Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 05:48, 31 August 2018

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Shortcuts

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

Before posting:
- Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility
- If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on
  their talk page
- Try dispute resolution
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page;

pinging is not enough

.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351
352	353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361
Incidents (archives, search)
1136	1137	1138	1139	1140	1141	1142	1143	1144	1145
1146	1147	1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
463	464	465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472
473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320	321
322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Disruptive editor at Christian ethics

Christian ethics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Tahc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Airborne84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Tahc is being generally disruptive and creating conditions at Christian ethics to suppress editing and displaying apparent ownership of the article as the primary author. Unfortunately his/her concerted efforts to maintain the status quo (reduce visibility and create roadblocks) on a low-traffic talk page makes it challenging for any editor to address them and means the article will likely remain start class with multiple tagged issues and a WP:NPOV issue for the foreseeable future. I have frankly run out of patience and do not plan to engage the article anymore under these conditions, but would like to enable others to improve the article in the future in a more permissive environment. I'll list below the context and Tahc's conduct that is causing these conditions, running contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines for good editing:

In 2012, there was a consensus on Old Testament (OT) material related to the article. Because the talk page is not often-commented on, I had to request a Third Opinion to augment my and another editor's position. This resulted in a consensus that the material is relevant.
Some time later, Tahc came to the article and dismissed the consensus, claiming consensus cannot be used to violate Wikipedia policy instead of trying to achieve a new consensus.
Tahc began a did a major rewrite of the article in March 2016, removing much of the Old Testament material, and promoting a particular point of view related to the New Testament.
I happened on the article again and saw its state, noted my concerns about neutrality on the talk page, and added a POV tag to the article. (This isn't just my position; StAnselm also noted a POV concern at the RfC on the talk page.)
Tahc summarily deleted the POV tag here, dismissing, rather than discussing, the stated concerns on the talk page.
I requested a third opinion which another editor deleted due to a third editor commenting on the issue after the request. Unfortunately, that other editor only made an abstract comment in passing.
I then requested an RfC for broad consensus on whether Old Testament material is relevant to the article to highlight the lack of that material in the article as POV. The result appears to be a clearly reaffirmed consensus on its relevance.
Tahc dismissed the consensus as irrelevant, again asserted that there was no previous consensus, and repeated that "consensus cannot be used to violate Wikipedia policies" (apparently a person opinion since he won't explain where he gets this idea from). The latter indicates to me that, no matter what consensuses we achieve on the article, Tahc will dismiss them based on his/her personal "standard".
During the above discussions, Tahc suggested that only "textbooks" that supported OT material inclusion would be relevant as sources, dismissing multiple other high-quality WP:RSs provided, and creating a standard higher than that required by Wikipedia—another apparent roadblock to maintain the article's status quo.
After subsequent discussions of potential material to add, another editor, Jzsi, concurred that some of the passages would improve the article. I drew from that, other previous discussions, and the consensuses, notified other editors of my intention on the talk page to begin addressing the POV concern, waited four days for comment, and then began boldly editing.
Soon after, Tahc reverted ALL of the edits to the "last okay version" here, invoking WP:BRD and stating ironically that discussion was required. Tahc then made clear on the talk page that
Bad reasons to revert" that fits this situation perfectly. But in an effort to move forward, I asked Tahc to identify his concerns with the edits (all from high-quality WP:RSs with a clear link to the article's subject matter) and Tahc won't do it. Tahc asserted that each passage needs to be brought to the talk page "one at a time
" for discussion before putting in the article (as if there has not been discussion). Another roadblock to editing.

To summarize, Tahc's established pattern on this Start-Class article with neutrality issues is to minimize visibility and erect roadblocks to editing. I.e., minimize visibility by dismissing consensuses versus seeking to achieve a new consensus (necessarily through outside editors due to low traffic), and deleting a POV tag that directs interested editors to the concerns. And more roadblocks through trying to impose a personal standard for material beyond Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources, summarily reverting multiple edits without reading them, and insisting that all proposed edits be brought to the talk page, regardless of previous discussion, "one at a time" before including in the article. Low traffic equates that to Tahc personally approving all additions—a very effective roadblock for an editor who is the primary author trying to maintain the status quo with a well-established pattern over multiple years. As a result, my desire to try to improve the article has soured, and I don't have time to continue to bring in outside help to overcome roadblocks that take little effort to maintain due to the lack of traffic there. However, I would like to address Tahc's conduct so others can attempt to improve this article—which sorely needs it—in the future. Thanks.--Airborne84 (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question - There is a section in the talk page that purports to be a
game the system by claiming the force of RFCs, or whether the system is being disrupted. Why was the so-called RFC never tagged? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Airborne84 was the one who (seemed to have) called for the RfC. My guess is that he quickly did it and did not know how to do so correctly. tahc ^chat 01:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Airborne84's summary above mischaracterizes several actions of himself or others. Airborne84 normal attitude toward the article alternates between long periods of neglect and shorter periods of more tenacious editing. Airborne84's very first edit on Christian ethics was an article tag, and his second edit (6 minutes later) was a 1434 characters criticism of (one author's view of) Bible ethics. While we can have criticism of Christian ethics in this article, we have other places on Wikipedia to cover criticism of Old Testament ethics, namely Ethics in the Bible or Criticism of the Bible.
When I began edits on the article, it was mostly a history of different authors' writings on the topic. Over time, I helped rewrite the article to cover items that a modern course on Christian ethics would cover, and also to be more like other Wikipedia articles on the ethics of other religions. Doing this included removing off-topic material about the Old Testament, but some material about the Old Testament does remain. Both Airborne84 and myself have left in a statement that points out that "Christians today 'do not feel compelled to observe all 613 commandments' in the Torah"; in other words, the Old Testament has limited value (if any) in Christian ethics. This form of the article with limited material on the Old Testament has had at least consensus through silence for quite some time.
When I removed POV tags from the article, it was because the tags did not have a discussion begun on the talk page to indicate its rationale. Even now, it is unclear what POV or POVs Airborne84 thinks are missing from the article. On 16 July 2018, Airborne84 requested a Third Opinion without first trying to discuss me directly. User:Aquegg asked for more information before giving a Third Opinion and Aquegg proposed that books like "modern theology text-books" would be the most reliable sources to consult for the issue at hand. While I agree, this standard was Aquegg's idea rather than mine. Both Airborne84 and I presented our views, but before Aquegg could give any Third Opinion, Airborne84 decided the process was "inconclusive"-- although he only waited 2.5 hours since my last post for Aquegg's reply before he did this-- and Airborne84 began a Request for Comment. This seems to be because Airborne84 did not like Aquegg's ideas on what are the most reliable sources. If one has never studied Christian ethics much it might seem simple to verify that the Old Testament informs Christian ethics, but such a view is not found in textbooks on Christian ethics.
Rather than crafting the RfC to be about a particular point of disagreement he and I had, or about any particular point of disagreement he and Aquegg had, or even on any particular source he considered useful to improving the article, Airborne84 worded the RfC (in my view) to be very vague. He asked if "Old Testament material" should be "allowed to inform" the article. After discussion had already begun he inserted a clarification that he meant discussion of Old Testament material from modern sources shared "in the context of Christian ethics". This was a help, but "in the context of Christian ethics" proved misleading. Jzsj and I were able to discuss with Airborne84 a passage from Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics that showed the complexity of deciding what might seem to be "in the context of Christian ethics."
While Airborne84 and I did later agree ourselves that "Old Testament material needs to be clearly linked to Christian ethics", the RfC itself resulted in no consensus. Airborne84 claimed otherwise. Airborne84 then made many edits all at one time without discussion or consensus, and afterward claimed that he didn't have time to discuss passages one at a time. tahc ^chat 01:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:CONLIMITED. It looks like Tahc brought up a straightforward sourcing issue, and you failed to address it. That's not ownership behavior, though I understand why it might be frustrating. Swarm ♠ 04:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

@Swarm, my frustration is from the pattern of issues that I've laid out above. This wasn't intended to be a referendum on one of the (apparent) consensuses I linked to. However, I did request closure of the RfC at the link you provided. Thanks.

In any case, I did address Tahc's sourcing issue. Directly and at length. I've agreed with him that there should be a clear link in a source linking OT material to the article's topic. I clarified the RfC to reflect Tahc's concern (he agreed above). I then listed a number of sources that provide the clear link he requested here, taking care to note how they meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. Tahc basically ignored them, suggesting "textbooks" should be a criterion, and maybe only one of them met that personal standard of his. Yet, another editor, Jzsi, concurred that three of them were improvements. So, I notified of my intention to edit and then added the three passages the other editor mentioned, I included material from the source Tahc mentioned (figuring naively that he can't argue with that one from discussion). Tahc simply reverted it all here to the "last okay version". And you can see in the edits that I took pains in the notes to clearly establish the link that Tahc was concerned about. And it's evident from the talk page that he didn't even read them. He just reverted them. So, the record shows that I have laboriously addressed Tahc's concerns. This isn't about his concern that a clear link be drawn anymore. It's about him maintaining the status quo.

Tahc's pattern is to automatically revert material that changes the status quo and the POV written he's written into the article (again, I'm not the only one to notice it).

As another example of this, Tahc automatically reverted the POV tag I added to the article. You can see above that he's claiming again I added it without discussion. This is getting tired and it's purposeful dishonesty at this point since I've pointed out to him that I discussed the tag on the talk page. It's a matter of record. I added the tag on 12 July here, I immediately went to the talk page and posted this new section called "POV Tag added" eight minutes later here (with my concerns noted). 15 hours later, Tahc followed his pattern of disruption by deleting it here. Yet he continues to claim that I'm at fault because the tag "did not have a discussion begun on the talk page to indicate its rationale" (in Tahc's words above). But I've told him before that it did. You might ask "why" he continues with this canard?

It's part of the roadblocks he's erected. Ignore when other editors address your concerns about sourcing. Require sources that exceed Wikipedia's requirements. Minimize visibility on the article. Automatically revert any edits without reading them or the discussion on the talk page. Claim that there has been no discussion. Ignore the tenets of the guidelines invoked (WP:BRD). Assert you don't have time to read multiple edits at once and each passage needs to be discussed individually on the talk page first. Even if they have been.

The reason is clear. In Tahc's words above, the "Old Testament has limited value (if any) in Christian ethics". Tahc appears to be the only editor on the talk page (which has brought in 8 or more editors now for comment) who supports that position. And he's written that POV into the article. Due to the normally limited traffic, his roadblocks will easily maintain that POV. I came here to try to change those conditions. Your response will determine if the article is to keep that status quo indefinitely or become more permissive for future editors. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the responses here send a clear message.

