apply to titles, see WP:BLP#Applicability of the policy. The most obvious case would be transgender people. I do agree that in this specific case, it's probably a non sequitur, but as a blanket statement, that's incorrect. ansh666 23:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ansh666: I see nothing in the linked policy about article titles, which is what I'm referring to (not the title of the person, that's a whole different matter) Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 23:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It's right there, in the first sentence of the section I linked to. BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts. (emphasis mine) ansh666 23:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ansh666: Thank you for the clarification. Struck above accordingly. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 00:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced

IP keeps recording unsourced info (Redacted) ([82]).GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I warned the IP, in the future, please don't post links to BLP violations on ANI. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Creeperdude356

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

---

Resolved

Special:Contributions/Creeperdude356

Based on their two edits to Susan Wojcicki today, very obviously WP:NOTHERE (I'm guessing they had an old account that they decided to use for the raid on Susan Wojcicki). Also WP:DISRUPTNAME. --ChiveFungi (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Uh, also they just left this threat: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kahoot!&diff=prev&oldid=864415598&diffmode=source --ChiveFungi (talk) 02:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) Definitely WP:NOTHERE. They've been around long enough and have already been directed to our policies/guidelines to have some awareness of what not to do here, so the purpose of final warning has definitely been fulfilled.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Indefblocked per WP:AIV report. Materialscientist (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Панн

User Панн is not grasping some basics about formatting. I have tried to help several times on the user's talk page, but have gotten little reply, and no actual discussion. It looks like this is an ongoing problem, per other messages on the talk page. My current concern is Protests in Armenia (2018), which is 100% unreadable as of this edit. If there is a better place to ask about this, please let me know. Thank you for your time. Jessicapierce (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Unreadable doesn't do justice to this exemplary trainwreck. EEng 04:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Jessicapierce, I see that you have left some messages on the user's talk page about these issues but your most recent message was 2-1/2 weeks ago. Why come to ANI now instead of trying their talk page again? More talk page messages is better in such cases. If the main problem with the user's edits is minor technical things like an extra space in a ref tag, then maybe the best thing would be to correct the minor errors yourself, and leave a friendly explanatory note for the editor. Also useful in cases like this is to end your user talk page posts with friendly questions like "do you understand now why this was an error?" and "will you try to do better?" Such questions may draw a shy or insecure editor into discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

They broke the html, but I don;t see where/how.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The article is at least in part an uncredited translation of hy:Բողոքի ցույցեր ՀՀ ԱԺ ցրման պահանջով. (Having found it via the other uses of the image, I checked the infobox and Background paragraph via Google translate). Yngvadottir (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

"maybe the best thing would be to correct the minor errors yourself, and leave a friendly explanatory note for the editor" - That's exactly what I did, as you can see in the "Broken formatting" section of the user's Talk page. I went to great pains to show the difference in spacing (</ref> vs. </ ref>) which can result in format errors (this particular error is the merest part of the problem). I received no reply, and the problem has persisted in the user's more recent edits. I'll try posting to the Talk page again, but I don't think I'm going to get anywhere, so it felt like time to ask for help. Jessicapierce (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I made a pass and left a "copy edit" on it. Now we can see how truly bad it is.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

What language Wiki is that?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::I edit conflicted with you. I'll look into it some more. Blackmane (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Armenia. I left a cite to the Armenian page on the article, but probably did it wrong. As to the user, I've just come from their talk page where I left yet another message. This is an ongoing WP:CIR issue as the user keeps creating messes in article space that are being moved to draft space, which I nearly did with this article. They need to not create in main space till they are better at formatting and citing, and I said as much.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Anyone speak Armenian?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Or is it беларускі?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I've fixed the remaining cites and such, enough that it's not a morass of broken html and cite tags. Blackmane (talk) 05:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

