Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nick (talk | contribs) at 20:58, 7 July 2017 (→‎Alternative proposal: clarify further). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    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

    Apparent IDLI removal of G5 Speedy Delete request

    Several days ago, I nominated a file for deletion [1] based on another sock block of an indeffed user. Before his indef, the user had been topic banned from uploading files. It occurred to me today that because the file had been uploaded by a sock of an indeffed user,

    WP:G5 would apply. I noted this at the deletion discussion [2] after putting a G5 CSD notice at the file page. It was promptly removed by an editor [3] who had stated at the deletion discussion that he felt the file should be kept [4]
    . His rationale for removing the CSD tag in the edit summary was "regardless of the violation this file is properly sourced and has a valid fair use so I think deleting would just be a waste of time".

    I went to that editor's talk page and asked him to self-revert [5]. He refused [6] [7]. It should be pointed out that this editor ignored the procedure for dealing with a speedy delete tag and did not even attempt to discuss his dissent at the file's talk page.

    Could an admin intervene, please? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    First, I'm happy to see you ask instead of reverting, WV. Question: let's say the file is speedy deleted, and 2 seconds later Salavat re-uploads it with his own fair use rationale. You wouldn't believe the file should be speedy deleted then, right? Because G5 no longer applied? So, since Salavat has added his own fair use rationale, the current situation is functionally indistinguishable from this theoretical situation. So let's save some time and energy, pretend it did happen that way, not make Salavat jump thru pointless hoops, and move on with our lives. Getting annoyed that a file MaranoFan unloaded is actually potentially useful is playing right into MaranoFan's hands. Don't be his puppet. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) Of course I didn't revert, Floquenbeam. Why would I?
    (2) If Salavat uploaded it after it were speedy deleted, that wouldn't be an issue because Salavat isn't indeffed due to sockpuppetry (and other things) and doesn't have a topic ban against uploading files.
    (3) It's not the file that's the issue, it's the violation of policy (violating the topic ban and block evasion).
    (4) G5 exists for the very reason(s) I requested a speedy delete (block evasion chief among them), does it not?
    (5) If we keep everything or anything in opposition to the reason why G5 exists, then G5 is useless and, as policy, should no longer exist.
    (6) MF's articles created as Beachey were deleted by Bbb23 because of block evasion. Why shouldn't the file be deleted for the same reason?
    (7) This is about the principle as well as getting a serial sockmaster to understand that if they create articles, edit articles, and upload files via a sock account, it will be a complete waste of time because after they are once again caught, everything they did will be removed. That's a deterrent to future socking ideation and activity. Isn't that part of the reason why G5 as policy is in place?
    -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment)...so, in order to make a point to a banned user, you should waste a good users time? Anmccaff (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Waste" of time? Two minutes? Sorry, I don't see an issue or any alleged waste. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There mere existence of a thread at ANI takes up a full hour of editor time, just for the eyeballs of 500 people to pass over the thread even if they don't stop. If there's any reasoning by which an ANI thread can be avoided, it should always be applied. EEng 19:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If chastising needs to happen here - which you appear to be doing, EEng - it seems to me that the person who needs to be chastised is the now-serial-sockmaster MaranoFan, not those who bring the fallout from his socking to noticeboards so it can be dealt with according to policy. Of course, that then brings me back full circle to the reason why G5 exits: to assist in deterring the indeffed sockmaster from socking again. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment)For what it's worth, in the future, I'd think a removal of the quick-kill tag by an established user looks an awful lot like a substantial edit[s] by others in some cases. Anmccaff (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The key thing here, to me, is
      WP:BURO. The policies about reverting or deleting contributions from blocked or banned users exist to enable quick cleanup and response to further disruption, as well as the deterrent value. They allow the quick removal of bad content, but they don't force the removal of good content. They also cover scenarios where good content might get reverted or deleted as part of a mass cleanup (mass deletion of new pages, or mass rollback); so that the mere existence of some good content in a sea of bad does not inhibit rapid cleanup of the bad. To me, the G5 nomination is not wrong or inappropriate, but it's something that any user in good standing can remove if they see value in the content (the restriction on removing a CSD tag only applies to the creator of the page (and their obvious / confirmed socks)). Similarly any reverted edits which a user in good standing decides were actually constructive can be reinstated (I encounter this occasionally when reverting vandalism, where I revert an edit because the majority of the user's other edits have been clearly bad, then someone in good standing and with subject knowledge reinstates it). Such decisions are probably best made by well established users, best avoided by new or inexperienced users, and should always have a clear explanation in the edit summary (and talk if more detail is needed). Murph9000 (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    A good explanation. I don't agree totally, but a good and rational explanation nonetheless. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Uncollapse for a gigantic wall of text about... something

    Hang around here long enough and you'll notice the same editors and admins that can't and won't wait to revert, delete and block at the drop of a hat even before an edit is completed when its THEIR IDEA can't be convinced to do the same even when someone goes out of their way to do it the RIGHT WAY and tries to get a "consensus". Why? They don't take orders from anybody because they're above that and least of all from anybody who doesn't have their "rank" or "time in service" or edit counts and all the other meaningless "stats" they think makes them more equal than others and that apparently give them...gasp...some OWNERSHIP here. And if you snoop around here long enough and particularly in talk pages and you realize that a lot of these editors and admins have the luxury of being able to edit at "work" and at home and that many of them are "educators" with access to a wide range of computers, public and private Wi-Fi networks, various public and private email systems, multiple smart phones, multiple tablets, multiple IPs that in countries like the U.S. can be in another state and seem far apart geographically but literally be only a couple miles from each other and that many of them are uber-nerd computer geeks with access to resources and know-how the rest of us can't imagine AND that there are all kinds of little cliques and cults on here; you might start wondering just how often when an editor or admin that normally can't wait to shut down some "vandal" not only refuses to do so when asked even with they're not SPECIFICALLY ASKED, they come up with a LAUNDRY LIST of reasons why they shouldn't.

    Like "it's not worth the time". Of course they have plenty of time to post that it's not worth the time and others have plenty of time to give examples and hypotheticals that "prove" it wouldn't be worth the time. And they have plenty of time to troll around admin noticeboards and apparently investigate and respond. But no time to send a nastygram and block threat and revert or protect anything. When you throw the "policies" and "rules" in some long-time editor/admin's face or rather they step in front of what you're throwing out for anyone to catch and let themselves get hit in the face AND you have links to the diffs and all those things that "good" editors use to try to create a "consensus", they're PROTECTING SOMEONE rather than protecting the project.

    Start snooping around user talk pages for the editors and admins that patrol and block and revert and threaten endlessly and do little or nothing else and just kind of keep track of what names show up over and over and how a lot of them seem to spend a hell of a lot of time on OTHER EDITORS AND ADMIN'S TALK PAGES RESPONDING TO MESSAGES THAT OBVIOUSLY WEREN'T INTENDED FOR THEM and you just might go all conspiracy theorist and start thinking that there could be a relatively small core group of editors/admins here with a bunch of different usernames and accounts who technically wouldn't be "sockpuppets" by the "official" definition because according to Wiki:SP a "sockpuppet account" is created by someone who has been BLOCKED.

    So if they have several accounts and haven't ever been blocked on any of them they can't really be sockpuppets, can they? Factor in how many of them seem to think they have a duty to let everyone know when they WON'T BE ON WIKIPEDIA and WHY as if they're calling in sick to work or something and have a responsibility to do so and how super-important Wikipedia suddenly doesn't matter at ALL for days or weeks because they have something going on in their "real life" that's going to keep them away and look at the times where people have left messages on their talk pages they've either ignored completely or responded to and then deleted their responses or where they respond with "I don't have time to respond right now and won't have time for hours" (or days in some cases) and all of a sudden its like they have mutliple personalities.

    That's not your imagination. They do. Literally. Or at least they try to. But they slip up from time to time when good old "muscle memory" takes over and they log in as their "alter ego" when they get home from work or to wherever they're picking up public Wi-Fi or whatever little tricks they're using to log in from different IPs as different people, but they head straight to the talk page for the character they were last logged in as to see if they've gotten any messages from cronies and maybe they get distracted or get angry if somebody gets in their shit about something and they forget who they are and respond to a message sent to their other character on that talk page when they least expected it and from a total stranger to boot.

    And of course they're the same ones that endlessly preach to IP editors to "sign your comments" because that way they get notifications if they have that IP on a watchlist of some kind or have articles that IP edits or visits a lot on a watchlist, etc. Basically they want to see everything that IP does and says but what they NEVER do with IP editors is personally encourage them to sign up for an account. Why? Because that makes it a lot harder for them to cyberstalk strangers AND it makes that editor more "legit". Especially if that editor happens to use a real email address for a real account they actually use instead of some free account they created just to make another "character" and account and because that person is probably NOT doing what they're doing. Which is be a sneaky little bitch with multiple accounts at least one of which is probably the one they use at their go government-employee job at a library or college or high school where they're getting paid and compensated damned well to pretty much be full-time Wikipedia editor/admins about 8 hours a day 5 days a week while someone else like a grad student or assistant teacher or library aid is doing their actual work. Then they go home how and change identities and fuck with more people as yet another "respected Wikipedian" and they report when they won't be on Wikipedia because during those hours or days they're somewhere else posing as yet ANOTHER one of their characters or are at some super-secret little get-together plotting and scheming with their other cronies they know in the "real world". So when they not only refuse to block or support blocking someone or at least warning them or trying to engage with them using the excuse "it's not worth the time" and then yet another supposedly dedicated Wikipedian comes along and explains WHY the first person who responded to say they weren't going to do anything is right to not do anything and explains why, it's pretty freaking obvious they don't want to block that account because its somebody's alternate account. And even though it would be really easy to issue a very short block or have another crony or even use another character to remove it within a few minutes or hours, there's one big problem when it comes to blocking accounts.

    There are constantly updated pages of current blocks, former blocks etc etc etc with all the info about who blocked them, why etc and if you know your way around a little bit, you can find THE IP the "user name" is just a substitute for. And there are some legit, honest and hard-core Wikipedians who really hate the way some power-tripping clowns try to run this place and they REALLY detest hypocrites and people who are here for personal gain rather than "build an encyclopedia". And clearly anyone that is running multiple accounts and is in cahoots with other sneaks isn't doing it because they're "building an encyclopedia". The fact that they literally never contribute ANYTHING and spend ALL of their time deleting, blocking and reverting and the only "content" they put on Wikipedia is their OPINIONS and CRITICISM, at least other than the little bit of time they put into sticking up for their cronies and covering their asses and their OWN ASSES by NOT doing what they do in heartbeat day in and day out, they're getting some kind of benefits from their presence here besides a warm fuzzy feeling about "building an encyclopedia. Like I said, there are some die-hard Wikipedia cops here who don't give a shit how popular or respected or admired or "civil" an editor is, if they suspect that editor is running multiple accounts, has some COI or is just plain up to something, they'll block them AND they'll start using all kinds of other tools to look for patterns in their activity, see what users just happen to log in say within minutes to a few hours after they log off on a regular basis, etc and they'll sniff them out.

    Hell, I know very little about how the whole internet thing works as far as IPs and ISPs and all of that goes and I know damned good and well you can live in one state and have an account with an ISP several states away for your home internet, work in another town and even in another state and have internet access THERE through your job but also take home your laptop and be using your home internet access but be VPNed through work so regardless of where you happen to be it'll be your employer's IP or IP range for THAT internet access and then have a smart phone and internet access through your personal cell service, do the same thing with a work phone and even use "prepaid" internet access with a Straight Talk account and pretty much sit at home and be logged on to Wikipedia as 4 or 5 different editors at once and even if somebody was suspicious for some reason and started digging all they'd find is 4 or 5 different IPs in at least three different states. But the thing is that even a lot of longtime Wikipedia editors and even some of those running multiple accounts don't know that just because you have an account doesn't mean your IP ceases to exist, and some of them no doubt are using IPs that will traced back to within a handful of miles of each other and if one is say a university or library and another is a private account AND they're frequently logged on within minutes or a few hours of each other but never simultaneously, that's a big red flag.

    Anytime you see the normally nasty or at the very least smug, condescending and generally snotty "dedicated" Wikipedians who are all by the book and know the policies and rules chapter and verse and will spend what has to be hours putting their OPINIONS on here if it keeps someone else from becoming more "powerful" by opposing an admin request or whatever and that's who they are 99% of the time and ALL they do or at least all they CLAIM to do is the thankless, tireless and endless work of fighting vandalism, hunting sockpuppets or notifying new editors of everything they're doing wrong immediately and never have any time or interest in any of the suggested activities or discussions they get notifications for on their talk pages, but yet once in a while have plenty of time to answer messages sent to other editors or to defend other editors in clear violation of multiple polices and even do a little scolding or at least sermonizing to an editor who reports that person, it's a safe freaking bet they didn't suddenly become human beings. They're covering someone's ass or their own ass and don't want to block that editor because blocks draw attention from the people they don't want even knowing they exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.139 (talk • contribs)

    Have you tried decaf? EEng 19:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Holy shit. -- ψλ ● ✉ 20:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there anything that needs doing here? EEng 01:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ardnashee2014 block evasion?

    Just looking for some other admin's views. I've come across User:Ardnashee2014 who has been removing references from articles without any commentary. Fine, that can be dealt with. The reason here is I checked their userpage and came across this comment "This is my third Wikipedia account as I can't remember the password to my first one and my second was blocked. 'Nuff said. (drops mic)." Should we just be blocking this account for block evasion straight off? Thoughts? Canterbury Tail talk 19:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I think people are welcome to a fresh start (assuming they are editing constructively). It's worth running by a checkuser though. -- John Reaves 19:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming I found his other account (just searched for his name on user pages), it looks like his blocked account (Ardnashee School and College) was done for a username vio, so they're probably ok. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Judging by the contributions yes they're the same editor. Okay, I'll just keep an eye on them for the reference deletion and see if we can sort that. Their other edits are good, just no summaries (I'll drop them a line) and randomly deleting references. Canterbury Tail talk 22:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • User is clearly engaging in rampant vandalism. Removing citations or content without the least bit of explanation. I have just now given them a final warning; if they do it again, I'm all for blocking. Softlavender (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ugh, we have a whole set of them: Education Program:Hanyang University/Audience and Media Strategy (Spring 2017). Some haven't edited yet, but Markx121993 (talk · contribs) is doing the exact same thing as Ardnashee2014 (talk · contribs): massive removal of citations: [8]. I've given him a final warning as well. Piotrus, can you please help deal with this group? I ask because they are from Hanyang University, and your doppelganger account is Hanyangprofessor2, which is on the student list and is editing on the same articles as some of the students. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Softlavender: As far as I know not a single student from that course has chosen to do a Wikipedia assignment. The accounts from Dlwjd9393 to Feel940 were created on April 17, during the day I was showing students Wikipedia and how to enroll in the course. All other accounts - User:Laru0004 and User:Weatherseal india and above - were created or enrolled afterward, and have no connection with the course. I am not sure who Laru0004 is (the list should be chronological, but that one enrolled in June). All others are sama vandal/newbie accounts; I've noticed there are always people (new accounts) enrolling in random courses - maybe some of them think Wikipedia is some sort of open MOOC, maybe some think it will help them bypass vandal checks, maybe there is some vandal bot/soft somewhere doing this, but a fact remains that seeing that User X is enrolled in Course Y doesn't necessarily mean they have any real connection to the course. Anyone can click the enroll button, and the 'token/password' feature is broken (I reported it last year, but Education namespace extension seems abandoned, so no-one is fixing it, so we cannot lock courses with student passwords, so the problem will continue in the foreseeable future). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and personal attacks by Pyxis Solitary