Stop by the Christian Ethics article in a year or two. It'll look remarkably like the Start Class

essay it is now. A bit similar to Tahc's other essay

.

Feel free to close this thread. I'm out. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Long term POV-pushing, disruptive behaviour and edit warring

personal attacking where he tells me that I "ignore science" and calls me "stubborn for ignoring scientists" (??), while also accusing me of not wanting to admit other cultures than the Castilian! You want to se homogeneous Iberian Peninsula! You don't conceive the Catalan nationality! ([8]

). Seriously, this has reached the point of absurdity.

This behaviour has been persistent for months on a number of articles, and it has not been unfrequent to see Filiprino involved in some sort of similar disputes in this very same noticeboard with other users, in which he has also shown an ignorance of

WP:IDHT at the very least, pretending than his is the only right stance over and over again and that it must be imposed at all costs, even if it means going to continued edit warring, serious POV-pushing and even personal attacks, if not outrightly absurd accusations. Having seen this behaviour from him already too many times in the past, I can only consider this as beyond my efforts to seek a peaceful settlement. I post this here to seek an alternative solution, because this seems impossible in the article's talk page and this relates to the actual user's behaviour rather than the content itself. Impru20^talk 23:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey, I am not ignorant of

WP:RS for the matter of nationality definition (that is my take on the sources you provided for backing up the Spanish nationality of Colau). That's your argument. I provided you two articles talking about Ada Colau and his nationality, and also provided an article from a quite known article of an anthropology journal talking about Spanish and Catalan nationalities and their respective customs, yet you ignore them and fall back to your google search numbers. Filiprino (talk) 01:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Firstly, you are not following BRD. You only stopped edit warring when you were warned thrice by three different users that if you kept on the warring you could or would be blocked. BRD means you would have engaged in discussion and stopped warring after the first revert, the later of which you obviously you did not do (and so far, your proposed understanding of what "engaging in discussion" means has been everything but constructive). Half of your replies are straw man fallacies on my arguments, with you trying to depict that I have used arguments I have not; and the other half is just personal accusations and attacks. Some of them even either completely taken out of context, or just outrightly off-topic. All of this while also ignoring the evidence provided throughout the discussion at Talk:Ada Colau before your recent interventions, just for the point of trying to impose your own, particular POV.

Then, you would excuse me, but I invite anyone reading this report to search "using the term Spanish instead of Catalan negates Catalan nationality and Catalan custom" in the discussion at Talk:Ada Colau, which this user claims to be false, to check that Filiprino has stated this word by word, literally.

I am not going to discuss anything else, as you are just being outrightly disruptive and manipulative now. Impru20^talk 08:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also worth noting is that the POV-pushing is seemingly also being brought into a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Solution proposal ([12] [13]). Impru20^talk 09:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this does not qualify as personal attacks or Straw man fallacies ... I have pointed out you are not collaborating because you blatantly ignore the sources provided on the topic of national identity definition. If that is not POV pushing tell me what it is. On the other hand,

WP:BRD can lead to edit warring and you are not the one to decide if it is edit warring or not. The edits you have put here from the RFC on biography manual of style provide a comment with sources for national definitions. If any opinion you don't like, even in an RFC, you consider it as POV pushing then is impossible to improve articles. Filiprino (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

soapbox

to make Catalan nationalist propaganda while trying to bring it off-topic by posting walls of text with your opinion of Catalan history, culture and the such does not help your cause that you are not being POV-ish.

If you think that BRD "can lead to edit warring" then it could be because you are not applying BRD correctly. By definition, BTD implies that you should not restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting. On the edit warring issue, maybe you could also ask those warning you on your user talk page about your behaviour on

WP:EDITWAR. Impru20^talk 20:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Continued editing against consensus

Vjmlhds has been blocked on 10 separate occasions due to his edit warring. I raised this issue last month here that he was still continuing to edit war against consensus, see here [15]. In response the user stated he would back off and stop editing that topic, yet yesterday he made the exact same edit again, against the established consensus on 4 separate articles, see [16] [17] [18] and [19]. It is very clear that this user has not and will not learn. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I said I wasn't going to get involved in the 205 Live debate, and I lived up to that. If you look at the revision history of all of the said articles, it was others who made 205 Live it's own section. My issue was that in Galetz' zealously he undid a bunch of unrelated edits that reflected recent happenings not involving 205 Live. He was basically throwing the baby out with the bath water because he was so hung up on the 205 Live thing. Also, Galetz has been warned about edit warring on his talk page (by another editor), so if you look at it, he is the one with the issue, not me. I lived up to my word, and stuck by it. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. I reverted to the last stable version and then went back in and put back the edits that were valid. You however restored it to its own section, which per established consensus is incorrect. If you think I missed something valid than put that back, not the wrong edits.

Lets look at the first edit [20]. You removed a tag without addressing the concerns. About 75% of the sources are primary which is way too many. Then you moved 205 live back to its own section. Then you put a huge picture of Rhea Ripley back into the middle of the article with just her name next to it, clearly thats wrong too. So what exactly did I miss?
Now lets take a look at the second one [21]. Once again you incorrectly made 205 live its own section. You added an extra line that isn't needed back into the table. Once again what did I miss?
The third [22] you added just the incorrect table back and an unsourced claim.
The fourth an final one [23], you only moved it back into its own section.

So what exactly did I miss? - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you did put back things you cut off, then I was in error. My intent wasn't about 205 Live, just the stuff that happened afterwords. My only suggestion in the future would be that if 205 Live is separated out again (which I had then and have now no intent on doing...as I said, I wasn't the one who separated it in the 1st place) that you just be a little more careful in making sure there isn't collateral damage with other things...just gotta watch, that's all (goes for both of us). Vjmlhds (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No matter who put it there in the first place you blindly restored it. You are responsible for every edit you make. Just like how you continued removal of this tag [24] is a violation of policy without addressing the concern. I have reminded you before we have a style guide that this is in violation of. Just because you don't view it as overly detailed, it is larger than the recommended length and someone else clearly disagrees with you. You need to follow the proper steps for removal, not just making unilateral decisions that it is ok to remove. - 14:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galatz (talk • contribs) 09:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You got me...I'm a flawed editor. Not everyone can be perfect. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You literally removed it after I mentioned in ANI that you incorrectly removed it. That is not a flaw, its not caring. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 17:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic musings

It has been 2080 days since the latest ANI filing about "professional" wrestling.

Ah yes, another day, another tussle over "pro" wrestling "champions". See right. This is really getting beyond ridiculous. E Eng 18:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another day another
WP:UNCIVIL comment that adds nothing to the discussion by EEng - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 18:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
No, no, you misunderstand me. I think it's great that you're back on a weekly basis with a new argument over whether the cruiserweight title is being defended on pay-per-view, or whatever it is. This is worse than longevity. E Eng 18:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:EEng, don't be such an elitist spoilsport. At least it's not MMA. BTW, I hear that that is actually real. Drmies (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The awful thing about "professional" wrestling is that it's fake; the awful thing about MMA is that it's real. E Eng 02:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Galatz EEng You two always seem to find each other. Seriously, on one side there's someone like Gomer Pyle on that one episode of the Andy Griffith Show when he kept yelling "Citizen's Arrest! Citizen's Arrest!" when Barney Fife made that U-turn (kinda like needless ANIs for minor issues), and on the other side, there's a Holden Caufield-esque cynical iconoclast who is saying "Look at the rubes fighting over wrestling again." Not being uncivil, just trying to make a point - Galetz, not every little thing needs to go straight to ANI, and EEng, not everything requires commentary from the stands. So let's just drop the whole stinking issue and live happily ever after...OK? Vjmlhds (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:UNCIVIL Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments. Especially when done in an aggressive manner, these often alienate editors and disrupt the project through unproductive stressors and conflict. While a few minor incidents of incivility that no one complains about are not necessarily a concern, a continuing pattern of incivility is unacceptable. In cases of repeated harassment or egregious personal attacks, then the offender may be blocked. Even a single act of severe incivility could result in a block, such as a single episode of extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person. How does EEng responding to anything related to PW that comes here with the same negative comments not violate the parts I bolded? - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 18:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Galatz I'm agreeing with you...I told EEng straight out that him making his snarky comments wasn't needed. When I said "not being uncivil" I was referring to me, in that I wasn't trying to be uncivil when I was pointing out your and his approaches, just saying that none of it was necessary. You do come off sometimes like a Wiki hall monitor, and EEng comes off as a smart aleck...neither helps anybody. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I love it when someone can't even tell you're agreeing with them. Holden Caufield ... I like it! [25] E Eng 19:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EEng Don't get me wrong, I think Galatz is a bit over the top with his strict rigidity to WP:(insert guideline here), but throwing gas on the fire with snarky comments from the sidelines doesn't help either. So just cool it with the wisenheimer act, OK. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the bright side, you two finally agreed on something, perhaps a first step towards a more peaceful coexistence between you? One can hope. MPJ-DK 20:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember - I'm not the one issuing ANIs at every little drop of a hat. Galatz needs to learn that not everything needs to go right to red alert. Having said that, third party snark doesn't help. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dont run to ANI at the drop of a hat, you have been blocked 10 times for this stuff, and you said a month ago you would stop when brought here for the exact same thing. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 21:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And hope goes out the window. So what can we expect now? Anything constructive or just repeating what has already been said? MPJ-DK 21:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See what I mean...I explained myself, I did not do anything regarding 205 Live stuff specifically, it was just caught in the mix of other edits that I was more concerned with. And I even talked to EEng to lay off with his sarcasm. Nothing seems to register. I don't look to have beef with anyone, but I also don't appreciate needless ANIs for minor issues. This is what I mean by being a Wiki hall monitor - it's not beneficial to anything or anybody (and neither is snarky commentary). I'll make it simple...Galatz leaves me alone, I'll leave him alone (on top of getting EEng to back off) Not that hard. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enough is enough and it's time for a change

With apologies to Owen Hart for stealing his catchphrase but this is getting ri-damn-diculous.