This is almost certainly a machine translation, with the reference-breaking spaces introduced by the process. A tell-tale is that ref titles are translated. I fixed a couple of references where the URL had been interrupted, and in the process used the title= and trans-title= parameters correctly. Панн has linked them on Wikidata; Dlohcierekim, I replaced your in-article attribution with the template we use on the article talk page, and I have now added the "rough translation" template and added the article to the woefully long list of bad translations at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. I'm afraid I am very much unable to read Armenian. But if this article is to be kept—and it does seem to be a notable topic judging by international press coverage—I note that we already have 2018 Armenian protests, redirecting to 2018 Armenian Velvet Revolution, so something needs to be moved to avoid confusion. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: Well done. It does mention Velvet Revolution. Is this an article that already exists or is that other article something else? Mergeable? MOve to better title?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(I just got up, someone may have done something already): This article is still incomprehensible, but it's about events in early October. 2018 Armenian Velvet Revolution is about events earlier this year, March and April if I remember correctly. So if this article gets kept, I would suggest changing the titles of both articles and making the 2018 Armenian protests article a DAB page; however, a merger might be better; I am not competent to assess the sources in the new article and look for later ones to see whether the events this month are better treated as a continuation or as distinct. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing and Edit Warring by User:68.193.153.95

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

---

• List of Nvidia graphics processing units (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 68.193.153.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After streamlining some tables in this article, the user started an edit war. I'm not sure, but I think they did the edits that bloated them in the first place. I got a lot of positive replies about my edits on my user talk page; the issue of the table originally being "ruined" was also discussed on the article's talk page. The last revert from an anonymous user restoring my changes is here: [83] (notice the contribution message again..). It's the 5th revert for the offender in just a few days now.

The other issue is the strong hostility and disruptiveness this user has shown. I strongly recommend to take a look at the user's contribution messages and also the comments they left on User:Elk_Salmon's and User:Aedazan's talk pages. They generally seem to think they own the respective article and need to be honored for their contributions. There's also an issues with them making unsourced, wrong edits. I posted a more complete write-up of the issues on the mentioned article's talk page and partly on my user talk page. I highlighted the user there too to get them to discuss it, but they never responded. IonPike (talk) 07:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@IonPike: The personal attack directed at you by the IP in one of their edit sums is completely unacceptable, and I've notified the IP accordingly. I wouldn't be surprised if the IP was blocked just on that alone. The WP:EW and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior being exhibited by the IP is also not helpful, but this kind of thing is something you occasionally see when you're dealing with editors focusing on a single article who aren’t aware of WP:OWN. I'm not saying that to make excusses for the IP’s behavior, but rather only just to point out that this is likely not the last time you're going come across this type of thing since you seem to be a fairly new editor yourself. Moreover, while it's good you started a discussion about this on Talk:List of Nvidia graphics processing units, I don't think your choice of a section heading was a very good one. I can understand how you might be frustrated, but that section heading is likely going to only further exacerbate the situation. The article talk page should really be for discussing content, and mixing in comments about specific editors is generally not a good idea since it doesn't really help facilitate constructive discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The anon responded to Marchjuly's intervention with a WP:RANT-y wall of text. Based on the edit warring, personal attacks in edit summaries and this response, I have applied a 3 day block. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 13:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thanks for spending your time on this. I changed the section heading now as per your suggestion and on second thought removed the whole more personal part of my comment there. It should no longer be harmful in discussion, albeit from their past behaviour and what you had to experience I doubt it will happen. I also reverted the article again, which is OK now as far as I understand, and added a disclaimer that issues should be brought to the talk page. -- IonPike (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@IonPike: If the edit warring resumes under a new IP, please let me know ASAP. Thanks, caknuck _° needs to be running more often 19:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Perspex03: SPA STILL adding trivia about "white genocide theory" to dozens of BLPs

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

---

• Perspex03 (talk · contribs)

Perspex03 is a newbie (2 months, 800 edits) and is obsessed with White genocide conspiracy theory: [84]. He is currently adding trivia on anyone who has ever even mentioned the conspiracy to their BLPs. Refuting a blatantly false conspiracy theory is not encyclopedicly noteworthy (no matter what Donald Trump tweets), but Perspex03 does not understand that, so he's spamming trivia into dozens of articles, using primary sources (examples: [85], [86], [87], [88]; for more see his contribs link above), particularly in the wake of Donald Trump's false claims. He is edit-warring to preserve his spamming.

We've already had one ANI thread about this three weeks ago, but it did not result in any restriction on the user.