    After my last comment on the matter, I was done and ready to move on; however, they've now accused IJBall and myself of being sockpuppets of each other. With no evidence to back up their claims, they are making personal attacks, and that is simply not tolerable. I've never interacted with this user until they showed up to IJBall's talk page in a negative manner not assuming good faith, and based on their response to that, they think it's okay to automatically assume bad faith. From what I've seen, however, they have serious battleground behavior, and if anyone disagrees with them, they basically get all hostile toward them on top of assuming bad faith. This is not the kind of user Wikipedia should have, and they need to change their behavior. As IJBall seems to have interacted with them more, he'll be able to provide some more background. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:DIFFs. Don't just haul someone to ANI just because you got your feathers ruffled, or someone got their feathers ruffled and took it out on you or someone else. If you come here, you need to make a cogent case with a sufficient number of diffs proving a lengthy pattern, and your own behavior will be looked at as well. Softlavender (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @Softlavender: While I actually think that there was probably nothing actionable, you really should stop with this "Diffs please" thing. If you read Amaury's comment and go to the linked talk page, you can Ctrl+F the word "sock" and the comment in question comes up almost immediately. I'm assuming this was also the case when you posted the above. You said essentially the same thing with a thread I started a few months back about a near-SPA whose every edit showed the same pattern I was talking about (and so individual diffs would have been pointless). Yes, in this case Amaury could have provided the diff, but he did provide enough information for you or anyone else to find the comment in question very easily. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no need to be passive-aggressive. I provided a link to a discussion where this stems from above. Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was quite direct, not passive-aggressive in the least. I requested diffs, which you have still not provided. You had merely provided a link to the sort of wiki-squabble which occurs hundreds if not thousands of times a day on talkpages all across Wikipedia; in this case, a two-against-one squabble. Please provide a sufficient number of specific diffs proving a lengthy pattern. Softlavender (talk) 08:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I provided a link to a discussion containing everything without having to sift through links rather than individual diffs as that's just as useful. Sorry that didn't seem to meet your standards. In any case, [9], [10], and [11]. Hostility, condescending, and personal attacks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Re "List of Wynonna Earp episodes" discussion in editor's talk page:
    I contacted an editor in his talk page regarding deletions of sourced content. You injected yourself into the discussion between us. This was not a discussion in an article's talk page. You misused
    mind your own business and stayed out of it. And yes, I do think the 'knight in shining armour' persona is suspect. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    So if I'm not mistaken, this is what kicked the whole thing off? Really? Yintan  08:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That was the first deletion of sourced content. This was the second. After this, I wrote my message in the editor's talk page. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see why
    WP:MOS reason for this I'm not aware of it. Now there are citations in both, which seems like overkill to me, especially since it's the same source. Also, all other cites in the article are in the cells, where cites in tables usually are, and not in the headers. Amaury's accusation that Pyxis Solitary has a battleground mentality is far fetched in my humble opinion. Pyxis Solitary's initial messages are polite and to the point. That her replies became pointier I can understand, reading the two-against-one thread linked above, but suggesting sock puppetry is going too far. But so is taking this to AN/I. Again, all in my humble opinion. For what that is worth. Kind regards, Yintan  09:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Pyxis, if you keep making personal attacks by making baseless accusations of sockpuppetry, you can easily find yourself in trouble, and I suggest you cool it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yintan, I don't know if you just skimmed the discussion on
    WP:CRYSTAL. IJBall removed an unsourced air date from the aforementioned article. Pyxis then re-added the air date with a source and came to IJBall's talk page to complain because IJBall should have just attached the source himself rather than removing it and accused IJBall of unproductive editing. That's not how it works. Per WP:BURDEN above, it is not the responsibility of other editors to try and read other editors' minds and take care of what they should have done by finding and attaching the sources themselves, it is the responsibility of the editors who add the information to properly source it if they don't want it removed, provided it's relevant for the article, of course. And yes, currently, the episodes are sourced in the cells; however, when there's an episode guide available, it's much more beneficial to make the episode guide a column source rather than individually source each episode. Although that's beside the point. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    On another note, it's worth noting that IJBall is currently busy with something and is in an area where his access to Internet is spotty. If an administrator really needs to get a hold of him, they should email him as he may or may not respond to this discussion. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not so much missing the point as trying to say I honestly don't see what all your fuss is about. And trust me, I've read that Talk page. A few times even because at first I thought I was missing something MAJOR. I didn't. It's just about the citing of a source and one Talk page message that isn't even unpolite or threatening. I think your advice to Pyxis Solitary to cool it is fine but I suggest you and IJBall cool it too. "Battleground"? "Personal attacks"? Come on. Or take this to
    WP:3 perhaps? Yintan  18:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    "IJBall removed an unsourced air date from the aforementioned article." Nope. The air date was sourced. The source was attached to the title of the episodes. The first time, he deleted ALL the source because in his opinion:
    Where in
    MOS:TV does it say that epguides is not an acceptable source for episode titles and air dates? Wikipedia also has a {{epguides
    }} template for it.
    The second time he deleted the air date because the source (Variety) was not next to the air date -- but it was attached to the episode title. Are episode tables now going to contain TWO identical citations? One for the episode title and one for the air date?
    Amaury, do Wikipedia and its editors a favor by not twisting facts to support your accusations. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you notice what Amaury said to me in the (IJBall) talk page discussion:
    • "showing up here with an unnecessary attitude", "You are not the boss of me who can tell what I can and cannot do. Cool it with the attitude and aggression", "Use some WP:COMMONSENSE here", "It is not the responsibility of the other editor to read your brain"
    ... exactly who was the one that resorted to "battleground behavior", "personal attacks", and "hostil[ity]"?
    So what do Admins do with an editor that tries to use ANI against another editor with false accusations of "serious battleground behavior", and slanders that editor as "not the kind of user Wikipedia should have"? Pyxis Solitary (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment to avoid archiving. Not resolved. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    * Admins: Is this or is this not Inappropriate notification? Pyxis Solitary (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pyxis Solitary: That is not canvassing. He opened an ANI thread about an incident that took place on that editor's talk page, so notifying him is well within appropriate boundaries. Unarchiving is a questionable action, but re-notifying once one has unarchived is ... still not canvassing, since that user is already involved.
    Also, please never make remarks like this again. Casual sockpuppetry accusations are not acceptable. I have seen users get blocked for it in the very recent past, and you should be very careful. If you have evidence of sockpuppetry, open an SPI.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To quote Yintan:
    • "That her replies became pointier I can understand, reading the two-against-one thread linked above, but suggesting sock puppetry is going too far."
    I got it the first time. Thank you. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anywhere in this thread that you said "Sorry, that was going too far". Quoting someone else who agrees with me doesn't mean anything. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 19:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on your history of contentious and accusatory behavior in ANIs, the words you are now reading are the only words I am going to provide in response to your comment. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 04:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm beginning to very much agree with the title of this thread, and I haven't even looked into it beyond the sockpuppetry accusation. I'm not sure who emailed you (I know someone is still going around badmouthing me or was very recently), or if you just routinely go back through months' worth of other editors' contribs and form bizarre/offensive/idiosyncratic opinions thereon, but the above comment is atrocious, and you should strike it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "I'm not sure who emailed you (I know someone is still going around badmouthing me...."
    Based on your history of contentious and accusatory behavior in ANIs, currently here ^ and example 1, example 2, the words you are now reading are the only words I am going to provide in response to your comment. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So ... you're not wikistalking me or acting as a meatpuppet for someone who is wikistalking me ... you're just making sweeping claims about my "history", based solely on your experience of my commentary in two threads over the past 24 hours. Awesome. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Cynical meatpuppetry suggestions aren't much better than Pyxis Solitary's sock puppet slip, Hijiri88. Can we stick to the subject before this thread derails even further? Yintan  20:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to thank
    TW 11:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Alex, if you keep up this stalking/battleground act, you'll probably be blocked pretty soon. I did no such thing as "admit that I have not read the report". Pylix made a gross personal attack, refused to strike, when told off by an impartial observer on ANI ignored it, and then when told off by a second observer (me) claimed that she had heard it the first time, even though she had made no indication of such. What, exactly, am I missing here? Aren't you the one who is inserting himself into a report he has not read? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read my post, you'd see that I stated "I'd like to thank Pyxis Solitary for alerting me on my talk page". You may even visit my talk page for proof, if you wish. I recommend you revoke and strike out your personal attack of stalking, as you recommend other do, as you have no basis for this claim. It was you that mentioned me without pinging me directly, attempting to do so behind my back, hence my current involvement after I was indeed notified. I quote you: "I haven't even looked into it" - your admittance in the fullest. I, for one, have read the entire report. --
    TW 11:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I did read your post. In fact, the bit you seem to be accusing me of not having read was the one bit I couldn't really avoid reading -- you pinged me, and the bit you refer to was the bit clipped and included in the notification. Showing up here just to attack me when you clearly hadn't even read even my comments (let alone the entire discussion) is a stalking/battleground act. Yes, it would have been slightly "more stalking" (and slightly "less battleground") if you hadn't been invited here by another user doing the same and had instead been constantly monitoring my contribs for the last two months, but that doesn't really make what I said wrong. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I did indeed ping you; I thought I'd at least be courteous in giving an action that I did not receive in kind. How unfortunate that you won't strike your accusation, when you demand that others do the exact same thing at the same time. A shame. I wasn't even aware this thread existed until I was alerted by another editor, so it would have been stalking if I showed up unannounced, but alas for you, that could not be more further from the truth of what happened. Anyways. I'll let you get back to the thread. Enjoy. Do try to ping other editor's when talking about them, even if they had forgotten you and their encounter with you from months ago. --
    TW 11:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @
    AlexTheWhovian
    :     What "accusation" do you want me to strike? Are you referring to the parenthetical clause that linked to a comment by you?
    I didn't accuse you of anything there: I merely stated that someone had contacted you off-wiki about me less than two months ago, and linked the diff of you disclosing that fact. There were two massive incidents involving people going around badmouthing me through the Wikimedia email service back in 2013 and 2015; you making that comment had metaphorically triggered my metaphorical PTSD regarding the issue, and I have been on alert for similar warning signs since. When Pyxis, a user with whom I never interacted until about 36 hours ago, suddenly started talking about "my history", I was naturally concerned that whoever emailed you, or perhaps someone else, had emailed them as well, so I asked about it, and included the diff solely so I wouldn't be accused of being "paranoid".
    It turned out that Pyxis was just being hyperbolic, and her comments about my "history" were referring to my brief interactions with her over the past 36 hours, but I was not wrong to
    take what she said literally
    . Once again, I didn't accuse you of anything: if I was accusing anyone, it was the unnamed editor who "warned you about me".
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that I tried to explain to Pyxis, politely, why her behaviour in this and another thread was inappropriate and could be viewed as canvassing, and she essentially told me to eff off. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    → ADMINISTRATORS: We have a problem with false accusations being made by editor Hijiri 88. See Drop it for evidence. In same linked thread I have told him to stay away from my Talk page. His conduct in my Talk page — and as witnessed in this ANI — is toxic, out of bounds, and unacceptable. Pyxis Solitary talk 01:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    * This is an interpersonal ANI and should only be closed by an Administrator. Pyxis Solitary talk 01:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Pyxis, at this point I think there's roughly 2% chance of you actually reading this, but you seem to share with a lot of other new users a common misconception about Wikipedia admins. You should read
    WP:NOBIGDEAL (and the rest of that section). Wikipedia admins (AKA "mop-holders") are not powerful authority figures who control the project like people with the same title on various other websites -- they are normal editors who hold certain special tools, some of which require them to have a certain amount of trust divested in them. ANI threads only need be closed by admins if those admins unilaterally resolve the issue by blocking someone, deleting a page, or the like. By saying that only an admin should be allowed close this thread, without opening a subthread with a specific remedy proposal, you are (inadvertently) saying that the thread should not be closed unless you or Amaury is blocked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Hijiri88: Though I doubt it's what you meant, all of us do know a few admins here and there who have been divested of trust, if not their tools. EEng 17:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    TW 01:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Okay, fine. You didn't stalk me. You showed up to a discussion in which you weren't involved, and in which I had made only a few passing remarks, just to harangue me. Normally, when someone sends you a canvassing message like that, you should just tell them to buzz off. As I have already explained to her on her talk page, her choosing to notify you specifically out of the dozen or so users I "alluded to" was clearly not done in good faith. It was canvassing, and you should have either ignored it or told her off for it. I didn't show up on ANI to request that you be blocked, or anything of the sort, and there was no obligation on my part or that of anyone else to "notify" you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Magioladitis high speed editing

    I have closed this discussion as follows, with detailed individual closures in each section. The proposal to block Magioladitis does not pass. The proposal to ban Magioladitis from using AWB passes, and he is banned from using AWB or any other semi-automated or automated editing tools on his main account for a period of 2 months after which the ban made be appealed to the community, as explained in more detail in the relevant section. There is clearly consensus that Magioladitis editing behaviour is disruptive, and there is significant concern amongst a large number of the community now that this situation cannot continue indefinitely which is how the discussions concerning blocking accounts and banning AWB were arrived at. I would also like to remind all users of AWB and other automated editing tools to take time to think about how their high speed editing may affect other users who use Wikipedia and who may use watchlists very differently to them. Nick (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Magioladitis has been continuously editing at a high speed by performing magic word replacement edits (ISBN) from his editor account. This is continuing despite complaints that he is flooding watchlists. Editor User:Justlettersandnumbers has complained on his talk page multiple times, yet this action continues. The most recent conversation is here: Special:PermaLink/788254672#ISBN_replacement. This is despite knowing this is a task better suited to be run under a bot account (and is open for discussion here: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 54) that will specifically avoid flooding recent changes and watchlists. The edits appear to be designed to just avoid the restrictions in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis - so I'm bringing this here for administrator and community review instead of the AE. I think I'm too close to this issues personally so will not be making any blocks/etc and would appreciate review by uninvovled parties. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 11:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Xaosflux the things I am doing right now are not even done by bot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Xaosflux Example. I fixed Magic Bot's edit. No bots fix hidden tabs right now. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Xaosflux what is my speed exactly. Do you have numbers? Whch restriction is realated to that? -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    General disruptive editing by flooding watchlists and recent changes by making insubstative (in my opinion) edits without a bot flag. As I said in the introduction above, I'm a bit too close to this and am leaving it open that these edits are not consider insubstantive by a consensus of others and that the rate is acceptable. — xaosflux Talk 11:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Xaosflux Check my edit rate again please. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Xaosflux See that in most of my today's edits Magic Bot failed to fix the ISBN error and that PrimeBOT stopped 4 days ago. Moreover, Yobot would not ix those case neither since I ve been tild to use the same regex with Magic Bot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Xaosflux Note also that there are less than 100 pages left in mainspace right now and that Magic Bot stopped 30 minutes ago exactly because they can't fix the rest. The cases contain hidden tabs or the ISBNs are in places not fixed by the bot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Xaosflux The main complain was not about the high speed but it is worth to do something like that by normal account since it is done by bots. My arguments are: a) ot all of these edits are done by bots. b) It enables finding edge cases (e.g. example of ISBN fix not related to the bot task) c) There is a workaround for watchlists d) If Yobot does it with general fixes it could save me time by checking edits instead of making them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your point of view, I just think that it is not appropriate. Thus leaving this open for some feedback. I would like to request you cease this activity for at least 12 hours unless this discussion shows significant support for your continued activity prior to then. — xaosflux Talk 12:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Xaosflux OK. 63 pages left. You can ask the bot owners to modify their code to fix thee 63 pages if it is worth. Opening an ANI for that and relating to the ArbCom case it is intresting though. Recall, that I have not worked on fixing ISBNs for 4 days waiting for the BRFA approval. Today, I worked mainly with pages unfixed by the bots. So I did not exactly resume the past work. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Magioladitis, your edit rate is 13 edits per minute. If you're not running an unauthorised bot on your main account, you should consider entering the World's Fastest Typist contest. ‑ 
    Iridescent 12:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    WP:AWB for Wikipedia's most popular tool. Thse edit rates were neever a problem afaik. Recall this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    At 13 edits a minute (4.6 seconds a page), an editor is not checking the page to examine their edits before pressing "save changes". We're back here again, only six days (?) after the last ANI episode - this really needs to stop. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hchc2009 I am checking only the changes not the entire page. Are you going to ask the same from every AWB editor? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As you see I have a lot of follow up edits. This is exactly because I check the page. Not many AWB editors can claim this. What was the last ANI about? Magioladitis (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I have indeed asked Magioladitis on several occasions to stop making these edits, at the very least until the two bots that are working on the same (important) change have finished their respective runs. Unlike bot edits, which can be hidden with a single click, these semi-automated are swamping my watchlist. Perhaps I am unreasonable, but I don't feel that I should be obliged to install a script just to hide the edits of one user. I know and never doubt that Magioladitis wants to improve our encyclopaedia; I'm perplexed and disappointed at his disregard of the concerns of others when he does so without consideration. It'd probably be good if we had a guideline to prevent editors from using semi-automated tools to make edits that have already been approved as automated bot tasks. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Justlettersandnumbers PrimeBOT has not edited for 4 days and the last edits I did were not done by Magic Bots neither. Still, I provided some workarounds to avoid any disruption. One was to get approval to use my bot account (I could even use this in manual mode if asked) and the second was the script trick that was recently advertised as a solution by others. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note once more that I stayed away from this task for 6 days after I was asked, I seeked bot approval and that today I mainly fixed pages that remained unfixed by the bots. Another example. I also did a bunch of follow-up edits to improve exisitng fixes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that thanks to me and not only me this list was reduced. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • The problem I see here is that the BAG and other bot-related admins are so involved in dealing with Magioladitis' nonsense that none of us can feasibly take action without appearing involved. Mag is blatantly throwing policy in our faces, toeing the line of his ArbCom restrictions and ignoring simple requests from other editors to just slow down a bit. He is constantly pestering BAG to get approval for tasks that aren't vital (that link is to his ISBN fixer, which as stated is exactly the same as the others). At some point there won't be any uninvolved admins who are familiar with the case to actually do something about it.
    I'm not saying that Magioladitis doesn't do good work (he does), I'm just saying that we're getting to a point where he's barely listening to anyone, barely following the rules, and annoying many people in the process. I obviously can't speak for the rest of the bot-running admins but I'm certainly getting tired of this shit. If an editor can't be collaborative and insists on "his way or the highway" something needs to be done. It probably won't happen in this case, but I have a feeling it will be happening soon unless he changes his ways. Primefac (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't recall commenting about Magioladitis's editing before (other than formatting this section earlier), but I have gathered something from reading the various complaints over time. Magioladitis, you seem to think that whatever it is that you're working on at the moment needs to be fixed right now. (See PrimeBOT stopped 4 days ago[12], there are less than 100 pages left in mainspace right now and that Magic Bot stopped 30 minutes ago[13], I stayed away from this task for 6 days after I was asked[14] above.) Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see any of these edits as being particularly urgent, and
      Wikipedia is not under a deadline. Why not just wait for consensus for your edits, or for a bot task to be approved, or to at least slow the editing rate and reduce the number of articles touched to something reasonable? Why the hurry? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • DoRD There would be no hurry is we plan a strategy to make the edits with a clear plan. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have to be honest here - I have no idea what you're trying to say with your reply. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • DoRD I do not edit faster than I used to edit. In fact, I edit less. Moreover, we have two bunhces of my edits discussesed here a) The edits of 6 days ago which the bots were already doing but without other fixes. and b) Today's fixes where the bots were not doing because they were uncovered cases. For example, tabs inside ISBNS causing the ISBN to break. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Primefac makes a good case for filing another ArbCom case, since the community continues to struggle with this disruption. These edits violate AWB Rule of Use #3, in my opinion, as they are extremely minor. More importantly, editors have objected and consensus has not been obtained before continuing. I predicted we'd be back at that venue within three months. It appears to have taken four. ~ Rob13Talk 14:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • If my eidt are extremelly minor imagine the edits done by the bots. And don't ignore the fact that I did edits not done by the bots.
    • As a side note, 13 edits per minute seems like a lot, but it's actually pretty doable with AWB when not making too many changes. The problem is the repeated edits after being asked to stop, which places the burden on the editor to obtain consensus, not the actual rate of the edits, in my opinion. Editing against consensus is serious on its own. ~ Rob13Talk 14:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The edits have consensus since they wre approved to be done by bots. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no consensus to do them without a bot flag as an exception to AWB Rules of Use #3. You had many editors come to you on your talk page disagreeing with the edits, which is a sign you should stop until the edits are discussed. ~ Rob13Talk 14:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You again seem to ignore the fact that the last bunch of edits was not exactly posisble for a bot but it needed some human attention. So also seem to ignore the fact that both bots have failed to fix those pages. I see a pattern here. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: My problem with the sorts of ridiculously unimportant and unnecessary edits Magdiolatis does, is that when I check my watchlist it fills up with these edits and I have to check every single article affected to see if the useless edit is hiding a substantive edit that I missed since the last time I checked my watchlist. This becomes singularly unfeasable when one has a lot of articles on one's watchlist and they are all being bombarded with useless edits. And no, I'm not going to remove bot edits or AWB edits from my watchlist (especially since numerous people sneak in substantive edits with AWB). Softlavender (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does this not immediately break "5.3.5 Magioladitis restricted" about doing edits that do not visually affect the rendered code? (A spot check of the changes by adding the ISBN template shows no difference that I can immediately see in the rendered page). This would a clear one month block per the ArbCom case. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Masem It does change the output. The new edit creates a link to ISBN. :) No block. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • That statement is false. The
          ISBN 978-0393316049 makes. The edits are just replacing the magic link with an explicit template {{ISBN}} that creates the same hyperlink. It is worrisome that Magioladitis made the edits without understanding their purpose. Glrx (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
          ]
    • You know something Magioladitis? Your arguments seem to be the same sort of thing we see when people write unblock requests like "I only reverted three times within 24 hours" or "my edits were right so everyone else was vandalising". I have little time for people who try to wikilawyer their way out of disrupting other editors because the letter of the law said it was okay. I propose a last chance - next time you are caught doing rapid-fire edits without clear and obvious evidence you are thinking what you are doing, you should be blocked. Who agrees? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ritchie333 OK so you support that the edits could be done by main account but not at that edit rate (13-15 epm). I say this is a support to the task afterall. Fianlly, Magioladitis (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • So let summarise: There was a 6 days period of no edits from my side. The edits of the phase 1 and phase 2 were not the same. Ther was a consensus for both phases to be done. Phase 1 was done by bots. Phase 2 was not. I participated semi-manually in both phases while I also seeked bot approval. I also replied immediatelly to fellow editor who complained proposing a workaround. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment:Totally agree with what Softlavender says above. My watchlist has been filled with edit notifications with the message "Replace magic links with templates per local RfC and MediaWiki Rfc" and I have no idea what this even means but I have to check every single article to see if something important was changed to the article before that which I have missed. It has been very irritating.Smeat75 (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • And it is still happening,by the way. Seems to be something about adding brackets to ISBN numbers but I wish it would stop.Smeat75 (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Smeat75 You obviosuly refer to the bot edits (PrimeBot, Magic links bot) because I have a different edit summary. Moreover, I am aware of the problem and this is the reason I proposed that the bots cause minimum disruption. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Xaosflux Maybe it was not clear that I was not planning to do the bot task via my account. Today, I have loaded a list of pages with approx. 2,000 pages. The ISBNs fixes are much more. I even have proposed to another bot owner to take over the task but encouraged them to perform general fixes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    There is no consensus at this time to block Magioladitis. This proposal does not 'pass'. Nick (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I'm going to throw this out there, because I think it's worth at least considering at this point. I don't know about everyone else, but I'm at wit's end.

    WP:IDHT
    which involved twisting Ritchie's words into being support of the task. At this point, the repeated issues are a giant timesink for the community, and very little value is being added anywhere.

    I'd also like to note that Magioladitis continued this editing even after the ANI thread began, which doesn't give me great hope for the future.