Vjmlhds - You can try and throw "blame" on someone else and distract everyone, the fact of the matter is that you broke the voluntary agreement you made - you can state for whatever reasons you want, you can try to explain it, bottom line you promised to leave it alone and you did not. You have zero credibility at this point in time and should be looking at some sort of sanction for the repeated transgressions. Honestly for other repeat offenders there would be a TBAN or a long term block in place already.
This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. - my emphasis - those that complain that this is at ANI again need to take part of the blame for it being here again - derailing the conversation with snark and off-topic bickering does not help. The fact that this has been brought here multiple times and nothing has been done is in part a failure of everyone who are supposed to try and resolve these issues. The fact that you are blaming the reporter here is tantamount to blaming a prosecutor because a repeat offender is in court for the 10th time, it's misdirected.
Could Galatz perhaps use a little common sense and flexibility in his/her thinking? yes, agreed, but neglecting the actual issue does not make it go away
EEng - here is the part that would make you happy, if this gets a permanent resolution (TBAN, Block, whatevs) then you will not see this topic come up again and again, so perhaps we can work towards something that will actually make a difference?
I am a grumpy old man and you guys are forcing me to get out of my recliner, better be worth it by actually putting an end to this facade. MPJ-DK 23:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just came off a 4 1/2 month block...I don't need to go through that again. No ill will was meant on my part, I just made a mistake. So if we arrive here again, I'll take a topic ban/block with no arguments if it'll keep the peace. I'll stick my neck on the line to end this, if it will END THIS. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All you had to do was leave it alone, it really was that simple. MPJ-DK 23:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK...from here forward, I will leave it alone, I didn't think we'd be at this point to begin with. This is getting ridiculous, you're right about that, and I will do my part to end it, and I will take a block if I break my word, so I'm putting my neck out to prove I do want this over with Vjmlhds (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So could we perhaps put this to rest now? Neutral corners, go back and be productive participants in our little corner of Wikipedia? MPJ-DK 00:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright so here we are Galatz, the proposal on the table is that he backs off, we get peace and everyone goes back to editing? In addition if there is a slip up again in regards to the Cruiserweight/205 situation hit me up on my talk page and then I will take it here to ANI to get a long-term block enforced? Can we "hat" this and move on? MPJ-DK 00:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The person who brings it here is really not the issue. They were unblocked because they promised to stop, a month ago they promised to stop, today they promised to stop. How many chances does a person need? - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 12:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So that is a no to "move on" then? Your choice I guess. MPJ-DK 18:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Given that these two users (Vjmlhds and Galatz) seem to constantly find each other, and, indeed, constantly find themselves at ANI, I feel that their interactions with one another are producing more heat than light. Thus, I propose a two-way IBan in the hopes that, perhaps, we won't see these editors at ANI at least once a month. Icarosaurvus (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support as proposer. Icarosaurvus (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - does not address the reported problem but punishes the reporter for repeately reporting someone who has repeatedly done the same thing. MPJ-DK 22:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - If either or both can be shown to have misbehaved (e.g. broken policies or guidelines), then block one or both accordingly. One of the editors in question has only been blocked once years ago (for 48 hours in 2014) while the other has been blocked many times (most recently for 6 months in mid-2017); there is likely a problem with one side of this dispute and not the other. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Icarosaurvus, you should really include a number of diffs in your proposal for making it look convincing. Accesscrawl (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2001:16A2:B5AA:384:5D43:1F48:2FC0:6A98

The edits in question have been reverted. Revert subsequent edits and warn the user involved regarding the addition of unreferenced or incorrect content. If the behaviors continue by the same user(s) despite warnings left, file a report at

AIV so action can be taken. No further action is needed here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orfeh

This page is being continually updated/violated with incorrect content about the subject - name, career, date of birth etc.

Last user made some ridiculous edits without citation, or using incorrect citations, which do not support claims or discredit factual info.

This is the user.

2001:16A2:B5AA:384:5D43:1F48:2FC0:6A98

Please investigate and revert back to previous version. Can this page also be monitored for further, subsequent activity?

Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broadway1107 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edit made was just reverted, and prior to that there hasn't been any edits on the page since June. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to

AIV. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Off-Wikipedia attempt to subvert sourcing and influence article content

Wikia is not a reliable source by definition. The reason behind your complaint is why. We have no control over Wikia. Since the content is not reliably sourced, you may remove it. If an edit war ensued, take that to ANEW. If you cannot reach a consensus on the article talk page, seek DR. This is a content dispute, plain and simple. John from Idegon (talk) 00:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

This report concerns Zenkaino lovelive and the IP 211.252.20.103, both of whom are SPAs whose edits are confined to series of content classification articles. The problem itself started in early June when I corrected the age rating at Video game content rating system for the New Zealand "M" entry. The Wikipedia article gave an age prescription of "10", whereas the actual rating itself stipulates an age of 16. The mistake was originally made by me because the age isn't clear at the official website unless you enlarge the image. The original error was based on this information blog which states that a lot of "M" rated films are based on literature popular with the 10+ range. That doesn't always means the films themselves will be suitable for 10-year-olds though, and the blog entry clearly states the author's "views do not represent those of the Chief Censor or of the Classification Office". The history is rather convoluted so I will present it as a timeline.

June 9: Zenkaino lovelive reverts the correction. This in itself is not problematic because the official website is confusing unless you enlarge the label.
August 21: 211.252.20.103 then downgrades the age to 13 in the table. The IP does not give any explanation for this.
August 24: Zenkaino lovelive begins a discussion at Talk:Video_game_content_rating_system#NZ_M_source where he proffers a Masters thesis as a source for the new age. The problem though is that the thesis explicitly cites Wikipedia as a source for the ratings (on pages 14–15).
August 29: 211.252.20.103 makes a couple of changes at rating-system.wikia.com, changing the ages from 16 to 10: [26] and [27].
Despite the discussion at the Video content ratings article, Zenkaino lovelive initates the same change at the Motion picture content rating system article, using the corrupted rating-system.wikia.com as a source.
After I revert him he tries to con me at my talk page: User_talk:Betty_Logan#Source_is_confusing

It seems pretty obvious to me that they are the same editor and they are trying to manipulate Wikipedia's sourcing system to insert factually incorrect content into articles. There have been other incidents involving this editor in regards to factually questionable edits, but I had assumed good faith until now but he has crossed the line with this stunt. I simply don't trust him and I would like the community to consider a topic ban from this group of topics. Betty Logan (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a content dispute to me, not helped by a poor understanding of WP:RS policy all round. Wikia obviously isn't WP:RS, but citing an out-of-context image [28] seems questionable too. If this rating system has a legal basis, it should be possible to find proper sourcing. 81.154.7.26 (talk) 13:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "out of context". As I explain above it is an enlargement of the image at https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/find-ratings/new-zealands-classification-labels/, which is the official site for New Zealand's Classification office. You have to enlarge the image to view the label clearly. Also, you are wrong to characterise the problem as a "content dispute" because this report is not about a disagreement over sources, and if it were I would have gone to RS/N. This report is about off-wiki conduct, specifically manipulating off-site information as an IP and then attempting to use those sources to push through changes on Wikipedia. I don't think that demonstrates a "poor understanding of RS policy", I think that actually demonstrates a very good understanding of RS policy since the editor is attempting to game it. Do we really want editors fabricating claims on other sites and then using those sites to add content to Wikipedia? That is the question being asked here. Betty Logan (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, 'off-wiki conduct' isn't really something WP:ANI will generally concern itself with. Particularly when the conduct is taking place on another wiki, which can't be cited as a source, and accordingly is of no relevance to our article. Nobody is going to impose a Wikipedia topic ban for an edit made on Wikia. 81.154.7.26 (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input but this board is not a discussion forum, it's a place for raising behavioral issues with administrators so perhaps it would be better to let an actual administrator review the situation. Betty Logan (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, any editor in good standing may comment. Icarosaurvus (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion seems to be getting sidetracked, and not towards a resolution. In a nutshell: Zenkaino lovelive is doctoring wikias with the intended purpose of manipulating content here on Wikipedia so that it contradicts the
Office of Film and Literature Classification (New Zealand)'s own guidelines. Are we cool with editors doing this? Personally I do not think it is any different to an editor changing content and faking sources—which would definitely be regarded as a behavioral issue and not a "content issue"—and this is just a more sophisticated way of essentially doing the same thing, which is why I raised the issue here and not at RS/N. Betty Logan (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Are we cool with it? As an issue for Wikia, not particularly, since I think that accuracy is a good thing. As an issue for Wikipedia though? As far as I can see, it isn't one. Per WP:RS, Wikia content is an irrelevance. And I certainly see no reason why Wikipedia should try to impose its rules beyond the project, in circumstances where it has no bearing on article content. If Zenkaino lovelive actually is 'doctoring wikias', we can point out to him/her that it is a waste of time, and I don't think it would be objectionable to express our personal opinions regarding the merits of doing so, but asking for a topic ban because somebody is doing something off-Wikipedia that doesn't affect the project seems to me to be not only excessive but downright objectionable in of itself. Wikipedia is not the internet policing service, and shouldn't act as if it is. It seems to me that the way to resolve this would be for someone other than Betty Logan (who seems to have been a fixture on ZL's talk page) to explain to ZL how WP:RS works, and to leave it at that until such time as there are issues that actually affect Wikipedia articles. 81.154.7.26 (talk) 00:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, Betty Logan doesn't seem to have provided any evidence that ZL or the IP have actually done anything at all after her warning that she would "report the behavior as disruptive activity" if it continued. [29] Why should we not assume that the warning has worked? 81.154.7.26 (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

SPA and likely SOCK

Based on the evidence provided, I assert that the three users are the same person. Each user has been left a warning regarding editing while logged out of their account, and their duplicate support vote on a requested move proposal has been redacted. If the editing behaviors continue, or if the user engages in disruptive or uncivil behavior, file another ANI report or let me know. For now, I think we can put this to bed, watch, wait, and hope that the warnings are all that's needed to stop the problem. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

It has happened at

It clearly looks like a duck intended for giving the impression of more support for the move than there really is by suggesting they are different people. Impru20^talk 14:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

(Non-administrator comment) It's not technically a violation for an IP editor to create an account, and then to continue activity on the same page. If you confronted them about it and they denied it, but your evidence was compelling enough to convince an SPI closer that they are the same, that (the denial) would be a violation. Casting a double !vote in an RM is also technically a violation, but it's not uncommon for editors to inadvertently assume that their initial "nomination" did not qualify as a full !vote. You do not appear to have made any attempt to discuss this issue with the user in question before coming here, which is odd because it is only by denying an attempt at discussion that the sockpuppetry, if that even is what it is, would become a violation. Furthermore, Up until this user's comment there was no other !vote supporting the move looks a lot less like evidence of sockpuppetry when one realizes that the move has only been opposed by two editors, and with the 7-day deadline for the request to be processed about to expire in a few hours is ... not how RMs work (2-2 is virtually the same as 2-1 against, as far as RM closers are concerned, so if it was a deliberate attempt to game the system it was a feckless one, and the 7-day thing is not a "deadline"). Propose closing this thread as jumping the gun; please attempt to discuss with the user, or if you feel your evidence is strong enough open an SPI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: The OP refers to "the two IP accounts"; if the "sock" account is the same as the IP that didn't open the RM (88.14.194.11) and these are two different people, then no violation has taken place (except Impru20's jumping straight to ANI). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I request and ask to have good faith, it is an insult that an user that looks obsessed with the title of an article spends the afternoon in wikipedia creating fake news about an user like me that only wants to contribute, please respect, I hope you can read my second editing in wikipedia and learn about basque grammar, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque_language#Grammar ElViejoVascon (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(

WP:SPA

case for all three of these, at least for now), and 2) because the newly-created user account was left in sleeper mode from the beginning of the move discussion to roughly today, with their only edits so far mirrorring the IPs previous behaviour.