We need some sort of restriction on the user, up to a possible topic-ban on White genocide conspiracy theory or block for disruptive editing and NOTHERE. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Pinging: @Jeppiz, Iridescent, and Power~enwiki:. Softlavender (talk) 10:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother pinging those users, power~enwiki originally tried to delete the whole white genocide conspiracy theory page, the result was a speedy keep. He/she also tried to claim people criticizing the conspiracy theory, was a BLP issue, which again was dispelled with and disproved by the majority of editors. Most notable people mentioning the conspiracy theory now are included on the article again. It was a giant false alarm, and proved to be so by editors' consensus. I'm not trying to be provocative or rude, but I've recently had a similar issue with I believe, Jeppiz, who was insisting that The Great Replacement conspiracy theory was not a conspiracy theory. It was later proved indeed to be a reliable sourced conspiracy theory. Softlavender, what you are attempting to do is flex your muscle to delete information you basically seem to WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. I am using reliable sources. You are hysterically shrieking that they must be deleted. Again, you are attempting to put a restriction on me, when I'm actually just adding prose based on reliable sources. Do you actually understand that that's how Wikipedia works? Perspex03 (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

You're missing at least part of the point. Part of the definition of a conspiracy theory is that most people don't believe it, so it is not notable if someone says they don't believe it. Yet you're adding "they don't believe in it" to lots of articles. This is irrelevant, even if you have a reference for it. Zaian (talk) 10:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

No, that's not correct. If a reliable source covers something explicitly, then they have lent credence to the notability of it. It's not for you to personally hold an opinion afterwards that it is trivial and execute your opinion over that of the reliable source. Trust reliable sources, not yourself. That's how it tends to work. Perspex03 (talk) 11:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

No Perspex03, you are using WP:PRIMARY sources. Unless you can find several independent reliable third-party sources that note that the individual in question is a noted refuter of this conspiracy theory, the information does not belong in Wikipedia, any more than someone randomly disputing Holocaust denial is encyclopedically noteworthy. Softlavender (talk) 10:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

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

• I am sorry to comment after closure, but other than tendentious editing/edit warring, there is some socking that needs to be untangled; SPI request filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carpatho. Alex Shih (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  I remember I indefblocked one more user a month or two ago. They were creating categories related to white genocide and added genocide perpetrator category to California governors, but I will not be able now to remember / check who that user was.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  ​That user was Leavemydaughteralone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). wumbolo ^^^ 12:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks, this is indeed them. It might be the sock of the same user.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Being pestered at my user talk

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

---

@Sparktorn: is a user who made some controversial edits to Fascism. Such as this. Subsequently they left this comment on my user talk page.

I advised them I would not self-revert and suggested they discuss at article talk.

I didn't hear back from them until some time later when they deleted their comments and mine.

I keep an archive of talk page discussions. My interest in current politics means I often end up involved in contentious areas of Wikipedia, and I prefer to be able to refer back to past incidents; so I restored the deleted content and went to their talk page where I advised them not to do that again.

Four days later, an IP, which I believe to be Sparktorn editing while not logged in posted this: a request which I bluntly declined.

Today Sparktorn replied to my repeated refusal to delete their comments from my user talk archive with this statement: [89] - and while it's not entirely inaccurate (I am, in fact, something of a communist; a socialist at the very least) I still considered it to be intended as a personal attack in contravention of WP:AGF and WP:NPA.

I replied by asking Sparktorn not to contact me in the future unless it was for a required notice (IE: an AN/I or ARB/E notice or similar.)

Their response was to double down on the personal attack and to reiterate their demand that I delete their statements due to a misguided sense of ownership.

When I went to their talk page to notify them of this WP:AN/I thread I noticed that this user had posted that they were deceased - and I would suggest that Sparktorn has been very spry for a dead editor. I would like to request a one-way iBan preventing them from pestering me further, and, considering their use of ip addresses to contact me, and their attempt to get their account deleted under a false premise I'd also like to bring that to admin attention. Simonm223 (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I've left Spartorn a note regarding ownership. Tiderolls 12:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the {{deceased}} note from the user's page. For one thing they're clearly not deceased, two there was no content to "preserve in their memory", and five I find the deliberate misuse of this template distasteful and disrespectful. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Kudpung

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

---

Please see this thread on Kudpung's talk page. The short version is that I brought up what I thought was an an out-of-line comment that Kudpung made at an AfD (mentioned in the thread), and asked him to strike it. Rather than a simple "okay" or "no, I think you're totally wrong", I was met with a pointer to my own previous bad behavior (including a well-deserved block), and finally, "I don't believe you are qualified to be commenting Deacon or even evoking AGF."

The longer version is that, frankly, this is just fucked up (I apologize for the crudeness, but I know of no other way to put it that indicates the visceral reaction that I've had). I'm very reluctant to bring this here, because as mentioned, Kudpung has more edits to his talk page than I have total. Indeed, I feel that I've almost been dared to bring this up here in hopes of a WP:BOOMERANG. And if others feel that's warranted, then so be it. But people need to be willing to bring up stuff like this without getting intimidated by being reminded how much seniority someone has (and tag-teamed about it to boot). Oh, and how dare someone who was once blocked dare question the actions of someone so highly respected and with so many edits, and don't you know that I'm an admin and have had to deal with harassment far worse than yours?

This was a simple complaint that shouldn't have ever wound up here, but here we are. I think my original complaint (the out-of-line comment at AfD) could do with a warning from someone who's not me, so it will actually be listened to (or maybe not, people might disagree with me, and that's okay). But the seniority-based intimidation stuff shouldn't be tolerated, and I'm asking for a short block to deter this kind of behavior in the future. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Whatever Kudpung said at an AfD is not really important. The chances of getting such a well respected Admin blocked are less than zero. I suggest taking a walk away from the computer and thinking about why you are so uptight about Wikipedia that you are posting at ANi trying to get an Admin blocked. Legacypac (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Kudpung has given up the bit due to illness, but I really don't see what you is complaining about. I see nothing wrong with Kudpung's AFD comment, and I see nothing wrong with that thread except you venting you "visceral response". I think that Kudpung's recommendation that you chill was not only spot on but very patient as well. I see nothing requiring admin action here.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• See WP:UNBLOCKABLES. But it's true, this is not ANI-worthy. I concur in the prescription of . EEng 17:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  @EEng: I was going to recommend a cooldownbock, but thought better of it. I'm a Guinness man myself.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  The uninitiated may wish to take a look at WP:COOLDOWNBOCK. EEng 17:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• I see nothing wrong with Kudpungs comment and actually I would go as far as to say he was rather nice and polite!, This was Eli355s RFA question to Sir Sputnik .... If you're going to make dumbass comments at RFA such as the above link then you should expect to be treated like a troll or an idiot,
  

Deacon Vorbis should be warned not to template the regulars and E (or whatever his name is!) should be indeffed for CIR. –Davey2010^Talk 17:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Oh for the days when you could have joke questions at RfA. So much less stodgy then.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I've never minded people having at a laugh at RFA, Infact I've joined in on them especially around April Fools..... but the question was done in a way that actually made it simply look like they're trolling ...... If I went to Sir Sputniks RFA and asked "What's the meaning of life?" I would expect nothing more than a telling off essentially .... guess it's a time and place in some ways. –Davey2010^Talk 17:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. If I squint, I can sort-of see how you could interpret Kudpung's AFD comment as mildly biting towards the creator of the article. However, it's not your place to be insulted on someone else's behalf, especially over something so minor. Please just drop this. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  @ONUnicorn: It was a molehill when I started, and like I pointed out above, had he simply said something along the lines of "no, what I said was fine", I likely would have just dropped it, but his response was the mountain, and it shouldn't be tolerated, and that's why I started this thread here. The constant stream of Oh-it's-Kudpung-everybody-likes-Kudpung-he-can't-be-wrong is pretty worrisome and sets a bad precedent. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  Where has anyone said or implied "Oh-it's-Kudpung-everybody-likes-Kudpung-he-can't-be-wrong"? Softlavender (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  TBH, think it was Legaypac-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  No, that was one comment, 40 minutes ago, and it did not say or imply that Kudpung couldn't be wrong. Deacon Vorbis said there was a "constant stream" of "Oh-it's-Kudpung-everybody-likes-Kudpung-he-can't-be-wrong". Softlavender (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  Okay, fair enough, struck. I think it's more the overall tone that I was going for and is hard to explain like that. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Deacon Vorbis, who has "intimidated" you? Softlavender (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: May I point out that on Kudpung's talkpage, the OP told Kudpung to "stop acting like a jerk" [90]; and violated WP:TPO by hiding one of my posts: [91]. -- Softlavender (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• @Softlavender: I guess they realized how uncollegeal <sic> that was in the one instance and trying to quash you in the other.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • No, that was a very deliberate personal attack, struck at the same time as it was posted so it would perhaps be unsanctionable but at the same time be noticed and emphasized because of the strike. Softlavender (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• @Deacon Vorbis: We deal with a lot of problems here, and this just isn't one that requires anything adminny.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  @Dlohcierekim: I realize people around here seem to like Kudpung, but try to take a step back for a second and look at this from another angle. If someone hasn't been around here nearly as long as someone else, and goes to their talk page to voice a concern (which, by the way, is what we're supposed to do first), and the veteran's (admin or not) response is of the Don't-you-know-who-I-am? variety, then how is the relative newbie going to react to that? It sends a pretty horrible message to new contributors when that sort of response is tolerated. This feels to me like it's exactly something that needs something adminny. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  Deacon Vorbis, it's not that people like Kudpung (many certainly don't, and many violently disagree with him about some things), it's that you used a template on a regular instead of just talking to them politely. Admins and longterm regulars know the rules; it is highly inappropriate to use a template on them (except for required edit-warring notices). If you had gone to his talkpage with a polite header and a polite request to reconsider his AfD comment, and possibly strike it if he agreed with you that it was over-the-top, you would have gotten a different response. As it was, you got exactly the response you deserved for templating an admin for a fairly typical AfD comment. Re-read WP:DTTR and don't repeat your mistake. Softlavender (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Propose WP:Trout for OP, bent slightly into a boomerang shape but soft enough not to hurt, then close this and all walk away quietly. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  I'll second that. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 18:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• I was unaware that there was an exemption from being civil for long-time contributors. It's not going to hurt anything except Kudpung's pride to remove the offending remark from the AfD discussion, so why shouldn't he just go and remove it, and let the article go to its certain demise? Mangoe (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