    I propose Magioladitis be blocked for one month for disruptive editing and violations of AWB rules of use #3 (failing to seek consensus when the task was challenged multiple times). ~ Rob13Talk 16:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    BU Rob13 Can you please explain Bgwhite to me and if you finally found his email and emailed him. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know what you're talking about with me emailing him? ~ Rob13Talk 17:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    BU Rob13 I ve striken this out. We will sort out probably some other time. I am here to encourge people editing Wikipedia. I hope you are too.-- Magioladitis (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support proposed block, there have been indeed many last chances.
      Capitals00 (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Bu Rob13 said "I propose Magioladitis be blocked for one month", I agreed with the "proposed block".
    Capitals00 (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Capitals00 OK. I misread. It's difficult to cope with Rob because he keeps commenting after all my comments. I have said that propabbly he seeks to harass me probably due to the discussions during th ArbCom case. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    When somebody proposes a sanction in good faith to reduce disruption on the project, do you think it's a good idea to insult them and throw around unfounded accusations of harassment? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ritchie333 Apologies for that but I try to understand why when other edit in faster rates, when other tasks could be done by bots, when I have explained thoughouly my position I am still the target of attention by a certain person. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ritchie333 My proposals for group edits by bots aim to reduce disruption on the project. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ritchie333 I have even provided links where one of the two bots edited and then I edited fixing the bot's edit. This is a proof not all pages could have been fixed by the two bots. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose block, but.... The edits were made in good faith, but the real problem here is again concerns of
      b} 18:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Xaosflux the disruptive part is the edit rate or that this task could be done by bots? Recall, I proved that that the bots were not fixing all the pages I was fixing. I alos proved that my edits were actually fixing the visual outcome. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose 30 day block, but Support 7 day block - nothing else seems to be having an effect on the editor's behaviour, but 30 days seems excessive. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOPUNISH -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Alternative proposal

    I've looked through the comments here and there is definite support to ban Magioladitis (when using their main account) from using AWB or any other semi-automated or automated editing tools (broadly construed). There are basically three competing proposals, the first is a one month ban, the second is a three month ban and the third is an indefinite ban. I'm going to try and close this proposal as 'passing' with a compromise which hopefully keeps most parties satisfied, which is: Magioladitis can appeal to the community for his AWB ban to be removed on or after 7 September, so giving a firm 2 month ban and leaving the community with the option to lift the ban or continue it as they see fit after that time. If no consensus is reached then, I would suggest the ban automatically be lifted at that point (i.e definite consensus needed to extend the ban). I would also ask/suggest that any breach of this ban be reported to the Arbitration Committee rather than raising the issue at ANI. EDIT: In response to a clarification request, I would consider any new or existing additional accounts without a bot flag beginning to use AWB or any other semi-automated or automated tools to be circumventing the spirit of the sanction imposed. Nick (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I don't believe a block is the solution, but at this point I do think something has to be done. Following on from what Xaosflux and Primefac have said above, I propose a one-month total ban on use of AWB and any similar semi-automated tool for Magioladitis on his main ("Magioladitis") account. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support as proposer. I would have suggested three months, but have gone with what has already been mentioned above. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support three-month ban; one-month is too short; should be at least three months in my opinion. We really need to see if Magioladitis is here to build an encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 07:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite AWB ban Temporary AWB ban would be good if this was first complaint but like others said, that there have been many threads on ANI about his use of AWB.
      Capitals00 (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Capitals00
    Do you know there was an ArbCom very recently about my edits? Also note that:
    a) all the changes I did change the visual outcome
    b) they were not done by the exisiting bots (I provided diffs).
    c) I have requested approval to do this task by bot since March 25, 2017.
    d) The task is considered useful and since MW will remove magic links support soon there is a (loose?) deadline.
    Magioladitis (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a serious problem with the BRFAs for Magioladitis at this point. Given conduct issues that have required BAG comment, every BAG member is either involved (so can't handle the BRFA) or not planning to go anywhere near it to avoid getting dragged into the behavioral issues. I don't know how to resolve that. We can't force any BAG member to handle specific BRFAs, but it also isn't fair to implement a de facto ban on operating bots by virtue of having no willing BAG member to review the BRFAs. ~ Rob13Talk 13:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    BU Rob13 has a point. We need to form a policy that will halde these things instead of relying on BAG's activity. Especially, when a member was recused from all CHECKWIKI tasks wheher they are proposed by me or not which shows the CHECKWIKI problem is not limited to me. Also note taht the edits in question are connected to CHECKWIKI but are not actually part of it. It's also worth to note that BU Rob13 hesitated to approve this task as a bot task. It's also wirth to not that there is an open BRA from 4 months. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Xaos, I think we need to probably draw a line under this behaviour once and for all - if we're not going to impose a block, implementing the sanction on all of his accounts would seem a reasonable precaution. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hchc2009 Which rule did I break exactly? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (
      constant bludgeoning which does not even seem to be well-thought before posting.Winged Blades Godric 14:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]


    Xaosflux Between the edits I did 7 days ago and the edits I did yesterday, do you see any difference or not? Do think I did an effort to adjust my editing or not? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm really not going to evaluate all of those; in general (and only my opinion not intended as a policy or guidelines measurement): I think you needlessly make massive amounts of minor edits (e.g. look at this edit you made during this whole debate about disruptive bulk editing - how did that improve the article? It looks like you are just executing blind bot task under your editor account again...) that have little if any improvement for our readers in a manner that floods watchlists and recent changes (disrupting our volunteers). However, when you channel your efforts to well defined and community supported bot tasks, you contributions are much more positive. — xaosflux Talk 15:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Xaosflux Here is the thing again.
    a) This edit is
    WP:CHECKWIKI error 61. It's marked as one of the errors that change the visual outcome. I would like Headbomb
    to comment on that. I face the same problem here again and again. Some people thing these edits are not useful and some other thing they are.
    b) I changed the visual outcome.
    c) I used a clear edit summary.
    d) I followed all the rules given to me from the ArbCom. As I recall i was written that my edits in gerenal are not the problem.
    e) My edit is not "cosmetic".
    f) It does not fall in the
    WP:COSMETICBOT
    neither.
    g) I have been doing for 6-7 years and
    h) I have a BRFA waiting 4 months Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 34.
    i) It edit rate is ~4-5 epm. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Magioladitis: Did you even look at the edit I just pointed out (Special:Diff/788465565)? You took a bad sentence (ending with .<ref link>:) and left it bad when you were done (changing it to .:<ref link>). Why you though moving that colon around is baffling - and doesn't explain how you made this better for readers. The fact that you say want to do this with a BRFA, but will just floodperform it as your editor account instead of waiting for approval is part of the problem being discussed above. — xaosflux Talk 16:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (
    Blue mud dauber? You changed the end of a sentence from full stop then reference then colon to full stop then colon then reference. The result has gone from a bad visual outcome to a still-bad visual outcome. Actually looking at the edit, it is clear that the colon should be removed. Earlier in the thread, you said your edits couldn't be done by bot as they needed human attention / input... yet you still did them at 13 edits per minute? Either you are checking each edit, in which case 13 per minute is too fast and you didn't actually fix the blue mud dauber case, or you aren't and the edits are essentially unsupervised bot-type edits. Have I missed something? EdChem (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    And now you have "fixed" the error by removing the full stop, and the text still doesn't make sense. EdChem (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Xaosflux, EdChem OK I missed the dot but I can detect these very easily in a second run. Much easier than the before. I usually make a run with AWB and then use WPCleaner to fix those that remained unfixed or the controversial cases. These are very tricky for the eye. I have not seen the dot. Right now I am on 4-5 epm. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    EdChem OK I did a mistake using normal broswer now and I fixed it after your comment. You could help though. Thanks anyway for the heads up. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was helping, fixing the referencing. I note you added a title to a bare url, which was good, but I did a little more – adding the url for the full text of the journal article, recognising the second ref was a dead-link and a mangled reference to a book, and finding the third is a source on which we have a WP page, with a recent update and publisher available. I also noted that the Chalybion californicum in the title is italicised. Regards, EdChem (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! -- Magioladitis (talk)
    • Support ban of up to three months. Maybe it will fix things, maybe it won't, but this whole nonsense of splitting hairs (it's like telling the officer "I was only doing 1 mph over the speed limit, not 11!") is getting silly. Primefac (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Primefac Per ArbCom I have only restictions on makng edits that do no change the visual outcome. Maybe you consult ArbCom before suggesting anything that affects pages? Moreover, the edit rate argument was not the only one. Please read the entire text. --- Magioladitis (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Primefac denied to make general fixes with their bot and even stopped their bot 4 days ago. It's also worth to know that Primefak was the open to close the discussion on COSMETICBOT. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Primefac From your comments I get the idea that you would agree with a bot doing ISBN fixes + general fixes and that you would stop you bot in favour of that bot. Right? -- Magioladitis (talk)
        • First off, ArbCom isn't the end-all, be-all of sanctions. Community sanctions also exist.
        Second off, who gives a flying fuck what I'm doing with my bot (which, for the record, is currently running). This isn't about me. Primefac (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Xaosflux, you see that Rob describes as one of the locus of the problem that the BRFA process is very slow. Recall that I was instructed to re-submit all my bot tasks which are 70-80 different tasks and till now only two have been approved. In one of them Primefak asked me why bother fill out a BRFa and not keep doing manually. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Do not speak for me. That has little to do with why we're here. We're here due to persistent behavioral problems. Separately, we have the problem that your behavior and attitude has been so toxic that every BAG member is either recused or doesn't want to go near your BRFAs. That is a problem - a separate problem. BRFA is getting faster for all but you because you've chased out most BAG members who would have otherwise worked on your tasks. ~ Rob13Talk 21:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • BU Rob13 it's obvious you are not pollite to me right now. Still, I am trying to find a "procedular solution" to these conflicts because you deribe behavioural problems but these should not be the issue if the policis were well defined. Wikipedia has many conflicts from time to time. So, please before talking for toxic attidute see how many people left the project from time to time. I try to cooperate here to prevend these things from re-occuring. My apologies to the community if this becomes tiring. I hope we see parts of this discussion reflecting to policies and guide. Wikipedia is not only n encyclopedia, it is a living community that works for the greater good. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not impolite; I'm tired. I've tried explaining basic things to you every which way and nothing seems to help. I'm at wit's end. You aren't going to find "Magioladitis may not make magic link edits semi-automatically at high speeds when people ask him to stop" in a policy or guideline. That's not how they work. Instead, you'll find
              expected to be able to do that. If you fail to do that and someone points it out, that's not impolite. It's necessary. ~ Rob13Talk 21:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
              ]
        • Primefac sure community sanctions but after an ArbCom that decided that the problem is the edits taht do not change the visual outcome. The rest was the agenda pushed by Rob but it did not make it to the final decision. I did exactly as I was told. I started re-submitting tasks, I ask for permission to do the ones that do not change the visual outcome and keep doing the one I was doing. You can even compare my edit rates per month. Moreover, as you see I did some edits semi-manually but I have asked for permission to use a bot 4 months ago. I was olaso the one to encourage more people to use bots to fix that issue as soon as possible.- Magioladitis (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Primefac I tend to see the problems as "community problems". So I seeked hekp for the task to you because you are a good bot owner. That's why I mention you. You rejected my proposal but I did not 100% understood why. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • BU Rob13 do you think I should have stopped ny attempt to fix ISBNs because I was asked in my talk page by 1 or 2 editors? how would you handle this? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would have sought consensus to continue and stopped in the meantime. In fact, doing that one thing would solve almost every issue the community had had with your editing over the past multiple years. ~ Rob13Talk 21:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef AWB ban on any non-bot account per my above comments. At a minimum 3-6 months would be required given the extensive history and timewasting for others involved here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban form AWB - I lean at least three months, but could be persuaded to support more. As to why Magioladitis is so insistant on running these sorts of runs, I suspect the answer lies in in his comment a bit earlier of "Primefac denied to make general fixes with their bot". My guess is Magioladitis is determined to get general fixes/checkwiki fixes done and the ISBN fixes are just a means to the end. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support AWB ban, per all of the above concerns, and the multiple times this user has been brought to ANI for related issues. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support AWB ban and a ban on all automated and bulk semiautomated editing on his main account. I'd consider three months a minimum, and would be inclined to say that it should be permanent. If the ban is short, then from the evidence of every single past incident he'll just sit it out and immediately go back to being disruptive the instant it expires. Any sanction needs to be strong enough to make both "Wikipedia can get along fine without what you've been doing" and "if you continue to do what you've done in the past you're not welcome here" utterly unambiguous. If Magioladitis hadn't been an admin, he'd at the very least have been stripped of the AWB permission and almost certainly be community banned from the project by now; he should be counting himself lucky that he hasn't been community banned, not constantly trying to argue that the problem is everybody else, not him. ‑ 
      Iridescent 16:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Yes, but someone else will come along to do the same thing with much less drama, and therefore much more net benefit to the project. I well remember your editwarring to keep {nobots} out of an article, because you were just determined that your bot must roam freely, no matter what others thought. EEng 01:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Good faith" is not the same as "good". For example, a newbie could write an article like "Joe Schmoe is a politician. He is hoping to be selected as the Monster Raving Loony Party candidate for the forthcoming Lymeswold Police and Crime Commissioner election." and it could still get deleted, even though we might still AGF on the creator. Frankly, Magioladitis, I cannot think of a single edit you have ever made that has increased my knowledge or impacted on my understanding of a topic, and if you got run over by the metaphorical bus tomorrow, the impact on Wikipedia's quality would be about zero. So I advise you to stop badgering people with an attitude like you are the best Wikipedia editor in the world and we should all bow down and be grateful for your presence. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. My watchlist is clogged with dubious 'bot and AWB edits. If we allow a 'bot to change "ISBN 1234..." to "{{ISBN|1234...}}" with no restrictions, then I do not see how we can sanction an editor for cleaning up the edits that stumped the 'bot. My complaint is that such a bot should never have been approved in the first place; it is a cosmetic change. If the ISBN magic link is going to be flushed sometime in the future, then it is an edit that should have been run only after other substantial changes to the page were made. The blame for this episode belongs with BAG rather than Mag. BAG is too lenient interpreting cosmetic changes. My watchlist gets 'bot edits that add commas. AWB is getting almost as bad (e.g., "Fix deprecated image syntax in infobox"; questionable collapse of Harvard refs).[15][16][17] Perhaps AWB should be restricted for all editors unless there is a substantial change. Misspelled words should be fixed, but minor punctuation does not make the grade for me. Maybe it does for other editors. I think Magioladitis is difficult, but the fact pattern here is in his favor. Glrx (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -I am sure this is not the place to make this comment, but I cannot resist agreeing with what Glrx says above. These hundreds of "magic link" replacements and trivial AWB change notifications on my watchlist have been driving me crazy. I have turned off bot notifications because I can't stand it anymore, this may well mean that I miss substantive changes to the articles on my watchlist but I have reached the point of not caring. It is just about enough to drive you away from editing altogether.Smeat75 (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      @Smeat75: and @Glrx: in general bots that make "substantive edits" should not be asserting the "bot flag" on those edits - if you see that bots are making substantive content edits, especially to articles, I'd be interested to look in to options there - please leave me a talk page message with the bot name and a recent (last 30 days) diff showing a substantive edit made. — xaosflux Talk 02:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      @Xaosflux:. Huh? You've confused me. The issue is not about bots making substantive edits. This section is not about the fast pace of substantive edits. Editors are not mad at Magioladitis for making substantive edits; they are mad at him for making lots of trivial edits. (Many of those editors are probably also mad at the bots that were making similar changes.) It's about scale and cluelessness. The issue is when an article has been quiet for weeks and then some bot or AWB user makes a trivial edit that tickles everybody on the watchlist. A few milliseconds of robot time or a few seconds of AWB editing has now disturbed dozens or even hundreds of users and consumed minutes worth of human time in reviewing (or at least loading and discarding) those edits. Bots should not be doing that. A page that just has trivial AWB edits should not be changed. Wait until somebody has made a substantial edit to a page and then let the bot or AWB editor work on it, too. I don't mind when an editor corrects a misspelling, sorts out a DAB link, or fixes a reference, but I do mind when it is just a nonsense edit. All of the ISBN links do not have to be fixed by the end of the week or even the end of the month; MediaWiki has not deleted the magic link yet. Until the software actually changes, the edit is cosmetic. Glrx (talk) 05:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      @Glrx: you mentioned "My watchlist is clogged with dubious 'bot ... edits." - this is precisely what the "hide bots" watch list control is designed for. I'm hearing you think some of these are so minor they should wait until some othertime, but the "clogging" should be able to be avoided with the watch list control - unlike when these are made by a non-bot. — xaosflux Talk 11:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      To address the
      WP:COSMETICBOT issue, COSMETICBOT can be overridden by strong community consensus, just like any other policy or guideline (minus ones with legal considerations). There was almost universal support for this task when discussed at the Village pump. As such, COSMETICBOT doesn't apply. The practice of consensus allowing specific cosmetic edits is explicitly written into the policy. I'm perhaps the BAG member that takes the strongest stance against cosmetic-only bot edits, but there was just no grounds to deny the task on the basis of COSMETICBOT. ~ Rob13Talk 16:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Support this type of change should be done from a separate bot account. Using AWB doesn't change that.
      talk) 21:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Support indef AWB ban, which can be brought to
      WP:BLUDGEON I've seen... I think an AWB ban would be more effective in this case than a block in helping to change behaviour. PGWG (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Personal insult

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Attitude_Era&diff=prev&oldid=788319559

    oh and that guy was wrong, his link doesn't say it clearly at all, but that isn't why I'm posting this here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.141.235 (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it does, but the problem is that you don't see when this was posted in its current layout unless you archive it. https://web.archive.org/web/20150901161859/http://www.wwe.com/inside/industrynews/7706710 Nickag989talk 20:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk about the article on the article page. That is not what this report is about. You insulted me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.141.235 (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes I did, but not on purpose. :P Nickag989talk 20:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    talk•cont 20:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    problem is that he doesn't accept his actions. "Yes I did, but not on purpose." did he accidentally slip and hit the I key followed by D, I, O and finally T? no respect for others, no respect for rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.141.235 (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment)That's one problem, yeah. The other is that you've raised the problem here, got a couple admin and adminoid eyeballs on it, got the fellow (quite properly) warned; next time it comes up, all you, or anyone else ,has to do is post a diff to it and a diff to this section at ANI. In the meantime, give the fellow a chance to improve himself, or the rope to hang himself, whatever his druthers. Drop it for now, though. Anmccaff (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this a persistent pattern of abusive incivility? If it is, then please provide diffs to establish that. If it isn't then... well... it's not the answer you're looking for, but if you stick around here long enough, you'll realize that most everyone eventually loses their cool over something. I've been called a Nazi, Klan member, ISIS sympathizer... you name it. Can't get your feelings that tied up in it. We're here to build an encyclopedia; we're not here to build a social network of folks who all love each other.
    TimothyJosephWood 20:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    as long as I know what the standards are and what is and isn't acceptable, then I'm sure it's fine. I now know that calling people idiots is acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.141.235 (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it's not alright. But we have a longstanding thing here where we don't sanction people as punishment; we only sanction people if it is to prevent damage to the project. If there is a pattern of this kind of behavior, then sanctions will prevent that pattern from continuing. If it was a one time lapse in good judgement, then sanctioning the editor actually hurts the encyclopedia, because it doesn't prevent any imminent harm, and it actively prevents someone from improving it. You and I aren't important, and neither are our hurt feelings. The only thing that's really important is the encyclopedia.
    TimothyJosephWood 21:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    talk•cont 22:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I was once suspended for 5 days for calling someone an "idiot" just as the OP is complaining about. However, standards have fallen dramatically in the intervening years. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow! You've been blocked more times than I have! EEng 01:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Contentious behavior on Trans woman by Colonial Overlord

    No action taken. Parties are advised that an RFC might be a productive step towards resolving this content dispute. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Colonial Overlord has been arguing for weeks on the Trans woman talk page that Wikipedia should not be referring to trans women as women in the lede of that article, stating that this is a "POV" issue that Wikipedia should not be taking a side on (1, 2). Multiple editors have countered their arguments but they are dismissing those arguments. They have suggested that other editors who disagree with them might be doing so because we are "LGBT movement activists" (3). They restored their preferred wording to the lede without consensus to do so (4).

    The editor is now impugning my integrity based on my user page, suggesting that ""representation" is a higher priority for Funcrunch than truth and verifiability."(5) Funcrunch (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI, my pronoun is "they", as stated on my user page (Colonial Overlord referred to me as "he or she", I will give the benefit of the doubt that they did not see that userbox. I'm referring to them as "they" as I do not know their gender or chosen pronouns). Funcrunch (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have tried engaging in rational discussion with Funcrunch, who has ignored almost all of my arguments and then declared that "editors are not required to engage with you to your specific satisfaction" when I pointed that out. Funcrunch is now refusing to discuss the issue at all, despite continuing to revert my edits. Oh, and the edits in question were not a restoration of my preferred wording but compromise wording that multiple editors in the discussion expressed acceptance of, and which nobody (including Funcrunch) has made any argument against.
    When I originally raised my objections to the wording, several editors immediately accused me of having a "POV mindset" and "a fringe POV push" without any evidence at all. Now I'm getting reported for pointing out that Funcrunch does not seem to be impartial on this issue, using evidence from Funcrunch's own user page. That seems a bit much.
    And finally, accusing me of making a personal attack by calling someone "he OR she"? Seriously? That is really grasping at straws. Colonial Overlord (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: (after (edit conflict)) This section was removed by 71.198.247.231 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) with the edit summary "rv troll". I have restored it. A quick look at the IP's talk page shows blocks and warnings, including for disruption here at ANI. If an admin wants to take some action, I think that that would be appropriate. EdChem (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    (multiple edit conflicts) I have some doubts whether this is ANI-worthy at this point, but since we're here I'll say that Colonial Overlord's questioning of Funcrunch's impartiality is unwarranted and their unwillingness to disengage—even after this thread was opened—is troubling. At the very least, their comments suggest a lack of understanding of consensus. Lack of understanding is not a cardinal sin per se, but refusal to accept consensus and move on is a problem. We're definitely in
    dead horse territory now. RivertorchFIREWATER 17:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Umm... This looks a lot like a content dispute. CO has only ever edited the article twice that I see, and if For all I know, all of you could be LGBT movement activists is the high-point of incivility in the discussion, then that's... just fairly lame. It would be arguable that every member of Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies and Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism (note: both userboxes I myself have sported for years) are a type of activist in their own way, and I think most people in those projects would probably consider it a compliment. While respecting pronoun preference or a universal neutral pronoun may be considered good form in mostly anonymous polite company, not doing so isn't a gross violation of CIVIL, unless maybe the pronoun someone reaches for is "it", in which case you may have a good case for clear "intent to offend" there.
    They've been given all the DS warnings that are applicable. Copy/paste both versions of the lead and open an RfC. Then buckle down and present sources in favor of the side you prefer. Neither of those requires use of administrator tools or the extensive input of experienced uninvolved editors.
    TimothyJosephWood 17:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I did not accuse CO of incivility or personal attack when noting my pronoun preference; I specifically said "I will give the benefit of the doubt that they did not see that userbox" (with reference to "singular they"). I decided to post at ANI after the """representation" is a higher priority for Funcrunch than truth and verifiability" statement. I also suggested some time ago that CO start an RfC, but they refused. Funcrunch (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like this is the second or third time this has come up in about a week, but a talk page is to an edit war what an RfC is to an exhausting talk page discussion. The onus is generally on one side to start the discussion, but that doesn't absolve the other of doing so if they fail to. It generally takes about as much or less time than an ANI thread, it usually results in some clear outcome either way (even if you or I may think it's a forgone conclusion), and it establishes a lasting consensus that usually needs another RfC to overturn. In other words, it's better than an ANI thread in basically every way.
    TimothyJosephWood 17:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I agree with much of what you're saying, but when one user is the only user who keeps arguing for something that the consensus is already clearly against, don't you think it's asking a bit much to suggest that the other users start an RfC to accommodate that one user? In any event, various RfCs on transgender-related topics have been unpleasantly contentious (sometimes more so than the average ANI thread), and I wouldn't be inclined to begin one unless I thought it was absolutely necessary. And, given that one user's unwillingness to accept regular old consensus, what assurance would we have that they'd accept RfC-based consensus? It sounds like a potential waste of time. RivertorchFIREWATER 18:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A public relations business is not a consensus, no matter how many admins and WMF staff you have on payroll. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    After there is an RfC with a solid consensus, and they refuse to accept it, then come to ANI. At that point you've done
    WP:DR
    and the user has refused to let DR do what it does and settle the issue. At that point it becomes behavioral.
    And anyway, the argument seems to be substantive on its face (i.e., not God hates fags™, therefore lead), and given the nature of the topic, it's reasonable that the argument will come up repeatedly, and so it will be useful to have an RfC to point to and say "consensus". That's the part that makes it not a waste of time.
    Let's face it, trans in 2017 is probably somewhere around where gay was in 1987, and the argument that Wikipedia here is getting slightly ahead of the arc of the moral universe (bending toward justice as it does) is not a completely unreasonable one. Open it up, let the chips fall where they may, and go back to building an encyclopedia. Even if this thread somehow ended in a decisive block, we'd probably be back here within a year anyway.
    TimothyJosephWood 19:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The reason I have been reluctant to start a RfC is because the ones I have seen are usually just treated like votes, with people simply declaring their opinion, often without providing any reasons, and almost never engaging with the reasons provided by others, ignorant of the fact that
    Wikipedia is not a democracy. But the talk page discussion in this case has been like that as well, with all but one or two editors refusing to engage in rational argument and just declaring their opinions. So if you think I should start a RfC I will do so, but what I should do to get editors to engage in rigorous rational argument instead of just declaring their opinions? Colonial Overlord (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Here's the thing: you're not entitled to decide what is rational argument and what is opinion, and you're not entitled to say that peoples' opinions don't matter. A neutral, uninvolved, experienced editor (usually an administrator) will close the RFC after it has run its course and determine where consensus lies, based upon both the number of supports or opposes and their policy-based arguments. You're correct that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but neither is it a debate club. The personal belief that someone's argument is invalid does not render that argument invalid, and nobody is required to "engage" in "rigorous rational argument." Sometimes, people are just not going to agree with you, and if the consensus disagrees with you, you can either edit in accordance with that consensus or stop editing that topic area. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Allright...well I'll admit I wasn't aware RfCs were resolved by a neutral administrator taking the strength of arguments into account. That seems reasonable then I suppose. Regarding rational argument, it might be subjective whether a given argument is sound or not, but it isn't subjective whether someone is attempting to engage in rational argument or not: the difference between "I think your argument fails because x" and "nah I disagree". If things just came down to weight of personal opinions that would allow organised activist movements to skew the result. Colonial Overlord (talk) 04:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Funcrunch and I have clashed at times over what our motives might be;

    talk) 01:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: IP account

    casting aspersions and disrespecting gender self-identification. I have suggested that the IP editor is risking another block. The thread can be read at user talk:EdChem#ANI. EdChem (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    With comments like "disrespecting gender self-identification" and this [18] it is clear that EdChem is not here to build an encyclopedia.71.198.247.231 (talk) 05:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Number of article space edits by EdChem ~ 7300. Number of article space edits by IP 71.198.247.231 = 0. And I'm not here to build an encyclopaedia? Why don't you go back to your main account, and perhaps count yourself lucky not to have been blocked (again)? EdChem (talk) 06:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The anon has a point. Using the term "deadnaming" is as inappropriate as the action, if not more so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Arthur Rubin: How is mentioning or using the term deadnaming remotely inappropriate? I may be misreading, but it looks like you are suggesting that using a single term is somehow worse than harassment of trans folks... EvergreenFir (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Using the pejorative term "deadnaming", to refer to an editor editing in good faith, is worse than the activity which some trans consider "harassment". Use of the term is a violation of
    WP:NPA, even if it were accurate. Using it to refer to off-wiki activities may be acceptable—I wouldn't think so, but I've been wrong before. (As I've noted before, the only trans(s) I know refer to themselves before transition by their former name and pronoun. In one instance, he was offended by a reference to his former self as "him".) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I'd prefer not to derail the purpose of my ANI report further with this discussion, but you seem to have some peculiar notions about what deadnaming is and why it is harmful to trans people. Deadnaming is deliberately calling a trans person by their pre-transition name, and can cause serious distress. I am trans and know many trans people and it is definitely considered harassment if done deliberately (and without explicit consent). However I have not accused anyone of doing this here, nor has anyone else that I can see, and I don't know why the subject is even coming up as it has nothing to do with my report. Funcrunch (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    prohibition against making personal attacks. I don't want to derail your thread, but I don't think what I said to Colonial Overlord constituted a personal attack, and I would prefer it if Arthur Rubin struck that comment and the suggestion that I am not here to build an encyclopaedia. EdChem (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I had only seen the term "deadnaming" used as a pejorative, but I see there is an credible alternative definition, and EdChem doesn't seem to be using it in the pejorative sense. Hence, I withdraw my comment. If someone wants to hat this subthread, I have no objection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTHERE or as having violated behavioural policies like NPA – as an admin, your words carry substantial weight. EdChem (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Arthur Rubin, thank for striking your other comment. EdChem (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Continued battleground mentality of Joefromrandb

    Joefromrandb has been blocked twice on June this year for battleground and incivility. Today he reverted the redirect, done by the AFD closing user[19] and after that when he got reverted on the article, he reverted the entire AFD closure[20] and again reverted the redirect.[21] His edit summaries on two of those edits are indeed not civil.

    Why he didn't opened a request on

    starting a fight
    .

    Other than that, I am seeing that one other

    Capitals00 (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    There is going to be unanimous support for the AFD closure anyway, but given two recent blocks hardly 3 weeks ago for same kind of conduct (I have now mentioned on my original post), there is clear problem with the conduct of the user.
    Capitals00 (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    "ridiculous non-admin supervote"[26] is not civil.
    Capitals00 (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The word "ridiculous" may be pushing the boundaries of civility, but he only used that word in one of his edit summaries, not two. At the very least, you are overstating the incivility.
    Lepricavark (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    "Ridiculous non-admin supervote" is also not INCIVIL. The non-admin is true and the supervote is true. On whether it is ridiculous, honest people may differ. Carrite (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it is uncivil and also nonsensical because closure was entirely policy based, there is no "supervote" since the closing user has no contributions on the article or any related article. Joe sure attempted to
    Capitals00 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Let me get this straight: it is uncivil to use the term "ridiculous", but it is ok to use the term "nonsensical". Do I understand you correctly?
    Lepricavark (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    That appears to be the gist of it. I find the complaint to be specious. (Whoops, I guess I just did it, didn't I?) Carrite (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just like you wrongfully found closure to be a supervote? Enough people seem to be agreeing though that he caused disruption, including you on your previous comment.
    Capitals00 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Enough people seem to be agreeing that Joe's behavior was really not all that bad. Mind you, these are people with far more experience and clue than you have. You're starting to display some
    Lepricavark (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    You shall be banished to the stocks for your criticism of this frivolous complaint... oops.
    Lepricavark (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Actually, Capitals00 is the one trying to game the system–excuse me;
    WP:GAME the system, with this report, chock full of psychological projection and passive aggression. At least he or she realizes it doesn't work all the time. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Let me remind you that you are on a thin ice here with your apparent
    Capitals00 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    He's not on as thin of ice as you seem to think he is. Frankly, you are in no position to be making CIR accusations, which could be perceived as uncivil and inflammatory.
    Lepricavark (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    You seem to be talking about some other guy then, not the one who had 2 blocks for battleground mentality last month and multiple users are still highlighting the evident disruption after the block.
    Capitals00 (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    What about the multiple users who strongly agree that a block is not warranted at this time?
    Lepricavark (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Proposal: indef block

    This is not happening. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Joefromrandb has been blocked 8 times in less than 5 years, for his continued incivility and continued battleground conduct. And yet, his behavior continues to worsen rather than improving. His hostility and disruptiveness have in my opinion crossed into net negative, and he has reached the point of a

    WP:STANDARDOFFER. -- Softlavender (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    @
    Capitals00 (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    My position is that none of these recent incidents, individually or collectively, rise to the level of an indef block.
    Lepricavark (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Capitals00, you may want to strike your allegation that I "broke 3RR", because it's demonstrably false. I'll AGF that you just made a mistake, and will strike it out with all due expediency. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes you had violated 3RR, I am assuming that you are going by definition of "4 reverts in 24 hours", but edit warring is not limited with that.
    Capitals00 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    According to the diffs you have provided, he did not violate 3RR. Playing fast and loose with the truth is not going to help you.
    Lepricavark (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    We are not basing the proposal on "what has happened here". We are basing it on nearly five years of ever-increasing hostility, warring, incivility, vulgarity, disruption, trolling, vandalism, and a blatant unconcern and disregard for behavioral norms or Wikipedia guidelines/policies, and an apparent attitude that he can do what he likes without consequence. He has clearly crossed into net negative. If you want more evidence, that can be provided. Softlavender (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What you are describing is the makings of an ArbCom case. You are ignoring the actual (minor) complaint in favor of a death penalty based on matters not in evidence. ArbCom is thattaway... ---> Carrite (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not minor when disruption is long term. Look the entire complaint as well as diffs provided by me and other editors regarding Joe's conduct.
    Capitals00 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    No, he didn't got blocked so many times just for reverting an AFD closure and only once, but instead for
    Capitals00 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    No ANI complaint is complete without a straw man. I actually DO agree with the rules of closing discussions, hence my opposition to the close. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you had agreed with the rules of closing discussion you would be challenging it on
    Capitals00 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Agreed that Deletion Review is the correct way to address these things; Joe did things incorrectly. Are you getting this, Joe? Carrite (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Deletion review? Not
    Capitals00 (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Go read the instructions for how Deletion review works before correcting the veteran editor.
    Lepricavark (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Deletion review is for
    Capitals00 (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Where does it say that on
    Lepricavark (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Capitals00 (talk) 02:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    That is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. DELREV provides a list of instances in which it can be used. The very first bullet point states the following: if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly.
    Lepricavark (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Either way this discussion is now irrelevant because a request has been already opened on WP:AN.
    Capitals00 (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Quite a convenient way to avoid admitting that you are wrong. You've been wrong quite a few times in this thread. Hopefully you have learned something from this experience (i.e. don't make reckless CIR comments, don't accuse someone else of incivility while being uncivil yourself, etc.).
    Lepricavark (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Can you point out? I am not blocked for incivility or warned, that when there are people who have a share of same complaints. Actually what you called an "essay" is representing the usual standard. Find me some requests on
    Capitals00 (talk) 02:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The page calls itself an essay. That's not merely my personal opinion. And I'm not going to find anything for you. I'm not sure what your second sentence was supposed to mean, but your claim that I "had a hard time learning English" was certainly more uncivil than Joefromrandb's edit summaries that you were complaining about.
    Lepricavark (talk) 02:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Sure, now I am. The close clearly ran afoul of both deletion policy and NAC guidelines, but I'll save the details for deletion review. I was reverted at the article in question by User:Razer2115, who suggested "deletion review, reopening the AfD, or ANI". I chose suggestion number-two. It's truly comical how Capitals00 is playing the role of the injured party here, when he or she was at the very least, my counterpart in this edit/revert-war. That's the kind of shit that I truly can't stand. Thank you, Carrite, for explaining this. I learned something here, despite the best efforts of some of the drama-seekers. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is something that you didn't learned just few hours ago from sure user called Razer2115. Without looking at your prior history of disruption, I would say that you are aware too that this is not the only AFD, like other user noted. You had reverted another NAC hardly 2 days ago.[37] You seem to be developing a habit of reverting NACs.
    Capitals00 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    It was hard enough to understand your points back when you were still using English.
    Lepricavark (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I understand that you had a hard time learning English. But that's really not what we are discussing here.
    Capitals00 (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Lol. And I suppose you think that was a civil comment.
    Lepricavark (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    AFD review requested

    Hi all. Just letting you know I have self-requested that my close be reviewed and either overturned or endorsed -

    Steven Crossin 02:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Unnecessary Targeting by a User

    Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. User:Cordless Larry has been targeting a lot of my articles and some of them I could understand, but under the Bahamian British page he lost the bid for speedy deletion of the page and persisted on targeting my page. There are a lot of pages that existed that are similar that remain on Wikipedia. So when I made the page I thought it was fine. Upon his persistence of targeting my page I asked him why is other pages like the Antiguans and Barbudans in the United Kingdom still in existence? He has clearly shown a strong desire to delete my page. He responded that the deletion of my page has nothing to do with other pages. So the fact that he has no desire to remove these other pages but has dedicated himself to deleting my page. I believe this user is unnecessarily abusing his power and is targeting me intentionally. He also made a statement about Bahamian British should be under African Caribbean British which is ignorant as all Bahamian British people are not Black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CreateBahamas (talk • contribs) 20:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It's unlikely you're being targeted. There are millions of articles on Wikipedia. We can't deal with them all at once. That means some of them are going to receive more attention than others. New pages tend to receive more scrutiny than older ones, and volunteers may simply go down a chronological or alphabetical list rather than prioritize them based on subjective criteria. If an editor sees that you've created one potentially inappropriate page, they may also scrutinize other pages made. The best way to avoid deletion is by clearly establishing notability when the article is created. If you find this tedious, there are alternatives, such as
    articles for creation or creating drafts in user-space. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    As explained at
    WP:G4. DGG declined that nomination, as the deletion discussion was back in 2008, so I took the article to AfD. That's hardly "targeting a lot of [CreateBahamas's] articles". Cordless Larry (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @CreateBahamas: You are relatively new to Wikipedia so may be unfamiliar with how some of our processes work. There are several ways an article can be nominated for deletion in some way some more "bureaucratic" than others. If a reviewer season article that they think ought to be deleted, it makes sense to start with the easiest applicable and least bureaucratic option, which in this case was the speedy deletion option. The reviewing administrator decided the article didn't meet the criteria so decline the nomination. In some cases, a declination of a speedy nomination might be construed as an implicit support for retention of the article although that's rarely the case. It is more usually a simple statement that this particular reason for deletion doesn't apply. However, in this particular situation the declination of the nomination specifically noted that if the article were to be deleted it should go through AFD, our more bureaucratic option. The editor who nominated it for speedy deletion followed that recommendation and nominated it at AFD. This is a perfectly normal sequence of events which happens many many times. I don't see any indication of any targeting.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I do see the indication of Targeting because clearly he hasn't take interest in deleting other content that fit the same criteria in which he chose to delete my page even when brought to his attention. My question is, will all the other articles that exist on Wikipedia like Aruba Americans, and many others also be deleted? Or is it that it is only my page that will be deleted while the rest remain. You people don't make any sense, if there is something wrong with my page why are others like it still up on Wikipedia. That to me is targeting! If it isn't then I have no idea what is.CreateBahamas (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Well as long as the rest gets deleted also then I am okay, but don't delete my page when there are many others like it on Wikipedia that doesn't make any sense to me. Because if it is that big of a deal then the rest would have already been gone. I saw Macedonians in the United Kingdom under 3000 people and remains in existence if one would want me to write a page along those lines mentioning the History of Bahamians in the United Kingdom then I can. But this is why I feel targeted, Bahamian British was originally deleted in 2008 and gets targeted for deletion again when I make it, while these other group of people remains. If you don't see bias then I think there is a serious problem with this community. CreateBahamas (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CreateBahamas I get that you feel targeted because you don't know the bigger picture. There are over 5 million mainspace pages at Wikipedia and tens of thousands more in Draft and Userspace plus other places. Many volunteer editors work to delete pages every day but there are hundreds more unacceptable pages added daily. There is no way we can keep up or get to everything. I'm just one editor who personally nominated over 2400 pages User:Legacypac/CSD_log for speedy deletion last month, plus sent a few hundred pages through deletion discussion processes. Just today I worked with and got consent from another editor to delete almost 1000 pages in one go! User:Cordless Larry is definitely not targeting you, he is just following Wikipedia guidelines. If we did not have guidelines we would have pages on 50 million random people, every one that thought about starting a band, millions of local businesses and so on. Legacypac (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I understand that, and that is not the issue I have, the issue I have is I brought it to the editors attention and nothing has been done to the pages I mentioned yet. He took the time to go out his way to get mines down, then why not go after the others I brought to your attention. That is my stance on it and my opinion will not change. Let the page get deleted I just wanted that to be understood. Thank you for your time. CreateBahamas (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Nobody is under any obligation to delete the other pages. The situation has been explained to you several times now. If you want to nominate the other pages for deletion, go ahead. Otherwise, I suggest you drop it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I nominated Bahamian British for deletion because it was on my watchlist from back in 2008 when it was first deleted, so I was alerted to its recreation, CreateBahamas. I nominate these types of articles for deletion reasonably regularly, but I only have so much time to dedicate to this. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I understand now, I didn't know the history of it and I didn't feel like you explained to me properly why this was up for deletion and not the rest. But now I got a better understanding as to why this particular page was chosen and that is all I really wanted to know. CreateBahamas (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and personal attacks from ContraVentum

    First and foremost, before diving into the problem, I would like to say that @

    WP:1RR
    which is enforced for any articles related to the Syrian Civil War.

    Now with that out of the way, the problem began on June 21 at the

    WP:1RR to user:Bbb23 in which he agreed that it was deserving of a block for 48 hours. [49] An now in this span of his 48 hour block another administrator has already acknowledged that the title of the topic of discussion he created (CC22, please account for your dishonest statement before reverting anything) was a clear personal attack against me and had nothing to do with the topic of discussion and changes the title too (Usability of sources like criticalthreats.org) . [50] Now, I'm hoping as his block ends that he can be blocked from editing indefinitely from this topic as he as not provided anything better or beneficial to the article and for the last month he has vandalized the info box with biased inaccurate sources and has shown no effort in cooperating with other editors. Chilicheese22 (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Skip your personal attacks on me and get to the core issue / the actual dispute in this long edit war. The matter is that Chilicheese22 has been mass deleting reliable sources, essentially reducing the article from this version [51] to this version [52], i.e. among other things most drastically deleting a whole separate warring faction in the infobox, even though summarizing the reliable sources would require having to list said faction. There even exists a separate article with references itself about the
    WP:RS
    onto me, in order to evade explaining rationally what is his problem with stated sources. CC22, you could as well delete 100% of the article and then ask me to type a full rationale for every single one of the 319 refs of the article as to permit using them - but of course Wikipedia doesn't work this way. You must account for your drastical deletions to the article.
    So, for the admins reading this, please consider the mass deletions in the article. Essentially, I'm annoyed that Chilicheese22 is doing these deletions, while never offering an actual explanation of why every source is bad as he claims them all to be. If CC22 is unable to account for his claims, I want CC22 to stop the deletions, and if he does not, I would like sanctions placed onto him. These are my wishes. --ContraVentum (talk) 08:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is exactly what I thought you choose not to comment on what I said because all I have stated were the facts and the truth. I have no idea what you were reading, but I was not attacking you, simply explaining your deceiving actions. Now as for your
    WP:QUESTIONABLE sources, how about you tell the actual truth, you were adding sources like worldbulletin.net to add belligerents onto the info box which made politically and militarily no sense. An if you bothered to read my comments on the talk page I clearly took apart your argument. [53] [54] (i.e. Eritrea supporting the Houthis when it has a military base to train UAE backed forces in Yemen [55]) Which if you bothered to read the link from an actual reliable sources that I placed clearly contradicts your "theory" of Eritrea supporting the Houthis. Now as for the Southern Transitional Council you continue to be deceiving and making it seem like this is a complete new faction that has just entered the war in Yemen. When in reality it has always been the Southern Movement which has been a KEY Hadi ally in Yemen. Not only that, but you go as far as putting it in a new belligerent section as if it controls land when all the real evidence you need is its not a reflection of the Yemeni Civil War map. An if you bothered to look at the Map there are only three sides in the war ( Houthi & Allies, Hadi & Allies, & AQAP). Furthermore, you make it seem like that you are the one that had brought these sources when in reality you are trying to use sources that are currently there in order to add this new section. An that's what you have failed to explain, it has nothing to do with the 319 references in the article. That's why I am asking for you to give an explanation and if you can't I am asking for you to be banned from editing this topic, as you have vandalized and disruptively edited this page. Chilicheese22 (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Sigh... Abequinn14 (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically I asked you Chilicheese22 now and have been asking you 1000 times... why should criticalthreats.org, alaraby.co.uk, the Guardian etc. be deleted? I'm simply summarizing those sources, period. Regardless of what you believe I might have of "agendas". By your massive deletions in the infobox, you're denying the existence of the 1) Southern Transitional Council, 2) the al-Hizam Brigade, 3) the Hadhrami Elite Forces, 4) the recent split between Southern Movement and Hadi government, 5) the existence of the Hadramout Tribal Council, 6) the support of the Hadi Government by 6a) Egypt, 6b) Somalia, 6c) Djibouti and 6d) Eritrea, and 7) the support of the STC by UAE. This is all well-sourced information. CARE to elaborate on a reasonable motive of such deletions?? No you don't. Instead you're filling me and everybody else with horseshit in diarrhoea-mode. It's ridiculous you're wasting my time arguing endlessly about this. I convince myself that you must be taking the piss on me, dragging me through long-standing edit wars and now the immense Wikipedia bureaucracy in my attempts to save the article from your damaging actions. So you can just keep the article brutalized by your erasures, a shame for the Yemeni Civil War article but I don't have further desire to discuss with complete morons in order to make consensus/compromises. --ContraVentum (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For admins: Please close this thread. I've got no intentions to further discuss this topic, nor contribute to articles regarding Yemen topics. So a kind of self-imposed topic ban. If this is the kind of trash people one has to deal with, then this is not a place for me. Chilicheese22 can keep his way, and everybody will be happy, yay.. --ContraVentum (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you clearly live in your own little world and refuse to read my comments I've bolded the important stuff since I know your such a "busy person" and "I don't want to waste your time". Anyways, if for once your a man of your word then I call on a admin @Abequinn14: @EdJohnston: to implement a topic ban on you, since it won't make any difference because you already said, and I quote "I've got no intentions to further discuss this topic,contribute to articles regarding Yemen topics. So a kind of self-imposed topic ban." Furthermore, you don't have the best of records for keeping your word and this isn't your first time having a meltdown and disappearing for a couple of weeks before returning in order to avoid sanctions. As you can see this was another meltdown you had a couple months back and returned a few weeks later. [56] Chilicheese22 (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    wew, what do you know of keeping promises? You're honorless scum. Talk to my hand. Yours sincerely, --ContraVentum (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4FamibkUH4 --ContraVentum (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    :::: Also I am calling for an indefinite block and sanctions to be placed on User:contravenum until he apologizes for calling me "a trash human" "an absolute degenerate" and "a piece of filth" on my Talk Page [57] Chilicheese22 (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    good boy. nice that WP has a model pupil like you. I mean, how would WP survive without your divine contributions?!? --ContraVentum (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked User:ContraVentum 48 hours for personal attacks for 'trash human' and 'piece of filth'. EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like this account (User:ContraVentum) just does not much more than just harass. It's just a troll, just rebutting his useless edits with harassment. An indef block is needed. Abequinn14 (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Abequinn14: Totally agree, couldn't have said better myself and he is just adding more evidence against himself through his talk page. Anyone that opposes should just go and check his talk page [58]. Honestly he is continuing to expose himself Chilicheese22 (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please do not do anything to encourage accusations of
      velut luna 15:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]

    @

    WP:ADMINSHOP when I was just asking a question. An the other two I apologize for (Even though this one was more of me questioning the length of the block [63] I apologize for this one if any offence was takin) as you could see it was in the heat of the moment when I was being insulted. Chilicheese22 (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    'Please do not do anything to encourage accusations' is the point. —
    velut luna 15:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @
    Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Understood and appreciate that. Chilicheese22 (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    'If any admin @Black Kite: @EEng: @Boing! said Zebedee: can take a look at the situation that has transpired and look at the rant that User ContraVentum had posted in his talk page (already deleted it, please check edit history of the talk page [64]) and give your opinion on the proposal down below as there is clear support for an indefinite block against this editor, who has done nothing, but vandalize the article, show the inability to work with others, and disrespect other editors who have differing opinions from him'.' Chilicheese22 (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: indef block & Topic Ban

    ContraVenum (This includes his other account 176.23.1.95 admits this is his account here [65]) has shown the inability to work with others and has shown his true colors when not being able to reach a consensus with people that defer with his opinion. He has received his second 48 hour block in a week and I am proposing that he receives an indefinite block until he can prove to us that he has changed, by apologizing to me for his derogatory terms and promising that when adding large amounts of information he will take it first to the talk page. Also, since he has proved that has not done anything beneficial to articles related to the Syrian Civil War (i.e. Yemeni Civil War) he can never be allowed to edit them.

    Support block, not TBAN Agreeing with Hijiri 88. Abequinn14 (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Way too extreme for a single uncivil remark. I haven't read the above (multiple!) walls of text, and I doubt any admins will, but I did see the bit about how this indef block proposal was made specifically because CV is refusing to apologize for calling the OP "a trash human". Present evidence of long-term disruption, in a form people are likely to read, or present a more reasonable proposal. Making a single
      WP:DICK comment normally results in a short block, which User:EdJohnston had already administered before Abequinn's !vote above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Opposition withdrawn If LP is one of the honorless scum, then I can guess I probably would be too. I still have no intention of reading the above wall of bold text, so I don't know whether I want to explicitly support either of these proposals, but I will point out that a TBAN is redundant if an indef block is also in place, assuming he is blocked for the same behaviour that led to the TBAN. Yes, bans are harder to repeal than blocks, but he wouldn't be unblocked unless he convinced an admin that the disruption would not continue. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No one would never think of you as "honorless scum" but does "Absolutely degenerate" fit? (just kidding of course) Credit for insult creativity... but ya, he ain't here to build anything useful. The TBAN would only apply if he gets the block lifted, which seems unlikely. Legacypac (talk) 08:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been compared to Hitler because my view of the Book of Genesis is more in-line with that of the Jewish Publication Society and Christine Hayes than that of some Christians in the American Deep South. And I'm pretty sure some bona fide neo-Nazis have called me "degenerate scum" before. (I helped crack some Nazi dog-whistle codes back during the upsurge in fascism on English Wikipedia last fall, and it wouldn't surprise me if they talked about me that way on their off-wiki fora.) A lot of the time people just seem to be building on standard epithets rather than coming up with anything new, honestly. I mean, the same user who compared me to Hitler has also called me a bunch of homophobic epithets, but you would think with their obsession with sex they could come up with something more interesting than "fag". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Massive
    WP:FAKEARTICLE
    . User edit-warring to remove "noindex" and "userpage" codes, and add "index" code

    WP:NOTWEBHOST, and because he clearly has no intention of stopping his efforts to keep it Google-indexed. We can't babysit either him or the page, so it's time for it to go (or him to go). Softlavender (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    The deletion was discarded a few hours ago.
    emijrp (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    3RR rule doesn't apply. Page is in my own user space.
    emijrp (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    4IM warning issued. Patient Zerotalk 12:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hate to jump in here, but AFAICT, the article should be allowed to remain. 3RR clearly says A "page" means any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space. I would go ahead and say that includes UP/TP as project pages. I don't believe the index and UP codes should be removed, though. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Although there is an exception for userpages, it says "Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines." and he's not. That's the issue. See
    WP:FAKEARTICLE which makes it clear such pages should be noindexed. It's a worthy thing to be doing but I don't think it belongs here, certainly not in his userspace. He is very insistent that the page should be indexed, saying " I want search engines index this page." @L3X1: do you mean that it should be noindexed? Doug Weller talk 12:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Thanks Doug, I see my mistake now. Google shouldn't be indexing userpages. Perhaps MfD should be user L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 13:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No matter how many warnings are given, this user is still going to surreptitiously enable indexing on the page, and we can't babysit the massive page or the editor. And even if he didn't, the fake article violates
      WP:NOTPROMOTION. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Softlavender, U5 doesn't apply to someone who has made 36k edits over 12 years. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 13:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Subject it to MfD. Legacypac (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • FWIW, I consider the earlier part a valid article, and am willing to move it to mainspace or at least draft space, and I seen o reason why it should not be indexed. The longer list part is not absurd in WP space; Tables of the progress of WP in various fields is excellent use of WP space, and we have a number of them in various places, though not quite as large. . But I'm certainly willing to move it to my user space if there's any question. (the discussion at MfD seems to agree ). DGG ( talk ) 21:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • And I am wiling to move it back to userspace as a user essay instead of a valid article in that case. Something like "Wikidata singularity will occur in 2040s, in the same date range of technological singularity.[7] It will be the first time in history that all human knowledge is stored in a machine-readable format and ready to be consumed, understood and used by computers or any device." (from the lead) is nonsense which doesn't belong in the mainspace at all. " In this project, we attempt to study how many articles are needed to cover the sum of all human knowledge." (also from the lead) clearly indicates why this shouldn't be moved. The comparison of Wikidata with "all topics in this category" is extreme navelgazing, and shows (as does the whole essay) a profound misunderstanding of the difference between "knowledge" and "having some key facts". Your definition of "excellent use of WP space" is rather bizarre it seems, but your claim that parts of it belong in the mainspace is the most problematic.
        Fram (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
        ]
    Page is at MfD for those who wish to comment. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Dispute about block warnings and AN/I block request

    This is essentially a self-report:

    There has been an ongoing discussion on several Wikipedia pages about the way fact that I quickly went to

    WP:ANI after issuing a final warning on Henia Perlman's talk page, following a pattern of adding content to The Holocaust
    or a few related articles that were reverted because they were not in a form ready to be posted to the article or it was not cited at all or not properly. The user has mentioned that she is challenged by some of the technical formatting in Wikipedia -- and this has been an ongoing theme, so I am posting this so that this can be sorted out.

    As I understand it, the user is concerned that I issued the block report on this incident page very soon after she posted content… and just before she took me up upon my offer to format the citations. As I understand, her issue is that 1) it went very fast and 2) she would have preferred that it went to WP:Mediation, per one of her latest postings on this - item #1. She has said that she feels I should be investigated about:

    1. Whether I did anything wrong in the manner in which I notified her about the block and then very quickly posted the ANI after the final edit?
    2. Should I have taken this to another venue instead of issuing the request to block at ANI?

    User talk:Henia Perlman#The block is a summary (with diffs) of the warnings and activity that resulted in me posting a request to block on June 19th, which is now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Request block of User:Henia Perlman. The ongoing editing issues are discussed throughout Talk:The Holocaust, but the specific edit in question is discussed here and here, regarding the final edits: this edit (08:43, June 19, 2017 ct‎), which I reverted (09:34, June 19, 2017 ct), and this edit (10:51, June 19, 2017‎ ct), which I reverted a few minutes after it was made here (10:53, June 19, 2017 ct).

    As a side note, she has not been performing edits since the 31-hour block, and is instead posting proposals for edits on the article talk page.

    Thank you!–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have no idea even what's being requested here, but please, please can we not have this end again with a block of an intelligent, good-faith editor who's having trouble learning her way around? (Later: After looking around a bit more, it does seem like Henia Perlman is preoccupied with vindication in the matter of her prior block, or something, and that never ends well. Our focus here should be on getting her to realize that that it's nothing anyone will care about a month from now, and she should just forget about it.) EEng 01:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    EEng#s, I am absolutely not asking for a block, nor any sanction against Henia. I am doing a self-report to see if there's something I did wrong. Is self-report the wrong term? Again, it is to determine:
    1. Whether I did anything wrong in the manner in which I notified her about the block and then very quickly posted the ANI after the final edit?
    2. Should I have taken this to another venue instead of issuing the request to block at ANI?
    It seems that she needs to have that done to move on. Any suggestions to help resolve this are greatly appreciated! I haven't been successful in my attempts to try to move this on - like this. I am stumped. I am lost. I feel bad and I don't know what to do to move this on.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging a few people from the earlier thread who might be able to give Henia some helpful words: Rivertorch, Seraphim System, Mathglot. EEng 03:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sympathetic to an editor who is having trouble learning their way around, but that isn't why this block was imposed. There was a very clear proposal under discussion at AN/I regarding a voluntary Article Ban. There has been a lot of good faith extended and assumed, but the discussion at AN/I wasn't ambiguous — the editing at the Holocaust article has been disruptive, and it is not a good article to learn on. I don't think CaroleHenson acted wrongly here. To help Henia, I will say that any discussion at AN/I is serious, and the community worked out a voluntary article ban proposal as an alternative to indefinitely blocking a new editor. We want Henia to have an opportunity to get used to how things work here, but that doesn't mean the discussion isn't serious. If an admin issues you a final warning, and there is an open discussion at AN/I about a voluntary article ban, and you agree to it, and then edit the article you will get blocked. That's how you learn. Asking for justice against our admins (who are much beloved) at AN/I usually doesn't end well, so the sooner we move on from this, the better for Henia. Seraphim System (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, EEng.
    If someone doesn't mind taking a look at the questions, that would be great. I think the issue was that she didn't feel she should be blocked for making edits that were not meant to be unhelpful and that there should be another official remedy other than moving to blocking if the edits were not meant to be disruptive.
    Regarding Mediation, my understanding is that is for content disputes - to resolve disputes regarding specific language in an article... which is not the issue here.
    This issue seems to fall into the category of
    WP:ANI. Perhaps, I could have posted a message on the ANI requesting assistance, rather than requesting a block in cases like this. It would truly be helpful to get input about whether there was another approach I could have taken. That was my intention for the posting, because I think answering the questions will help both Henia and me.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I didn't get an edit conflict and my posting was made on top of Seraphim System's comment... which appears to answer the questions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I pretty much bowed out of it after Henia posted a rambling message on my talk page saying that other editors at The Holocaust "see [her] as a threat". I replied to her, offering what I hoped were helpful words. I was pretty frank, though. My advice hadn't seemed to be having a positive effect, and she had appeared to be grasping at straws since her block, distrustful of people (such as CaroleHenson) who had gone out of their way to help her and shopping around in some sort of futile quest for...I don't know what. Vindication? It didn't make sense to me, and I had begun to dread logging in for fear of finding that more drama awaited me. I really don't have anything else to offer, helpful or otherwise. Henia will either move on from her block and make a concerted effort to become a competent Wikipedia editor or she won't. Calling for investigations isn't productive. Does anyone really have time for this?
    I'd like to offer a word or two to CaroleHenson, who feels bad but shouldn't. Rarely have I seen such forbearance directed toward a new user whose edits are having a disruptive effect, and CaroleHenson, you were a big part of that. You made a concerted effort to help a newbie, and when that appeared to be failing, you acted with the best interests of the project in mind. You did nothing wrong, and there's no need to second-guess yourself. RivertorchFIREWATER 04:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Heartfelt agreement with that word or two. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but how do you feel about all those other words? EEng 20:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I was the admin who gave the 31 hour block originally to Henia regarding their editing on The Holocaust, after multiple editors, admins and non-admins, advised her to stop. I feel like a lot of editors have gone out of their way to try to help Henia, some offering mentoring which they seems to take up, but have fault with at the same time. Henia's last rather lengthy post on my talk page here: [67] brings up a number of these same concerns that CaroleHenson mentioned. Henia is an editor that I also feel will be a great help in the future with their knowledge and information, and hopefully the people they have working with them helps out. Carole, you've had the patience of a saint in helping her, and I don't see that you've done anything remotely wrong. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks everyone that contributed to this issue. As I understand it, I followed the processes correctly, which means that in addition to discussion on talk pages, I properly used
    block policy correctly. As I summarized (and no one disagreed), Mediation is for content disputes and this was a conduct dispute
    , so mediation is not the proper venue for these kinds of issues. To this point, I have not heard of alternative strategies.
    As an FYI, I am not an administrator, but I am a seasoned editor and NewPages reviewer.
    I totally agree with EEng that it's nothing anyone will care about a month from now and RickinBaltimore that Henia is an editor that I also feel will be a great help in the future with their knowledge and information, and hopefully the people they have working with them helps out. (Her latest mentor added a post several days ago to Henia on their talk page.) There are many other nice and encouraging comments that have been made and I am happy to summarize them on Henia's talk page.
    EEng#s, Is this sufficient input? Is there anything else that is needed to resolve this issue?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not an admin either, but because of my nobly gracious bearing I'm often mistaken for one. You showed great patience in an extremely frustrating situation. While it's always possible to say, "Well, you could have done this or that as well, before going to ANI", you did nothing wrong. EEng 20:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Advice to keep a distance defied by editor Tenebrae

    On 2 February 2017, Tenebrae and I were advised to "avoid each other".

    Since then, I am the one who has respected this advice. The same cannot be said of him:

    • On February 21, 2017: he changed my edits.
    • On February 22, 2017: he reverted my edits.
    • On March 11, 2017: he replied to my comment in the article's talk page. (I did not respond.)

    On April 6, 2017, Tenebrae was reminded by another editor of the ANI advice and warned about staying away from me.

    • The latest: on July 4, 2017, Tenebrae changed edits made by me in article's section: Controversy. Including the un-linking of WP pages.

    There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia to edit. My edits can be avoided by Tenebrae. I know there are some who will interpret the ANI advice as merely a "suggestion" and dismiss my bringing attention to this situation as "she doesn't like this editor" ... and ignore the bigger picture, which is: what's the point of advising two editors to stay away from each other if one of them doesn't? The ANI advice ends with: "the best way forward...and maybe the only option that doesn't end in a sanction for someone."

    I am asking Admins to walk the talk. I am asking for the ANI advice to be enforced. Thank you. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding the following:

    • On February 22, 2017: he left me a message on the article's Talk page @ 03:24 about an editing preference not found in
      MOS:FILM
      . (I did not respond.)
    • On February 22, 2017: he undid my edit in MOSFILM ... which he then self-reverted @ 04:18,.
    • On March 11, 2017: he changed content back to the edit made by an IP-only editor that I had reverted.

    And of greater significance:

    Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If anyone is hounded, it has been me by
    WP:BOOMERANG is called for when they and Softlavender deliberately introduce grammatical errors into an article. And, really, Pyxis Solitary ... an ANI over grammar??--Tenebrae (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • (Non-administrator comment) Needs more evidence, preliminarily opposed to TBAN That "advice" was issued in a non-admin, heavily-INVOLVED closure by a user who was themselves no doubt partly responsible for there being "no consensus [...] and the only activity in the thread for a week [being a non-constructive two-way back-and-forth]", since they have a somewhat notorious penchant for TLDR walls of text, which in your case appears to have (inadvertently) filibustered the discussion. Such advice is not enforceable on its face, and if there has been hounding going on for the intervening five months the evidence above is extremely meager.
    Softlavender's proposed TBAN would miss the point anyway, because, if the problem is "hounding" rather than a content-based dispute (during which, again, the last ANI thread didn't reach a consensus on whether one or the other had violated any policies), the hounding would just continue on a different article. If Tenebrae is right on the substance, then if anyone should be TBANned it is not them. I don't know if they are right or wrong, as I haven't checked, but Pyxis Solitary hasn't said anything on that one way or the other, just saying that Tenebrae has violated non-binding advice issued by someone who probably shouldn't be issuing that kind of advice given their own history of involvement in cases that definitrly did involve hounding.
    Now, if hounding, however slow-motion, has been going on and can be demonstrated, and Tenebrae's edits can't be justified based on some policy or guideline, then an IBAN might be a reasonable solution.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Tenebrae has been harassing Pyxis Solitary on the article Carol (film), making up his own "rules" and insisting an inexperienced newbie abide by the non-existent rules, since six months ago; that is demonstrable. The fact that he continued to do that despite the well-reasoned advice and close of that ANI, and continued doing so just now, is proof that he is continuing to harass Pyxis Solitary for no good reason. Since the harassment has been confined to that article, a TBan on that article is the simplest solution which will cause the least sanctioning of the offender at present. Softlavender (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, Hijiri, your snipe "given their own history of involvement in cases that definitrly did involve hounding" is clearly involved on your part (your quarrels with the party in question), so if anyone should recuse or should have recused themselves anywhere, it's you, here. Softlavender (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Declaration of bias
    Yeah, I know. Catflap08 and one other user were hounding me, and the user in question aggravated the issue and made a bunch of comments that gave the impression that I was the one at fault. Their, I've declared my bias. That said, bias has nothing to do with the obvious statement of fact that that user has a tendency to post extremely long, near-impossible-to-read comments on ANI and elsewhere. It's not a deliberate attempt at filibustering -- it's just a quirk of communication style, and one I occasionally indulge in myself to almost the same level as they do. So it's not difficult to imagine how it came about that there was "no consensus" one way or another on the canvassing question.
    Also, there's nothing wrong with commenting on an issue in which one has a personal bias. The only reason I didn't declare mine up-front was because I felt it was obvious -- the majority of his comments on the ANI archive Pyxis Solitary linked were actually about me, although you need to un-collapse for them to be searchable. The problem is making
    involved
    closures. But I don't even see that as a problem in and of itself (a lot of editors disagree with me here). I just don't think advice issued by an involved editor in their non-admin closure can be held as binding. (Yes, one can read bias based on personal experience with a unilateral piece of advice by an admin being taken as a binding editing restriction there as well, if you want.)
    You say Tenebrae has been harassing Pyxis on that one article and should be TBANned (PBANned?). But I don't see any evidence of that. I see two edits that show a disagreement over whether something should be italicized and a talk page comment about the use of the phrase "make love" in the plot summary of a film. Again, I have my own strong opinions on film plot summaries and could go into how both editors are wrong but Tenebrae is "less wrong", but that's beside the point. They are not subject to an IBAN, so none of these edits are violations in themselves. If you want to propose an IBAN, fire ahead.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have absolutely no involvement here, in any way, shape or form. I had no involvement with the article or dispute in question and had never so much as seen the name of either editor before that ANI thread. I believe that even a casual reflection of that thread by literally any member of the Wikipedia community (other than you, Hijiri) will demonstrate that the entirety of my involvement in that discussion was as a manifestly uninvolved third party community member making every good faith effort possible to get the two parties to reconcile the matter amicably, or at least turn down the heat a little bit (neither was capable of even briefly discussing the other without recourse to inflammatory descriptions of the other's conduct and motives, and this went on for quite some time). For two weeks, the thread languished on ANI and almost not a single comment by anyone but the two parties slinging accusations, with me occasionally attempting to find some common understanding between them and encouraging them to try an RfC, arbitration, or some other community resolution process to the content dispute, since it was clear that no one in this forum saw behaviour that they were prepared to act upon.
    After almost a week without any movement on anything, both parties asked for the discussion to be closed and though I knew they were destined to come to a loggerheads again before too long, there was clearly nothing more to be done at ANI at that time and I obliged. Even then, I only acted after a week because no one else had closed the discussion and the only activity keeping it from getting auto-archived by the bot was one editor or the other trading a barb every other day, until both asked for a close (but then continued to bicker over who was actually asking for it...) Here, for the record, is the entirety of my comments in the close (which I marked it as a non-admin closure):
    "At the behest of both parties, I am closing this. There has been no consensus as to whether canvassing took place and the only activity in the thread for a week has been the two parties trading broadsides as to who has more failed to assume good faith on the part of the other (which, if I am to be frank, makes both look something less than self-aware). Regardless, there seems to be no administrative purpose for keeping the thread open longer, especially in light of the fact that it is just encouraging both to entrench further.
    I have previously offered to administer an RfC on the content issue as a neutral third party and that offer stands. Said RfC will be broadly promoted in appropriate community spaces by me, to attempt a large turn-out to offset any lingering canvassing concerns and to keep as much of a buffer between Tenebrae and Pyxis Solitary as may be managed as the issue is debated. Both parties are advised to do their best to avoid eachother and, if they absolutely must communicate, to keep their commentary focused on the content issue, to avoid talking about eachother, and to be scrupulously civil. This is the best way forward, I feel, and maybe the only option that doesn't end in a sanction for someone."
    Pretty neutral and uninvolved, I'd say. I didn't (and do not) favour either party to this dispute (I think both departed early from AGF in their difference of opinion and neither made much of an effort to find their way to to it at any point that I saw). My advice in the close was plainly just that: the best advice I felt I could give the parties moving forward, and I don't see any flaw in it; I advised them to avail themselves of our dispute resolution processes and (failing their doing that), I advised that they avoid eachother or at least kept their comments focused on the content/policy issues and to avoid speculating on eachother's motives. I certainly never phrased my comments as anything but advice, and I believe it would take a very inexperienced editor to see them as anything more binding than that.
    Any and all of these details are easily verifiable by way of a read of
    WP:involved behaviour, you need to actually read that document, because this kind of work (coming in as a third party who has no previous experience with the dispute or the parties involved and trying to get them to focus on resolving the content dispute instead of lobbing accusations) is at the exact opposite end of the spectrum from "involved" conduct. Your ill-will towards me because I have in the past criticized your own conduct in a way you thought was unfair does not constitute free license to completely fabricate an accusation of misconduct against me which is without merit or sense. Snow let's rap 12:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    To be clear, by "
    involved" I meant in the Wikipedia sense where your closes are not binding decisions because you had already commented extensively in the thread. I didn't mean yo were involved in the dispute prior to the thread. As for your other attacks on me, I'm not going to respond to them except to note that I have read them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 19:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    You don't seem to have the first notion of what that term means "in the Wikipedia sense", nor the kind of conduct the policy is meant to safeguard against. A contributor is INVOLVED when they have been a party to a particular dispute, have a strong association with one of the parties or have worked closely in the topic area. Sometimes, if an editor has been particularly zealous in their expressed opinions to the subject matter of a thread, they may be involved. Basically, if there is any reason to believe you have a conflict of interest in the close, you're involved; otherwise, not. You're the only one who seems to think I for some reason was not neutral in that close, but your argument basically comes down to "I don't have a high opinion of them", which is why your accusations (as usual) are getting zero support. No other editor but you could have looked at that close and saw it as non-neutral and problematic: I'm confident that statement will hold up for anyone here who reviews it. Snow let's rap 15:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The main point of such advice is surely the hope that editors it's directed at will take it on board and we won't have to implement any formal sanction. However as advice, it's clearly not binding so it can't be violated as such. This doesn't mean it's impossible to sanction someone partly as a result of advice. Harassment is a problem and it's possible someone could be sanctioned for it in some way, and any advice offered beforehand is likely to be considered when the community (or in those cases where it applies, an admin) considers sanctions to protect wikipedia, if they find there has been harassment. In this particular case, I don't think a block or community ban is likely. A formal iban could be considered, but I'd suggest you need more evidence. In particular, has there been anything else since March to now? Because if there's only this one edit involving you from then until now it sort of looks like Tenebrae belatedly got the message with only minor slipup. I'm reluctant to even call it that, since a single edit challenging you, if the edit was good, after about 4 months is IMO not necessarily a problem when there is no formal iban. Nil Einne (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly what kind of situation merits enforcing an ANI advice for an editor to keep a distance? Does a noncompliance need to happen every month? Every-other-month? Is doing it periodically acceptable? Is it not enough that two editors are told to stay away from each other ... in an ANI closure ... but one of them doesn't? The word "avoid" means "keep away from, stay away from, steer clear of, refrain from". Pyxis Solitary (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pyxis Solitary: Exactly what kind of situation merits enforcing an ANI advice for an editor to keep a distance? It depends what kind of enforcement you want. Technically, for the reasons I outlined above (non-admin, involved closure, explicitly stated as non-binding advice), the advice cannot be "enforced" to begin with, but assuming you want to propose some kind of new sanction, and use the fact that one user had earlier advised Tenebrae to step away as one piece of evidence, you have the following options:
    • If you want a mutual
      interaction ban
      , then you need to either get the Tenebrae's consent for a mutually voluntary ban (which is sometimes the easiest path if neither of you like each other and you would both rather build an encyclopedia) or demonstrate a pattern of harassment that has no reasonable policy basis. Whether or not you think your edits that Tenebrae reverted or challenged were good, Tenebrae did cite apparently rational, non-"I don't like you" reasons for doing so in all the diffs you linked above, so you have not demonstrated a pattern of harassment as of yet.
    • If you want a one-way interaction ban ... well, I will tell you that the burden of proof would be much higher and you would probably not get what you want even with a tremendous amount of evidence of a long-term, consistent pattern of stalking. I have never seen a one-way IBAN imposed off the bat, and this recent discussion should tell you what the likely outcome would be.
    • If you want a
      yourself being sanctioned instead
      . I am not saying I think you should be sanctioned (I honestly have no idea); I am just pointing this out as a caution.
    • If you want Tenebrae to be
      blocked
      , the same criteria for immediately above apply, although I will tell you that editors normally aren't blocked solely for being wrong on content issues. You would need to demonstrate that Tenebrae was deliberately making up "rules" solely to harass you, that he violated our BLP policy, or some other serious issue like that.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on Hijiri's behavior in this ANI regarding other editors (and his history in other ANIs) ... can this ANI please be addressed by WP Administrators?
    Either a directive in an ANI closure has validity ... or it doesn't. Admins accepted the closure of the ANI by a non-Admin and the issuance of advice to both parties to avoid each other, with a warning that it was the "only option that doesn't end in a sanction for someone". If this advice was inherently meaningless, then what was the rationale for permitting it to be made? I don't have any articles Tenebrae edits on my watchlist. I don't go out of my way to undo or tinker with Tenebrae's edits. I don't respond to his comments directed at me (regardless of how he interprets my non-response). Unless something is done now, this will continue to become a lose-lose situation for me — the only one of the two parties that took the ANI advice seriously. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 05:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Pyxis Solitary: You should strike your first sentence. It is an off-topic personal attack, and I have seen people get blocked for less. I offered you good, helpful advice, and you spit in my face like this? At the very best, you are behaving in an extremely uncivil manner. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I tried to explain to Pyxis, politely, why her behaviour in this and another thread was inappropriate and could be viewed as canvassing, and she essentially told me to eff off. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may jump in, I disagree. There is nothing wrong with asking for admin eyes on this, or with saying why one is doing so. The comment criticizes your actions, not your person, and is therefore not
    uncivil"? Please. Not by any interpretation I've seen on this site. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @
    WP:WIAPA: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence [are a form of personal attack that is never acceptable]. Saying that I have behaved poorly in some unspecified other ANI threads (when I had never interacted with Pyxis before yesterday) or even in this thread (when all I did was point out that Pyxis has apparently misunderstood that "advice" is not a binding sanction and that she had not provided any evidence of Tenebrae engaging in anything more disruptive than disagreeing with her over a style issue and the wording of a plot summary) is not appropriate. Asking for admin attention is fine, but she should first give some sort of evidence of disruption. ANI is not for hashing out content disputes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    In my opinion, asking for admin attention on the administrator's noticeboard is fine, period. No reason should be required, and perhaps they were in error for giving one, I don't know. If so, it's a minor distraction from the main issue of this thread. The user's reasonable question, If this advice was inherently meaningless, then what was the rationale for permitting it to be made? was not addressed, and instead you seized on a perceived slight, interpreted it in the most negative light possible, and blew it out of proportion. Nobody has spit in your face in this thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My god this thread is like a black hole of drama. It keeps sucking new people in to cause more drama than before. Can I suggest that this be closed because absolutely nothing good is coming from it? --Tarage (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I oppose closure without admin attention to the OP's questions, which appear (to me) to be made in good faith. If "nothing good is coming from it," maybe that's because that attention has not yet been forthcoming. If an admin considers the OP's position and deems it without merit, that's as much due process as the OP should expect; but I would expect that much in their place. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I suggest that the person who opened the "black hole" be closed (or whatever WP calls it) from this topic? Because all you have to do is go up ^ 16 signed comments to see who set the drama into motion.
    I deserve to have my voice be heard by Administrators and my petition addressed by them without any one individual derailing the discussion. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You are conflating advice with directive. I view a directive as a statement requiring some action or inaction, that if contravened will result in a sanction. "Advice", on the other hand, doesn't carry quite the same weight. It isn't meaningless — if someone is advised to stay away from someone else and they do not, they are less apt to get the default assumption of good faith if the interactions are problematic. The closing statement clearly used the word "advised" which is not a directive.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Pyxis Solitary Unfortunately for you, I believe that S Philbrick is correct that the crux of your problem lies in the closer's choice to give advice rather than direct you and Tennebrae to stay away from each other. Of course, that choice was really the only option available to them, since the closer was a non-administrator, and really can't give out such direction because they don't have the wherewithal to back it up with a block if it's not followed - this is the downside of a NAC close of a interpersonal dispute on AN or AN/I. This highlights two things: (1) More admins need to get involved in closing that kind of thread on the administrator boards, and (2) Non-administrators should have second (and third) thoughts about making a close that requires admin capabilities to be enforced.
    As for the trouble between you and Tenebrae, I think that your only option is to re-open the issue as a request for a formal Interaction Ban between you, if you have the stomach for that, and if you think the evidence is sufficient to support such a request. Just be aware that the existence of this thread will have sapped much of the community's interest in pursuing this matter, and that the closing of the previous discussion may be an indication that no admin sees the problem as being as dire as you do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you.
    (1) If Administrators allow non-admins to close ANIs: they should stand behind what they allow non-admins to do. (2) If non-admins close ANIs with unenforceable "advice": Admins should edit the closure statement to state that the advice is "not enforceable". (3) As well-intentioned as non-admins may be, Administrators should be the only Wikipedians that close interpersonal ANIs. (4) If someone wants to be an Administrator: prepare to do more than just wear the hat. (5) The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Pyxis Solitary talk 22:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you've covered a lot of ground there, and only you can decide where you want to put your energy. If you want an IB with Tenebrae, or a Topic Ban for them, you've got to do what has to be done to get it, and you've been told what that is. If, instead, you want to tilt at windmills in an attempt to change Wikipedia's culture or standards or procedures or processes by simply complaining about them, nothing's going to happen - I can pretty much guarantee that. It's your choice, the ball's in your court. This thread? You should really consider dropping the stick, because it's extremely doubtful that anything you're looking for is going to come from it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond My Ken, thank you for pulling so much dead weight here and managing to do so eloquently what I somehow failed to do in my much longer comments. Hopefully the OP will listen and this mess can just be closed. I'll add that I don't necessarily think an IBAN or some such is a bad idea. Softlavender is right about most things, so if she says Tenebrae has been hounding that's at least enough to raise an eyebrow; I just don't think there is enough evidence of that here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Since this ANI is related to the previous interpersonal ANI closed on 03:34, 2 February 2017, this ANI ... this time ... should be closed by an Administrator. The support expressed by editors who have taken an interest in this situation has been greatly appreciated. Pyxis Solitary talk 02:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This is such an extremely long and involved thread, and I have barely if at all been on Facebook for days, so I'm going to repeat here, for convenience, what I posted above at 6:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC):
    If anyone is hounded, it has been me by
    WP:BOOMERANG is called for when they and Softlavender
    deliberately introduce grammatical errors into an article. And, really, Pyxis Solitary ... an ANI over grammar??
    --Tenebrae (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User TalismanOnline

    WP:MACHINETRANSLATIONS of other wikis [70] (Google translation). He has previously been warned about copyvios, and does not appear to be a fluent speaker of English. His latest edit is to revert a grammatical correction. Any solution short of a CIR block? Burninthruthesky (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    A spot check is quite discouraging. I'd like to hear from the editor, though.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He is continuing to edit. I just reverted this edit because it introduced a factual error in the date. Burninthruthesky (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I left a final warning that the editor should contribute to this discussion before doing any other editing. If I see such an edit or someone points out to me I will unhappily block the editor. I hope they voluntarily join this discussion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This user has significant competence/language issues that extend beyond copyright. I first noticed him a month ago when he used the translate tool to create the article ‘lays chips’ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Lay%27s_chips&oldid=778514899 from a foreign article ‘Lay’s’ without checking to see that we already have an article Lay's. Recently, I've seen him marking nearly every edit minor including dumping a ton of poorly translated content into Festa da Uva. If TalismanOnline is not blocked, I suggest a restriction on not adding translated content.Dialectric (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-responding POV pusher

    IP BLOCKED
    111 02:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

    100.38.165.179 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

    Everyone is being focused as slave owners in the ledes. I've already reverted them and warned them but they aren't responding. Would an impartial admin take a look, please?
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I blanket reverted. It's been about 15 minutes and they only undid one, so maybe a block isn't necessary. If this is actually POV pushing, that's... more of an intent question, because it's basically indistinguishable from vandalism.
    TimothyJosephWood 15:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    He is back at it again as 104.148.255.236 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). He cites POV in the summary here. Both IPs locate to same area.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's unfortunate in more ways than one. No point in blocking anyway if they're going to return with a different IP in every fairly short lived editing session. If this is or becomes a longish term "thing", it might be worth considering finding a wizard to look at maybe an edit filter for IPs adding the words slave/slaves/slavery.
    TimothyJosephWood 12:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I guess I would add that 1) I don't know the first thing about filters, and 2) given this edit, it does seem to be fairly extreme POV pushing and not outright vandalism, that is of course assuming that it's the same person, and not an IP hopping at a very inconvenient time for those of us looking at contribution histories.
    TimothyJosephWood 12:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Aand now they're back on 100.38.165.179. So maybe they're not an IP hopper; maybe they're using two devices, at least one of which has a static IP. Anyway, if someone wants to push a block button you're not going to get any complaints from me.
    TimothyJosephWood 14:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Hi! Can you explain how them being Slave Owners is a point of view and not a fact? I dont know why you are so stuck on this when there's already a category of American Slave Owners and I'm just putting these admitted slave owners in their rightful place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.38.165.179 (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for 31 hours for disruption. It's obvious they are POV-pushing and will not stop, regardless of the requests on their talk page and article talk pages. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Petergstrom's repeated violations of his topic ban

    Can we have some editors look at this and comment on what should be done? As seen here, back in late February, Petergstrom was topic-banned from editing medical and religious topics for six months. From what I see, that topic ban is not yet over. Despite this, he recently violated it here and here, and two times before that (as seen in this link). I ignored it the first two times, although two other editors did not and warned Petergstrom about it. Sure, Petergstrom's topic ban is almost up, but it's clear to me that he's never respected it anyway and is biding his time until it expires. Other editors and I recently brought the

    talk) 01:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    I was TBANNED from medicine, and religion, neither of which are related to the human brain edits. I find it odd that you find it odd that me editing the page had anything to do with you, or the WP:GA status. In fact, until now I had no idea it was nominated. Whatever, if you want to believe everything that happens has some sinister cause that is related to you go ahead. In fact, what if I am really a government agent/and or alien that spreads mind control nanochips via chem trails? While I admit the Bipolar disorder edit was a violation, it was removal of spam. The human brain was not a violation.Petergstrom (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You described your edit on the Bipolar disorder article as the removal of spam. Can you explain how this edit by Masterlet is spam? Cjhard (talk) 02:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This was spam because it was a whole new section for one sentence from psych new central. Psych News Central. Furthermore, the [71] cited by the article was
    WP:OR. Petergstrom (talk) 02:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The Human brain article falls within the
    WP:Neuroscience
    topic, is not a medical topic. The only reason that it is not tagged with the WP:Med banner is because it is already tagged with the WP:Anatomy and WP:Neuroscience banners, and because WP:Med wants to limit what shows up on its medical articles list, since that list has been overpopulated before.
    So the reason you stayed away from the Human brain article for this long is not because you thought that it falls within your topic ban? I don't think so. And the
    talk) 04:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    And for anyone wanting quick access to that previous thread, see
    talk) 04:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I stayed away from the human brain article for so long, because I was avoiding you and wikipedia in general. Don't even assume to know my motivations as you have consistently done in the past. The human brain article is not a medical article, even though it may be tagged with MEDRS, it is still not part of wikiproject:medicine, just anatomy and neuroscience. My TBANN does not apply there. The bipolar article is within my TBANN, but was nonetheless a removal of spam. In retrospect bringing it up in the talk page so another editor could do it would have been better. Furthermore, one of the two pages(the other being
    Lactic Acid page. This has nothing to do with wikiproject medicine, or religion, so I don't know why that was reverted.Petergstrom (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I don't care much about why you were avoiding the article. I do care about you respecting your topic ban, which you have disrespected four times now. The topic of the human brain is a
    talk) 04:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I was unaware that articles that were not of interest to wikiproject medicine are still medicine. I was under the impression that a chemistry article and an anatomy article were free from my TBAN, however given my little experience with wikipedia, I guess "broadly construed" is broader than I would have guessed. Petergstrom (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your topic ban states, in part, "6 month topic ban for Petergstrom for medicine and religion with a warning that it will be swiftly re-applied if the pattern of editing continues." Even if we were to state that the Human brain article is not a medical article (which, given the overwhelming medical material in that article, I don't see how anyone can state such), you are not to edit anything that is under the medical scope. This also means that if the
    talk) 04:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    And, for the record, anatomy articles are commonly of interest to WP:Med; it's why WP:Med lists WP:Anatomy as a related project, and includes anatomy at
    talk) 05:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Petergstrom, and now you are at

    talk) 10:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    It is simply not credible for an experienced editor such as Peter to claim that edits to Obsessive–compulsive disorder, Bipolar disorder, and Talk:Psychopathy fall outside a topic ban from medicine. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I not allowed to go to the talk page? Really? I thought an edit ban meant a ban from editing pages. Not from taking part in discussion. Would I seriously have done that if I knew it violated a TBAN? Right after we had a discussion here to. Petergstrom (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my bad. I read the
    WP:TBAN topic, and it contains talk pages. I don't really have much to say...oops?Petergstrom (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    At least you checked the policy and show recognition of the error. Should we assume that same recognition applies equally to the OCD and bipolar edits? If that is the case, then I suggest that this thread could easily be closed if you could commit to voluntarily extending your non-involvement with the medical topic for another few months. It shouldn't be much of an issue, since you've edited very little since February until this month. There's lots of other topics for you to contribute on, after all. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I would be lying if I said that at the time of those edits, I didn't know whether there could be controversy or ambiguity. I knew I was pushing it. I now recognize that it was in clear violation of the TBAN. Petergstrom (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Think of it like this: With a talk page for a medical article, you are discussing medical content, which can lead to changes being made to the article per your suggestion(s). Although you are not technically making the edits, you are making them by proxy. Another reason to avoid the talk pages of pages you are banned from is because these bans are also often due interaction with others, which was part of the problem. In this case, editors complained about your interaction with others; it wasn't solely about your editing of articles.
    Take a look at the branches of medicine noted in the Medicine article; you can see that anatomy and neuroscience are branches of medicine. You don't have to take Wikipedia's word for it; you can Google it. A lot of WikiProjects limit their scope; it makes sense for WP:Med not to focus on anatomy or neuroscience articles when WP:Anatomy and WP:Neuroscience exist. This obviously doesn't mean that these topics do not fall under medicine simply because WP:Med is not focused on them.
    I'm still not convinced that you should be editing medicine or religious topics, but you will get another chance to prove yourself soon enough. It will not take another few months until your ban has expired. Just another month and some days. We can close this thread if it's the case that you won't violate your topic ban again.
    talk) 21:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/My Royal Young (Input Requested; see this discussion, too)

    As of recently, a well-known and respected vandalism fighter has just been blocked for socking as

    User:My Royal Young). If anyone would like to join this discussion please do so here. Thanks. 98.223.4.183 (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Immediate attention needed on
    CNN blackmail controversy

    User:DraKyry has engaged in a lengthy edit-war on the aforementioned current-events article to insert wholly-unsourced libelous claims about a living person, to wit, that a particular person "blackmailed" another person. The claim has no basis in fact and is unsupported by any reliable source. Further, the editor is edit-warring to misrepresent what reliable sources say about the particular issue. No admins appear to be paying attention to AIV or RFPP, so I'm going to have to go here and ask that some admin step in to block the user in question, or at the very least protect it on a version which does not contain libelous unsupported claims about a living person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I've applied full page protection as a less-bad alternative to just blocking everyone involved. Duration is three days and this is an arbitration enforcement action (which I shall log shortly) under AP2 DS. I'm expecting that
    User:Politrukki, User:Grayfell and... anyone else involved in the past couple-of-hundred edits on that page can have a productive discussion on the article talk page in that time. Everyone involved needs to AGF and not repeat eg this discussion. As far as I can tell, a lot of the problem is that everyone involved is reverting 3k+ edits over a couple of words, where a more detailed edit would sort out the concerns to both parties' satisfaction, so I'm hopeful. We'll also see what happens in the related merge discussion
    .
    I'm frankly itching to hand out a swag of 3RR blocks to go with this and anyone who also feels so inclined shouldn't see my AE action as an impediment to it. But for the minute I'm personally content to leave protection in place and see how things go on the talk page. GoldenRing (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully protecting the article so that even established editors can't edit it, all because a suspicious account with just a few edit edit warred against six or seven established editors, making something like 12 (twelve) reverts in less than two hours, these reverts involving BLP violations and highly POV content based on junk sources, then that account went on to start edit wars on other articles, and that account consistently ignored notifications and warnings and then promised to continue edit warring, and protecting it to a version full of BLP vios... yeah, that's about the dumbest action an admin could've taken here. And oh yeah, also the merge discussion which suggests turning this steaming pile of garbage into a redirect is pretty much a SNOW "merge" [72]. Sheeesh.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    GoldenRing, I appreciate the protection, but the fact of the matter is that essentially the entire edit was BLP-noncompliant. It introduced entirely-unsourced libelous claims, misrepresented the content of a number of reliable sources in a way which negatively depicted a living person and included an array of patently unreliable sources (Breitbart and random Twitter accounts) making libelous claims about living people. There was no alternative but to revert entirely. I laid out the issues in some detail on 331dot's talk page and I'll do so again here:
    Firstly, DraKyry's version stated, In the article published by CNN, the author Andrew Kaczynski explains the process that allowed the organization to discover the real identity of the user. After blackmailing him with that information, the user was forced to post an apology. This is a defamatory falsehood — no reliable source has said anyone was blackmailed by anyone. This alone is a flagrant, screaming BLP violation — it's almost but not quite stating that Kaczynski is guilty of a crime.
    Secondly, DraKyry's version included a number of entirely-unreliable sources making claims about Kaczynski, including Twitter posts by random people and a story from Breitbart.com, which is categorically banned from being used as a source for living persons articles by dint of its long history of fabrications, misrepresentations and lies about people it politically opposes.
    Thirdly, DraKyry's version misrepresented reliable sources, specifically where it states, based on a NYMag article, Kaczynski could have avoided the Internet vigilantism if he hadn't written the line — the reliable source explicitly does not use Kaczynski's name and instead puts the responsibility on CNN as a whole. Using the source in this way is introducing a deliberate factual error which depicts a living person in a negative light. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you've decided to start a new dicussion at ya et another page. Okay. I've spent last 10 hours arguing about that - I am not going to spend any more time on that. The case is crystal clear - just read 1. Several discussions of my talkpage. 2. This page: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:DraKyry reported by User:Volunteer Marek .28Result: .29 . 3. Edit summaries on the page we are discussing right now. 4. CNN Controversies talk page.
    I am not going to repeat my self 15th freaking time, everything is on these pages. If you have specific questions - feel free to contact me. The post above, made by northBysouth, is blatantly misrepresenting the whole situation, which, no doubt, you'll discover once you visit one of the pages I've just mentioned. Goodluck --DraKyry (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I invite interested administrators or onlookers to observe the user's repeated inability to provide reliable sources for their defamatory claims about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Refusing to cooperate here after refusing to cooperate on those other pages won't make this issue magically resolve in your favor.
    talk•cont 10:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @DraKyry: Your edits contained unambiguous BLP violations and I think a lot of administrators would have just reacted with a longish block. Continuously reverting without listening to the valid BLP concerns of others is no way to behave here and I strongly advise you to go carefully in the future. GoldenRing (talk) 10:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @NorthBySouthBaranof: So, your first and third concerns could have been sorted out by replacing the name of a person with the name of an organisation, yes? I'm not sure I see the problem in using twitter as a source for what someone said on twitter. Sure, it's a primary, self-published source, but it was being used as a source for what those people said, in their own voices, not Wikipedia's. And the Breitbart source was being used to cite a Twitter trend - the whole sentence could have easily been removed. My point is that you have a lot more nuanced tools at your disposal than the revert button. I know it's easy to get into a back-and-forwards revert war, and you might just technically have policy on your side because the edit contained a BLP violation (and yes, a gross one not supported by the sources). But you're supposed to be collaboratively editing an encyclopaedia, not repeatedly hitting the revert button until they get it exactly right. I think a more nuanced edit that still resolved the BLP violation would have defused this situation without a stupendous number of reverts, without an ANI report and without the page being subject to full protection. GoldenRing (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And, now that I look, reports at ANEW, RFPP and RFM. Have I missed any? GoldenRing (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]
    • Gotta run but this editor is more trouble than he's worth; he's here, clearly, with an agenda. Look at how much time this nonsense is taking, and all to get some Tweets and posts into an encyclopedia article. A topic ban is the least. Drmies (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This edit summary is seriously out of line. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 15:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right. User DryKyry, an account with just a few edits and suspicious edit history, makes highly POV edits based on non-reliable sources. They make 12 (twelve!) reverts within less than two hours. These reverts include edit warring against six or seven established editors. They ignore warnings and notifications or explicitly state they have no intention of observing Wikipedia's rules. They go and start additional edit wars on related articles. Simultaneously there's obvious consensus against the users edit [73] (not surprising since most of them are obviously
        WP:NOTHERE). The user also makes personal attacks in edit summaries and their comments. And... the admin fully protects the page and suggests that they are "content to let it go for a minute", rewarding the extremely disruptive behavior of the user and leaving behind an article full of BLP violations, false allegations, ridiculous fringe theories and other POV nonsense. Ball. Dropped.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
        ]
    • Drakyry blocked indef. I'm sure the article and talk page have more problems that bear admin action, but I don't have the stomach for it. But this was an easy call, so I figured I'd at least get the low hanging fruit and leave the harder work for others. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Geez, you people got nothing better to do? He was a poor minority kid under the age of 10. Let her be please. She was just posting a joke that got blown out of proportion. Scenicview1 (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1[reply]
    Yes, that's right, a ten-year-old wrote Okay, so I've already explained my position in: my talk page, the CNN controversy talk page, and the edits summaries I provided with each of my edits. I am kinda tired of arguing about this, so here are just two screenshots of just some of the edits I've reverted: http://imgur.com/a/auaEa & http://imgur.com/a/LCyyb . Also, notice the nickname of the guy I was reverting, and compare that to the nickname of the guy who made this post. Thank you. P.S. Here's the history section of the page we were arguing about: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CNN_blackmail_controversy&action=history . I believe that the first thing you should do is look at this page. Also, I was not going to say this, but since my counterpart claimed that my account is 'suspicious', because it was created in 2010, I advise you to visit my counterpart's talk page (User talk:Volunteer Marek). He literally has dozens (I am not even joking - dozens) of warning about starting edits wars on Trump-related articles. I looked at just some of his edits of said articles - they are mostly disruptive editing/vandalism (just look at those edits!). Now, I withdraw from this discussion - whatever decision you make, I don't think that spending 2 hours of arguing with an obviously politically motivated editor to make a correction that costed me 5 minutes of my time is worth it. My faith in Wikipedia is destroyed, thank you. EEng 21:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Obvious troll is obvious. 162.245.150.3 (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Lana Rhoades article has been deleted entirely without even a discussion template on the reasons to keep or delete the article.

    It's a content dispute, not vandalism. Discuss it at
    BencherliteTalk 22:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

    I'm not sure who did it, but someone just deleted my whole Lana Rhoades article!! She is an adult entertainer and film star. The reason she was added for inclusion was because she won an XBIZ award for Best New Starlet. This is the highest award given from a major adult entertainment outlet. It is basically the equivalent of an award from the Golden Globes for best new actress or actress of the year. There was another award given, by another adult entertainment outlet, but not one of the top awards. Under the wikipedia guidelines, it says a major award given is fine for an article of inclusion, in regard to any adult film star. I'm not sure where to locate this, but it can be verified. AVN, XBIZ, and XRCO for Best New Starlet from one or any of these meets that requirement. I put verifiable references and some editors were also involved in making the Lana Rhoades page. I'm unable to bring it back up. It seems as if it was completely wiped out. As an example the Mia Malkova page has one award listed. The AVN award for Best New Starlet. Again, this is just one award from a major adult media outlet, yet she has her own article page that has not been deleted. I'm not experienced in all this. Is there someone able to retrieve and put her profile or article back up? This is vandalism at the very least. There was no discussion template requested for deciding whether to keep the article up or not. She apparently won penthouse pet for one month back in 2016 and when you type in her name, that is where it leads to, but if you click on her name there, nothing appears. The article itself does not even mention the penthouse pet award. It was added later by another editor, but she had significant achievements already in her profile, as I mentioned above. The penthouse pet award for a single month was not even a major part of the article at all. Someone took it upon themselves to just delete entirely what took me long hours to create with the help of other editors who contributed later on. Now there is no photograph of this significant and popular performer, no information about her career, no information in regard to her past, nothing about her personal measurements, nothing, all wiped out by some vandal that took it upon themselves to wipe out the article without any template discussion first. If anyone can retrieve and bring her article back up and protect it, I'd appreciate it. Also, if you have any thoughts about this or why it occurred, then you may also join in this discussion. Thank you. Scenicview1 (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1[reply]

    That "vandal" was Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and they didn't delete it. They made it into a redirect. This appears to be a content dispute though. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. There is nothing to dispute. As I've mentioned, the Mia Malkova page is up, and she only won one major award. Nobody has deleted her article. It may have been redirected, but if you type in her name, a Profile with information and photograph should appear. Instead, everything about her has been deleted. It's like listing someone who won Best Actress at the Golden Globes, but if you click on her name, nothing appears about her. The XBIZ award for Best New Starlet is an equivalent award, to some, as Best Actress of the year at the Golden Globes award. Scenicview1 (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1[reply]

    Have you tried to start a discussion on the talk page, rather than come here and claim that this is a vandal? RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I appreciate the advice. I'm not well versed in regard to wikipedia procedures. I've seen discussions in regard already to this particular vandal, or who I may think it may be. I'm not very certain of the person who did this however. It appears to be anonymous or it was done using the anonymous editor feature. I think I may know who it is, but I don't have proof. I've already emailed the wikipedia staff in regard to what happened. In regard to penthouse pet of the month, that was not even mentioned when I created the article. It was not even an achievement she is very well known for. Not to besmirch adult magazines in any way, shape, form, etc. since it was an honor she was given that award for the month. However, she is the fastest and one of the most popular rising stars in the adult film world, if you look at her statistics in various legitimate and well established adult online sites. Being in print media is mentioned, but it is not specifically what she is known for. Why would you take it upon yourself to completely delete an entire article about a person? Specifically is my question. If for instance an Actress Won for Best Actress at the Golden Globes and that was it, and there was an article connected with her picture and information about her and her career, etc. why delete a wikipedia article while leaving her name with the award she won only? It is vandalism at the very least. I'm also assuming it is a vandal because why would you delete an article on wikipedia without putting in a discussion template to decide by majority whether to delete or keep the article in question. Whoever deleted my article, did not contact me, or open a template. You don't just delete an entire article with information and a photograph, without notifying the editors of that article, and without their agreement. So if I put graffiti on your wall without first asking you, then that is not vandalism? Just because you delete something or add menacing things on the internet, that does not make it different than vandalizing by other means off the internet. If you get my convoluted message here. Thank you. Scenicview1 (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1[reply]

    First of all, stop calling the user and their edits vandalism. This is purely a content dispute, and you need to take this to the talk page to discuss this. I've also notified the editor that created the redirect to this discussion, as you are required to do per the box at the top of the page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I understand. As I've stated, I'm not familiar with all the features or where to complain on wikipedia. It took me hours of creating and editing with the help of other editors. It just upset me that someone would just take it upon themselves to delete an article without first providing a discussion template. As I've also stated, The article in question has nothing to do with penthouse pet of the month. The person redirected the name and deleted my Whole Article on wikipedia out of spite or whatever you want to call it. Thank you for your help. I understand. Sorry, I was not aware of all this. Scenicview1 (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1[reply]

    the dispute resolution guideline. To repeat one more time, no matter how hurt your feelings may be, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has done nothing wrong. It will not serve you here ever to take things personal. John from Idegon (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    This isn't about hurt feelings but about consistency. I also edited the Mia Malkova page. She has one Award but her page is still up. Same with Lana Rhoades. I'm just questioning, how one adult film star is allowed to have her page still up, while the other one is taken down. Why has no one taken down the Mia Malkova page then? I actually fixed the Mia Malkova page which had a lot of References that directed to blank pages and error messages. I replaced them with verifiable and adequate references. I also deleted nominations and minor awards that she didn't even win. I don't care about hurt feelings. What is it with Mia Malkova and her page still being up? It is the inconsistency that bothers me. Of course it is odd that one would take down the entire article of Lana Rhoades while leaving her highlighted name up for her penthouse pet of the month award. Just to be clear, I'm fine with including that category in her article as well, but now it is only her name under the penthouse pet of the month article with no article leading to her profile or photograph, along with information page. An award I didn't even put into her article as I was editing it, since I didn't feel it necessary to include. Again, there was no "discussion template" on whether to keep or delete the article. The person took it upon themselves to delete it without notifying those who helped create and edit the Lana Rhoades page. Something none of you that have written back to me, would like to discuss or explain to me why that happened. I guarantee that the next person writing to me will not answer that question and why they decided to take it upon themselves to ignore wikipedia rules on that entirely.

    Scenicview1 (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1[reply]

    I think you might be misunderstanding what happened. The page has not been deleted, but turned to a redirect. All of the page history remains, and the edits that you and other editors made are still in the page's history, so if the page were to be reverted, none of those edits are gone. This is indeed a content dispute, not behavior, and I am going to start a discussion on the talk page regarding the redirect vs. article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've started a thread on Talk:Lana Rhoades to begin this discussion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Here you go. Nothing gone, just hidden from the public for the time being. Some content was recently removed, e.g. this, but as you can see it's also still available to editors via the page history. Go to the talk page and discuss. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    revert in bad faith by User:Ozzie10aaaa

    Non-admin closure. The article has been sorted out and no bad faith occurred, just a misunderstanding. IP can re-open if they disagree. Marianna251TALK 17:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    On July 2nd there were two edits on the page Complement deficiency as seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Complement_deficiency&action=history . First, I deleted a paragraph where somebody talked about "prevent cells". My edit ha the comment "there are no "prevent cells"", because, google it, there are no such cells. Second, User:Ozzie10aaaa comes along and reverts my edit. When I wrote on his talk page that he revert makes no sense, he replied that I "deleted a reference", which is an escalation of nonsense. There is no "reference" for non-sense. The deleted link was not a reference for the statement I deleted - because those "prevent cells" do not exist, and the "reference" page does not mention them.

    I am an anonymous user, while User:Ozzie10aaaa is an established user, with lots of stars for his contribution, so could somebody more esteemed google "prevent cells" and fix that page?

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.109.176 (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2017‎

    • this is the ref[74], ""At least 17 mutations in the C3 gene have been found to cause C3 deficiency, a rare condition characterized by recurrent bacterial infections beginning in childhood. The genetic changes that cause C3 deficiency lead to an altered version of the C3 protein or prevent cells from producing any of this protein. These mutations are described as "loss-of-function" because the abnormal or missing C3 protein prevents normal activation of the complement system. As a result, the immune system is less able to protect the body against foreign invaders (such as bacteria). and this is the text of the ref...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • [75] any edits(change in text) is fine but it needs to be reference, was left on IP /talk--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made this edit to the page. I think Ozzie10aaaa reverted in good faith, believing that the original text was correct, but appears to have misunderstood the text of the ref, which uses "prevent" as a verb, i.e. C3 deficiency stops (prevents) cells from producing the C3 protein. This looks like simple miscommunication between these two editors - the IP attempting to correct a mistake while Ozzie10aaaa believed the correction caused a mistake. Can we agree to
    WP:AGF? Marianna251TALK 16:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    ok(and thank you for [76] which is an improvement for the article)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Lack of apologies is consistent with bad faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.109.176 (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2017

    I don't think Ozzie needs to apologise for attempting to protect an article, even if their revert was a mistake (which is arguable, since that ref was valuable and the article's text was easily fixed); they obviously didn't act out of bad faith and reverts are a thing that happens on Wikipedia. I think it would be a good idea to
    WP:BOOMERANG
    .
    Please also remember to sign your talk page comments with ~~~~. Marianna251TALK 16:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Marcocapelle emptying categories out of process

    WP:CFD and is not ignorant of correct procedure for deleting categories. Marcocapelle should be warned and if if still continues to make this type of edit should received a block if he fails to use the correct procedure in future. Tim! (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    • @Marcocapelle: Please nominate these for upmerging as normal. The year vs. decade vs. century thing has been controversial forever as pedants decide we must have categories for every year on every topic. ~ Rob13Talk 03:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Esszet's repeated accusations of article ownership toward me

    Esszet has made repeated accusations against me regarding Too Much Too Soon (album):

    • On one occasion at ANI by filing a complaint against me in April
    • Here in the aforementioned article talk page in April
    • In an ensuing RfC at said talk page shortly after
    • Back again at ANI filing a complaint against me in July, which was found to be "over the top" by the closer
      Basalisk
      .
    • And again today here at the article talk page.

    There's no

    talk) 17:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    1. It looks a lot like you have reverted basically anything the editor has attempted to do on the article, down to very highly subjective and pretty much meaningless word choice, often without so much as leaving an edit summary.
    2. The most conspicuous thing missing from this conversation is you.
    3. Which is pretty much the issue from the last ANI you link to... lack of communication and a closer giving you advice about ownership.
    4. So... basically stop acting like you own the article and people will stop accusing you of owning the article.
      TimothyJosephWood 17:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Wow! Literally everything you just said can be also be said of Esszet. But thanks! (for nothing:-)
    talk) 18:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    You should probably consider yourself lucky if nothing is what you get instead of a
    WP:BOOMERANG
    , considering you've reverted dozens of times and barely acknowledged that the talk page exists. When you did it seems to have gone something like this:
    • You really wanna overcomplicate an image caption just to appease someone who started an edit war? I'll say this for the last time: THIS ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT ANY BAND; THE SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE IS TOO MUCH TOO SOON; THE SUBJECT OF THE IMAGE IS THE NEW YORK DOLLS. I repeat THE ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT THE NEW YORK DOLLS
    • why are you here? Go away.
    • He's also accusing me of article ownership. He's also being a hound, and a dick
    • How's the view from your high horse, Esszet?
    Besides that, I count... I dunno, a half dozen warnings on your talk page just in the last 50 edits ([77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82]) and that's not counting the close from the prior ANI.
    So I suppose I can try to spell it out more clearly: Welcome to Wikipedia. This is a collaborative project to build a free encyclopedia. Discussion is not an option, the talk page is not a suggestion, and ANI is not an alternative.
    TimothyJosephWood 18:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Well, I'll certainly give your attempt at researching me an "A" for an effort, guy.
    talk) 19:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    You're a prolific content creator, and I don't think anyone would detract from the valuable contributions you've made. I'll be the first to admit that it's easy to be lulled into an isolated comfort when you find yourself churning away in a corner of the project that no one else is on, but I would suggest that you immediately watchlist something like
    TimothyJosephWood 21:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    NOPE! Totally not lulled into an "isolated comfort" @
    talk) 04:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Then you're going to have to do better than a comment in April, because it looks an awful lot like this has been mostly dead for months, until the user dared to post a comment on the talk page of your article yesterday, and a (totally exasperating I'm sure) discussion that lasted exactly three edits (during which you also managed to cut their comment in half with your reply) taxed your patience to the point that you needed an ANI thread.
    TimothyJosephWood 12:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    And round two! I suggest a ban of you two reverting each other. Second, I suggest that this article be fully protected for three days so we can sort this out. Third, I suggest that this ANI be closed as this will not help anything. And fourth, I think that it would be best if you two were not allowed to edit that article for a period of 6 months. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 17:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with RileyBugz completely.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 19:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Basalisk See what I mean? Esszet (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    And I hope his lack of civility here is also taken into account. Esszet (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, really the reason for it is so that you will stop, honestly, wasting everybody's time, including your own. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ^?? Are you trying to get yourself in trouble? Esszet (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Trouble only for anyone who slights Esszet in any way, I guess (*roll eyes till stuck in back of skull*)
    talk) 22:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I meant both you and Dan56, if that wasn't clear. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Christ almighty. So... Someone jog my memory, what is the civility restriction thing? It's been a few months since I've seen it, but whatever that is I propose that on Dan for at least six months as a boomerang.
      TimothyJosephWood 22:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    A lot of this seems to be unequivocal sneering (I'd be shocked if you could find a group of people, in any time and place, who don't think "Thanks for nothing" is rude and offensive), so I don't think there'd be much of an issue in this case, but it probably wouldn't be all that difficult to get him sanctioned for personal attacks instead. Esszet (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you'll forgive me if I don't want to block someone with more GAs than I have article creations. You know, because encyclopedia. Maybe an indefinite 1RR that can be appealed in six months?
    TimothyJosephWood 23:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Maybe not six months, but how about two weeks to start, and then we'll take it from there? Esszet (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And keep in mind that people unaware of the 1RR wouldn't know to report him for effectively violating it by undoing their edits without using the undo feature (as he almost certainly would). Esszet (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your only interactions with me have been regarding minor caption changes and your uncompromising stance favoring sentence fragments rather than complete sentences at
    talk) 04:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    What a crock. An image caption to work on? "Constantly reverting other editors' contributions without explanation"?? What do you call this? And
    talk) 16:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Is it just me, or are any other admins seeing
    WP:IDHT behaviour from Dan56? Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    User:Eliew1

    Turns out they were socking anyway. Primefac (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Resolved
     – BEANS averted, and while EEng's question is probably more appropriate for a different venue I'll leave this un-hatted for now. Primefac (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I queried this user about their edits to their userpage. In reviewing the history, I believe it's quite obvious what they are doing; for the sake of

    WP:BEANS, I'll refrain from going further. Home Lander (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

    Copyright Violation and Reverts by User:Pyrogrimace Comment

    In my efforts to clean up Salute (pyrotechnics), I found that large sections of text were copy-and-pasted from this source and this source] by User:Pyrogrimace. I removed the most blatant copy-pasted content, left a message on Pyrogrimace's talk page and tried to reword/reformat a few things to match wikipedia style, but my edits were reverted with no explanation. This happened twice and is concerning because it involves copyright violations.

    Sample Edit: [83]

    Pyrogrimace has been editing this article heavily since 2011 and repeatedly inserting non-encyclopedic-style content despite the efforts of other editors to improve the article. Dlthewave (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is an absolute mess of how-to, copyvios, and formulae. The edit history is one years-long edit war and probably sockpuppet play. The only part cited to a
    WP:RS is the introductory sentence. It should drastically cut back and put under page protection. (P.S., capitalization in article names can break links, so I fixed the wikilink in the opening). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Actually, they've been editing this article since 2007. Literally, every edit since 9 March 2007 when they first registered, excepting a handful of edits to M80 has been to the Salute article. Blackmane (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment--I have drastically cleaned up and subseq. restored a much old ver. of the article (before the IP cum Pyrogrimace editing saga started) and have watchlisted it.Let's see what happens.I feel a semi-protection and/or a SPI would do enough good!I have warned the user about usage of multiple IPs. Winged Blades Godric 05:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Electronic harassment conspiracy theory

    We have an ongoing problem with random editors editing our Electronic harassment article to support pseudoscience.

    Note: only edits from the last 30 days are listed:

    Might I suggest indefinite

    pending changes protection? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    @Guy Macon: Not a fan of indefinite protection. This is just coming off a year of semi, so I've applied five years pending changes. ~ Rob13Talk 03:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. We wouldn't want 20-year-old protection hanging around on articles long after the need has gone away. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 03:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Could I borrow those eyeballs again?

    Oath Keepers and my talk page; what looks from my viewpoint a good deal like substituting warning templates for substantive discussions, but perhaps I'm reading too much into it. Anmccaff (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not going into the irony of you opening this at ANI. You seem to have at least 3 reverts on that article. Your statements here suggest that you would like to discuss the article and the talk page of the article suggests that other involved parties also would like to discuss the article and they asked simply for you to get a consensus before making any further reverts. So why go to the articles talk page and get into that substantive discussion?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Star Awards is publishing bus contracts

    USER BLOCKED
    111 17:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

    Editor

    speedy deletion or take them to a deletion discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

    Real History Man, Conflict of Interest editing and Personal Attacks

    Real History Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Real History Man, a new editor whose sole interest seems to be editing to insert references to a self-published book [102] in

    WP:COI, a suspicion shared by Hohum [104]. Bringing it here for further scrutiny. WCMemail 07:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    I can see obvious signs of a conflict of interest, in addition to blatant personal attacks. Quick question: do the statistics presented in the self-published book contradict the other sources?
    talk•cont 10:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I don't think that matters. The user is probably at least capable of accessing the other sources, and if he wanted to cite them he would. This means he is essentially using Wikipedia to advertise his friend's book, rather than using his friend's book to help build an encyclopedia. The username also sets off NOTHERE alarms. promoting and representing the historical truth (in the diff above) is dead giveaway, and the scare-quotes around "claims" (showing a disconcerting lack of intellectual skepticism and dismissiveness toward those who do) are also concerning. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In answer to
    WP:SPS and can't be used as a source anyway. WCMemail 11:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @
    WP:RS. SPSes can be used for non-extraordinary claims (again, nothing to do with this) if their authors are reputable authorities (no idea if the author in question is a reputable authority on anything). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    No worries I'm aware of that, the other problem is we can't verify the author is a historian or reputable as this appears to be their only published work. The work was also crowd funded by an appeal on social media. WCMemail 12:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Since he frequently writes in sentence fragments I have a feeling he's not a historian. EEng 12:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    "Wee Curry Monster" I myself am a historian of WW2 and especially D-Day and I do happen to be a friend of the author through his work. It is a work which you have not read. Having met his publisher I know the book is not self-published, however when that business was sold, he did take the opportunity to buy the rights to it, hence your constant changing to 'self-published' from 'published' is erroneous. The book is written effectively by all of the participants of that day and I have had the pleasure of meeting many of them myself and seeing so much of the evidence. Something you have not. The history on this page is riddled with inaccuracies and, as you will see, I have contributed to almost every single talk discussion to correct people or answer their questions...this all comes from one place: "The First Casualty" - The book in question. The author is absolutely a Military Historian and accepted as such by the entire Military History community. Indeed he is one of the best I have known. Qualifications mean zip in our industry. We write the books which the boffins study and then get their degrees and doctorates with. If your history is good, the rest is so much paper. Ricky D Phillips' history is outstanding. I truly fail to see how a faceless person who spends their days on Wiki can claim to know more than the men who were there, whose words are all in this book. I particularly like how Mark Gibbs was 'encouraged to think' he had blown up an Amtrac. Have you met him? How encouraged was he exactly, do you know? You don't. I know he hit it because I have held a big piece of it with a rocket hole through it, which the author brought to the book launch. I know he - and others - destroyed it because I have seen the photos, read the quotes from the British and Argentines who saw it during and after. I know the Argentinian forces lost an LCVP Landing Craft blown up that night with about 40 guys on it. I know the guys who blew it up and the guys who dragged it onto the beach later. It is still sat on its back as they found it in the narrows with a big rocket hole in its side. So please tell me, do, how being 'better at Wiki' makes you more qualified to pronounce upon a history you have no knowledge of? I have googled you and the words 'troll' appear everywhere next to your name so I feel that the tag was justified. You are more concerned with being 'right according to you' than in the truth. The truth is that if the other 'qualified historians' you espouse were as good as this guy, we wouldn't have waited 35 years for the truth. So please go ahead, be 'better at Wiki' and safeguard a tired old lie if that makes you feel better. Myself and the military history community shall keep on doing what we do until this sad old tale is consigned to the bin. You may now rest easy, I shan't change it back because doubtless you'll have a line of code for that. It doesn't make you clever or educated, indeed it makes you a block to what history is all about. A subject which, from a good look at your own work, you know a lot less about than you pretend to. I will now consider this at an end, having told you and your peers what a true know-nothing you are. If you wish to troll and malign someone whom I and so many others in our field hold in esteem, then that is on you. There's your resolution and you're entitled to it. I hope Wiki keeps you happy. In my industry it is our lowest denominator. You may consider yourself schooled by an old man who knows a few things. Real History Man (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The central problem is your statement that this all comes from one place: "The First Casualty". If The First Casualty is the only source, then it's not accepted historical scholarship. It would be different if the author were an established expert in the field, or the book was published by a reputable university press, but that's not the case, despite your protestatations. And we're not interested in your personal experiences – see
    WP:OR. The more you write, the more clear it is that you don't know how actual history is done. (For one thing, it's not an "industry.") EEng 20:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    unCSDable copyvio

    Deleted (
    111 17:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

    There's a copyvio of imdb at User:Vanishing sara/modern.css which can't be tagged because it's .css. Would someone oblige please? Cabayi (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    All taken care of. Weird, that's the only edit that user ever made, and it was years ago. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks RickinBaltimore. I stumbled across a kid's autobio which revealed personal contact details and have since been working through a search of userspace on "birth date 2004"... there's a whole lot of weird out there. Cabayi (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Webmaster cc&pa username violation

    UAA Filter 149 found

    Changing username/Simple but could not find a trace for the rename or who did it so I come here. The user still made the same edits to their company's page under the new name. Gave a warning to the user awaiting a reply but would like some input or a second opinion on this before blocking. -- Alexf(talk) 15:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Since you gave the user a warning, Alexf, I think you should wait for the user to change to an acceptable name. Only if the user continues to edit without changing would a block be warranted, in my view, unless the promotional edits were enough to block for regardless of the username. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The user was renamed by Litlok who is a global renamer. I've notified them at the French Wikipedia. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That explains why I could not see who renamed it and ask the question there. I am waiting for an answer before proceeding, due to the notice I left. Just baffled as to how that new name was allowed (not to mention they continue with a COI issue). We'll take it one at a time. Thanks. -- Alexf(talk) 18:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    They didn't continue with the COI. The edits, which are valid were made almost 2 hours before the name change. The fact that they made valid edits is why I didn't block right away. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I see now. -- Alexf(talk) 19:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor repeatedly re-creating articles

    USER BLOCKED
    111 17:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

    Editor User:GamingOnline User talk:GamingOnline is repeatedly recreating articles that have been removed via speedy deletion nominations. Requesting that appropriate action be taken. To disclaim, I have been one of the editors tagging the subjects articles for deletion. This is my first time posting here, apologizes for any mistakes. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like a walled garden of hoaxes. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I will note that someone may want to review this editor's contribs to the Japanese Wikipedia.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Looking for rangeblock on Alpharetta, Georgia

    A bunch of IP6 addresses from Alpharetta, Georgia, US, have recently been disrupting music articles related to the musical groups

    Bell Biv Devoe, especially the biographies of Bobby Brown, Michael Bivins and Ralph Tresvant. Popular media says that Brown has a house in Alpharetta, as do some Tresvant and Bivins family members. None of the edits are referenced, and some are flat wrong such as this change in the artist name on an album, and this change to a birth year from 1959 to 1969. Can a rangeblock be applied to the following IPs? Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    IPs used
    Quite appreciated, thank you. Binksternet (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=789518720"