The two IPs I'm referring to (85.86.115.126 and 62.99.79.62) are indeed the same person, as these have been used interchangeably for replying throughout the discussion at Talk:Basque Nationalist Party#Basque national party. As these could have been dynamic IPs and they did not tried to impersonate two people at that time I did not complain about that back then. I do not know about 88.14.194.11, whose behaviour is similar but which is geo-located in a different city.

Nonetheless, I did confront the issue with the user in the move discussion itself roughly at the same time than filling this report, and s/he has replied to it. I do not know from the reply whether they have acknowledged or denied that they are indeed the same person, though I am inclined to think that this has been acknowledged after saying that a long time ago I started to think about create my own account.

Since this has seemingly been done, that the user has vowed to contribute in other areas and given that the contribution history of both the IPs and the account is still low, I think that this may be closed for now. Impru20^talk 15:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ElViejoVascon: Reporting a suspect behaviour with evidence is not an insult. Your "second edit" in Wikipedia has been done only after I pointed out to you that you were only editing at Talk:Basque Nationalist Party for pressing for a move change to "Basque National Party". Nonetheless, after you have (seemingly?) confirmed that you are the same as the IP and that you intend for your new account to work in new areas, I think we may assume good faith from you and the report may be dropped. Impru20^talk 15:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read "after you have (seemingly?) confirmed that you are the same as the IP and that you intend for your new account to work in new areas", are you ok? Have you any problem? Please I ask you to respect and stop an obsessive narrative created with the bad faith and intention ElViejoVascon (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clear DUCK now, possible COI

@

WP:DUCK, so I'm requesting that proper actions are taken, specially now that the user tries to make it appear as if all of these were different people. Impru20^talk 15:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Also noting that the user claims that he was alerted last Saturday by the person who started the discussion of the strange and rare obsession of a wiki member (in a reference to myself) against a simply name change of a party that both persons are members. This other person would not ever write again in wikipedia after her experience with you. Firstly, this would have been

WP:COI (with neither the user of the IP accounts disclosing this until this edit). Impru20^talk 16:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Please, someone also check this. It's the user going back to comment on (one of) their IP account, but looks like they seemingly thought they were editing under the ElViejoVascon account. And I'm getting seriously tired of the user drawing a wall of lies on me to try to fend off their responsability for the sockpuppetry at the talk page. If they keep on their HARASS acussations on me I demand that, at least, they care to fill a full-fledged report with proper evidence rather than sneakily getting them through without any proof, so that I may at least defend from these accordingly. Otherwise I should add

WP:NPA to the list of policy breaches as well. Impru20^talk 18:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

The user has posted a further comment using the IP account, then signed it using the user account, while trying to excuse any sockpuppetry by telling a story of events which would fall under

meatpuppetry (??). This has reached the point whether it has become pointless whether this is one or several people into play, as either would result in a policy breach. The user is now likely to come over this noticeboard too to "denounce" the alleged harassment I have conducted to them. May I please request for some admin to take a look at this for once before this gets even crazier? This has been left unattended and it's likely going to expand further. Thank you. Impru20^talk 22:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

SPI report? Can you link me to it? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@Oshwah: I initially filled this here because of the issue of both IP and user accounts involved (making a CU not viable), as well as there being so many IPs involved, with the user account being created after the IPs first edits, to the point that I really did not know which one to put as the sockmaster. I then thought on doing it after further evidence came out, but did not do it because this report was still open and because the situation was pretty much chaotic (a possible COI, the user rejecting SOCK but acknowledging a MEAT while still looking like a DUCK, now engaging in PA behaviour, etc). Should I fill a SPI instead? Impru20^talk 11:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Impru20 - I just saw that you had "clear DUCK" titled in this section header and "likely SOCK" in the main section header for your report here - I thought you may have filed an SPI and wanted to read it in order to try and get a TL;DR of what's going on here and the evidence provided. Hmm... okay... let me finish up a few things, read through your report here, and get back to you. There's a lot of details to read through and I know that an admin hasn't responded to your report in order to help. Stand by; I'm

Investigating... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Oshwah: Yeah, I initially posted this under "likely SOCK" because of behavioural evidence that ElViejoVascon could be a SPA managed by the IP accounts, but with a behaviour that did not seem as serious at the time to justify a SPI (it has gotten much worse ever since). I didn't intend for a sub-section to be created, but did it after this person started mixing up the IP and user accounts to the point this was so obvious. I will try to summarize it here.

The accounts involved in this are three IPs (62.99.79.62, 88.14.194.11 and 85.86.115.126) and one user account (ElViejoVascon). The article involved is Basque Nationalist Party, and particularly, the last two discussions at Talk:Basque Nationalist Party.
This started when an IP (62.99.79.62) sought to have
Basque National Party on 24 July ([39] [40]). There was a brief discussion at Talk:Basque Nationalist Party#Basque national party
on 25 July but this was short and the issue seemingly ended there.

The discussion resumed when I tried to engage another IP (88.14.194.11) who had made further edits at the article trying to change the name ([41] [42]), which I reverted ([43] [44]). The IP replied with personal language ([45]), which I pointed out ([46]). This continued for about 2-3 days, but this time I was replied by two different IPs: 62.99.79.62 (the one that was used back in July) and 85.86.115.126, with 88.14.194.11 not being used ever since. I suggested them to fill a proper RM, since the discussion was going nowhere and they tried to kept it personal (([47])), which 62.99.79.62 did ([48]). (Note: That was a brief summary, but I suggest that the discussion be revised to check whether I did really harass this person, as s/he has claimed later on. I do not think I was offensive at any point, but I did have to point out at several times that this user was going
bad faith-assumption behaviour on me by 88.14.194.11, 85.86.115.126 ([50] [51]) and 62.99.79.62 ([52] [53]), the failure in properly signing their comments ([54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59]
), two of the IPs sharing the same location and the fact that all three IPs had been in use interchangeably throughout the discussion – something I did not mind back then because it seemed like a dynamic IP in use as well as because they did not tried to impersonate different people at the time).

Six days after the RM was filled, the ElViejoVascon account appeared in support of the move ([60]). The fact that the account was created right after the RM was filled (11:05, 23 August 2018, as opposed to 10:53, 23 August 2018); that it had no other activity at the time but the support of the RM (note that here I mean before I filled this ANI report at 14:29, 29 August 2018), as well as the similar behaviour and use of arguments than the IPs brought me to think this was a clear case of
WP:COI
in here as well (which would explain such a persistence in having the article title renamed to "National").
Ever since, ElViejoVascon, aside from trying to accuse me of harassing them (despite no evidence having been presented for such a claim, nor did them cared to fill a proper report at ANI or elsewhere), has openly stated that s/he and the IP accounts are, allegedly, different people, and that they had no direct involvement in WP up until creating the account ([63] [64] [65]). However, further evidence, aside from the similar beheaviour, make this a clear
WP:DUCK, namely: the same use of the "Spanish Socialist party" argument as done by the IPs ([66]) (Note: also including the same mispelling of "Workers'" → "Worker's" as previously done by 85.86.115.126 and 62.99.79.62), the same issue with failing to properly sign their comments ([67] [68]) and the fact that, at some point throughout yesterday, the user seemingly forgot to log in and posted several replies under the 85.86.115.126 IP ([69] [70]), one of which they subsequently went on to sign under their user account ([71]
).

Also worth noting is that after I filled the ANI report, which initially involved SPA, the user tried to edit some other articles to disguise their true motives (even calling for other users to check their edits).

To summarize all of it: I think this is a clear DUCK. 62.99.79.62, 85.86.115.126 and ElViejoVascon are clearly interconnected, and 88.14.194.11 could probably be as well. However, even if we did consider that there was no SOCK issue, the user itself acknowledges having engaged in MEAT, has revealed there could be a possible COI in this and their own behaviour has been, from the very beginning of the discussion, in breach of both NPA (with both direct comments on me as a contributor and outright insults) and AGF (by accusing me of harrassing without any proof). And all of this just for having

Basque National Party. Impru20^talk 14:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@Oshwah: I was replying to the TL;DR request of the situation but it was removed a few minutes before I got finished with all of it. I nonetheless have posted it in case it could be of help. Impru20^talk 14:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(

Assuming good faith, the editor may not be aware that what they're doing is disruptive and can be considered an attempt to deceive others if it continues. A polite and cordial warning is what will probably resolve this matter, and if the editing pattern continues after the user has been warned, we can consider action from there... but not before. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@Oshwah: Seems appropiate to me. However, should I issue the warnings myself? Also, while 62.99.79.62 has not edited since August 23rd, it was from this account that the RM at Talk:Basque Nationalist Party#Requested move 23 August 2018, so that would mean that ElViejoVascon's !vote there would have to be noted as duplicate. I could do all of this myself but I prefer to avoid further escalation if possible. Impru20^talk 14:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that for you, so that you don't get yourself tangled further into the finger pointing and accusations that have been ongoing - stand by. I'm taking care of a few requests for help, and I'll get this taken care of next :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, seems fine. Thank you so much for the effort, btw, as it must have been insane to get through the whole discussion (which wasn't precisely short). Impru20^talk 14:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Impru20 - No problem; always happy to help ;-). I've left warnings on each user's talk page. I'm not sure if the creation of the page move proposal itself counts as a support vote (usually, people add their support "as creator" or "as nominator"), so I left that page alone until this can be verified first. If the creation of the proposal in itself does not add a "support vote", then there's no "duplicate vote" to strike out. Otherwise, yes, we'll strike one out as a duplicate... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: Thank you. On the issue of the RM creation issue, the nomination itself is already counted as support. As per Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Commenting_in_a_requested_move, nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line, unless it is a procedural nomination with which the nominator does not agree (which is not the case in here). Impru20^talk 15:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Impru20 - Yup, I found that out myself just now as well - cool deal. I'm on it! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done - duplicate vote has been redacted. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jzsj

Jzsj's edit on DGG's user talk page was absolutely in violation of his topic ban that prohibits "editing, discussing, or mentioning, any articles related to education or schools, broadly construed", and the block placed in response to Jzsj's edit was appropriate and completely within compliance of

policy. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

Blocked 1 month for violation of topic ban by soliciting input from another user: "Where an educational institution is involved I am banned from restoring any of the article. I hope you will take appropriate action on this article".