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

• (edit conflict) I don't see anything remotely actionable. Commenting about an editor's editing pattern is certainly not an WP:AGF violation. Templating a regular and then talking about blocks on their talk page could reasonably be seen as Harassment. I think a {{Trout}} is a bit soft, try a {{Whale}}. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 18:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Outstanding at Sockpuppet Investigations

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

---

File:Breaking concrete.jpg

Sock for block

-EEng

Block for sock

I have an outstanding sockpuppet investigation that was opened 6 days ago with no action. The editor in question has just admitted that it was their previous accounts.[92] —Farix (t | c) 17:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the sock. GAB^gab 17:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Uncivil aspersions, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.

• Civility restriction: Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.

The AR-15 article is under this restriction, editor Simon223 has made unfounded aspersions against me [93],[94],[95]. These remarks "I don't think at least one other editor are going to be satisfied with anything less than the complete excision of mass shootings from the article," and "You asked at WP:NPOV/N recently about deleting all mentions of mass shootings from the page, I can provide the diff if you've forgotten," I initially tried ignoring it and collapse the comment as it was off topic and uncivil [96]. That did not work and he just went on to make more of these unfounded aspersions [97] "I wouldn't characterize me pointing out that you in fact said the thing that I asserted you said as abusive. It's just making a factual statement.".

He claims[98] this link supports his assertion's [99]. The edit of mine was just one minor edit to this [100]. In it I am asking uninvolved editors at the NPOV noticeboard about including this from James Alan Fox a highly regarded professor of criminology (most noted for his studies) on C-SPAN[101]. There view there was that reliable sourced compiled data with expert analysis should hold more weight than just journalist speculation. I am in no way implying the AR article needs to remove mass shootings content from the article, in fact I am doing the opposite.

This editor came to the article removing reliable sourced content from Dr. Fox [102] claiming "illegible" (policy states fixing grammatical errors) needing improvement sure but as clearly seen far from illegible. He then went on to make grossly uncivil personal attacks on my intelligence [103], [104]. Admin Drmies pointed out "Simonm223, this is really not cool. I know you're talking about content, but I also know that you're really not."[105]

Extended content

After he stated this there at NPOV "I'll note I'm not strongly anti-gun, although I do think firearms that are designed specifically for killing groups of humans should not be available for sale." It was pointed out he made these comments"This general type of firearm is a people-killer designed to kill humans and I sometimes question why some people devote so much time to defending its dubious honour. Simonm223 (talk), 27 September 2018"[106]. A uninvolved editor wrote "Ok, so you are anti-AR-15... Rather than balance between pro- and anti- editors on a topic, I think Wikipedia would be better off if we called that a variety of WP:COI. Let people who are removed from the controversy do the editing. At the least, one should be suspicious in reflection on one's own behavior when one's POVs on political topics persistently line up with what benefits those POVs in articles. —DIYeditor (talk) 4:25 pm, 2 October 2018, Tuesday (15 days ago) (UTC−4)"

I feel I should not have to suffer this abuse. -72bikers (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)