A couple of previous blocks and a very clear series of problematic edits, including

WP:BLUDGEON and persistent editing of others' comments at AfD especially. The "school wars" element also indicates a firm response, and a lot of people have given this user warnings and advice. Guy (Help!) 18:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Not sure what this section is for. --Tarage (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assume JzG is looking for a review of his actions? I say, good block for TBAN violation, and enough evidence on the blocked user's talk page alone to make this an Indef for CIR. John from Idegon (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse block.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

86.0.20.87

Article is semi-protected for three months. Keep an eye on things in the meantime, and file another ANI report if disruption continues. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

86.0.20.87 (talk · contribs)
Maria Amor Torres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Edit-warring, using Wikipedia as a soapbox for promtion, use of self-published articles and press releases for promotional material in a BLP.

WP:COI given the article history, recent and past. Likely Maureen Brindle (talk · contribs

) or a meatpuppet.

Only attempt at any discussion from this ip is [80] Not acceptable. This is the reason that Wikipedia has too few women contributors. Please put this back.

While Maureen Brindle appears to have stopped editing the article and is responding to requests made by editors, the ip has not and needs to be blocked. --

talk) 22:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I've requested page protection for

talk) 23:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

The article is now under partial protection. That should solve most, if not all, of the problems. --

talk) 00:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

The article is semi-protected until November 2018. I'm going to hold off on blocking the IP addresses involved so that we can keep eyes on their editing and see if this disruption travels to articles elsewhere. Lets keep an eye on things in the meantime; if disruption continues, file another ANI report and someone will be happy to look into it or let me know. Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Improper use of talk page while blocked

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

This user was indefinitely blocked per community consensus about a month ago. He has continued to use his talk page in violation of policy ever since. An administrator needs to remove talk page access as he has ignored warnings from other users. Thanks. (Pinging blocking administrator

Iridescent) Nihlus 01:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Which policy is that, exactly? --Laser brain (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SBAN. The point of the block is to prevent him from participating in any form of editing outside of the usual block/ban appeal, which would need to be brought to the community. He is not permitted to edit directly or indirectly while blocked. Nihlus 02:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

See

WP:PROXYING, which does not support this argument. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 02:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:PROXYING makes no mention of a blocked user using their talk page. Nihlus 02:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

This time, it's in the opening sentence. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 02:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129, again, it makes no mention of the user's talk page and how it supports them editing from it. Nihlus 12:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage access revoked. SQL ^{Query me!} 03:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROXYING, editors are explicitly allowed to make edits at the suggestion of blocked editors if they have merit on their own and the editor performing them is willing to take responsibility. I don't think he's being disruptive and I've already said so in two different places when Tarage was trying to remove this stuff. --Laser brain (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Blocked means blocked. It doesn't mean "use your talkpage to request edits". A blocked editor is not welcome on the site, and is typically only permitted to use their talkpage to appeal said block. SQL ^{Query me!} 03:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:ADMINACCT you are required to explain what policy supports your action, or I will be undoing it. --Laser brain (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I would not recommend wheel warring. Blocked means blocked. It's a very simple concept. If they're good enough that they can make edit requests - we should unblock. Otherwise, they cannot make edit requests while blocked. This is a very standard practice, and has been so for a very long time. Talkpage access is provided to blocked editors as a courtesy - to appeal the block. It is

disruptive to use said talkpage access to continue editing via proxy. SQL ^{Query me!} 03:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Undoing an admin action is not wheel warring. That would be if you re-protected the page. Again, you are failing to provide any policy behind your action other than it's "standard practice" which I don't buy. --Laser brain (talk) 03:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are supposed to enforce community consensus correct? The community decided to indefinitely block IHTS. Allowing them to continue what they are doing is simply a failure to enforce community consensus. Something that would be unbecoming of any administrator. --Majora (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a practice generally, it's used completely indiscriminately and on a whim. Policy *is* the expression of consensus: It's what the community has decided is best practice, and, at the moment, best practice is that WP:PROXYING should be followed. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 03:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The community has decided to enforce a sanction on IHTS. Community consensus is deeper than policy. It is one of the cores of what Wikipedia stands for. But in case you need an actual blue link,

WP:CBAN explicitly states that the community can authorize such things and that admins should follow them. Oh and in case it isn't clear, I support the enforcement of community sanctions in this manner. --Majora (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Please see

WP:BANBLOCKDIFF, and then feel free to give me a blue link that actually says what you think it says. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 03:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Don't patronize me. You are the one linking to PROXYING. Something that is also on the BAN policy page. CBAN explicitly says which may include a time-limited or indefinite block. So yeah, I read it. But you continue to speak down to others. --Majora (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Majora: The point is that they are blocked rather than banned. But that is being discussed below. Look: I'm sorry if you thought I was patronisng you. Not true: but I was responding in kind, to "in case you actually neeed..." which comes across as something similar :) but maybe we misread each other. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 04:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I for one agree with and Support SQLs block - Had they been blocked for a week or a month then sure I wouldn't of really objected to them doing the whole edit request thing but at present they are ~~community banned~~ indefinitely blocked ~~from this project~~ so shouldn't be requesting edits on their behalf, The wisest thing they could've done was to completely disengage from the project for a year and maybe retry an unblock request at some point, Like SQL says Blocked means blocked. –Davey2010^Talk 03:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: Where are you getting that they're community banned? ~~I guess everyone just pulls things out of their asses in this case and this editor has to suffer for it?~~ --Laser brain (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laser brain - The second sentence in your response above wasn't necessary - it appears that you're implying that Davey2010 is "pulling things out of his ass". I think he may have just said the wrong term or confused something and believed that it meant that the user was community banned. There's no need to respond in that manner toward another editor like that... :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you redacted the comment made above. Thank you for doing that and for apologizing to Davey2010 in the edit summary :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

banned (formally retracted or prohibited from making edits or certain types of edits) from anything or anywhere. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Oshwah, the difference does not matter. Nihlus 11:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies I have no idea where "community banned" even came from, That obviously should've said "indefinitely blocked", Thanks Oshwah for your comments and thanks Laser brain for striking - It was a genuine mistake for which I apologise for, thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010 - Thanks for updating us with what you meant to say initially; I figured that you just said the wrong thing and meant something else. No big deal at all - we've all done it at least one or twice (or, for me, like a bunch of times) ;-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Removal of TPA Blocked editors are not permitted to edit here either directly or via other editors. Rare exceptions are granted in situations where an editor has "independent reasons for making such edits."[81] Blocked editors soliciting edits from their talk page are engaging in a specie of block evasion. This is especially the case when the editor has been indeffed. Revoking TPA in such circumstances is entirely justified. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse TPA removal: It seems to me that the community explicitly does not wish IHTS' involvement on Wikipedia at this time, so it would seem to me that
talk) 05:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Endorse removal of TPA - There's a certain amount of truth to the claim that turning off TPA is inconsistently applied, but there's also absolutely no doubt that when misuse of the talk page by a indefinitely community-blocked editor, especially to encourage proxying, is brought to the community's attention, the very frequent result is removal of TPA. An argument can be made that the proxying-encouragement here was not disruptive, but deciding whether behavior is disruptive or not is well within administrative discretion, so those arguments need to be addressed to the admin who took the TPA away, on the basis of exploring the nature of the editing, and not on the basis of Wikilawyering.
The bottom line here is that IHTS's cumulative behavior over time led the community to have them indefinitely blocked from editing, and editing by proxy is still editing - it simply circumvents the technical restraints that prevent them from editing, much as the creation of a sock would. Neither is allowed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I had nothing to do with the bringing of this case. I only asked for clarification when I removed a segment and got it. Though I guess there are multiple thoughts about the issue. I don't want people to think I was canvasing. --Tarage (talk) 05:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

canvassing, but your comment is appreciated nonetheless :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Same here, Tarage, nothing at all wrong with asking for experienced advice when you're unsure of something. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse removal of TPA being blocked, especially indeff, does not mean business as usual. Indeed, it's the cumulative behaviour has led to this more than any isolated issues. It's a shame when an editor with extensive knowledge of their preferred topic area has to go, but when they constantly corrupt our collaborative sprit, they have to go. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: at [82] I made a good-faith offer to Ihardlythinkso. He silently reverted it,[83] so I went back to avoiding interaction. I did notice that he has been pinging other editors with suggested edits, which is a bit different -- and a bit more disruptive -- than someone like me volunteering to make the edits. I am now Neutral on TPA removal. I can see good arguments for and against. That being said, I don't believe that Ihardlythinkso understands why he was blocked or is willing to follow our behavioral policies, even on his talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse removal of TPA Having looked at the talk page, it seems like the blocked user views it as a way to get others to make edits while blocked. This is not acceptable. Icarosaurvus (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removal of TPA: It's only a token, I know, and obviously the consensus wins. But it's not clear in policy exactly what is and is not allowed on the talk pages of blocked users - and as long as a user is using their talk page for the good of the project in a way that is unrelated to their block reason, it seems petty to me to deny that help. Our actions should be based on what's best for the encyclopedia, not on who's allowed in the club today. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse removal of TPA (Non-administrator comment) such behaviour should not be encouraged. The user and his supporters in the community should rather focus on how to improve contributions and preventing the situation that led to the block in the first place. If all blocked users are allowed such activity, it would be a nightmare. Policies are respected, a block and its rationale also needs to be respected. The Block is a forced time off for the user to contemplate on his actions so that they are do not recur. User should not be finding out ways to bypass the block. --DBig Xrayᗙ 09:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose removal of TPA until the policy actually says you can do it. At the moment, it says "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits.". Now, that may not mean a blocked editor can ping a particular editor and ask them to make an edit (that might violate the second part of the policy - it's unclear). However, currently there is no reason why, if I was blocked, I couldn't keep posting "Hey, someone might want to look at this edit and see if you think it's an improvement - if so you might want to make it". No reason at all. Now if someone wants to change that policy - and I agree it wouldn't be an unreasonable suggestion - I suggest they start a discussion about it. But in the meantime it might be an idea not to
ignore it? Black Kite (talk) 10:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment by neutral third-party - I took a look at different policies and guideline pages, and I agree that the content within policy doesn't clearly define this exact situation - where edit requests, user page-like edits, and other such edits that don't fall into the definition of "malicious abuse" (which would result in TPA being removed) are made on one's own talk page during the time in which they are blocked would result in TPA being revoked. I would highly recommend to everyone here that, after this discussion closes, that a discussion is started in the proper channel in order to clarify policy in this situation (probably the
village pump or possibly at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy since people cited WP:PROXYING here). I believe that any policy content clarification (if such is done) should be made to the blocking policy as well, since this is where talk page access revocation details are located. Again, this is simply a neutral observation and recommendation. I plan on keeping an eye on this discussion as an uninvolved party so that it can be closed by someone who won't insert bias :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
This has already been discussed in
disruptive editing. Removal of TPA in these circumstances is not automatic, but it isn't outside of normal practice and understanding of PROXYING. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

TonyBallioni - Ah, thanks for letting me know. I wasn't aware that this discussion has been held before :-). Now I feel stupid... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that the March 2018 discussion included a specific suggestion to modify wording to clarify that blocked editors can only use the talk page to appeal the block. It was rejected. Anyone who is supporting removal of TPA on the basis that it is policy should reevaluate their position.--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse removal of TPA Blocked doesn't mean that you are sequestered to one small page where you can make edit suggestions and continue to go against the wishes of the community; it means you are blocked from editing, period. There are no rules being ignored except by those wishing to overturn this and IHTS himself. Nihlus 11:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removal of TPA - Obviously I was the one making a bunch of noise about this and challenging SQL on their action, but I see this as a heavy-handed application of quite a grey area where policy is not clear. To be done without warning is an aggravating factor that makes this a poor administrative action. We should be clarifying our policy if editors are indeed not allowed to comment on content matters while they are blocked. Instead of taking action and then having the debate later. Very poor form. --Laser brain (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Laser brain, the user was warned by Tarage on his talk page and removed it without comment or consideration. I am not sure what more you want. Nihlus 12:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yes, and here is the warning diff--DBig Xrayᗙ 14:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, there's this. But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of a good story, right? SQL ^{Query me!} 03:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose removal of TPA I confess I had been under the impression that when a user is blocked, they are permitted to edit their talk page but such editing should be limited to appealing the block. However, now that I've read Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block#Abuse_of_the_unblocking_process, I see that it does not say that. I looked at the summary of the community discussion which led to the block To see if it specifically included additional limitations on talk page activity, and I don't see such a statement. There is precedent for editors posting request for edits on the talk page while blocked, and while this situation might be different, I haven't seen any community discussion explaining why this situation is different, so I don't see any rationale for removal of talk page access. Of course, the community can make such a determination and arguably that's what's going on here, but the talk page access appears to have been revoked based on a misunderstanding of policy. I think it should be restored and a separate discussion should be held, to help ensure that those supporting TPA removal aren't doing so because they think it's policy, and I doing so because it is specifically warranted in this situation.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (since we're now doing this) revocation of TPA, per my remarks above with augmentation from Laserbrain's original iteration and SPhilbrick's reiteration of the dearth of basis in actual policy. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Policy sometimes lags behind actual practice, which is an argument for updating the policy, not for stopping the practice, which is a de facto consensus-in-action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's certainly an incentive to update policy. RfC, anyone? —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose removal of TPA I don't see how this helps the encyclopedia and the policy is not as clear as some appear to think it is.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was dysfunctional that it took so long to indef block IHTS for years of rather relentlessly attacking other editors. It is also dysfunctional that once he stopped attacking other editors, and was only making edits that would improve the encyclopedia (if and only if agreed to by other editors), he had his talk page access removed. Against the apparent wishes of the blocking admin, no less. I am, of course, stunned and amazed that two dysfunctional things happened on Wikipedia. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
endorse removal of TPA So hm. First, the close at ANI was interesting. The closer made it an admin action; it is arguable that this was a superclose (bending over backward to be kind), and the correct close was community-imposed indef. I only bring that up, to emphasize that the community said basta. IHTS had became only more disdainful of the community as time went on, not more moderated and more heedful from the many blocks. Yes Floq, it took too long to get there (a long history of bending over backward, trying to accommodate IHTS), but the community got there. Done is done. It is neither dysfunctional nor surprising that when IHTS showed yet further disdain for consensus and kept on trying to edit via proxy, TPA was revoked. It was appropriate, in this case. It isn't happy. Jytdog (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse removal of TPA. If IHTS wants to keep editing Wikipedia, they can do so once they successfully appeal the restriction. If blocked users can continue to edit via talk page edit requests, what's the point of blocking them other than adding additional work for people who review requested edits? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removal of TPA. I am going to echo the comments by Boing!, Black Kite and SPhilbrick. The current policy is unclear about this, and there is no clear community consensus mentioned above on what to do in this specific kind of situation. Until both of these concerns are clarified by community wide process, it is unwise to pretend that we have always been consistent and firm about "common practice", because we have not been. Also, to partially reply
WP:PROXYING is pretty explicit about what's acceptable here: unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content. So if folks wants to be consistent, start an RfC and have this part removed, otherwise we run the risk of opposing explicit policy wording based on purely personal sentiments. Alex Shih (talk) 03:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
(edit conflict) No one is obligated to make the edits that IHTS is requesting, but unless they are ignoring all pings by IHTS they are spending time reviewing the edit requests. I hope this discussion does not set the precedent of allowing blocked editors to request edits from their talk pages. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removal of TPA - So, here's what I'm reading. IHTS is making constructive suggestions for improvements to chess articles on their talk page. They're getting in nobody's way and causing no disruption. Nobody who has been pinged has registered any issue with this, at least, not that has been presented. We're here bickering over whether this is abuse of the talk page – hint: it's not. Blocks are meant to prevent problems, not prevent constructive contributions. This smacks of punitive "we don't like you, didn't you get the hint, now piss off".
Why am I not surprised to find that the admin who enacted the tpa removal, SQL, has a grand total of 7 edits to mainspace in the past month, and less than 200 in the past two years? Relevance? You may wonder. IHTS consistently makes more than that every month.
I'd like to answer GorillaWarfare's question. The point of blocking IHTS, was to curtail their abuse of other editors. Now if they carried that shit on their own talk page, you'd have a solid justification for removing the TPA. You'd have my support too. However, no evidence has been presented to suggest they are doing anything besides being constructive. So there's no problems to prevent. The additional work created, as with all work here, is voluntarily handled. Anybody who wants to review the suggestions, can do so. If nobody wants to, nobody is forced to.
That's about all I'll say. I don't agree with the community, and I don't like the way this has been handled. Unfortunate, but unsurprising. Oh, and I'm unconcerned with the policy here (though it appears not to exist). IAR. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relevance? You may wonder. Despite your comments above, I'm still wondering why SQL's edit count matters. If IHTS is a productive editor who can't edit productively in certain aspects of the site, they should request a change to their restrictions that will allow them to keep editing where they can (such as chess articles). And no, IHTS is pinging individuals to review their edit requests, so unless those people are specifically ignoring the pings it is taking up their time. Personally, it won't keep me up at night if people who are abusive (your words) to other Wikipedians can't edit Wikipedia. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OR below puts it well, below. An editor who is being constructive, who is not causing problems, has lost his talk page access to an admin that has done ~~jack all~~ little (constructive wise) in the past two years. SQL's action does nothing positive for the encyclopedia. That's why it matters. I don't see why a change to the editing restrictions is needed, he hasn't caused any problems on his own talk page, so why has his access been removed? I know "blocked means blocked", and so god forbid if he does something useful. Personally, it won't keep me up at night if people who are abusive (your words) to other Wikipedians can't edit Wikipedia - The abuse has been successfully curtailed. That is the point. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So then why is he blocked? I wasn't aware we had a second set of Wikipedians who are useful content contributors and terrible at interacting with other people who are coddled by others facilitating each edit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that the only positive things one can do for the encyclopedia occured in mainspace. Could you retract your attack on SQL stating that he has done nothing constructive for the encyclopedia for the past two years? Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC) Just noticed that Mr. rnddude tweaked his comment while I was replying; still not sure what SQLs contributions or supposed lack thereof have anything to do with the price of tea in china (also, noticed that I must've subconsciously imitated GorrillaWarfare's comment above, hmm) Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removal of TPA - Anyone that desires blocked users be barred from posting the type of content in question here to their talk pages may start a proposal in the proper place and see if it gains community consensus. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we boldface voting why does ANI do this good grief - you realize that what happened here is that someone hurried over to ANI yelling "help, help! this guy is improving the encyclopedia in an unauthorized manner! somebody stop him!", and then somebody actually did, and now a bunch of people are nodding solemnly that yes, this was a thing that made sense? Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If IHTS starts with attacks based on responses to proxied edits, block whoever proxied - The policy is unclear, but is clear about proxying. Whoever proxies takes full responsibility. With IHTS, the block wasn't about article edits but responses to article edits. The problems were all on talk pages. Saying he can get proxies to edit, then put all of the comments on his own talk page doesn't fully accomplish the preventative function of the block. So if talk page access is retained, I'd like to see it spelled out that if someone proxies for IHTS and that leads to IHTS attacking another user (even if the proxied edit was, on the surface, acceptable), then the proxy should be blocked for creating the conditions that led to the abusive behavior to begin with. In other words, inviting IHTS back into article editing by proxy means taking responsibility for any talk page comments IHTS makes about those proxy edits.

I was torn on this, as I would've preferred to see a long fixed-length block over an indef in the original thread, based on the idea that indef with such a prolonged body of evidence would likely be infinite. So I'm sympathetic to an approach that would at some point make it so IHTS can make article edits again. That said, the issue is/was treatment of other editors on talk pages, not in the articles themselves. The block wasn't for the past, it's to prevent that in the future. Raising the stakes for proxying seems like an interesting middleground. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Shabazz continuing personal attacks

WP:AE

.

Last month he was blocked for personal attacks at AE and his refusal to strike them for 31 hours by

talk · contribs) to make a personal attack on the blocking admin: You're almost as stupid as Sandstein, with your attitude that "only the editor who is factually wrong is being disruptive". What a bunch of fucking morons [85]

The block was not extended for this.

Similarly, he reverted Icewhiz's standard AE notification (which he is required to post) as "vandalism"[86] so he's clearly being toxic to everyone that has to interact with him because of AE.

Considering Malik Shabazz was desysopped for personal attacks in 2015 by the ArbCom[87] and has been blocked for them several times, including revoking talk page access, it's clearly a long-term pattern issue. So, are egregious personal attacks alright as long as he has a little pause between them, or is it time to show the door? --Pudeo (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pudeo -

Investigating... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Sandstein's recent comments at AE have driven another editor to retire in what can easily be described as bullying by an admin who lacks even a basic knowledge of the topic area. I feel any actual investigation here needs to take a hard look at the process that led to Malik losing his temper. I am far from being a fan of Malik, but this is utter bullshit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only in death does duty end - If you feel that an investigation is needed regarding Sandstein's conduct, you should open a new ANI discussion, state your concerns in-depth, and request one - we'll be happy to objectively look into the matter if you do this. This discussion here is focused on Malik Shabazz's civility; a separate discussion regarding the issue you're mentioning is what should be done so that concerns and independent events are not diluted into the same report. Let me know if you have questions or concerns and I'll be happy to talk with you about them. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that when an ANI report is opened, we look at all sides and all participants in what led up to the problem. We don't only consider the actions of the editor complained of and tell people to take consideration of other involved parties elsewhere. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee - I took another look at Only in death does duty end's concerns. I initially believed that his concerns and the concerns raised on this ANI report were about two different events that happened to involve both parties. I see now that I was mistaken; I've redacted my response above. Thanks for responding and pushing back at my suggestion (which was incorrect) :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only in death does duty end - I also owe you my apologies for the incorrect assessment I made and the response that followed. I hope that you didn't interpret my response as an attempt to "pass you down the line" or that I wasn't taking your concerns with the same level of care as the concerns raised by Pudeo - it was absolutely not my intent at all. Please forgive my stupidity... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

personal attack. This block only takes the uncivil comment into account; a further investigation regarding Malik Shabazz's conduct may find that a block of a longer duration is necessary. Any administrator is welcome to modify or extend the block I placed upon both accounts - just let me know that you did so and what you found. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I looked further into this and found that the hostility towards Sandstein has been going on atleast since May. Malik Shabazz made an uncivil AfD comment about "did your parents drop you on your heads as infants?"[88] and Sandstein warned him for using the personal attack in

WP:ARBPIA area[89]. Shabazz reverted him with the comment "taking out the trash"[90]. AE topic banned Shabazz from Israeli-Palestine topics for 6 months because of the comment, and Sandstein notified him. Shabazz removed this notification with the summary of "go to hell".[91] He then made the following comment at AN with his alt-account: I would sooner jump off the Empire State Building than grovel before a "good German" like Sandstein[92]. He refused to remove the "good German" description because of "if the shoe fits..."[93]. Then there are the two newer personal attacks mentioned in my first post. So this is pretty extensive already. --Pudeo (talk) 11:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

What brought you to User talk:Nishidani in the first place? I thought we had rules against following editors to instigate conflict. nableezy - 16:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is both tendentious and irrelevant. It's also silly, as the answer is almost certainly related to follow-up of the

π, ν) 16:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

What exactly was there for Pudeo, not an admin who can do anything with an AE thread or follow up on it, to follow up there? I appreciate your answering for Pudeo, I am genuinely curious as to when it became acceptable to troll through people's user talk pages to bring attacks against third parties to ANI? nableezy - 16:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not willing to entertain your argument that unacceptable comments can by excused by claiming that anyone that acts on them is engaging in

π, ν) 16:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Thats cute, but the question wasnt directed to you in the first place, and it ignores that this happened on a third parties user talk page, a user talk page the reporting user has never before edited and would likely not have in their watchlist. Its a good thing you arent the arbiter of these things though, isnt it? nableezy - 16:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

uncivil comment made toward another editor, and we shouldn't be quick to jump to assumptions or assume bad faith like that. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I dont think it was hounding so much as looking for a problem without having a reason to. I agree, "piece of shit" is not an acceptable thing to call another person on Wikipedia. But. This happened in the immediate aftermath of the person that was directed at having made a closure of an AE thread with an implicit threat towards another editor, a threat that said editor has at least momentarily (one might hope) would lead him to retire. This same admin has a history of imposing sanctions on Malik without discussion and in ways that have aggravated what in my view is a shameful moment in the WP:A* namespace, from ANI to AC, in which a years long productive and widely respected (see his RFA for both the nominator and the view of the community on him) was successfully goaded by a sock-puppet of a user who has what I think the notable distinction of having two sockpuppets in the same arbitration case into losing his temper and his bit. That benefit of the doubt you speak of was never given to Malik. I see an editor upset with what he sees as a long-term pattern of misconduct by an admin, and one who, rightfully in my view, doesnt actually see any avenue to address that misconduct. And he vented that frustration, poorly perhaps, on a user talk page. Where it could have died among the 4 people involved in the discussion without the need for a third party that has no real familiarity with the histories involved playing hall monitor and making a petition for a citizens arrest here. nableezy - 22:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy - Boy oh boy... I'm realizing that there are more and more layers I need to peel back regarding this discussion and issue as a whole... I appreciate that you understand that the comment was uncivil and certainly not acceptable - thank you :-). But, as people have stated here - there's a lot more that needs to be addressed than just the uncivil comment that was found. This is why I imposed only a 72 hour block pending further investigation into the matter entirely. The question I have is... shoot, where do we even begin? :-/ ... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What brought me to his userpage? I follow

WP:AE and the report on Nishidani was closed there. Simple as that. --Pudeo (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

He probably should not have called Sandstein a piece of shit, Ill grant you all that, but are we really not allowed to criticize admins as admins? If one thinks an admin is incompetent they should do what? Sit on their hands? And seriously, why does anybody care what is said on a user's talk page? Yall have entirely too much time on your hands if you are reporting people for attacks on other parties on pages you have no reason to even see. nableezy - 16:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He should itemize and put forward for discussion the actions he thought were taken in error. --Jayron 32 16:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Youve been here a while, surely you recall a Malik Shabazz that was a real asset to this project. I was on a hiatus of sorts when this slide towards I dont know I guess dissatisfaction would be the most civil way of putting with the project on his part began. But do you not think that it would be better if actions were taken to arrest and reverse that slide took place rather than accelerate it? Everything that began with Malik, from his losing his temper and the bit with it, began with a NoCal100 sock incessantly baiting him, racist overtones and all, and nobody doing a thing about it. And from that Wikipedia took one of the better admins on here and is now continuing its quiet march of him out the door, with a user going to a third parties talk page to report him and ask if it is time to do exactly that. I realize I didnt reply to your suggested course of action, so for that Ill just say I agree with Malik on the futility of that course of action. nableezy - 16:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He may have been an asset to the project, but that doesn't mean he isn't being a net liability today. I agree that we should be taking actions that encourage editor retention, but I'm also not fully aware of every detail of every interaction that Malik and the other principals here have been part of over the many years. If an admin does something incorrectly, there are ways to go about getting that corrected. Calling them names or using abusive and inflammatory language are not those ways. If Malik is going to do that, then Malik is not going to be allowed to continue to do that. --Jayron 32 17:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are times where that is true, as far as ways to go about getting that corrected, but in the specific realm of AE that is made as difficult as possible. I see Malik's anger here as something that is justified but resolvable. And we should be doing what is possible to help create such a resolution. nableezy - 19:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(

WP:NPA again MarnetteD|Talk 16:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes I am, as far as a statement made on a user talk page. Do I think it applies to Sandstein? No, as I said on that user talk page. Should it result in a block? No. But however you want to classify admins, as a type of police, or a ruling class, or whatever, they certainly have greater privileges here, and with that, in any non-fascist organization, should allow for criticism of the use of those privileges. Including calling them "corrupt". nableezy - 16:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At least as important a question to be resolved is whether Sandstein should be involved in matters of Arbitration Enforcement. I've been voting No Confidence on his actions there for years. Carrite (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Count me in. Unfortunately, it seems that
No such user (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Proposal for a longer block

I don't like these kind of !vote type of things, but since the discussion doesn't have a direction otherwise, I'm proposing a longer block than the initial 72 hrs one by

WP:ARBPIA for 6 months for personal attacks in May 2018[94]. Blocked for 31 hrs for personal attacks at WP:AE on 6 July and then attacking the admin who did the block[95]. Then blocked for 2 weeks by AE on July 30[96] for incivil comments again and now this. There is a pattern of incivility and he just seems to be doubling down on his attacks on admins who enforce the sanctions. A longer block, atleast 1 month or 3 months is in order. So, support --Pudeo (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

oppose - literally no reason for a proposal like this. Malik has a problem with a specific user, that problem should be discussed and worked it out, ideally between the two of them. Something that is not part of the solution is a third party going through a user talk page for reasons that escape me to report an attack on somebody else entirely. Sanstein is a grown up, if he feels attacked he can say so. But, again, ideally this is worked out with a discussion, not a rather absurd length of a block for a comment on a user talk page. nableezy - 19:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- AE is a public venue and his attacks have been going on since May (see my post about the background[97]). It is increasingly disruptive for everyone if egregious personal attacks are normalized and the AE board's atmosphere made toxic. Doesn't matter if the comments have been made on talk pages after the AE threads have been closed. --Pudeo (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The attack you are complaining about here was not at AE. It was at a user talk page. Im well aware of your previous post, thank you very much. I will restate, a comment made on a user talk page that not even the supposedly aggrieved party has cared to complain about has no business even being brought to ANI, much less being used to propose a months long block. You literally went searching for a problem here. nableezy - 19:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not think we have such entity as a "community imposed block". If you want to propose a community ban or a community imposed topic ban, you should start the discussion accordingly. If you find Oshwah's action inappropriate you should go to

WP:AN and ask uninvolved admin to review the block. But voting for a longer (or, for that matter, shorter) block does not make sense.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't find it in appropriate, he himself said a longer block could be made by another admin. This would be a community discussion for that, if any admin wants to do it based on it. I'm not an expert on ANI policy, but indef block !votes seem to be fairly frequent. Feel free to close this subsection if I'm using incorrect terminology. --Pudeo (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait to see what happens in 3 days first. I'd like to extend more than a little grace to someone who wasn't shown any real grace back when he really needed it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Although I will never use the language that Malik used, I share his anger at the way Sandstein handled that AE case. I think that Sandstein's threat to act against consensus on Nishidani's talk page was wandering into de-sysop territory. I've always been reluctant to criticize administrators who (unlike me, usually) undertake the difficult and thankless work on the noticeboards, but there are limits. And the system is fundamentally broken, with "behavior" taking center stage while "building an excellent encyclopedia" is pushed to the background. So bad editors who doggedly push their personal POV with NOPV and V violations every day while being careful with the language and revert rules are allowed to go about their business unmolested, while those good editors who (like Nishidani) express frustration at this state of affairs are sanctioned. Zero^talk 01:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undue size for neo-Nazi logo

User has been warned for the behavior. If it continues, file another ANI report or let an admin know and we'll be happy to step in. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Editor User:Mlesch keeps increasing the size of the logo for the Australian neo-Nazi group Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging to much larger than it needs to be. [98], [99],[100] The essence of the logo is already on the page in two other places in the infobox. I've asked them on their talk page to discuss this on the article talk page [101], but they just keep at it instead. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped a 3rr warning on his talk page; I would consider that a final warning on the matter. If he reverts similarly again, please let me or another admin know, and we'll block. --Jayron 32 16:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hope that's the end of it. Beyond My Ken (talk)

@Jayron32: Just as an FYI, but they already received that 3RR warning last month. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and if you find that he does not behave from here forward, then please let me know, so I can take care of it. I can't very well block him for a month-old action; that isn't very useful at this point. Since I just gave him a new warning, lets see where he goes from here. --Jayron 32 16:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good call with the warning. If it continues, someone can easily take action for the disruption. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sharif Uddin

Re-closing discussion as it has come to an end. The template may or not be appropriate for insertion in to articles regarding human activity, but the user making those edits has stopped and is communicating so that we can help him. No further action is required here and this can be closed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk · contribs) is adding {{Animal sexual behavior}} to human sex articles (example Sexual intercourse) I don't think this template was meant to be used on human articles (if I'm wrong, then please just close this thread) I left a message about my concerns, but the user does'nt care or is just ignoring it. I'm posting this in hopes of some other techniques to "get their attention". Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 17:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

FlightTime -

Investigating... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FlightTime - Looking at the template, under the "mammals" section, it has a link to Human sexual activity titled as "human". Based on that, I think this template was meant to be added to all articles relating to living organisms and animals, including humans... What do you think? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: Well obviously I think it's not meant for human articles (since I started this thread), but I hadn't noticed the things you point out, if its deemed appropriate for human articles, then I'm OK with that. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 17:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FlightTime - It seems like it is to me. Sure, no problem. If you don't have any other concerns for me to poke at, I'll go ahead and close this thread. If you see any more problems and need me or others to take a look (or if you find out that I'm wrong and an idiot lol), don't hesitate to file another ANI report or re-open this one. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 23:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Sharif Uddin - I've re-opened this ANI report due to Flyer's response above. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 00:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Flyer22 Reborn - Okay; thank you for responding with your thoughts. The reason I re-opened this ANI report was so that you had a fair chance to participate like everyone else... I didn't want to leave anybody out and wanted to make sure that all things that needed to be said have been said :-). I'll leave this discussion open for a few more hours. If nobody else adds anything to it, I'll go ahead and re-close it. Thanks again for the input :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

I do this with great hesitancy.

I would appreciate it if an admin could look at the thread titled "Kate Bolduan" on my talk page and evaluate whether or not Tlmw's persistent attempts to make (unfounded) assumptions about my politics, using those assumptions to evaluate my edits, and accusing me of being "guilty" of participating in a "cover up" are appropriate or not. I am beginning to feel harassed by his commentary. Many thanks. PaulCHebert (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC) Addendum: @Ponyo: is somewhat familiar with this case -- I only now realized that they are an admin. PaulCHebert (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you know I've tried to reason with Tlwm on their talk page, but have not had much success. It would be helpful to get fresh eyes on the subject.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PaulCHebert:, please notify Tlwm of this discussion as noted in the yellow box when you edit this page. Thank you, --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours for the continued personal attacks after warning. The IDHT is strong with this one...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

Done. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about missing the notification. Thanks to @FlightTime: for covering me. @SarekOfVulcan: IDHT? PaulCHebert (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, sorry, should have linked it the first time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

(edit conflict)As a completely disinterested party, having taken a look at the thread in question, the thread on Ponyo's talk page and the articles where the dispute was taking place, my thoughts are:
- Tlwm has some serious
  competency issues
  with the English language. I do not think that he should be writing prose. List articles, templates, talk page discussions and other outlets remain open to his contributions, but I strongly feel that he should not be writing prose for article bodies.
- Tlwm also seems to have a battleground mentality.
- Tlwm does not understand American politics well at all. PaulCHebert's editing (in the areas I mentioned above) does not, in any way, appear to be indicative of an editor with conservative political views, much less a right-wing POV pusher.

I'm not sure what to do. My instincts are to try to retain this editor, but the logical part of my brain says "indef per

Tell me all about it. 19:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Honestly, no. I did not harassed him, no interest. I am open for critics and improvements but not for massive cuts because He doesn't like my writing style. I asked him to improve it, but now we are here. I have to ask myself about his intentions. Every word I posted in his discussion went very fast to Jezebel's Ponyo. They were hunting. PaulCHerbert was very belittling like many here. He introduces false information (I think by accident) and typos. I can not write like this. I am not here for my ego or winning, then I prefer to leave wikipedia. Tlwm (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC) (Copied from Tlwm's talk page - FlightTime (open channel) 19:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]

I'd prefer Tiwm leave Wikipedia as well. Severe competency issues. --Tarage (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that Tlwm's English compositions skills seem to have improved somewhat between the bulk of this issue and their responses at
Tell me all about it. 19:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

I respectfully disagree -- if you look at his mainspace contributions, they are often very difficult to decipher. The stuff I removed here is a quick example. PaulCHebert (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That truly is atrocious syntax...

Tell me all about it. 20:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

There are definitely CIR and IDHT issues here. I don't think Tlwm has done anything deserving of a ban, but it is likely he will be back at ANI if he doesn't either drop this topic area, or undergo a major attitude readjustment. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I don't know, but comparing reverts to the Holocaust kind of tips my vote towards an indefinite block. Blackmane (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly shows a certain lack of perspective. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks and false allegations by IP

Blocked for 31 hours for disruptive editing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A few days ago, I reverted this IP editor for unsourced content and possible original research on the page

WP:CIVIL. I replied as best I could, then I got another message from the same IP (here, then edited here). In the message, the IP accused me of violating 3RR (which I have not done to my knowledge and definitely did not do on the page in question) and not assuming good faith. They also called me a "KNOW NOTHING, NIT PICKING NERD." Following the first message, I did give them a talk page warning here, but they clearly did not heed that warning. Aspening (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Feel free to revert their nonsense from your talk page (as I just did) and once an admin wanders around, I'm guessing the block button will be swiftly pushed. Nonsense-spewing IPs don't tend to have happy endings here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NorthBySouthBaranof: You guessed correctly; we edit conflicted when I was posting that I'd just blocked

GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Maureen Brindle

Maureen Brindle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Maria Amor Torres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
WP:COIN#Maureen Brindle
(COI discussion)

This editor continues to directly edit this article despite a COI and multiple warnings on her talk page. I still think we can get this editor engaged in a productive way, but it's probably time for a brief block.

@Jytdog: Would appreciate your opinion. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks, a block and an unblock: review requested

Yesterday at 8:00 User:GorillaWarfare posted a comment[102] to a Signpost article written by User:Kudpung. I explained why this was a personal attack at 9:30, and asked her to remove the post[103]. Her reply was "I won't be removing it."

After I read this, I removed the PA, only to be reverted by GorillaWarfare nearly immediately. I warned her on her talk page that further reversions would lead to a block, she reverted again anyway, and I blocked her for 24 hours.

The PA was then reinstated by User:Drmies, and the block undone without consultation by User:Fuzheado.

Inbetween, there was discussion at GorillaWarfare's talkpage, in the sections "You are getting things consistently wrong" and "Personal attack". Opinions were divided about nearly everything, with some people politely disagreeing, and some people adding inflammatory[104] or baseless[105][106] statements, which didn't help the discussion one bit.

So, how to proceed? Is the original comment (about Kudpung continuing a misogynistic campign by writing that Signpost article) a personal attack or not? Is repeatedly reinstating that comment despite warnings a blockable offense? Is undoing the block without consultation, or reinstating the comment, a problematic action? Or are the removals of the comment and the block the problematic actions? Review please.

Fram (talk) 05:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@@ Line 443: / Line 443: @@
 {{Ping|Jytdog}} Would appreciate your opinion. [[User:Kendall-K1|Kendall-K1]] ([[User talk:Kendall-K1|talk]]) 04:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
+== Personal attacks, a block and an unblock: review requested ==
+Yesterday at 8:00 [[User:GorillaWarfare]] posted a comment[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikipedia_Signpost%2F2018-08-30%2FNews_and_notes&type=revision&diff=857209741&oldid=857208990] to a Signpost article written by [[User:Kudpung]]. I explained why this was a personal attack at 9:30, and asked her to remove the post[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GorillaWarfare&diff=prev&oldid=857218640]. Her reply was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GorillaWarfare&diff=prev&oldid=857269005 "I won't be removing it."]
+After I read this, I removed the PA, only to be reverted by GorillaWarfare nearly immediately. I warned her on her talk page that further reversions would lead to a block, she reverted again anyway, and I blocked her for 24 hours.
+The PA was then reinstated by [[User:Drmies]], and the block undone without consultation by [[User:Fuzheado]].
+Inbetween, there was discussion at GorillaWarfare's talkpage, in the sections "You are getting things consistently wrong" and "Personal attack". Opinions were divided about nearly everything, with some people politely disagreeing, and some people adding inflammatory[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGorillaWarfare&type=revision&diff=857253407&oldid=857250769] or baseless[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGorillaWarfare&type=revision&diff=857256741&oldid=857256274][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGorillaWarfare&type=revision&diff=857253877&oldid=857253407] statements, which didn't help the discussion one bit.
+So, how to proceed? Is the original comment (about Kudpung continuing a misogynistic campign by writing that Signpost article) a personal attack or not? Is repeatedly reinstating that comment despite warnings a blockable offense? Is undoing the block without consultation, or reinstating the comment, a problematic action? Or are the removals of the comment and the block the problematic actions? Review please. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 05:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards