Wikipedia : Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive992

) 18:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Some editors have been opposed to a one-way below, but instead want a two-way. Others have brought up how a two-way could be gamed (not entirely sure how that easily that would happen here though). Either way, it looks like we have good evidence that Andy has been pursuing Jytdog, but I haven't seen a similar level of pursuit in the Jytdog to Andy direction. Two-way interaction bans can be hypothetically gamed to keep a hounded editor from editing because their hounder made some edits to the article, so we do need to be cautious about just defaulting to two-way or superficially saying it takes two to tango.

It would seem less complicated to just do a one-way unless we have evidence Jytdog is going to be pursuing Andy problematically during a one-way. Thinking about how a two-way would functionally work, I'm just not seeing justification yet to potentially make editing tougher for Jytdog if it's a topic they would normally edit and Andy was somehow involved. A one-way means a single editor was/will be the main source of disruption in the interaction, while a two-way means both editors essentially have it out for each other and would continue to if either of them were allowed to interact at all. That's a bit higher of a bar to meet for a preventative pox on all their houses approach.

) 19:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Support one-way per nom. Jtdog still has stuff to work on, but I would take someone being colorful about bad content over someone following another editor around and hoping for a gotcha, which is what it feels like it happening here. {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 19:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Support one-way Supported that above - per my comments above - there's a persistent pattern of Dingley personally attacking Jytdog which is unacceptable. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Support one-way This pattern of behavior has gone on too long. Andy Dingley needs to leave Jytdog alone, and if Jytdog screws up, there are plenty of other editors to intervene. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Support one-way The behavior in this thread and the difs presented is enough to convince me that it will serve both AD and wikipedia well to stop interacting with JD. Bishonen did not clarify the length of the IBAN in the proposal, is it expected to be indef ? --DBig Xrayᗙ 20:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, DBigXray. An indefinite IBAN. I was kind of assuming indefinite is the default for IBANs. Of course they can be appealed, but I don't think it's a good idea that people can simply wait for IBANs to expire. Bishonen | talk 20:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC).

Oppose Why does Jytdog get a free pass for our normal policies? Why did you, Bishonen, block me for a comment at ANEW pointing out that when Jytdog 4RRs he is due a block, same as anyone? Jytdog is free to post his "dogshit" comments at AfD, to persistently bully other users (go on, say he doesn't!), to pull stunts like filing fatuous SPIs, and to be the self-appointed guardian of COI, despite having a huge one of his own (and a topic ban from GMO as a result) but too secret for mere mortals to know about it. A tban which is evidently useful for blanking comments here more than it has been at keeping Jytdog away from biotech.

Jytdog's supporters allow him to run roughshod over our basic policies and other editors. This has to stop. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

This project does not need you to be Jytdog's police officer. That has to stop. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

So are you claiming that I'm banned from editing the Yakult article? Jytdog seems to think so. I didn't see the AfD, but afterwards when I start work on the cleanup, his immediate reaction is a direct reversion and a "Welcome to Wikipedia" template. That is why I posted to ANI, not because of the AfD comments themselves – although they're certainly inexcusable. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Reading through the Arbcom case, if you are using that to imply that a COI is why Jytdog was given a TBAN, you need to read it more carefully. I'm not seeing that stated anywhere in the decision. {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 20:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

You what, Andy Dingley? I pointed out — politely — in my post above that you had linked to an ANEW thread that was nothing to the purpose wrt my block, and I provided a link to the correct diff — the diff I gave in my block notice and in the block log — and I assumed good faith that your error was an accident — and you simply repeat your wrong link (it's not even a diff, btw) and your claim that that was what I blocked you for? You have to be kidding. Bishonen | talk 20:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC).

Block log message: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=749204801

This thread: User:CanadaRed_reported_by_User:Jytdog_(Result:_)

The ANEW thread I linked to above: a comment at ANEW

This same thread: User:CanadaRed_reported_by_User:Jytdog_(Result:_)

"this diff" from your comment above:

This same thread: User:CanadaRed_reported_by_User:Jytdog_(Result:_)

my block notice

My talk page (not a block notice) and Hounding, in relation to this same thread again: User:CanadaRed_reported_by_User:Jytdog_(Result:_)

The actual block notice November 2016 and again,

this same thread: User:CanadaRed_reported_by_User:Jytdog_(Result:_)

"an example" from your post above

and guess what, this same thread again: User:CanadaRed_reported_by_User:Jytdog_(Result:_)

So no, I don't know what your point is. You're giving the same links as I'm giving, to the same comment at ANEW – where I point out that 4RR by Jytdog is blockable EW, and that's the same for any editor, including him. Except that evidently it isn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Support one-way The OP of this thread is a classic "I don't like X, so I'm gonna get X banned!!!" post. There doesn't seem to be any meat to this complaint, and that strikes me as something that needs to be cut off. $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 20:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

No meat to this complaint? Jytdog is again appointing himself the sole guardian of Wikipedia and reflex-reverting anyone else who gets involved in "his" article. That's the core of the complaint here. Now tell me that's not something he does persistently. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Andy, the diffs you claimed were personal attacks are clearly nothing of the sort.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

03:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Seeing as several people have made fairly large changes to Yakult since this discussion started, and I don't think Jytdog has reverted any of them (I haven't checked the log completely), this statement is false on its face. {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 21:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

So why is Jytdog choosing to revert me specifically? Funny that. ~~Are you suggesting~~Might it be that it's for reasons unrelated to the content itself? Hmmm.... Andy Dingley (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say, imply, or suggest anything of the kind and would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 21:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Support one way. Enough already. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Support one way The insults have only been going one way. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

No, that is unacceptably far from true. I've had to tolerate no end of abuse from Jytdog for years, from fake SPIs, to veiled accusations of being a paid editor, to this week the fairly petty end of being templated as a newbie. So don't say that Jytdog is blameless in this. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose punishing one while giving the other a free pass is a ridiculous double standard. MPJ-DK 21:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

An interaction ban is not punishment—it is recognition of the fact that sometimes an editor can become fixated on an issue and become disruptive in their attempts to pursue the matter. In essence, no one at ANI cares who is right and who is wrong—what matters is that the pointless policing stop. Anyone else is welcome to check Jytdog's edits and report any problems. Johnuniq (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Really? Not "punishment"? right, a guy reports someone for repeated hostility and he's told not to interact with the hostile editor who is given a free pass so he can be hostile again sure as heck looks like punishment to me. And yes it's obivous most people don't care that Jytdog is repatedly hostile, that double standard is abundantly clear. Don't try to sell this as anything other than a punishment, we see the double standards, we are not idiots. MPJ-DK 01:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
As for the joke comment about "welcome to report problems" - no thanks I don't need a pointless IBAN after being told that there are various excuses for incivility. That lesson has truely been cemented here. (And with that I am out, piece said, don't want to risk a "reminder" IBAN or anything). MPJ-DK 01:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose: One-way IBANs are inherently flawed. Two-way or no-way.
p
21:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

This claim is frequently made in community discussions such as this, but, as far as I am aware, no one has ever offered up any real evidence to support the contention. On the other hand, a perusal of WP:Editing restrictions shows a number of one-way IBans which appeared to have worked, and others which have caused the banned editor to later be indefinitely blocked, which is a success for the IBan in another way. I think perhaps use of this trope should be shelved until someone can show it to be true. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@
WP:RESTRICT were placed by ArbCom (one was voluntary, and the other four community-imposed). Hijiri 88 (聖やや
) 05:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a quite good philosophical defense, given that the next subject of one-way-IBAN is most-likely to be you.∯WBG^converse 06:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Support one way. We've been here enough times, as admins who patrol the drama boards will recall, and it's time to give it a rest. Black Kite (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Support one-way - I sympathize with complaints regarding
pillar of Wikipedia. But the evidence simply doesn't support the allegations. I'm not seeing it. Neither is anyone else. AD's complaint is entirely inactionable, and the continued disbelief that no one else can see the problem is unreasonable. @Purplebackpack89: your view doesn't add up. A two-way IBAN separates users who can't get along with one another. A one-way IBAN prevents one user from harassing another user who isn't at fault. Are you claiming Jytdog is in the wrong here? Swarm ♠
21:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Is Jytdog in the wrong here? Do you think that his AfD comments are acceptable? Do you think that it's acceptable for him to berate other editors like that for ignoring flawed articles, but then when someone does start working on it, to simply revert and template them? No, it is not. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

You've been here long enough to know that we don't police curse words and we don't punish venting. Yes, it's uncivil, as it is to template a regular. Are those actionable offenses? Not remotely. Swarm ♠ 02:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose per
Kingofaces43 removed), he has promised to stop cursing when admonished, but these are empty promises. --David Tornheim (talk
) 22:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Not edits, content. It was an advert. It is vastly better now. [8]. None of those prior edits were by Andy Dingley, who has made only 2 edits in the decade I've checked. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: Do you honestly condone the use of the phrase "dogshit" to describe content when confronting an editor who added it? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

You didn't "add it". Please stop claiming text that was written by others as your own, as you have done far too many times throughout this thread. You showed up to the article immediately after he removed it, and re-added it, with the apparent intention of provoking an incident and opening an ANI thread. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I have checked the diffs. They do not mention any person. They correctly identify this article as the target of long-term promotional editing and blatant woo. Feel free to cite any example where Jytdog specifically attacks Andy Dingley or an individual identified edit or series of edits by Andy. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, they weren't "confronting an editor", they were presenting evidence of that editor's terrible editing at

WP:ANI. Incidentally, they added Red wine to their category "Health drinks" and it's still there (well, for the next 15 seconds or so). Whilst I wouldn't use the word "dogshit" myself, I can think of plenty of other pejoratives that would describe it. Black Kite (talk)

23:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Here they did angrily confront an editor with profanity [9], it was a problematic editor, but I still think "You are the guy who leaves dog shit on the sidewalk. You are that guy". is a bit personal, and there is no reason a final warning template needs to start with "Knock it the hell off." Tornado chaser (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: Bringing up unrelated discussions involving Jytdog comes across as just trying to smear him for the hell of it. If you took even the ten minutes to look at the context like I did, you would have noticed that Jytdog was being extremely patient with an editor who had violated an unblock condition dozens of times. BP shouldn't even be editing here at all, so talking about addressing them with "profanity" (and "shit" and "hell" are pretty mild compared with what I've seen some editors get away with) is ... not right. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

cite any example where Jytdog specifically attacks Andy Dingley

Jytdog has been doing this for years. Look at the ANI thread on Berylliosis. He even filed an SPI on me, describing it as "It feels weird to file this", shortly after he'd stated at ANI that he wouldn't file an SPI on me as it would be ridiculuous. He even awarded me a "Moron Diploma". This weeks he's flinging generalised dogshit around, because he gets to be just as angry with it, but it's clearly not actionable at ANI if he does it more generally. So please don't say, "Jytdog doesn't attack other editors".

Also, the whole reason that this thread was posted was because he claimed of other editors not getting involved with editing an article, then when they do (or just when I do so) he summarily reverts the lot and issues a "Welcome to Wikipedia" template. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Andy, that thread, yet another example of your hounding and policing Jytdog, reflects far worse on you than on Jytdog, as the consensus reveals. Also, there is no stricture on filing an SPI. You just said "This weeks he's flinging generalised dogshit around", so apparently Jytdog is not allowed to use that term but you are? Softlavender (talk) 09:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

there is no stricture on filing an SPI. Yes, there is. A bogus SPI is an obvious form of harassment, which is why we require so much evidence to support them. In this particular case, there was a reasonable case (although failing at SPI) for investigating a couple of new accounts, no reason at all to hang them on my name.

I apologise if my quoting of Jytdog's phrasing has offended your sensibilities, but I don't have your talent for polite euphemism and I see no way to discuss his phrasing (and why it's a problem) other than (unfortunately) by quoting it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Please (1) indicate the policy which states a stricture on filing an SPI; (2) provide proof that the SPI was "bogus". It was supported by Cirt, resulted in a block of Milligansuncle by JzG, and was CUed by Mike V, who closed as "Unlikely". The sentence of yours I quoted (This weeks he's flinging generalised dogshit around) was not you quoting Jytdog, it was you calling his comments "generalised dogshit". Softlavender (talk) 11:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I invite those interested to read the SPI itself. It was closed by MikeV, with no provable action as it was Unrelated and Unlikely. But JzG blocked anyway, with the comment A sock of someone, it doesn't matter much who. - an interesting response to the SPI. As stated already, I don't have a problem with Jytdog opening an SPI on a number of new accounts, I do object to him filing it in my name. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I have read it. The fact that CU was performed at all (a rather high bar for SPI to pass) is evidence that Jytdog was acting in good faith, that there was significant behavioural evidence of sockpuppetry, and that someone else agreed as much. Also, the SPI dates to April 2016! Your still holding a grudge (or pretending to still hold a grudge) against someone for a good-faith procedural action they took the better part of three years ago is a pretty clear indication that you are not acting in good faith now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, the comment of David Tornheim’s that I removed was a violation of their GMO topic ban where a lot of that ban was due to battleground behavior directed towards Jytdog and other editors. It looks like that same following around is being continued at this ANI.

talk

) 03:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Support one-way Obviously Jytdog didn't do anything sanctionable here; neutral on whether a one-way IBAN or some other sanction against Andy would be better. However, I'm wondering if we're missing the forest for the trees here: Andrew Davidson and other "keepist" editors shooting down a theoretically valid AFD with off-topic notability arguments, sometimes even specifically mentioning
WP:ATD, then attempting to prevent to prevent non-deletion solutions being implemented by the AFD nom, apparently as "revenge", is a much bigger problem, IMO. This is a recurring, massive problem: see the mess Andrew Davidson caused at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean influence on Japanese culture for perhaps the worst historical example, where he shot down the AFD with an off-topic "notability" rationale, based on sources he clearly hadn't read, and then didn't lift a finger to hem the disruption his AFD behaviour caused once the discussion was closed. I was seriously hoping the "keepists" would prove Jytdog's statement at AFD that not a single one of the !voters here w[ould] clean up this dogshit, but this ANI thread and the statements of all the disruptive "keepists" and hounds have sadly proven him right. Also, I'm annoyed that no one notified me of this discussion, given that the notification to Jytdog was explicitly
posted in a talk page section I opened specifically about the potential danger of editors coming along and mass-reverting Jytdog while citing the AFD "consensus" as an excuse.

Also support TBAN on XFD for Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs) per the above. I don't think it will happen at this point, but it definitely should soon. See also other recent disruption, such as deliberately disguising a cat-link to look like an article on a similar topic (in an Indian topic, an area Bishonen (talk · contribs) not long ago told him he would be TBANned from if he didn't stop his disruptive behaviour).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Support one-way Those of us doomed to be long-term ANI watchers know that enough is enough and the policing has to stop. Someone else will notice if Jytdog is a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose one-way ban. Wikipedia must be even handed. I could support a two-way ban. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC).
Oppose 1 way I Ban on principle. "I can talk to or about you, but you cannot mention my name" has never worked for me. A two way I Ban would be acceptable with the caveat that when being logged a statement is included to the effect that in the case of Jytdog, it is not a sanction but purely an administrative part of the sanction imposed on AD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@

we don't assume that will be a significant issue off the bat; if editors inclined to hound Jytdog, like, for example, Andrew Davidson or David Tornheim, neither of whom are regular contributors to ANI, tried to game it, we should just block or otherwise sanction them). And @Jytdog: That would not be a slight against you as long as the filing admin was legit uninvolved and didn't use wording that implied you had done or would do such things. Hijiri 88 (聖やや

) 01:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

That said, an alternative sanction on Andy (an XFD TBAN?) would also be acceptable, per my own !vote further up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

an XFD TBAN? What possible justification do you have for that? Are you aware that I hadn't even see the Yakult AfD, let alone commented on it? So why even bring up an XfD TBAN?? Either justify that, or it just looks like flinging mud for the sake of it! Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

No idea; but your recent disruptive hounding/autorevert action was a clear response to the AFD. If you can think of another one-way sanction against yourself that would be more appropriate, I'd be glad to consider it. (Note that I didn't actually propose an XFD TBAN above; you appear to just be seeing what you want to see.)

Also (I just noticed this): Jytdog is already the beneficiary of a one-way IBAN against another editor who apparently hounded them.[10] Yeah, it would be nice if the community was consistent one way (no pun intended) or the other on whether one-way IBANs were a thing, but I don't think !voting based on the assumption that they shouldn't be, when they clearly are, is a good idea. (Yes, I have done this myself in the past, but subsequent events, some involving me directly but most just the result of me spontaneously noticing the existence of one-way IBANs unrelated to myself, have change my mind on this.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

You're unwilling to support a one-way IBAN, unless it's specifically framed as a two way IBAN in which one party is only included as a formality? In other words, you agree that AD is worthy of the sanction, but you also want to procedurally sanction Jyt, in spite the fact that he had done nothing to warrant a sanction, for no other reason than to satisfy your own personal principles? Really? If that's really the case, than you should probably reconsider your principles... Swarm ♠ 02:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Support one-way IBan against Andy Dingley towards Jytdog. The community has wasted too much time and energy on this feud. Andy Dingley was duly warned that this would probably be the next step at the time of his last block. It's time to enact the IBan as described, so we don't end up back here yet again, wasting more time and energy. Softlavender (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Support one way IBan Having read through this whole sorry saga and followed the links, there is as clear a justification for a one way IBan as I have seen. Jytdog is doing valuable work and the complained about comments were not personal attacks by any means. Andy dingley needs to stop this. - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

"does valuable work" - agreed. But does that valuable work extend to:

Complain that no-one else will work on an article, and throwing terms like dogshit at the general editor community to do so.
When someone does start, summarily revert them.
Template them with a "Welcome to Wikipedia" warning?

Yes, he does valuable work. But he's also abusive to editors he doesn't like. That's what he did here, that's what this thread is about. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

But none of the diffs you have provided show any personal attack by Jytdog. Their comments have quite rightly been about content, not other editors. Sure they may have used robust language, but far worse is used every day on Wikipedia without comment. You may not like a particular piece of content being described is "dogshit" but are you seriously going to try and defend the use of our articles as blatant advertising puff pieces for commercial interests? I can think of far worse ways of describing such material. The simple fact is that the diffs you have provided and even your comments on this very thread show that you are not prepared to abide by the no personal attacks policy on Wikipedia when it comes to Jytdog. It is more than obvious that you have been hounding them and nothing they have done justifies your repeated attacks on them. Keep this up after the inevitable IBan and you may find your self being indeffed. A word to the wise. - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Jytdog was right to complain that none of the "keepist" editors who shut down his Yakult AFD would lift a finger to fix the article, as none of them did (hardly any of them ever do). Personally I think the worst thing Jytdog did, something for which I forgave him immediately when he apologized, was lump me in with those editors. Honestly, given the timing of your jumping in and reverting him (having not contributed to the AFD discussion) and your specifically posting the notification of this ANI discussion in my thread on his talk page, it looks like you saw my (not angry or "you should be sanctioned for this") criticism of what Jytdog said, and decided to jump on it.

And your complaining (below) that "But no-one does [police Jytdog]" is awfully hypocritical in light of your saying he's not allowed complain that no one does the heavy lifting to fix these articles. Neither did you "start to work on the article" nor did he "summarily revert you"; you summarily reverted him, without doing any work. (And your referring to yourself in the third person here does not help the situation.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog's complaint that "no-one helps with these articles" carries no weight, when the first thing he does afterwards is to revert someone who does just that. Comments like Oh User:Chiswick Chap removed a couple of specks of shit. Goody for them. are really not acceptable too (I see that as a clear and personally targeted CIVIL breach, but few others seem to).

I note that I'm only one of at least four complaining of his phrasing here: User talk:Jytdog#Yakult / User talk:Jytdog#Incivility. Strangely, one of them was you. So whay are you now calling for me to be banned from XfD? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

But you didn't "do just that": you auto-reverted him because you don't like him.

You are misquoting and misrepresenting the views of other editors to suit your anti-Jytdog harassment agenda. Nothing I said was meant to imply I wanted sanctions brought against him, and I rightly accepted his immediate and clearly sincere apology. As you should have.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose 1 way, support 2 way this stems less from my support toward on or the other of the people involved in the ban and more from the fact that I do not think a 1-way ban should be employed against two autoconfirmed/extended rights users. I can see where 1 way Ibans would work in cases where an enexperienced user is trolling the talk page of another user, for example - but in this case where experienced users are comcefened a 2 way ban is fairer and probably more effective at solving the issue. Suggest expiration after a reasonable period. Edaham (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Edaham: Per my reply to AO above, it's probably not a good idea to support or oppose sanctions based on a principle that is not uniformly observed across the project. Even though it's clearly not your intent, opposing a one-way IBAN because you don't think one-way IBANs should be a thing while they clearly are, has the (I must stress, unintended) effect of supporting the harasser over the harassee. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Noted. I’ll consider that in future Edaham (talk) 05:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Support 2 way Given the blatant PAs and misinterpretations from Andy Dingly despite being warned in the past and given a opportunity to strike them, and the fact that Jytdog's cursing isn't really actionable or causing major disruption, I think some action needs to be taken against Andy Dingly but I don't really like the idea of a one way IBAN, and agree with the above comment that the best way to cool this whole thing off is to just keep the 2 editors apart. I just don't like the idea of telling someone "you can't revert or mention him but he can revert you", this is not to punish Jytdog, just my general dislike of one-way IBANS. Tornado chaser (talk) 04:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Not going to !vote on this one way or the other, whole thing is just a big mess and I don't really know the history of the issue. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: Per my reply to AO above, it's probably not a good idea to support or oppose sanctions based on a principle that is not uniformly observed across the project. Even though it's clearly not your intent, opposing a one-way IBAN because you don't think one-way IBANs should be a thing while they clearly are, has the (I must stress, unintended) effect of supporting the harasser over the harassee. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Support one-way IBan - I am disappointed in Jytdog's intemperance in the incident that provoked this thread, just as I am disappointed by my own intemperance when it occurs, but it does appear to me from the available evidence, and from the behavior apparent in this very thread, that Andy Dingley needs to detach himself from his fixation with Jytdog, which a one-way Iban will help hom to accomplish. There is no evidence that, in general, Jytdog's behavior toward Dingley is such that a two-way ban is justified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Support one way IBan-Enough is enough.As any long time drama-board-patroller can attest to, Andy does seem to be too affectionate for Jytdog.And, this needs to stop.And, Jytdog's behaviour, whilst not optimal, rises nowhere to the level of being sanctionable.∯WBG^converse 06:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Support one-way IBAN. I was hesitant to opine on IBAN suggestions yesterday, and in general I'm really not a big fan of one-way IBANs. But having had more time to examine this and think about it, I can only conclude that it would be beneficial in this case. Jytdog does go over the top at times (disappointingly so in some cases, like this one), but I think Cullen says it best: "This project does not need [Andy Dingley] to be Jytdog's police officer". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose There seems to be a consensus that Jytdog went too far and they themselves have retracted. Andy Dingley's complaint was therefore valid and worth making. To punish them for this would be unfair. Andrew D. (talk) 07:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Umm, no one cares about this ANI report. The problem is that similar policing has been going on for over two years. An interaction ban is not punishment; it is an acknowledgment that certain behavior is persistent and not helpful for the encyclopedia. Others are welcome to police Jytdog. Johnuniq (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Andrew, your own behaviour throughout this whole incident (including at the AFD, as well as other AFDs which you should down by citing ATD, then proceeded to prevent the ATD-solutions because they were proposed/implemented by editors you see as "deletionists") has been significantly worse than Jytdog's (and I would argue even Andy's), and your contribution to the discussion will no doubt be judged accordingly. Your claim, if it was made in good faith rather than a wikilawyering trick which you don't yourself believe, that there is a "consensus that Jytdog went too far", which is apparently established by cherry-picking the "Jytdog may have gone a bit too colourful for my tastes" while ignoring the following "but obviously Andy is the much worse offender here, and has been in the long term", shows such a separation from reality on your part that I would wonder how no one has blocked you yet for it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Others are welcome to police Jytdog.

But no-one does.

Andy Dingley (talk) 09:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

If none other than you is any concerned with or affected by Jytdog's behaviour (despite the fact that you are not his sole collaborator), it speaks volumes as to why you shall be one-way-IBanned.Thanks for supporting the cause:-) ∯WBG^converse 10:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

At least three others posted immediately to User talk:Jytdog#Yakult / User talk:Jytdog#Incivility complaining of his language. It didn't go as far as ANI until he also started reverting and templating me. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I guess it was you who sed But no-one does..Best, ∯WBG^converse 12:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Andy, if you misquote or misrepresent me one more time, I will start supporting your being indefinitely blocked as opposed to being subject to a one-way IBAN. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Where have I misquoted you? Or even quoted you? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikilawyering over the supposed distinction between quoting someone's section title and misrepresenting them as supporting some kind of conclusion and "misquoting them" is not a good look. If you cite my message to Jytdog as supporting a sanction against him one more time, I will request that you be blocked. I accepted his apology, as has almost everyone else. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Weak oppose. I will play the devil's advocate here to voice concern, as there is emerging consensus for one way interaction ban, and it should probably be implemented after 24 hours or so. I have a feeling that we are punishing Andy Dingley for their behaviour in this thread, particularly in regards to refusing to drop the stick and move on. Is there another example other than the one in 2016 in which Andy targeted Jytdog's contributions? Anyway, Jytdog has apologised and reflected on their edit, and it should have ended there. Andy should be doing the same thing. In a situation like this where it involves two editors I have worked and enjoy working with, I am always trying to look for a way that would give face-saving option for both parties, but I think that ship has sailed unfortunately. While
cool-down blocks ideally should never be an option, in Andy's case I think it may be an alternative if they won't simply just walk away. Alex Shih (talk
) 08:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
- We aren't "punishing" Andy Dingley, we are preventing (stopping) his continuing disruption of the past 2.5 years in the form of endless unwarranted "reports" against Jytdog. He has been repeatedly warned, including by administrators, that a one-way IBan would be the next step if he persisted, but as Jytdog and others have noted, Andy Dingley simply can't help himself and routinely erupts in a rampage against Jytdog. You have been away for many long years, but everyone who has been a long-term ANI watcher has seen this unfold over the years and is understandably sick of it and the time-sink and energy-sink it entails. Softlavender (talk) 09:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Why is Jytdog allowed to file fake SPIs on me and nothing is done about it?

routinely erupts in a rampage against Jytdog. - for which you have to dredge up a thread from two years ago, the one where Jytdog got his damage to an article into two separate off-wiki media sites! And yet you still portray Jytdog as blameless in everything. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no stricture against filing an SPI. If it had been deemed unwarranted or "fake" it would have been thrown out. Softlavender (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I am presenting an perspective from someone unfamiliar with the history. I tried to search through the archives, and these are some of the relevant discussions I have found from the first three pages ([11][12][13][14][15]). The point I am trying to make is that sometimes impressions of a situation are not necessary consistent with empirical evidence; from my rather limited reading through some of the past interaction history (which I will admit that is going to lack a lot of the context), it appears that Jytdog and Andy Dingley had ongoing disputes back in March – April 2016 (noted by both parties), for the most part largely avoided each other before running into disputes again in March 2017 (in which both parties were not blameless). In the meanwhile, Andy occasionally takes a shot at Jytdog as recent as November 2017. On the other hand, Jytdog has promised on many occasions to adjust their aggressive editing approach, but continues to have occasional outbursts that are not always focused on content alone. Obviously, I will reiterate that there is nothing sanctionable here for Jytdog, but still I think it is worthwhile to express this thought on the inevitable outcome of this thread. While one-way interaction against Andy Dingley and even a short block is fully justified here, I think by doing so there is too much weight being put on Andy Dingley (their own fault, of course), and perhaps this was also the sentiment I got from Ad Orientem's oppose. Alex Shih (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thankyou for listing my various crimes and misdemeanours:

Berylliosis – a long thread (you point to just one section) where I first encounter Jytdog and complain about him causing serious inaccuracies to two articles and dismisses other editors for writing ""Garbage content based on garbage sources".
[16] – a complaint about Jytdog, by another party. I make one comment, then described as "Andy gets at basic point here."
Incivility and use of profanity by user Jytdog – another complaint about Jytdog, by another party.
Andy_Dingley – a simple edit-warring content diispute, in which Jytdog isn't involved and I didn't even get notified until after it was closed.
User Jytdog jumps the gun – yet again, another unrelated editor complains of bullying by Jytdog.

And on this basis, you want to block me. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Strongest possible oppoose: This proposal is basically saying that Jytdog (and presumably any other vested editor who has a sufficiently big fanbase at ANI) can do whatever they want, and anyone who complains about it will get punished, and the original attacks applauded.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
- Nigel Ish, please demonstrate how anyone supporting this IBan is in any way part of a "fanbase" of Jytdog (please name names and provide supporting evidence). Please also demonstrate or explain how it means that Jytdog "can do whatever they want". Softlavender (talk) 10:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  - What we have here is a demonstration of someone who has at least a reasonably valid complaint against a long term editor being punished for the complaint, with the issues raised being swept under the carpet. If someone had raised similar complaints against an editor who had just scraped past autoconfirmed had made the comments that Jytdog had made then they would be blocked and banned so quickly that if you blinked you would miss it. If I made those comments, I'm pretty certain that it would not be tolerated. Why should some editors be treated differently - Unless stuff like civility is enforced levelly across the community and is seen to be, then it is clear that ANI is failing.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
    - In other words, you have no proof whatsoever for your claims. Bringing a longterm editor to ANI for merely calling a grossly promotional article about a product making wild scientific claims (this is how the article looked when he nominated it) "a pile dogshit on the sidewalk" and lamenting that none of the Keep !voters would clean the article up is an utter waste of community time and energy. Jytdog's mini-rant was not a personal attack and was no different than saying something is crap or a crappy article, although it's more colorful. This ANI thread is once again shaping up to be another endless timesink of the sort Andy Dingley is getting the proposal of the IBan for. Softlavender (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish:: On the contrary, it looks like this is a case of "un-fans" of Jytdog, like Andrew Davidson and David Tornheim, and possibly fans of Andy Dingley, against almost everyone else on ANI. (This assumes that those like AO saying "what Andy did is bad, but so are one-way IBANs" and those like Alex who are believe this hasn't, or shouldn't have, gotten to the point of sanctions, either do not count as being on one "side" or the other, or are part of Jytdog's "fanbase" as you call it because they agree that Andy is the one at fault here.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Well as I (and anyone else who disagrees with the interaction ban and any other form of punishment that gets dreamt up here) appear to be labelled as an "un-fan" of Jytog and a fan of Andy Dingley without any sort of proof or justification, it is clear that disagreement with the ban will not be tolerated and that contrary opinion is unwelcome. As I do not wish to be subject to attack or sanction, I will withdraw from this discussion as my presence clearly isn't welcome by editors like user:Softlavender and user:Hijiri88.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I did not "label" you anything, and even if I had it would have been as either a fan of AD or an un-fan of Jytdog. You, rather, labelled me (and almost all the other uninvolved editors here) as "fans of Jytdog", and have refused to withdraw said baseless accusation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

oppose: Andy's original complaint here was reasonable albeit misjudged for him to bother making it. Govindaharihari (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
oppose per the excellent points Alex brought up. At some point, Jytdog needs to actually start following through on their pledges to be less aggressive in their editing approach. I have no doubts about the good faith of Jytdog - he means well, and he wants the best interests of wikipedia, but his approach is not always good or helpful and at some point, we need to get through to him that he actually needs to improve rather than overstepping and then retracting things. Yes, he retracted his comments in the AfD, but... shouldn't the previous warnings he's supposedly taken on board mean something? Please, Jytdog, take this advice in the spirit it is meant - think more before you post. Read and reread anything that is at all inflamatory and think three times before you post. That would hopefully help you avoid these situations. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Reluctant support- I'm really not a fan of one-way IBANS. But there's been a long term pattern of behaviour where Andy Dingley decides he doesn't like someone, and then follows them around to dob them in at ANI over trivialities, again and again and again and again and again. This proposal will put an end to the disruption, at least until Dingley picks someone else to campaign against. Reyk _YO! 11:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose a one-way iBan seems excessive. Looking at the timeline, it appears that Andy was provoked to open this thread after being templated by Jytdog.
Lepricavark (talk
) 12:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

) 13:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Lepricavark: That template was placed by Jytdog after Andy pointedly followed them to an article and reverted their edit without proper justification, apparently after having read my message to Jytdog that if anyone tried that he would have a case for complaint. AD manufactured his whole incident, with the intention of getting back at Jytdog for the "fake SPI" he's mentioned about a half dozen times in this thread, back in 2016. Andy provoked Jytdog, because he's still holding a grudge over something that happened years ago; Jytdog did nothing to provoke Andy; and the editors who were actually inappropriately targeted by Jytdog's "colourful" language, myself included, all agree on this point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや

colourful shit from dog. Dog shit.Govindaharihari (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Govindaharihari: I haven't seen anything Jytdog has said that even approached "colourful shit from dog". His having "dog" as part of his username does not remotedly justify you calling him a dog! You should retract and apologize for the above immediately, and request an admin remove the edit summary from popublic view. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

dog and shit is repeated by the user multiple times. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? I don't support Govindaharihari's phrasing here but His having "dog" as part of his username does not remotedly justify you calling him a dog! is a remarkably obtuse loss of memory over Jytdog's own comments (they're quoted at the start of this thread to refresh your memory). Do you really expect anyone to believe your claim here? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I did not simpy "revert their edit". Please strike your whole section here, where you claim to read my mind and establish (incorrect) motives for all of it.

My only edit is here. If this was in reaction to Jytdog, it was purely to refute his claim (and specific request) that other editors would be nothing to work on this article. I still stand by that edit: this is an article on a milk product and its nutritional claims (true or false) are where we have to start: so the article needs that (and as you might alo see, I recognise that the section needs to be worked on). Jytdog won't permit this though, and he simply reverted the lot. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog removed the "Nutritional information" section here, and you re-added it, word for word, here. Your edit summary was explicit that "restoring" it to before Jytdog's edit was your intention, and your version being identical to the one Jytdog had blanked is made obvious by this diff. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose a one-way interaction ban. It takes two to tango, and the one-way ban does not seem to be entirely equitable at this time. That said, I would recommend that Andy Dingley simply avoid Jytdog for some time, and vice versa. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: Do you have evidence that Jytdog hasn't been avoiding Andy? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I've logged my overall opinion at this time after considering this matter. Hijiri, after going through this thread again, you seem to be awfully enthusiastic about only having Dingley banned from speaking, to the point that I am a bit concerned about just how eager you are regarding the matter. You've also added a comment proposing an XfD topic ban for another user above, which is out of process relative to the general thesis of the discussion. Perhaps consider taking a break for a short time, allowing other users to opine without immediate interjections, interrogations and side nominations to immediately also ban other users you do not appear to get along with. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Northamerica1000, I would appreciate a reply as to Hijiri's query.Thanks, ∯WBG^converse 15:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll answer this one, which is in this very thread but has been buried by the way this discussion went. Jytdog is fully aware and conscious of their history (as expressed above) with Andy Dingley; Andy did not make an edit, bur rather restored part of the information in Yakult removed by Jytdog with this edit; a good edit? Probably not, but it was neither a revert nor was it done without thinking. Jytdog proceeded to remove the entire section restored in the next three edits (practically a revert, but it was done with reasonable editorial oversight, so there is no problem here) while making this template warning during the process. When you examine separate actions, they are not particularly problematic on their own. But when you take the context into consideration, the "Welcome to Wikipedia" template (being complained by Andy) warning can feel awfully like an baiting attempt (which I am certain is not Jytdog's intention, rather it was an expression of frustration). I am not defending anything here, but to say that Jytdog has been avoiding Andy is contradictory to this inflammatory interaction alone. Alex Shih (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih, unless I'm missing something, Andy has blown the welcome-template-issue way out of proportion and your comments do not align with my assesment of the situation.

I personally abide by

WP:DTTR, (as a matter of etiquette and especially, to not seem patronizing) but it's not any policy or guideline or even a supplement.The first level of user-warnings about Original-research

includes a short welcome-message and Jytdog didn't include the phrase out of his own wish.Whilst a better way would have been to leave a customized message, I do not fault him.

Other than Andy's general affection for Jytdog, I do not see a single reason for Andy to land at Yakult. And unless and until, anybody has

competency problems or an intention of harassment of particular editors, I do not see how this

can be included in the first place.

And, I am frankly appalled that you think Jytdog has not been avoiding Andy.(Unless you mean to state that Jytdog has been wrong about those reverts or he ought to have left them alone.)

This whole piece of mess started because of Andy (and only Andy) and he ought be the sole one who shall be at the receiving end of any sanction. ∯WBG^converse 16:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad you follow DTTR, it's a good idea. But it's not the main problem here (as I've said repeatedly, it's the reversion and OWNership implied by it).

Why was I at this article but not the AfD? Because I drink Yakult. Yet this seems to be a surprising idea: when I pointed out that I was a vegetarian, thus interested in vat-grown meat stories he accused me of being part of a paid editing group (which he later had to strike). Yes, I admit it, I eat food and I drink milk. I even watchlist articles about those products. Unfortunately I missed the AfD listing for Yakult and didn't see it until the close message on the article.

As to whether my edit at Yakult was a good edit or not, then no it wasn't - but it was a good faith edit, and that's all that matters. We have to start somewhere, then we work to improve on that. We do so as a group, and I still believe that Jytdog is antithetical to such an approach, favouring instead heroic efforts by a single editor. Does the UK Food Standards Agency ref [17] belong there? Yes, of course it does. As Jytdog points out, it doesn't even mention Yakult. But what it does do is to define the UK government's benchmark for when something becomes a "high sugar" food, which is highly relevant to this section. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: You appear to be missing something about Andy's edit to the Yakult article, as it clearly was a revert, per my breakdown here. Andy's claim above that he just happened across the article and decided to edit it because he drinks Yakult, mere hours after Jytdog had edited it, is clearly untenable, and the fact that he has been going on and on and on about very old disputes he has had with Jytdog in the past (Ctrl+F this thread for "fake SPI") appears to be a better indicator of the actual reason. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. Misread your comment. I take a "revert" as being an edit that undoes all or part of another editor's edit, or restores all or part of a previous version of an article. This is, I believe, a fairly common interpretation, and the one that lies behind 3RR, 1RR and 0RR, and even if we are to have a good-faith disagreement over whether it is appropriate in this case to describe Andy's edit as a "revert", it is definitely bad form for Andy to have been arguing constantly that it was not a revert but a new edit intended to improve the article, of the kind Jytdog had said would not be forthcoming from the "keep" !votes in the AFD. He has repeatedly claimed that it was inappropriate for Jytdog to say at the AFD that no one would lift a finger to improve the article and then revert Andy's own attempts to improve the article, a claim which assumes that Andy's own edit was not itself a revert of Jytdog's improvement. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: I will take the advice you give in your last sentence, although I must admit that I was a little surprised when I asked you a civil, reasonable question in response to something you had said that didn't make a whole lot of sense, you replied not by answering my question but by jumping down my throat about something completely unrelated. My involvement in this discussion has been in good faith, and it is extremely poor form to respond to a valid question the way you did. (And while it has absolutely zero relationship to my concern about your comment, I should clarify that I do not consider my suggestion that another editor face sanctions for their disruptive commentary in this thread and in the preceding AFD to be "out of process relative to the general thesis of the discussion", whatever that means.) I do not wish to have a drawn out discussion, so I'll leave you to dwell on this while I go back to building the encyclopedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I was going to mention the Yakult article, but enough has been said above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose – We should only be using one-way IBANs when one of the belligerents has done nothing wrong. This is not the case here. Nihlus 13:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per the excellent analyses of Alex Shih and North America.--I am One of Many (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

How can the explicitly partisant claim by NA1000 that Jytdog shares equal blame here be equated with Alex's explicit statement that he is playing devil's advocate? Did you even read either of the comments you are citing, or are you just !voting the way you already wanted to and citing the names of the two most esteemed editors who technically !voted the same but for mutually conflicting reasons? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

My commentary is not partisan. It's my opinion regarding the overall matter. Enough already. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Support one-way interaction ban. As usual, Bishonen gets it right. Jytdog overreacted, especially in bring the AFD -- for God's sake, AFD is NOT clean-up nor a reason to vent your loathing of a subject -- but this is just the latest in Andy Dingley's long-term harassment campaign against Jytdog. Whatever Jytdog has done has fuck-all to do the reason for an interaction ban, whatever wahtaboutisms people bring up. And the less said about the religious dogma of "one-way I-bans don't work", the better. --Calton | Talk 14:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. The OP's complaint was reasonable and warranted. Civility is for everyone. There are no exemptions for editors with pals among admins and ANI regulars. Coretheapple (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:Coretheapple please note this proposal is not just for the breach of Civility. your comment is oversimplifying the whole issue. regards. --DBig Xrayᗙ 15:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Pretty simple. User was warned to clean up his language. He hasn't. The remedy is an appropriate block for incivility. Boomerang is designed for situations in which the OP has brought a meritless accusation, but this has merit. Coretheapple (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

support. obviously.
WP:TPNO. Also, if anyone here thinks the OP is actionable, that is still open, and you are free to seek action with respect to that. But Andy opened himself to this by opening this thread, per BOOMERANG and this is a legitimate discussion. I had warned Andy against filing this here, fwiw.Jytdog (talk
) 15:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

why

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

1) He exacerbates the content and interpersonal issues at the page where he does this stuff; doing active harm there. 2) he makes misrepresentations as he goes which is harmful (and thus defined as "unacceptable" at

WP:TPNO

).

on 1)

as I said in my first diff, when Andy followed me to the dispute at
WP:POINTY in the pure sense of that term. It is obvious that he followed me there, as he had done before as diffed below, and as pointed out by Softlavender here. Andy himself has cited the threads on my talk page that he saw in this diff as well as this diff
.

as i laid out here (third time this diff has been brought; my apologies, but I will now recapitulate it here), he:

originally got angry with me over the

RepRap project kerfluffle that was blogged about off-wiki in March 2016 (see that wonderfully titled ANI thread Rude vulgarian editor where Andy latched on) That case involved an SPI into the filer CaptainYuge (here

) who was found to have an alt account, used legitimately, but was not running the disruptive account that was mentioned there.

Around that same time, two (!) people unrelated to RepRap or Andy started a sock-driven harassment campaign against me and some other folks, which were (after a big mess of sorting) were filed under Renameduser024 and Biscuittin. Biscuittin played games with some of their many socks, and in one of them, did some things that made them look just like Andy, which led to the SPI here that Andy still complains about.

Andy later interfered with the SPIs into Biscuittin, disrupting efforts to deal with that socking harassment (their contribs, removal of some by an SPI admin)

in March 2016 Andy took to harassing me at the

RepRap project? Maybe you'll get three adverse media mentions for Wikipedia this time round? and went on from there with similar remarks, which I warned him about per this and this

, and you can see other links there.

their edit at Berylliosis was this edit, restoring a source that violates

WP:USERGENERATED

. This is exactly parallel to what he did at Yakult, making a bad edit to make a POINT.

In April I launched an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack the Magic Negro - Andy was the first to !vote (against the nomination, of course) and was out of sync with the community again. He had never edited the article before - This is really obvious and active stalking)

In April he did this pure trolling of me, on the Talk page of a paid editor.

In Oct 2016 after this notice was left on my talk page, Andy, who had never edited the article, interjected himself into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alcosynth with this Keep Another behavioural car crash, and Jytdog is in the middle of it. and this comment. (article was gotten rid of via the AfD)

In November, after an advocate who was edit warring promotional, COPYVIO content into an article about a law school left retaliatory note on my page, Andy jumped into the EWN discussion with personal attacks that had nothing to do with the matter at hand here I warned them about that here and he was blocked for 31 hours over that, (block notice).

In March 2017 i was in midst of working to remove advocacy from another article related to effective altruism (these pages had been heavily worked on by the Vipul paid editing entreprise, which is completely unrelated to Andy but which i was starting to clean up after), and was working with two editors with a history of EA advocacy editing (as you can see from their contribs (here for Utsill and here for Kbog) were arguing to keep it. One of the two, Utsill, left a notice on my talk page. And Andy, who had never before edited the article or its talk page (user-search at article, user-search at talk page) jumped in and of course included commentary directed at me, like this. Andy's action here was particularly galling, because a) Kbog, who is becoming reasonable, had proposed a decent compromise when Andy stomped in and blew it up; and b) this only inflamed Utsill, who was especially strongly resisting removing promotionalism from this article.

Every one of those (except the SPI I filed, which was provoked by a sneaky sock spoofing Andy), was initiated by Andy following me and doing pointy things.

on 2), just in this discussion he has

misrepresented his own involvement. He characterizes what he did at Yakult as some kind of innocent thing:

afterwards when I start work on the cleanup (diff) or

when someone does start working on it, to simply revert and template them? (diff),

When someone does start, summarily revert them. (diff)

or as personalized against him So why is Jytdog choosing to revert me specifically? Funny that. diff) But he's also abusive to editors he doesn't like. (diff)

but it is very obvious he followed me there, which is his old pattern, as described above. And his edit was bad, as is clear from looking at it. Had nothing to do with him, but with the edit.

Misrepresented my remark quoted at the top of this thread in his 1st comment (diff) and several since (diff, as attacks on other editors, which, as several people have pointed out (diff, diff, diff) is not a personal attack (overly harsh criticism of edits and behavior, for sure, but not personal attacks)
Misrepresented me completely with Jytdog's complaint that "no-one helps with these articles" (diff). I have never said that. He provides no diff.
Misrepresented what I have done since, with Then when other editors do start to show an interest in working on it, they're abused, reverted, berated at their own talk (diff) and reflex-reverting anyone else who gets involved in "his" article. (diff No diffs for that. No one else sees that, because it didn't happen. As was pointed out here.
Misrepresented the OR notice I left on their talk page as a "welcome to Wikipedia" notice. (diff), ([(diff)
Misrepresented what happened at the
Beryliosis page (which was about berylium poisoning, a medical issue, not "metallurgy" as they said here
: hiding behind MEDRS on utterly irelevant topics (metallurgy?)

Misrepresented this ANI thread as the ANI posting where Jytdog conflated me with a claimed paid editor then had to come back and edit his first posting, then strike it altogether? Again, classic Jytdog behaviour - make some sweeping accusation, then if it's challenged, withdraw it and pretend it never happened (diff) I did strike the beginning as it was just badly written, and restated it at the bottom. I did not withdraw it.
Misrepresented the SPI I filed against him as a false SPIs (diff, diff, diff) or fake SPIs (diff) or fatuous SPIs (diff). I had explained what was up with that SPI [here here]. To say it yet again... The "milligansunce" account was a sock; it was claimed by a sock of the sockmaster Biscuittin here. Biscuittin was a particularly sneaky sockmaster who actually made their edits look like Andy's to cause disruption, and generally wasted a ton of people's time before they got bored with playing games. (cases are archived at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Biscuittin/Archive; those overlapped in time with another angry, hounding, socking person who cases are archived at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Renameduser024/Archive. That was a difficult time. Andy saw all that, as he disrupted those SPIs, but he still mischaracterizes what was going on at that time.
Misrepresented my GMO topic ban: the self-appointed guardian of COI, despite having a huge one of his own (and a topic ban from GMO as a result) but too secret for mere mortals to know about it. diff). What is he even talking about with "too secret for mere mortals" business? I have no idea.)

In my view, misrepresentations are corrosive with respect to good faith discussion of issues everywhere in WP. I would normally be seeking a block for this sort of thing, but the IBAN will prevent further disruption, at least with respect to me.

also: The actual personal attacks he's the biggest bully and fraud of the lot. (diff, repeated instead of struck when called on it) and bludgeoning this discussion (28 substantial diffs as of now).

He has been quiet since his block and warning, but his actions at Yakult and his behavior at this thread are the same behavior as before. fwiw, I tried to say something nice to him last summer in the hope of starting to build a relationship. (diff)

So yes, I would like an IBAN and in my view it is well justified. Jytdog (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Jytdog. This is detailed and informative, which provides a clear timeline more so than majority of this thread. I have already expressed that one-way interaction ban would be justified, but I have reservations on different grounds. If the end results would be the same, I see no strong reason on why we cannot have a two-way interaction ban. In this case, Jytdog can move on, while Andy has been admonished extensively that any similar editing conduct in the near future would probably result in sanctions. Those who are interested in the nature that led to the interaction ban can see the link to this discussion, and make their own judgement (which, if it is as clear as indicated, shouldn't present a negative light). Alex Shih (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.Jytdog (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog, when you posted such a large section, why did you pre-hat it as a closed section not to be edited? Do you think I deserve no right of reply to you? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Support two-way, and oppose one-way (partly on principle and partly because I don't see much downside to making it two-way). I feel that I also need to point out: [18] (and [19]), which pushed me over the line into supporting an IBAN here. It's hardly a good indicator of what will happen without an IBAN. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
oppose as there is no reason why Jytdog cannot just clean up his act, leaving AD with nothing to complain about. After all, if someone on the other side of this content dispute were to edit this way, he would be declared "
WP:NOTHERE" and summarily blocked. I don't talk like that anyway, but I think if I did, I would regularly be on the wrong side of AN/I sections. And I say this as someone who tends to come down against this sort of article. Mangoe (talk
) 19:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

You seem to overlooked the years of harassment by AD. I see no indication -- none -- that he will stop his campaign short of being forced to to. Then there's the whole question-begging about the act that Jytdog is supposed to be cleaning up. --Calton | Talk 19:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose per all the oppose !votes preceding my own. If there truly is a long-standing feud between the two editors as someone pointed out above, then it takes two to tango and the iban should be for each of them. There's no love lost between me and Andy Dingley, but this seems wholly unfair, partisan, and punitive in spirit. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

"If". --Calton | Talk 19:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose I don’t think one way I bans are effective. Certainly not in this case. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Support one-way: this ANI has been an exercise in hounding and harassment, and it appears that the issue is on-going and long-standing. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Support one-way. Yes, Jytdog can be crude at times, but the work he does is invaluable. On the other hand, frivolous ANI reports of incivility do nothing but waste the community's time.--WaltCip (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't edit much any more but I spend a lot of time on a university campus helping faculty and students work with Wikipedia through the official education program. This filing caught my eye because Jytdog's demeanor and aggressive attitude is one of the most damaging things I deal with on a weekly basis. The way he interacts with people discourages editing in general and I've had numerous people put off becoming regular editors because of their encounters with Jytdog. The fact that anyone is defending his behavior with a straight face (or suggestion interaction bans as a solution to problems dealing with him) says a lot about what Wikipedia has become. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about that, and we can discuss that issue at your talk page. I'll open a discussion there. That said, this subthread is about Andy's behavior (see tight description in the "why" box above). If you think I should be sanctioned, the place to deal with that is above. Jytdog (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Support one-way on the basis of Jytdog's summary of their history. Simonm223 (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose a one-way ban, but might be willing to support a two-way. Having been a previous target of uncivil commentary by Jytdog, I can't in good conscience support protecting him from dialog with another editor with whom he disagrees. We are supposed to be here to work collaboratively to build an encyclopedia. "Disinviting" others from participating on his talk page, calling another user's post on his talk page "sloppy bullshit", throwing "f" bombs at other users and unnecessarily belitting them, using colorful language such as "dogshit", and routinely using not-so-veiled insults such as those found in this discussion (edit and additional commentary)all seem to be counterproductive toward both goals and are all reasons why I am not willing to one-way protect this user. Frankly, the fact that their repeated issues with
incivility haven't yet resulted in any form of block or sanction astounds me. Strikerforce^Talk 18:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC) Additional comment added Strikerforce^Talk
18:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

And, before someone decides to crucify me for it, yes, I understand that we have the right to not communicate with other users. But, in my opinion, there are more tactful ways to go about it than to make grandiose shows of doing so. A simple "I've said all that I'm going to say about this subject", or, perhaps even better, simply ignoring comments and not responding in any fashion, would accomplish the same objective and not be so bitey. Strikerforce^Talk 18:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Close challenge

Closing. To summarize. Decision not going to change. Jytdog's conduct, if it needs examination, can be done so in a separate report. Many repeated arguments so best to move on everyone. --regentspark (comment) 22:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Ivanvector can you please revisit this close? Including the proposer's comment, there were 23 !votes supporting the 1 way I-Ban, and 23 !votes Opposing. I'm not sure that this equals a "clear consensus." Mr Ernie (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I did not count heads here but considered the context of the arguments, as I've explained in my closing statement. I noted that many of the bolded "oppose" comments recognized the problematic nature of Andy Dingley's behaviour and suggested sanctions of some kind. I can't think of any more to add to further clarify what I've already written. If other admins disagree with my assessment then by all means let's discuss alternatives. If this is just about counting heads, I think we should all go do something else. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm with Mr Ernie here. I don't see the consensus for a one-way ban. Jytdog's issues, in general, in interacting with those with whom they disagree should have been considered more in this discussion than it appears that they were. As I stated in the discussion, I might be willing to support a two-way ban, but to only sanction one party here is, I think, not in the best interests of the community and doesn't set a good precedent. Strikerforce^Talk 14:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I've also addressed this in the second bullet of my closing statement, but this one I will clarify because I can see how this may be a sticky point. I did say there's recognition in the discussion that Jytdog's approach to interactions such as these has been subpar, but also that while the problem with Andy's behaviour is limited to interactions with Jytdog, the problem with Jytdog's interactions is not limited to any particular user, and so there wasn't consensus that enacting the same iban for Jytdog would be a useful solution. If you want to open or continue a discussion about Jytdog's conduct then by all means do so. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a lot to read so apologies if I've missed a bit.

"Andy's behaviour is limited to interactions with Jytdog"
"Jytdog's interactions is not limited to any particular user"
THEREFORE: Block Andy.

So because Jytdog is abusive to everyone, he gets away with it? How does that work?

I don't edit here much but I've encountered both of these editors before. I'm also in Bath so I saw the complete mess Jytdog made of RepRap. How does he get to write stuff like the first post here and get away with that? Isnt that stuff just a straight out block?

So OPPOSE this one-way ban. Viam Ferream^Talk 15:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

You got almost all of that wrong, including the fact that Andy was not blocked, he was given an IBan. If you want to start a new thread about Jytdog's general behavior, by all means do so. Softlavender (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Aye, I think a lot of the Oppose votes either were of the type "I don't like 1-way IBans" (which, without any further context to this case, are not useful), and others talked about Jytdog's behaviour, which was not the issue here. Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

See

WP:CLUE. The close is bold but IMO correct. Guy (Help!

) 19:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x3 @Mr Ernie: the clear consensus was that sanctions were required, and a lot of people supported an IBan. If you include the "no 1-way IBan" people, it's a lot higher than 50%. I'd say Ivan's decision was well within admin discretion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree 100% with SarekOfVulcan. Not only was close was clearly within the limits of admin discretion, I see no other way it could reasonably have been closed. ‑

Iridescent

14:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

(

Tell me all about it.

14:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Most of the opposers either did not know the history, failed to review the 2.5 years of evidence, knee-jerk opposed simply because they
don't like one-way opposes, were biased inveterate critics of Jytdog, or were simply nonsensical !voters like Govindaharihari (who has a history of disruption and nonsense). Softlavender (talk
) 14:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
(+1) as to the case of the latter. ∯WBG^converse 15:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
But why should we discount members of the community who feel that 1 way I-Bans do not work or are not effective? Those are valid opinions to have, and enough people felt that in this case it would not be a useful solution. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Ivan didn't discount them. He took them into account, and decided that the arguments in the other direction were stronger.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok thanks for the responses. I'm clearly not going to change anyone's mind here, ~~so I guess this can be closed.~~ It's amazing to me that 70% RFA's can be closed with no consensus but we can find a "clear consensus" in a 50% here. Yeah NOTAVOTE yadda yadda. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Again. The "clear consensus" was that some sort of sanction was required. That was not anywhere close to only 50%. The closing admin reviewed the discussion, and in the absence of overwhelming support for any single option, used admin discretion to craft one that best fit the discussion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I'd have opposed a 1-way ban because they inevitably cause issues with the non-restricted party needling the restricted party, but Ivan's close was correct here based on the contents of the thread. Mr Ernie, unlike an RFA the bar is lower for something as mild as an interaction ban. Andy Dingley hasn't been blocked, he can still edit 6 million or so articles on Wikipedia, he just has to step back from interacting with Jytdog. That's all it is. If Jytdog's behaviour is as problematic as Andy believes, then it will be addressed by someone else, anyway. Fish+Karate 14:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I made a count at the time and came up with the same number as Mr Ernie -- 23 each way. A 50% split is the exact opposite of consensus; it's a polarization as the community is clearly divided rather than being in agreement. To claim consensus in such circumstances makes a mockery of the proceedings. Andrew D. (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The closure that reads like a clear
supervote. Evidently the opposition to "1 way interaction" ban was frequently rising[20], it had to be closed as no consensus or opposition against 1 way interaction ban. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk
) 15:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
This is a good point, and I raised it at Andy's page. The trend was swinging to Oppose, with the last few votes all going that way. The closing admin has weighed in, and other admins have supported (not really a surprise), so I'm not sure what else there is to do. It would have been interesting to let the discussion run another day or two. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments: Jytdog's behavior in general is not relevant to whether an IBan should be one-way or two-way; only his behavior relevant to Andy Dingley is relevant to that. Knee-jerk opposes from people who
just don't like one-way IBans are also too weak to count strongly, since it is demonstrable that they do work in cases like this where one person is clearly stalking and reporting another. Lastly, the fact that people complaining about the close are largely pre-biased against Jytdog or pre-biased in favor of Andy Dingley represents the third problem with just going by nose-count: Those persons pre-biased against Jytdog or pre-biased in favor of Andy Dingley did not review the 2.5 years of evidence, or did not do so objectively. Softlavender (talk
) 15:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

So by reading your comment you are now added to the ever growing group of people who Make excuses for jytdog's behavior. Now we are pre-biased because we don't appreciate uncivil and hostile behavior and don't think there truly is an excuse for it. MPJ-DK 16:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

No, I've never made excuses for Jytdog's behavior (and he would be the first to agree!). The fact that you think I have or did shows your own bias, not mine, and shows that you were or are incapable of making an objective recommendation in the sanction proposal section. Softlavender (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

If you feel like there should be more discussion about Jytdog's behaviour and what may be an appropriate response, I encourage you to start that discussion. Have I said this already? I feel like this is the third or fourth time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Last time that happened the person starting the discussion was IBAN'ed and those who were concerned about Jytdog's behavior were dismissed with a "but he does good work" - so you will have to excuse me if I think your comments of that nature sound a little hollow, it comes off a lip service with no base in reality. MPJ-DK 16:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I wrote, "... Jytdog's own behaviour continues to be problematic after many warnings to reform and pledges to uphold civility. ... I see this [discussion] as the community's patience wearing thin." If you think that looks like me being dismissive, perhaps you should examine your own preconceptions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Repeated bad behavior gets a "problematic" comment, not even a slap on the wrist, which does nothing to address the problem - yes I would call that "dismissive". And the fact that I have a problem with that is chalkled up to "my own preconception" is telling in and of itself. MPJ-DK 17:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

This ANI filing was not about "repeated bad behavior", it was about one incident (using the word "dogshit" in an AfD). If you want to start a thread about Jytdog making a case for "repeated bad behavior", then go ahead and do so (with plenty of recent diffs), because this ANI filing was certainly not that and did not do that. (Which is why the community viewed it as a bad-faith stalking/hounding incident.) Softlavender (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

"repeated bad behavior"(with plenty of recent diffs)

So why are you also the one closing this ANI? You're as INVOLVED as anything and your loyalties to one side are obvious. Viam Ferream^Talk 18:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Again if you personally (who hadn't edited Wikipedia for 2.5 years prior to a couple of hours ago [21]), or anybody else here, wants to compile a list of recent

WP:DIFFs substantiating "repeated bad behavior" by Jytdog, and open a new ANI thread on that, nothing whatsoever is preventing you. And I did not close the sanction thread, administrator Ivanvector did. Softlavender (talk

) 18:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

That's because the person had a 2.5 year history of stalking and reporting Jytdog, and the only thing reported was the use of the word "dogshit" in an AFD, which the community viewed as not a sanctionable infraction. You are free to provide your own set of diffs of problematic behavior, in a new thread, and if they are compelling, unless you too have a history of stalking Jytdog and reporting minor unsanctionable offenses, the community will decide what to do on the strength of your arguments and diffs. As it is, Ivanvector gave a cautionary warning to Jytdog in the close, which Jytdog has acknowledged. Softlavender (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I think this was a reasonable close. The headcount is not the whole story; consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. is still
policy and "but the other guy did also misbehave so there shouldn't be an interaction ban" which is the bulk of the oppose argument is not logic. There is clearly concern among many people about Jytdog's conduct but apparently not enough to justify a block or other sanction such as a mutual IBAN so a firm warning seems like a reasonable step to factor in these concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions
) 16:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with the close (my !vote ec'd with the close and I had to withdraw it) but it is pointless to challenge closes. If Jytdog's incivility persists, Arbcom is the answer. Hopefully it won't. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

extended content

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

more disruptive silliness --DBig Xray 19:13, 11 September 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Close challenge challenge

Closing this because it's silly. If you disagree, feel free to challenge my close challenge challenge close. Natureium (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm concerned that this thread might be closed before everyone has had an opportunity to state the exact same opinion 2 more times, so if an admin closes the section above this, please leave this subsection open for 2 more days. At least. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose 1-way challenges. Either challenge both closes, or one close twice. Reyk _YO! 14:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Support close challenge challenge I only got to say my piece one time, and that doesn't even remotely satisfy my sense of self-importance or my need to force everyone to agree with me.
Tell me all about it.
14:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Floq, we've only expended 13,000 words on this so far. It's not fair to not allow people to do that all over again. Softlavender (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Close challenge challenge close challenge

It was not silly, but farcical. There's a difference and I'll only explain what it is after I've waffled long enough to think something up...

Tell me all about it.

16:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

is it disruptive, farcical, silly, or all of the above if I comment inside a hatted section? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Softlavender (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Someone should close this. If anyone thinks that I supported a 1-way ban, or that I took the position of making excuses, I suggest that you go back and look at what I actually said. It's quite clear from Ivanvector's close that any gaming of the IBAN by Jytdog will result in it quickly becoming 2-way. And it's also clear that if anyone thinks their opinion needs to be stated yet one more time before a decision about the close can be made, they are wrong. And while I'm here, I'll also say to Jytdog that you had better take to heart the extent to which a lot of editors have expressed concern about issues going beyond the interactions with one editor, and recognize that there is a limit to which the community will be willing to keep on giving another chance. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes it is clear that Ivanvector is sticking with his action. It is disappointing to recognize though that *half* of the editors who weighed in here disagreed with them. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Continued vandalism by user:Mainbody of Councils_of_Carthage

I have provided the user Mainbody warnings regarding editing the Councils_of_Carthage page. He continually removes the primary source material which can be found in first source documents and insisted on using a some source 1300 years later who provides an opinion which is not supported in by the first source. This second hand source may be mistaken as to which council debated the matter in question. All the Canons published by the council of 419 can be found on line and no source supports Mainbody assertion The complete canons of the council can be found here http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm I have directed Mainbody to these but he insists on removing edits citing from primary sources perhaps for partisan reasons. I had provided a friendly correction but his response was "yawn". DeusImperator (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC) 01:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that you read

WP:OR. We do not use material dating from A.D. 419 (even in translation) as sources of fact. We cite historians and other scholars for that. 86.148.84.151 (talk

) 02:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the IP's analysis. Mainbody's edits are good faith and in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines, such as the part of

WP:RS that says to prefer secondary sources. —C.Fred (talk

) 02:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing on the actual primary source documents which support the edit. I have read through the canon in which the secondary source cites and it has nothing to do with what is alleged by the secondary source. The secondary source is not credible. Someone might act in good faith and yet be wrong. DeusImperator (talk) 05:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Document cited in footnote #8 does not even match the date of the council. It speaks of a council held in 417 or 418 but even that is incorrect. DeusImperator (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

A Rational Account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion is a screed, and is a polemical work and not a work of history, and relies on works such as the Foxe Book of Martyrs. I had my suspicions when I read "nisi forte romanam sedem appellaverit " which I have not seen in any of document and appears to be from a historically unknown council of Millevitane which has no source prior to 1500. But post 1500 there are several reference to it. Which call into credibility of the source. (editing: the council of Millevitane may actually refer to the Council of Milevi held in Algeria not Carthage and dealt with the plagian heresy) DeusImperator (talk) 06:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:ANI does not settle content disputes. 86.148.84.151 (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the arbitration, Administrators.

See this also. Per

NPOV could you please check if the edits made by Userdeusimperator in Wikipedia fall under the category of "Catholic POV". For example, the statement that equals NewAdvent.org with Primacy sources seems misleading. Thanks again! - MainBody (talk

) 06:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

IP block request

12.53.95.234 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Somebody please block

WP:NOTHERE. Their only contribution has been a rambling diatribe which they've resubmitted four times in quick succession. I was going to block them myself, but their comments at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Christian Catholic Ku Klux Klan Bible Prophecy Revelation 19 The 3rd Woe The 7th Trumpet The 5th Horseman make me involved, so I'd rather somebody else do it. -- RoySmith (talk)

16:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be great if the IP could get a non-templating warning explaining them what the problem is. If they continue resubmitting after the warning a block will be in order for disruptive editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

A personalized warning? You're not supposed to rant on Wikipedia (unless you're at ANI where it's required)? I deleted the pages created by the IP. If they persist in their obvious disruption, they should be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Majik Ninja Entertainment

The other day I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majik Ninja Entertainment as "redirect". On the face of it, given there were no !votes other than "merge" and "redirect", this sounds like a pretty obvious decision.

Since then, I have had a

WP:3RR on 27 August, and before that, Jim1138 has had a go at edit-warring too. The article has since been semi-protected by Ponyo, bringing the disruption to the close. Since then, I see a semi-protected edit request was filed on the talk page; to which John From Idegon gave them a well-reasoned response

Did I close the AfD correctly? If not, why not?

So, my questions to the peanut gallery are the following:

If I didn't, should I start a deletion review, or simply re-open the AfD to allow further consensus?

Have John from Idegon and Jim1138 been disruptive, or simply following best practice?

Are the new users complaining on my talk disruptive, or do they have a valid point? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you closed the AFD correctly. I don't think John from Idegon violated 3RR, the edits were removing swathes of unsourced content added repeatedly by an IP which was almost certainly evading a block (as a sock of Demolytionman420). So no, not disruptive. The new users complaining on your talk page are perfectly free to create a draft article and try and improve it so it would meet our notability criteria. You could, as a helpful step, draftify the old article for them. Fish+Karate 10:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Under normal circumstances, I would do just that; however given the above discussion, I am concerned that the draft would be set upon by the editors I mentioned above as "against policy", "out of process", "aiding and abetting socks" or some similar rationale. Hence why I wanted to come here first and get a consensus on what to do. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Creating a draft article is neither against policy nor is it out of process, so go for it. Fish+Karate 11:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think draftification is the answer here. The material prior to the redirect was sourced almost exclusively to faygoluvers.com, a website that would best be described as a Juggalo fansite. A better question would be, how did

WP:UPE. John from Idegon (talk

) 16:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a trick question. There's never any correct way to close an AfD. EEng 22:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- It's a trap! Blackmane (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Seems correct to me. They can write a new and better draft if they care deeply. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Continued affront on my integrity

Cmguy777 has apologised and hopefully further interaction can be more collegial. Black Kite (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I didn't really want to bring this here, but Cmguy777 is persisting in seeing the content dispute at Talk:George Washington‎#editbreak2 and following as an attack on his integrity, rather than simply a normal editing dispute. I tried to get a lower-level discussion going at the Helpdesk, but it didn't really go anywhere. Could we get more eyes on the situation? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not persisting in seeing the content dispute. I want it closed. I have asked for SarekOfVulcan to stop and have a truce. He is not quoting myself accurately. I am trying to drop this situtation and bring this up here only confirms my "continued affront on my integrity" rather than drop the issue. This was my full quote in the talk page. This was the full quote: "How about we just stop and have a truce ? This is all about Freemasonry. Two editors not wanting the definition of Freemasonry in the article. I have felt pressured to remove the edit. That is what I would tell the help desk in this continued affront on my integrity." I have persisted in nothing but trying to defend myself. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

It does seem to be a little unfair to characterize that discussion as an affront to your integrity. They just think you're wrong about something, that's got nothing to do with your integrity. For what it's worth, I have been in your position before (convinced I'm right about something, overruled by two other editors, and being somewhat frustrated that I have to expend so much effort to get one small thing "fixed"). Taking offense when none is intended is a quick way to make yourself, and the other two editors, miserable. If by "truce" you mean "let's not talk about this any more for a while", then that makes sense. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

It looks like there is a recent history of disagreement in the talk page archives, some of which does appear to get personal, so it might be understandable this comment was made; but in this case, it doesn't seem accurate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Support block of Cmguy777 for a serious case of refusing to drop the stick. Reliable sources state the information displayed. If you don't like it, find a reliable source that specifically states otherwise. Synthesis doesn't count. You needed to stop yesterday. --Tarage (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- Jesus, why do so many people think the solution to every problem is a block? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  Agree, holy smokes that escalated quickly.--Jorm (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  
  Although, Cmguy777 seriously does need to drop the stick - in that talk page discussion I count two accusations of vandalism, one of being "predatory", one of being a liar, and one of slander. That, clearly, needs to stop. Black Kite (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  Fair, I jumped the gun. I'm just... extremely tired of tedious editing from people trying to push an addenda. I loathe the no true Scotsman argument. --Tarage (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

For what it is worth I apologize to SarekOfVulcan and to Gwillhickers. I will drop the "stick". I am at the mercy of other editors. I hope not to get blocked. I have enjoyed working on Wikipedia. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rivalin apparently not WP:HERE

(non-admin closure) Handled —AE (talk • contributions) 09:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Rivalin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Was previously blocked for personal attacks and is now back, but only to resume with "leftist" accusations on other editors and using talk pages as a forum. Old example, two more recent ones: 1, 2. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 09:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked? I don't see any block in the log, PaleoNeonate? Odd, that, in view of the edits. Anyway, they don't edit much, but it's all bad. I've indeffed. Bishonen | talk 09:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC).

Hmm you're right, I think I misinterpreted the imminent-block template and inactivity as a block. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 09:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editor at List of James Bond villains

Disruptive IP blocked for a week by Bishonen --DBig Xray 13:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An IP (130.105.168.245) has over the past month been making disruptive edits to the aforementioned page. Intially, they made removed detail about a characters fate (see [22]). After being reverted three times in mid-August by Betty Logan and me, I left them a message on their talk page (see [23]). However, they made the same edit ([24]) on September 7 and was reverted by Betty Logan. On September 9, they made eleven disruptive edits, which were reverted by Betty ([25]). The next day, they made four edits, which were reverted by Betty Logan, which included unexplained removals and writing in bad English ([26]). They have made several similar edits on September 11, which I have reverted. The editor has had several warnings on their talk page, been asked to go to the talk page, and Betty and I have discussed what to do on the article's talk page. So I'm here to ask for administerial action to stop this behaviour. Thank you Ted Edwards 11:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Very complete report, thank you, TedEdwards. Blocked for a week for persistent disruptive editing and lack of communication. Bishonen | talk 11:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC).

Thank you Bishonen. Should they carry on with this editing after their block is lifted, should I tell you on your talk page? Ted Edwards 11:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Grossly offensive language

Enough of the edit-warring over the NAC. TPH has been warned, and there's no need for any further action. When keeping something open serves no useful purpose there's no need to keep it open just for the sake of it. ‑

Iridescent

13:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User TenPoundHammer edited the page All Alright at 19:26, 10 September 2018‎, with the comment "LABELS DO NOT NEED FUCKING SOURCES YOU FUCKING DUMBASS" (see All Alright: Revision history) addressed at me. Note that he was warned for similar behaviour the same day with the comment "the albums HAVE FUCKING PAGES, how do they need a fucking citation? stop being a fucking citation nazi" on Incite (band): Revision history. Emeraude (talk) 08:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I can see why Hammer got frustrated, but he does seem to have got into a bit of a rut with the fucking's. For myself, I try to ration the word to where it's really, really needed. Please don't devalue a valuable expletive by overuse, TenPoundHammer. And definitely don't call anybody a "fucking dumbass" or similar — the dumbass is much worse than the fucking IMO. Bishonen | talk 09:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC).

Wow, very poor non-admin close by Serial Number 54129 [27] which I just reverted. I would be shocked to see calling someone "a fucking dumbass" in full caps and "a fucking citation nazi" to go without any action. But even if that will be the case, I'd prefer an admin to close this. Premature closes like these can't be used to protect someone from scrutiny. --Pudeo (talk) 10:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Pudeo: Wow—nonsense. An admin has already participated, so a) they have warned TPH as they see appropriate, and presumably considered no further action is necessary, and b) I'm sure they really could have closed it themselves had they so wished. But, go ahead; I'm sure it'll provide the peanut gallery with their daily protein. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if we don't want to wait for community input, I'd very much prefer an admin closing this with full

WP:NAC applies here because what Emeraude is asking is an admin action, as TenPoundHammer has already been warned for this behauvior. Neither did I see Bishonen saying it doesn't warrant more than a warning or it should be closed. --Pudeo (talk

) 11:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Pudeo: a nac does not excuse one from accountability, ADMINACCT applies to non-admins if they make a judgement call. Which is why I responded to you even if in clear disagreement. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Trying to get admin action out of emotional use of expletives is essentially squeezing blood out of a turnip. A warning was issued, TPH was pinged. Let's move on.--WaltCip (talk) 11:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

User talk pages are for that. He was warned for the first attack and did the second one anyway. And after that we're in the right place at AN/I. --Pudeo (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Just so. And now it's over. Possibly only for the time being; but only time, as they say, will tell. It's currently an excerise in bytewastage, unfortunately. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Folks, I really don't think there's any need for you two to argue about this. Without offering any opinion on the issue itself, I'd say it's acceptable to revert a NAC if you think it's controversial - and I can see why this one might be. Then it gets left for someone else to close. I've had plenty of my closes reverted, and I then just leave them for someone else. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Nb. This discussion was rather abruptly closed by a non-admin (diff). I have reopened it, because 1) this would be better off closed by an admin, in my opinion, and 2) the closure statement, "Nothing more to see here, folks. Move along, move along.." is dismissive, and does not address the matter whatsoever. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bishonen, I won't be able to sleep tonight until I find out whether "a rut with the fucking's" was conscious or unconscious. E Eng 16:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

You may never sleep again, EEng. Bishonen | talk 18:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC).

I would imagine that a rut without the fuckings would be fairly pointless, myself...

Tell me all about it.

18:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it's just rutting. And +1 to Bish. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Males also use olfaction to entice females to mate using secretions from glands and soaking in their own urine. Incels, take note! E Eng 22:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Is that upper rutting or lower rutting? Barbara Rütting 123 (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the offensive edit summary was from someone who probably has seen Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home one too many times. The phrase is comically batted back and forth between Captain Kirk and Spock as they try to grasp the vernacular of 20th Century communication.— Maile (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

"Yeah, them Klingons are propa naughty moody fuckin' geezers!. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Tom O'Carroll

User warned for edit warring, which has not continued. Content dispute is undergoing formal DR. The rest of the complaint hinges on allegations of socking, which have not been substantiated with evidence. Swarm ♠ 22:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article about Tom O'Carroll, identified in his article as a "pro-paedophile advocate", is being disruptively edited by Anotherultimatename. This user has several times added mention of a paper by the subject of the article ("Childhood 'Innocence' is not Ideal: Virtue Ethics and Child-Adult Sex"). See here, here, and here. The addition is opposed both by me (I've removed it several times now) and by ScrapIronIV, who removed it here as "promotional", which arguably it is.

I have tried to indicate to Anotherultimatename that edit warring to add potentially controversial content on a paedophilia-related article, content that is supported by no one other than him, is a really, really terrible idea. I have politely suggested that he should just drop the issue and move on. The user won't seem to get the point, however, and is still adding the content, most recently here. Could admins please step in and put a stop to this?

talk

) 10:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I was going to block, but he's only done one edit on the article today and has filed a request at

third opinion to try and resolve the dispute, so I'm going to give him a final warning instead. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont)

10:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

A third opinion request is disingenuous. It is for disputes between two editors; in this case, it is two editors versus one other editor. The user just needs to walk away from this issue.

) 10:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It appears that

WP:BITE Tornado chaser (talk

) 15:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

This is not a new user, and I believe I know who it is, but checkuser evidence would be stale at this point. I have not filed an SPI report for that reason. There is consensus to keep this non-notable article from the article. Scr★pIronIV 15:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article in question that this editor wishes to include is a clear violation of

WP:CHILDPROTECT in that it promotes inappropriate adult-child relationships, and actually claims that "...child adult sexual relations are not intrinsically harmful and may be beneficial." This advocates "inappropriate adult–child relationships on- or off-wiki (e.g. by expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children)" - which is explicitly prohibited. Scr★pIron^IV

16:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The wording of

WP:CHILDPROTECT does not support ScrapIronIV's interpretation. The relevant sentence in full is: 'Editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships on- or off-wiki (e.g. by expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children), or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be blocked or banned indefinitely'. This would support the blocking of O'Carroll himself were he to become an editor, as he has identified himself as a pedophile, but in no way would it support the exclusion of material about one of O'Carroll's publications. The fact that the views expressed in this publication involve support for almost universally condemned adult-child relationships is no reason to exclude it, as mentioning someone's views is totally different from advocating them oneself. Anotherultimatename (talk

) 05:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I will comment that he filed the

Request for Comments and be done with it. Robert McClenon (talk

) 17:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Getting to the actual content of the edit, the article cited (pdf easily locatable on the internet), is indeed a pro-pedophilia journal article appearing in a juried academic journal published by Springer. So that is all true. What remains is a content fight, two against one. I have no strong opinion about whether such content should be included or not; my inclination is to say it should but I wouldn't touch this BLP with a twenty foot pole myself. Bottom line: maybe a slow motion edit war, but nothing "promotional" or with culpable intent, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, there should not be a subsection in the piece on the journal article, but it should be listed as "Works" or under "Further Reading." Not sure the bio should even exist at WP, but that's an AfD question. Carrite (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I've nominated for deletion, we'll see what the community says at AfD. Carrite (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Since Anotherultimatename is a single-issue account focused on the
talk
) 22:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Anotherultimatename has only made 22 edits, so it's a bit early to start calling them an SPA, it is entirely possible that this is just the first topic they plan to edit, you don't need to edit multiple topics in your first 30 edits to be acting in good faith. We must not assume new users are socks and block them for violating policies they were never informed of, if anyone has clear evidence of socking, block the sock(s), but don't assume bad faith like this.

I have now informed Anotherultimatename of the edit warring policy. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't simply assume new users are socks, but neither should we be blind to things that might suggest that new users are socks. Anotherultimatename was aware of the

talk

) 23:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Long term addition of unsourced content and original research

(non-admin closure) Blocked by Oshwah for a week. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fghsfijgig (talk · contribs)

Plot sections are a magnet for this sort of junk editing by youthful contributors, but there are limits, methinks. Persistent addition of unsourced content and original research, without regard to numerous warnings, or apparent interest in guidelines. See edit history and deleted warnings. Originally I reported this at AiV, and was directed here. JNW (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Could this be a

Bambifan101 sock? Blackmane (talk

) 06:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for one week for persistent addition of unreferenced content and

original research. Any admin is welcome to extend or remove the block without my prior approval; just let me know on my user talk page what you did and why. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

09:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User needs a "hello yes you have to talk with other people" block

(non-admin closure) Editor blocked by Cullen328. {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 00:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Per their edit count, this person has never used a talk page. I am not sure they know that talk pages exist. They do not have email enabled.

Pretty much all they do is promote the work of a researcher in Australia, Helen Stallman.

Their edits prompted this inquiry from User:Doc James in July 2017.

They are now edit warring to restore

WP:REFSPAM from Stallman and other poor quality refs at Biopsychosocial model

but today Lillyput4455 reinserted the same OR.

I'd say indef per NOTHERE and hopefully in the unblocking process they will start talking and learning what we do here... Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree that unfortunately a block is likely needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I reverted them before I saw it because this triggered COIBot as spam but I would also suggest a block for quackery/spam/3rr. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disclosed paid editor circumventing AfC

Article deleted; user indeffed. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 07:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Please see the just-created

Draft:Verastem Oncology

. This paid editor could not wait for the AfC process to work. Per their talk page, this paid editor understands what we expect and has chosen to ignore it.

Please give a significant block. I will not argue with an indef. Jytdog (talk) 06:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow, that article needs to go away fast. Also, from the sound of it, I don't think this company is ever going to meet notability guidelines for several years (if at all), if its main products are still not on the market. Softlavender (talk) 06:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Alex Shih has deleted the article. Need insight/opinions from administrators and other experienced editors as to whether editor should be blocked/indeffed, as requested by Jytdog. Softlavender (talk) 06:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I was still looking through contribution history. Their interaction with Sphilbrick back in August 2018 ([29]) made it quite apparent that this isn't a paid editor contributing in good faith, but the typical user with the sole intention to promote. I will go ahead and block indefinitely. Alex Shih (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP action at National Museum of Brazil fire

Article semi-protected to prevent IP vandalism. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An IP has been continually removing

WP:3RR

- apologies, but apparently I was off by one in counting my reverts this morning.) Other people, too, have restored the image. The removal has been going on at a low level for the past few days, but has really ramped up today.

I've advised the IP user to engage on the article's talkpage, but he/she refuses to do so. Next step appears to be a block to spark at least some kind of response. Given the fact that the IP is extremely dynamic I don't see it helping that much, but it would be at least a start.

I'm not entirely against removal of the picture, but I'd like to hear more reasons beyond "irrelevant photo", which is incorrect.

Any of y'all mind taking a look? I've let myself get too close to the issue and would like another pair of eyes or two on it before acting - also I'm planning on leaving the house in a few minutes and won't be able to get to any actions until this evening at the earliest. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I've left them a warning. I'm not watching the page, so if my further involvement is required, please ping me. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. The IP has moved to a new address. I'll continue to keep an eye on things and slap a block on if they do it again, with a further link to the talkpage. I'm loath to shut IPs out from the article, but that may end up being the only option. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It looks like they moved from 2804:7f2:2785:1261:544:312f:3f53:1b26 to 2804:7f2:2785:1261:ed48:63fe:3699:f602, which are both on the same 2804:7f2:2785:1261/64 network. My (limited) understanding of commercial IPv6 address allocation is that it's common to allocate a whole /64 to a single residential customer, so it's likely these are both the same residence. I've never done it, but I understand there's a way to block an IP range like this, yes? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

There is a way to do it, I believe, but I haven't the foggiest how, either. Regardless, the article's quiet for the moment, so hopefully the issue's taken care of for now. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 08:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

No it isn't. An IP from the same range has just deleted the image again. TheVicarsCat (talk) 12:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The rangeblock would have been 2804:742:2785:1261::/64, but this one's in a slightly different range, so I've just semi-protected the article instead. Black Kite (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Right. Well, I'll keep an eye on things for a while...hopefully this will do the trick. I'm sorry it came to a ban on IPs editing the article, but that may have been the best we could do for now. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lillyput4455 (Pakistanpedia)

Blocked for one week by Ymblanter. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 07:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I warned Lillyput4455 (talk · contribs) a couple of times on their talk page to avoid adding OR and poorly sourced material to Pakistan related BLPs but despite the warnings, the user continuously adding OR and poorly sourced material to numerous BLPs.

For instance, @GSS: removed OR (added by Lillyput4455) from Mizna Waqas bio on 2 September. Lillyput4455 re-added it saying sources are not required [30].

I also removed the OR (added by Lillyput4455) from

Madiha Imam bio on 2 September [31], Lillyput4455 readded it a few days later [32]. The next day I removed it again [33] but Lillyput4455 re-added it again [34]. I removed it again yesterday [35] and cautioned the user User_talk:Lillyput4455#September_2018_2

Similarly I removed the OR (added by the same user) from

Hiba Bukhari [36]. Lillyput4455 re-added it [37]

but instead you called it poorly sourced. You don't want users like us to here. I will always continue my editing regarding actresses and surely with reliable sources. I hope you get that.

I removed the OR (added by the same user) from Rabab Hashim bio yesterday [38]. Lillyput4455 re-added it today [39].

I removed OR from Anum Fayyaz bio yesterday [40] and Lillyput4455 re-added it today [41]. I removed poorly sourced and OR from Sonia Mishal bio yesterday [42]. Lillyput4455 re-added it [43].

And earlier today I removed OR from Maham Amir bio [44]. Lillyput4455 re-added it a while ago [45].

Other than all these, Lillyput4455 has a deep relation with disruptive sockfarms and I suspect Lillyput4455 could be sock of Pakistanpedia and therefore suggest behavioral investigation should be carried out. Lillyput4455 and socks of Pakistanpedia contribute to same type of articles (Pakistani drama actors and TV series). They create articles in same style (add OR and use unreliable sources to support claims) and upload free-use images on Wikipedia with same descriptions. They both use mobile device, often sign their comments in same way (no time and date stamp) and both blank their user talk pages to remove warning messages by the bots.

When I nominated for deletion a BLP (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mizna Waqas). User:RidaJunejo (a sock of Pakistanpedia) voted keep, saying the subject played prominent role in Peek-A-Boo Shahwaiz. Peek-A-Boo Shahwaiz was created by Lillyput4455 and have no WP:N.

Lillyput4455 came as possible sock in recent SPI (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pakistanpedia/Archive#02_September_2018_2). He also came as possible sock in recent SPI on Wikimedia Commons (commons:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lillyput4456). --Saqib (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a sock and this is not your job

Madiha Imam from Dawn and The News International

Lillyput4455 (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

As one can clearly, you're adding OR and when you cite sources, they're mostly unreliable sources. And yes, you do sometime cite reliable sources to give the perception that everything is sourced via a RS but source does not support what is contained in the Wikipedia articles which means you're just dodging people. And currently you're edit warring on

Madiha Imam. --Saqib (talk

) 15:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I found Lillyput to be unrelated to Pakistanpedia. ANI is not the place to determine behaviorally whether the user is a sock despite the technical evidence to the contrary. This has already been hashed out at the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment Saqib is continuing to make the same accusations against Lilliput of sockpuppetry of Pakistanpedia when checkuser has already said there is no link and admins have found no compelling evidence and so this amounts to hounding together with closely following his every edit and nominating his articles for AFD while lecturing him on his talkpage, I believe Saqib should be warned of his stalking. However, Lilliput has used some unreliable sources as well as reliable sources so I suggest he rereads

WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. Also I don't think Lilliput is a UPE as he has added content to TV articles such as "this series received very bad ratings", "was criticised" etc which a paid editor would not add, regards Atlantic306 (talk

) 15:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: OK I was expecting this from you. For your kind information, I'm a Pakistani and I contribute to Pakistani related BLPs. I was not hounding or stalking Lillyput4455.These noted BLPs are are in my watchlist and this user has been adding OR and poorly sourced material to BLPs, repeatedly and therefore I think this report is justified and was long overdue. --Saqib (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:HOUNDING states: "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." Lorstaking (talk

) 17:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to the repeated sockpuppet allegations Atlantic306 (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: How repeated? This is just the second time. --Saqib (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

- - Also, you mentioned it at afd discussion Atlantic306 (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I started to look at the edits of the user, and already the first one which I have chosen randomly looks troublesome to me: This edit introduces info which is not sourced (not in an added source, not in the one which was in that paragraph). Will choose now a couple of more edits. (No idea on whether this is a sock).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Similarly, adding unsourced text. I mean, it is quite possibly that it could be sourced, but this has not been done.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

And adding completely unsourced info.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

All three diffs are from the last two days. I do not have time now for further research, but at the very least, this topic should be closed with a strong warning to the user concerning

WP:OR. It looks like they still have difficulties applying these policies.--Ymblanter (talk

) 16:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Despite this thread, Lillyput4455 still edit warring on

WP:IDHT. --Saqib (talk

) 17:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I blocked for 24h--Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I'm fine with a warning for now. --Saqib (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The block must have expired, and I guess there is nothing else to do here for the time being.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Lillyput4455's behaviour is still disruptive. For instance, On 7 September, I added ref improve tags to two poorly sourced pages ([46] and [47]). Lillyput4455 yesterday removed the tags from both pages ([48] and [49]). I re-added the tag earlier today [50] however xe removed it again [51] saying the sources are reliable - when the issue is different. --Saqib (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I think this is slowly moving to a content dispute. They obviously believe the sourcing is sufficient, and sources are reliable. The article talk page is the best place to start sorting out this disagreement.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: It appears Lillyput4455 is not going to stop adding OR to BLPs anytime soon. The user created Faysal Manzoor Khan and added OR. --Saqib (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

- - - - Well the article is at AFD and Lilliput has not readded the original research so now he's got it and this should be closed, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I warned Lillyput4455 not to add OR a while ago - [52] but he's still trying to add OR. For instance, he just added something which is not in the cited source. --Saqib (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Lillyput4455 continue adding unreliable sources to the said BLP. I'm going to stop reverting him because of 3RR. @Ymblanter: --Saqib (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

That ref looks to be a mistake rather than deliberate as the names of the directors are very similar, and its not an unreliable source. I've also just advised him about OResearch so this should be enough if he follows the advice, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

And now xe removed the AfD notice. --Saqib (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

- I've replaced it, he's obviously upset at the AFD so is acting in haste and allowance should be made for that Atlantic306 (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I am just curious why you defending him. Lillyput4455 has again removed the AfD notice [53] and continue adding OR [54] despite a warning on his talk page. Clear WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND mentality. --Saqib (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

- Ive readded it and explained to him about it as he thought the wording in the notice meant it was kept so it was a mistake by him not deliberate. He's also agreed not to add original research. One of the reasons Im defending him is because you have upset him with erroneous repeated sockpuppet allegations which is why he does not take much notice of your edits and warnings, hopefully he will follow the advice Ive given him, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Don't you see xe re-added the OR even after you left a message on their talk page and xe agreed not to add OR. --Saqib (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

In my view, they are close to the second block. Waiting until they start editing again.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: WP:IDHT. [55] and [56]. --Saqib (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Query on reverts on an article

As attempts to reasonably communicate with the reported user, and the user defending them, have utterly failed, there is endless bludgeoning going on, and no other recourse is possible:

personal attacks
of any kind. Furthermore:
battlegrounding
or otherwise uncollaborative behavior.

Both users are formally considered to be on a final warning notice, and any admin who feels that disruptive behavior of any kind is continuing may block them for a finite, or indefinite period, without any further warning. Swarm ♠ 02:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moved from

WP:AN3

The House of Fine Art (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Accesscrawl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
NitinMlk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can any uninvolved admin have a look at

user-generated/redundant sources without any explanation, although I've explained each of my edits clearly. And now they are not responding at the article's talk page in spite of my repeated requests at their talk page. I just want explanation from them for their unexplained disruptive edits, so that I can continue the cleanup of the article. BTW, I don't know about the correct forum for this sort of request, so my apologies in advance. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk

) 06:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

There isn't a 3RR violation by either party. There's a valid question about quality of sources, and the community sanctions at

WP:GS/Crypto might apply. Still, the currently open AfD at WP:Articles for deletion/The House of Fine Art might be a good place to discuss the quality of sources. In my opinion there isn't a need for admin intervention. NitinMlk should stop using the term vandalism to refer to edits by Accesscrawl. EdJohnston (talk

) 17:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The first time they restoted the unser-generated/redundant sources, along with reverting my valid formatting of the citations, I thought it was a good-faith mistake, as I mentioned in my relevant edit summary. But even after clearly explaining them regarding my edits & providing links to the detailed article's talk page explanations, they again reverted my all edits without explaination, which looked vandalistic in nature to me at that moment, although I guess those edits were unconstructive or desruptive in nature. Anyway, I just want them to disucss their issues at the talk page, if they have any. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@
WP:BRD is not a reason to revert, it's a basic dispute resolution measure, and it is impossible when the only discussion you're willing to engage in is saying "BRD" and making personal attacks, as you did at User talk:NitinMlk#Hounding. Provide an actual reason for your reverts, or stop reverting. Swarm ♠
18:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think either editor is behaving well here. One is not engaging in the discussion aspect of

bold, revert, discuss, and the other is being borderline hostile, throwing around terms like vandalism when they're not appropriate. cymru.lass (talk • contribs

) 19:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Please see my reply to EdJohnston, where I explained regarding the points made by you. I don't known why you termed me as "borderline hostile", when I was the one who patiently waited for around four hours for their reply after they reverted me for the second time, and when they still didn't respond I just logged out without editing the relevant article. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic and disruptive. Swarm ♠ 23:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Nitinmlk is not even able to understand what constitutes a "vandalism"[60] even after already being told about "WP:NOTVAND".[61] This misuse of ANI after filing a malformed report on ANEW should be as well noted.[62] Now after being warned by EdJohnston above, he is still referring Accesscrawl's edits as "vandalistic".[63] GenuineArt (talk

) 19:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Your comment is wrong on so many levels. Did you even read the SPI or the closing comments of the admin who stated: This does not exclude the possibility of meatpuppetry and/or collusion of wiki, as it definitely made a convincing case to check. Also, please read my above reply again. I am not calling their edits as vandalism – I just explained my reaction at that point of time. BTW, I guess this is the first article of them which I've ever edited. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

And I am not "reducing the amount of notability of the subject" – I've just removed the blogs & websites which were just copy-pastes of the original cited reliable sources. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

SPI was frivolous and vexatious. It failed to support your claims. You used SPI for harassing other editors when you made false allegations of paid editing. Apparently you have failed to address that concern. Make it clear now if you really have any evidence that any of those editors including accesscrawl are engaging in paid editing or you were only using these false allegations to belittle them. As for your "reaction", one would find it very hard to believe that an editor editing for 3 years is still not capable of defining what is a vandalism. Can you also justify that why you didn't notified Accesscrawl of ANI or ANEW report? GenuineArt (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

GenuineArt, you are diverting the issue in entirely different direction. Anyway, as far as paid editing is concerned, multiple editors have questioned them, e.g. see here, although my comment at the SPI was regarding the other user, and it was made in a particular context. In fact, they are very eager to get new page reviewer rights, although that request was declined around four days ago. And as I speak, the other user against whom I filed the SPI is demanding the same rights.

Now speaking about Accesscrawl, they have uploaded an Iranian architect's high resolution pic, and marked it as their own work, although that was taken by the architect's personal photographer (as clear from the Exif data & architect's official website details), and it still has a pending ORTS. They've also been involved in the page move request of the Rajneesh, which was apparently available as a paid job at the Upwork – see User talk:Accesscrawl/Archives/Archive 1#COI_editing. They also created an articles about an obscure German filmaker, an American architect, an Indian ad films director, etc. And now they have created an article about this British gallery.

Our other interactions are limited to two AfDs, which were noticed by me at the

WP:DELSORT/INDIA

page, as it is under my watchlist. In fact, it was during one of those AfD's that I noticed the odd editing pattern of the two accounts, and filed an SPI for the same. Other than these three-four interactions, I've been editing in different areas, and will continue to do so. Whole purpose of my these efforts was to save the project from corp spamming.

Finally, I've no issues regarding their or anyone else creations unless the subjects are non-notable, and I end up noticing an AfD for the same. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Requesting NPR is irrelevant. Access crawl seems to have withdrawn the NPR request than making continuous requests like other user. The incidents you have mentioned dont really approve your allegations. You seem to have adopted a pattern of searching edits of accesscrawl while not bringing anything that would undoubtedly approve any of the allegations that you have been making until now. I really doubt if such approach is not really going to bring anything productive because it will only create more problems. I would instead recommend you to avoid confronting Accesscrawl unless you see any actual unambiguous issues. He created The House of Fine Art and we see that the AfD would result in Keep. You can well avoid the article or simply tone down the rhetoic. We can be assured that the article is in good hands since enough experienced editors like Ritchie333, Sam Sailor have been working on the article. GenuineArt (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding not notifying them, these are my first ever edits at the ANI, so that was a genuine mistake. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

(

WP:NPA without supplying evidence may lead to blocks. Make the case for your accusations, here and now, or quit making them. Swarm ♠

21:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

If Nitinmlk has a solid argument against the existence of the article or the content then it must be easy to ping the involved editors and highlight the concern. But going around, reporting in admin noticeboards over revert is not exactly encouraged by

WP:3O than ANEW or ANI. Ultimately much of the dispute will be resolved once the AfD has been closed. GenuineArt (talk

) 21:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

As far the AfD is concerned, if the page creator hadn't halted my edits, I would've already explained that the subject is non-notable. It has hardly four-five lines of independent, encyclopedic coverage. And now you are doing the same. The rest of your comment is mere repetition of the same points, which I've already answered. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

That's a good case for

WP:3O like I said. Like EdJohnston said, you can still address the sources on the on-going AfD since that is most likely to work most if you want the participants to vote in your favor. GenuineArt (talk

) 21:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, I wanted to clean up the messy sourcing of a mainspace article. But if the page creator or you won't let me do that, then I will produce my analysis of the sources at the AfD itself. BTW, for 3O, I guess there should be some discussion and subsequent differences, but they aren't responding at all. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk page history includes edit where AC has disputed the removal of sources. It is enough for requesting input from

WP:30. You can also notify any of the associated Wikiprojects for helping with the content. GenuineArt (talk

) 22:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I guess you are talking about their sole edit at the talk page, regarding which I've explained the same thing to them multiple times already, and they have not responded, as I've clearly explained everything at the talk page. BTW, right from yesterday, I can see a pattern of delaying tactics here, as they are sure that the article will be kept if they can stop me editing the page for next few days. So I guess I will discuss the sources at the AfD itself. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

You can still take advantage of

WP:3O or ping any other editors involved. GenuineArt (talk

) 22:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I am truly amazed regarding your interest in the closure of the above AfD. Anyway, I don't believe in taking advantages. So I will give my analysis at the AfD itself within a day or two, as my today's time has already been wasted by you. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Finally, if you have any other concern, then please tell me now, as I will log out after a short while. And I don't want to waste my next day here as well. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

As expected by me, they don't have any concern. So I am logging out for today. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

(←) None of this answers to my request for evidence behind the allegations of harassment. Also, the claims that NitinMlk should have pursued dispute resolution continue to ignore the fact that there was no disputation provided by AC, beyond the allegation of HOUNDING. Still waiting on that evidence or a specific reason for the reverts. Swarm ♠ 23:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

If anyone digs deeper they would find it obvious that NitinMlk's edits are problematic, and that is why I reverted them at first place. There was "disputation provided" on talk page, that the sources are fine for the purpose they are being currently used which is mostly for proving the notability and the prevalence of HOFA.[64] Which policy/guideline supports that you can carry out blanket removal of sources only because a user suspect them to be "user-generated/repeated ones" or one that is "written by a person with no credentials" even if published by a WP:RS? Removal of sources like this[65][66] was also invalid. We are not writing anything controversial or anything exceptional because even if NitinMlk believes the sources are questionable then he should state the reason because as of now the content is "

neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". Another obvious example would be his removal of Reuters with a misleading edit summary[67] cannot be justified and he never made any mention of Reuters on the talk page[68] contrary to his claims that he discussed every source. There was not any dispute offered that if any of the sources are making misleading claims or the source is being misrepresented or we have to find better sources for the information in question since some subjects do require special category of sources. None of those criteria apply here. Has NitinMlk ever edited this subject before? I don't think if we can see any other reason that why NitinMlk edited the article and AfD except that I am the creator of the article. Not to mention his frequent false accusations of paid editing. He thinks that the article will be deleted but I am stopping him from making efforts, which is frankly absurd because his edits can be reinstated by anyone but no one seems to have shown interest regardless of these filings. AfD is the place where he can state all his reasons without waiting for anyone though I don't think he is able to change the growing consensus to keep the article. Accesscrawl (talk

) 03:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Removal of sources does not translate to the article being deleted. Sources are not used in articles to "prove notability". Removing sources does not change a subject's notability. So, your claim that he's removing sources to get the article deleted doesn't make sense. Even if that's what he was trying to do, he'd be wasting his time, because the presence of sources in an article does not correlate with notability at all. But, again, you'd have to have evidence of bad faith to argue that point, otherwise you're just casting aspersions and making personal attacks. Now, if you have no evidence of this, but you still feel the removal of allegedly-unreliable (per

disruptive editing. If you think his explanations aren't sufficient, or if certain aspects of his edits are wrong, then that's still a content dispute. AN/I is not the place to argue the merits of disputed edits, that place would be on the talk page, where there is still no content dispute being discussed because you have not yet provided any specific objections there. If you'd like to make specific objections to his edits, that's great, please take it directly to the talk page, and do not ever revert good faith edits without providing specific objections going forward, don't make personal attacks, assume good faith, focus on content issues, avoid personal commentary entirely, and pursue dispute resolution, and admins can stay out of it. Cool? Swarm ♠

04:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

As Accesscrawl has misrepresented my edits here, I have no other option but to clarify about them. I've replied to them at the article's talk page. And I am replying to those comments here which they didn't mention there. Also, note that I will continue to discuss the article at the AfD, and won't be editing the article other that to clarify regarding my old edits at the talk page.

re: "Removal of sources like this Reuters [69] was also invalid."

Regarding the removal of Reuters source, read my edit summary, where I wrote: "Same as the previous one – this source isn't serving any purpose here". Now if you read my explanation on the talk page for the previous source, you would understand the reason for its removal. The previous source didn't contain the info for which it was cited. Similarly, the Reuters source was cited for the artist Stefano Bombardieri, but it doesn't mention him anywhere.

And you are falsely claiming here that I removed the second mentioned source, as it was still there in my last edit of the article – see ref 6 of this revision.

re:"Another obvious example would be his removal of Reuters with a misleading edit summary[70] cannot be justified and he never made any mention of Reuters on the talk page contrary to his claims that he discussed every source."

Regarding the removal of Reuters source, you are making misrepresentation of my edit yet again. For those who don't know, they are talking about the removal of the same Reuters source, which I've just discussed above. And regarding my claims, I mentioned that I would explain my removals either at the talk page or in my edit summaries, and I did the same. So there was nothing "contrary" there.

Your remaining comments are mere repeat of what the other user said, so please just carefully read my replies to them above, and you will get your answer. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

"I have no other option but to clarify about them". How about you just stop trying to have

the last word by being economic with the truth? Accesscrawl (talk

) 02:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

since Accesscrawl is pressing their case here I will say that their edits to The House of Fine Art are poor quality and promotional (and included stripping the orphan tag twice, without fixing the problem as far as I can see) and that NitinMlk's edits were very good.

Accesscrawl's behavior has also been completely reproachable here, as well, not dealing at all with the poor quality of their own edits and personalizing the dispute.

I will also say that I find Accesscrawl's responses to people at the now-archived COI editing section to be unconvincing.

NitinMlk's behavior with regard to Accesscrawl has not been appropriate, as Swarm has already noted. It is important that we manage promotional and conflicted editing but the way you are going about it is wrong and harms everybody. We can talk about how to better handle this at your talk page. But please stop approaching it as you have been doing. Your behavior here has made this more difficult to manage, which is counter-productive for everyone.

GenuineArt's behavior here has been very reproachable, as they have not dealt at all with the quality of the edits, are acting in

WP:GANG

fashion simply "supporting" Accesscrawl, who has done little to nothing that is supportable here.

GenuineArt i suggest you step away from this, as you are not helping and are harming yourself.

Accesscrawl. I will ask you here, to please disclose any connection you have to subjects about which you have edited, including HOFA and its owners and any PR agency they have. Your editing and behavior is exactly the same as what we see from freelance editors in Wikipedia . Please be aware that there is a place for conflicted and paid editing but you must disclose and you should follow the prior review process, which I can explain to you. But first things first -- namely, disclosure. Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

You probably havent even made an effort to check what I did before I removed orphan tag.[71] You are not a neutral party yourself since you selectively notified me of sanctions and having your aggressive behavior being discussed below. I don't know how anyone can be wrong with telling someone else not to forum shop on admin board. I wanted to create article to get autopatrolled, thats why at first I created articles on those who I have simply heard on news and elsewhere or the requests I saw on "Requested article" page. COI or paid editing is only a false imagination of Nitinmlk who is incapable to even understand definition of vandalism. Accesscrawl (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I checked it by looking at "'what links here"; the edit you cite was immediately reverted, btw. which is why "what links here" found nothing.

Creating a page in order to get autopatrolled is not a good thing. But I appreciate you being forthright about that, at least.

These two things (adding to a "list" page, and doing things in order to get autopatrolled, are things that we see freelance editors doing, every day here.

You did not respond to my query about COI/paid editing. Instead, you attacked.

You are continuing to edit in the same way - promotionally and with bad sourcing - that was raised in the COI editing section at your talk page back in July. You have not rewarded the "assumption of good faith" that was extended to you, quite explicitly there by User:Jake Brockman, User:Abecedare, and User:Sam Sailor.

It appears to me that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

It is good to agree where you are wrong and you are not doing the good thing. You have missed my point that you are making your baseless assumptions without doing even a little bit of research. Do you really believe that I have to reply to accusations made in air? I wanted autopatrol only for getting another userright, though I think now that it is criticized as hat collecting. "the COI editing section" was misleading and Jake Brockman never provided me the link of any supposed advertisement even after multiple requests for that because it never existed.[72] You need to read other gallery articles,[73][74] and decide yourself that I still tried writing way better than other existing articles that. These constantly repeated false accusation are itself touching the line into a sanctionable personal attack. Canvassing is not going to help in your case and if you know where COIN is and you indeed smell paid editing then go over there and make a case. Though you will only find yourself disappointed. Accesscrawl (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

There's a pattern of battleground conduct on display here by Accesscrawl and GenuineArt. Observe how OP posted a request for admin input into an editing conduct situation with Accesscrawl, and GenuineArt (who has never edited the page in question) appeared here completely out of context to accuse NitinMlk of filing a spurious sockpuppet investigation, one which nobody but Accesscrawl thought was spurious. They're obviously meaning to deflect the discussion away from the core of the issue, which is getting Accesscrawl to explain why they reverted in the first place. Even after multiple warnings from Swarm, Accesscrawl still couldn't provide a rationale, we simply saw GenuineArt continuing to badger NitinMlk about other dispute resolution venues, which will not take the dispute when the issue is that one of the parties simply refuses to discuss. Once Accesscrawl finally did offer a response, they've either deliberately or incompetently misrepresented the discussion through assuming bad faith, and when NitinMlk offered a detailed explanation and clarification, Accesscrawl simply responded with a
parting shot
that didn't address the discussion even a little bit. It's obvious in this back-and-forth who is interested in discussing challenges with the article, versus who is just being combative apparently because of a grudge.

This has basically been the style of every interaction I've ever observed involving Accesscrawl on this site - that they seem to only be here to get in fights. The explanation that Accesscrawl provided here begins with "if anyone digs deeper" which is a manifestation of the problem: editors should not have to "dig deeper" when someone is reverting, the onus is on the person whose edits (or reverts) are questioned to explain why and to clarify when asked. You can't expect other editors to read your mind. Accesscrawl refuses to do this, and instead when questioned in good faith they immediately go on the attack, and there always seems to be someone like GenuineArt

blocked from editing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits

) 13:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

You know that I commented because I saw one editor being falsely accused of being vandalism and paid editing by a person who couldn't
beating the dead horse when this issue is too stale to be commented on. GenuineArt (talk
) 00:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

23:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

cast aspersions in spite of my previous repeated requests for evidence to substantiate bad faith accusations, and proceeded to completely ignore my reply highlighting the numerous behavioral changes needed in order to stave-off administrative involvement, in favor of engaging in another fight with Jytdog. Unbelievable. In my assessment, AC is squarely in indef territory already, and while I have not assessed GenuineArt's behavior, they're squarely in final warning territory as a result of their disruption here alone. If you want to take action here, there will be no objection from me, otherwise I'm going to formally put them both on a final warning notice. Swarm ♠

@Swarm: I must decline to take action myself, I'm involved in an entirely separate editorial discussion in which Accesscrawl behaved as the "waiting in the wings" editor defending an editor who has not been mentioned here. I support your suggested final warning: with Accesscrawl in particular, this needs to stop. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I find it funny that Swarm has so far not made a single comment on false accusations of paid editing and other types of harassment and believes that people speaking in defense is aspersions, bludgeoning, personal attack, etc. but Swarm how about you support these false accusations with diffs yourself and go take a look at what

WP:NPA mean. It means when people falsely accuse of paid editing, vandalism and anything else without evidence. Ivanvector's comment is a very fine example of that since it comes without a diff of one-sided analysis that only reads like a personal attack. But your own response is no different given own statement comes without evidence and you have shown a lack of concern over the false accusations of COI and forumshopping(bringing the content dispute here only after waiting for a couple of hours for the party to respond on talk page). I don't see where I or accesscrawl have engaged in that disruption. Have you bothered checking how many times Ivanvector and Accesscrawl have been through extreme disagreements and every time majority supported AC? You were the first editor in this thread who viewed the entire matter one sided, contrary to initial analysis of EdJohnston and for like more than 10 hours no one was even interested in looking into this content dispute. GenuineArt (talk

) 00:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I am the one who dealt with harassment and I should be warned or blocked? That is not how you do the service. Only because I didn't responded to the new talk page messages at that very small duration time since I had better things to do in life you say I am legible for the warning contrary to the policies. Read

WP:DEADLINE. Since when ANI has taken place of DRN? None of the things I said above are incorrect. I can similarly say now that I responded on talk page and I received no response over 1 day 7 hours [75] and not just some hours like original complaint noted even when I had already responded. So would you consider blocking/warning Nitinmlk for not responding on talk page for more than a day in addition to spurious allegations of paid editing and vandalism? Nitinmlk has now even refused to file the COIN report as he knows that there is no evidence but still he went as far as to make false allegations about multiple editors that they are involved in paid editing.[76] You are ought to observe both sides without singling out only one. Accesscrawl (talk

) 02:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated deletion on talk page by IP

Cleanup/reverting is the best that can be done at this point, unless disruption dramtically increases. if it does, please report to Oshwah or ANI, etc. Softlavender (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not sure what to do about this, an editor using the IP range 172.76.*.* has repeatedly deleted comments on

WP:TALK by now... which is also just plain common sense and good manners. I can only assume they are trolling. MaxBrowne2 (talk

) 02:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I would say for the current intensity of these edits imposing a range block or page protection would be an overkill, so for the time being just reverting bad edits should work.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

An IP lookup shows that the parent range is 172.76.0.0/14 (I saw an edit made by 172.79.217.155 here on Talk:Bird's Opening which confirms this). As Ymblanter stated above, this is much-too-wide of a range to justify imposing a range block on, and I also agree that protecting the talk page is overkill - especially given the rate of edits occurring there right now (some edits on June 18-19, then two edits on September 7, one edit on September 9). Unless circumstances change or the rate of disruption from this IP range dramatically increases, reverting the problematic edits is the logical thing to do in this case right now. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Long-term disruptive editing by User:Cirflow

(non-admin closure) User blocked by Cullen328. Icarosaurvus (talk) 04:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

)

Cirflow is an user who has been pursuing a long-term

WP:RS links (such as blogspots[77]). He has been warned ad nauseam, including by admin Doug Weller, to no avail.[78]-[79]-[80]-[81] Cirflow has been blocked numerous times for edit-warring,[82] and has initiated edit-wars against numerous users as late as June 2018.[83] He received his first talk page warnings, in relation to the same disruptive editorial pattern, as early as 2015.[84]

These are just some recent examples of the past few days, i.e. September 2018;

Added unsourced content to the Kalmyks page without edit-summary; [85]
Added unsourced number to the Kalmyks page (no edit-summary either); [86]
Added unsourced content without edit-summary to the Sarmatians page; [87]
Added unsourced figures without edit-summary to the Karachay-Cherkessia page; [88]
Added unsourced WP:OR to the
House of Hasan-Jalalyan page ("my speculation", as edit summary); [89]

Added unsourced figures without edit-summary to the List of Armenian ethnic enclaves page; [90]
Idem to the Rostov Oblast page; [91]
Idem to the
Gutian dynasty of Sumer page; [92]

I can literally post another ~ 200 of these diffs. Cirflow has received dozens of warnings over a lengthy period of time (including from admins), but he clearly doesn't bother. Looking at the compelling evidence, I think its safe to say that he's

WP:NOTHERE to build this encyclopedia according to the guidelines. - LouisAragon (talk

) 23:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I have given this editor an indefinite block, with clear conditions for an unblock. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threats by User:Chalklies

Resolved: Chalklies indefinitely blocked and, after continued problems, talkpage access removed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Legal threats have been made by

Kadane (talk

) 04:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

This one is totally not debatable. Clear legal threat here, not to mention ridiculous PAs and just general foolishness. Somehow I'm a hate blogger for removing their self sourced foolishness. John from Idegon (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Not only were the legal threats overt and unambiguous, but the editor stated that legal action is underway. In addition, they demand that counsel (misspelled) are the only ones allowed to edit the article. I have blocked them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I guess we should thank our lucky stars he didn't threaten to shoot up the virtual school over his displeasure. "I'mma take my .357 to this Dell monitor. That'll show em." John from Idegon (talk) 05:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@

Kadane (talk

) 05:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I have withdrawn their talk page access. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I have to ponder the mentality of users who believe the best way to respond to being blocked for legal threats is to double down with yet another legal threat.--WaltCip (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:46.49.81.19's disruptive edits

Only warning issued, if they violate it, report to

WP:AIV. Swarm ♠

16:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello. I already opened a discussion in August 2018 on User:46.49.81.19 deleting information about flights particularly in Minsk National Airport article. Then this account was blocked temporarily, but today 3 disruptive edits appeared in that article again [[94]] [[95]] [[96]], which are now reverted. Could you take any necessary measures against this IP-user? Thanks in advance. --Flexovich (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I also undid 9 edits on Tbilisi International Airport which where more unexplained removal of content (diff). Redalert2fan (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User hoaxing, creating bad redirect

Special:Contributions/Mozart834428196

This user has been making edits relating to the Catholic Psychedelic Synth Folk, which is either a hoax or something made up. The user made an article about the subject, but it was deleted. Next he redirected the page to Psychedelic folk and made an edit to the page [97]. He has also been inserting related material into other articles [98]. While it appears that many of this user's other edits may be constructive, this behavior needs to be looked into. funplussmart (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I moved and renamed this thread to try to get more attention to this user. funplussmart (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It would seem that Catholic Psychedelic Synth Folk is indeed an internet hoax. The question remains as to whether this editor knowingly inserted it as a hoax at Wikipedia, or whether they saw it on the internet and believed it. — Maile (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

If this isn't hoaxing then there are definite competence issues. Lots of unsourced edits, most of which get speedily reverted. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I looked at the RfD discussion and apparently it is a made up genre related to the signer Emily Bindiger. I also tagged the redirect for G3 sppedy deletion, which according to several RfD participants is what should've happened in the first place. funplussmart (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Theboo77

Theboo77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
People's Alliance of New Brunswick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user has been brought to COIN several times:

Evidence is pretty strong for a COI. He has already been blocked once for COI and paid editing. He has also been accused of outing. And now he's back, editing the same article. Maybe time for a longer block or some other sanction. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the traces of possible

Oversight team so it can be suppressed. I went ahead and took care of all of that for you :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

07:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

See

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theboo77 because a user removed this incident Hhkohh (talk

) 11:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

IP altered 11 footballer caps/goals

IPs have been reverted. Softlavender (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fixed: All reverted. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

114.124.132.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
114.124.175.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An IP range has edited 11 footballer pages, on 8 Sep 2018, to alter several scores of caps/goals per page. What footballer source, for Nepal players such as famous Rohit Chand (see: fix diff), gives the year totals of caps/goals, so I can check for deliberate hack numbers in the infoboxes? No hurry; pages just altered yesterday, and I've reverted some. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Investigating... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikid77 - The IP addresses you listed here come back to the same ISP (a mobile network) and geo-location, and are ASN sub-ranges of the parent range 114.120.0.0/13 (which is massive). I'm not sure of a source on the top of my head that you can easily use to check to verify the information changed - maybe ESPN, TheScore, NBC Sports, or other sources like this? Another editor will hopefully be able to answer that question. Unfortunately, if things get out of control regarding the addition of unreferenced content like this and from this range, the best we can do is look into and block each /16 range involved until we get a better idea of a possible sub-range we can safely block that would put a stop to it and without causing any collateral damage. If the edits have stopped since yesterday (it looks like they have), I'd just locate a source that either confirms or refutes what was changed and revert the ones that don't add up. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I reverted all players, for "unsourced revisions to caps/goals" (as lifetime scores), with one player even ballooned as "goals6=23" to "goals6=100" (diff). The common suspicious tactic was altering 3-9 lifetime scores of caps/goals per player, without setting date in "pcupdate=". I will ask footballer users about sources. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikid77 - You bet :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah and Wikid77:, is this situation adequately resolved for the moment? Softlavender (talk) 07:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Elon_Musk

(non-admin closure) Template restored. Tornado chaser (talk)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This template needs to be restored, we're still getting requests to change "business magnate" to "business magnet". Should be kept for a fairly long amount of time since removing this notice causes the requests to return. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I second this request. Brad v 01:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Done—Floquenbeam (talk) 02:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rangeblock for vandal in North Carolina

(non-admin closure) Range blocked. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can we get a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/2602:306:36F8:66E0:0:0:0:0/64? Nothing constructive coming from there. Binksternet (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Checking... -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP on vandalism spree

Taken care of--Ymblanter (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:5.209.3.39 has been making rapid-fire changes to the demographic information (height, birthdate, etc) in dozens of bios of fashion models. So far as I can tell, all of them are contradicted by the cited sources. Blocking and rollback are called for, preferably ASAP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked them and will do some rollbacking. Number 5 7 12:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat on talk page

(non-admin closure) Blocked. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Araldico69 has made what could be considered legal threats on Talk:House_of_Este#Hoax, despite being warned on the same talk page. "I have the right to go to my solicitor and start a defamation process in Italy as this is the competent forum. After that the police will find out the identity of this person that is using a highly defamatory term (this has occurred several times for tripadvisors fake reviewers). I am done it now." & "I also informed you that I printed the page and filed in case this topic continues." Greyjoy^talk 12:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Support NLT Block (Non-administrator comment)Araldico69 was already warned on NLT and yet they continued to repeatedly threaten instead of engaging in the Civil discussion.--DBig Xrayᗙ 14:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

~~User:Greyjoy you did not notify him, Please inform the editor about this thread using {{subst:ANI-notice}}~~ --DBig Xrayᗙ 14:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

What about this notification, User:DBigXray? -David Biddulph (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry David Biddulph, I missed the note. Struck off the above line. Cheers. --DBig Xrayᗙ 16:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. They can easily get unblocked of course if they agree they won't take legal action or encourage others to. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible legal threat

Not a legal threat.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

At

WP:RSN: "Oh you folks are ABSOLUTELY committing libel and accusing me of fraud." By Roccodb (talk · contribs). -- Softlavender (talk

) 12:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Not really, but this [[99]] is not all that clever, and they do have a general battleground tone.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Nope, A rant though but not a Legal threat yet. usage of the word Libel does not by itself mean a Legal threat. --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The bizarre thing is that that outburst came after we assured him that we did believe what he was saying is true. Softlavender (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I think there may be an issue here of a SPA promotional account [[100]] all they have done is try and add the video they claim to have produced, and then get rally angry over it. I think they need a warning.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we've already established that on the RSN thread. Probably does need a warning, considering his escalating hostility (which at first might have been justified, but not after two people assured him we believed him but that the sourcing was inadequate). Softlavender (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I just read the thread, he makes it clear he doesn't intend to take legal action. Doug Weller talk 14:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

In the thread I make it clear in all caps and I will say it again, I AM NOT THREATENING LEGAL ACTION! I really don't know how much clearer I can be. I did provide undeniable proof the one line I added to the Petra page was 100 percent true, factual, and accurate.They added my video to their Facebook page and labeled it their 1st video which is my claim. Link: https://www.facebook.com/Petraband/?fb_dtsg_ag=Adx2d-asRpes7H8iyR32xTxahYDhSzQt7XhpVErFDRxe5Q%3AAdzTxUGCGDdoxn7q4oAVQJytkzfm3XqEXtB7lGJCcC45qw They shared it from my YouTube channel with my statememt on it I produced it and they did not challenge that. Why would they put misinformation on their own page? They wouldn't. The lead singer Greg Volz also shared it to both his Facebook and Fan page and thanked me. I don't know why Softlavender is continuing to complain about me after that but I assure you, this has left a bitter impression of the way you folks do things. Am I passionate? Absolutely because I am not used to anyone challenging my character, especially in the face of evidence otherwise. It should be over and the statement returned. Anything less is wrong! Roccodb (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

There's no need to add mention of a minor music video for which we have no reliable independent source. The word "first" has been removed from the mention of the music video we do have a reliable independent citation for. I think we can all drop this now. Softlavender (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP using threatening edit summaries

(non-admin closure) Vandalizing IP blocked. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

209.250.178.210 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been making rather mundane edits with threatening and inappropriate edit summaries. Examples include about extrajudicial execution in Chile this one that seems like a POV edit verging on vandalism plus the edit summary and others. As the Pinochet example wasn't vandalism per say I brought the issue here. Simonm223 (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the second diff you provided was the wrong link - this is the one I think you meant to link. Agree that it is blatant vandalism. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

That is what I meant to link. Thanks for the catch. Was rushing between meetings. Simonm223 (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Acdixon

(non-admin closure) Closed at request of the party who opened this. Icarosaurvus (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

I am collapsing Jytdog's lengthy OP because it has been divided up below by the named party and they replied to each paragraph separately. I'm going to label the sections of the original post "OP". Softlavender (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This person is an admin, someone we expect to deeply understand the spirit and letter of the policies and guidelines and in general to edit and behave in an exemplary way. Indeed, 1990'sguy noted this quality we expect of admins, in the EWN thread that led to his first block this week, writing :Also, as User:Acdixon noted on Talk:Is Genesis History?, the wording being pushed on that article is so absurd that it even astounded him (a seasoned admin). 1990'sguy was justifying his edit warring by citing Acdixon's support on the content. To be clear, Acdixon has not used the bit in this discussion. (but do see below)

Just today, they made this argument on talk with respect to the Ark Encounter: My impression of the place is that its focus is on promoting AiG's theories about the flood more so than promoting its ideas about creationism. Having visited for the first time this weekend, I can confirm that many more of its exhibits deal with flood geology and the logistics of life aboard the ark than with creationism. (Although there certainly ARE creationist exhibits, such as the seven days of creation display I added a picture of yesterday.) If the visit changed my mind about the purpose of the ark at all, it would be in that there are several more exhibits promoting evangelical outreach (symbology of Jesus and salvation in the flood narrative, etc.) than I anticipated. So, in my opinion, it is not incorrect to say it is creationist, but it is more correct to say it promotes flood geology, the feasibility of the ark, and/or seeks to evangelize visitors with AiG's understanding of the gospel. It is these observations – and not some nefarious intent to hide the promotion of creationism at the attraction – that motivated my suggestions.

That is a jaw dropper, coming from the account of an admin. Arguing for a change based on their personal experience and treating pseudoscience like YEC and flood geology as though it is some sort of valid "theory". This is an admin advocating for pseudoscience in Wikipedia.

They then made this edit, with edit note per talk, which misrepresents the status of the consensus at talk, in this section. Again, this is the kind of thing I expect from a newbie advocate, not from someone to whom we have entrusted the bit.

Acdixon's participation in these topics has been pretty much exactly the same as 1990sguys (albeit with less edit warring). But cheek by jowl, and same sorts of arguments. supporting drive-by stripping of "pseudoscience" from the article.

As one can see if you look at the history of Ark Encounter, Acdixon actually created it in draft space in April 2016 and it was moved to mainspace here in May 2016. Per the editing stats, Acdixon is #1 with 196 edits and 1990sguy is #2 with 124 and K.e.coffman is #3 with 94. The history is difficult to work out

Acdixon for some reason deleted the draft page, using the bit

per the log the page itself was deleted in 2010 and later in August 2017 at the request of LegacyPac, a history merge was done with the draft page.

That is all confusing to me, but it is a use of the bit on a creationist topic.

Here are other deletions Acdixon has made using the bit. A bunch of them are creationist related. I don't if they would be viewed as BLP violations by non-INVOLVED admins or not. I can imagine that some of them were drive-by ugliness.

But more directly, diffs:

here making a very strained argument about how it is OK to use primary sources in Is Genesis History? and similarly here. Here they threw the "censoring" argument as well as playing the "civil" card, which are two favorite tactics of Civil POV-pushers We finally had Talk:Is_Genesis_History?#Rfc which led to the removal of all that in-bubble primary-sourced content. That was a ridiculous amount of work against civil-POV pushing. That is what civil POV-pushing does. Makes small things into time sinks.
This (saying skeptics lie when they say tax incentives helped to build the ark) was both terrible and OFFTOPIC, as I pointed out here (This is a place where I have edited away profanity before saving, as I did when I responded then. But reading that sort of stuff makes me burn) as did MPants here. The reply from Acdixon was ground-shifting, which is another typical Civil POV-pushing tactic.
Much more recently, in the series of edits that got 1990sguy blocked for edit warring, Acdixon came in hot at the talk page, directly repeating 1990s'sguy's misreading of Guy's edit here as containing "scare quotes" (guy's edit added italics, not quotes) and repeating 1990'sguy's argument that the possessive in English means only ownership. Acdixon acknowledged some of that here, which was great.

This is not about admins needing to be perfect and I am not seeking their bit.

But as I said to them on their talk page here, an admin should have the wisdom to stay away from topics where they struggle to and perhaps cannot be neutral. As you can see there, Acdixon is not having that. In my view their presence in this topic creates a time sink, and perhaps more importantly, like it or not their pushing against the PSCI policy as hard as they can is going to lead others to feel justified in following that, as 1990'sguy explicitly said at EWN, quoted above. This is good for no one. I am again asking Acdixon to agree to steer clear of creationism, and if they will not, I am asking the community to consider a TBAN. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

NB: in this diff, Acdixon "replied within" the post above. In this diff, I restored the section above. In the same diff as I am making this comment, I am adding signatures to the fragments of my message above, that Acdixon is responding to... Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

OP: This person is an admin, someone we expect to deeply understand the spirit and letter of the policies and guidelines and in general to edit and behave in an exemplary way. Indeed, 1990'sguy noted this quality we expect of admins, in the EWN thread that led to his first block this week, writing :Also, as User:Acdixon noted on Talk:Is Genesis History?, the wording being pushed on that article is so absurd that it even astounded him (a seasoned admin). 1990'sguy was justifying his edit warring by citing Acdixon's support on the content. To be clear, Acdixon has not used the bit in this discussion. (but do see below)

Just today, they made this argument on talk with respect to the Ark Encounter: My impression of the place is that its focus is on promoting AiG's theories about the flood more so than promoting its ideas about creationism. Having visited for the first time this weekend, I can confirm that many more of its exhibits deal with flood geology and the logistics of life aboard the ark than with creationism. (Although there certainly ARE creationist exhibits, such as the seven days of creation display I added a picture of yesterday.) If the visit changed my mind about the purpose of the ark at all, it would be in that there are several more exhibits promoting evangelical outreach (symbology of Jesus and salvation in the flood narrative, etc.) than I anticipated. So, in my opinion, it is not incorrect to say it is creationist, but it is more correct to say it promotes flood geology, the feasibility of the ark, and/or seeks to evangelize visitors with AiG's understanding of the gospel. It is these observations – and not some nefarious intent to hide the promotion of creationism at the attraction – that motivated my suggestions.

That is a jaw dropper, coming from the account of an admin. Arguing for a change based on their personal experience and treating pseudoscience like YEC and flood geology as though it is some sort of valid "theory". This is an admin advocating for pseudoscience in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

It would have been a "jaw dropper" if that was actually what happened, but it is not. I made that comment – which you have incompletely quoted – in response to an accusation of bad faith by another editor, who said an alternative wording I had suggested "attempts to obfuscate the park's purpose". This comment was meant to show that I have no desire to obfuscate anything, and that accusing me of attempting to do so is an accusation of bad faith. When questioned, I explicitly acknowledged that my observations were

WP:OR

and not a valid basis for changing anything on Wikipedia, and further, that they were not offered for that purpose to begin with. You presumably saw this response, yet you A) brought the issue up here and represented it as being an attempt to do something that I explicitly denied that it was; and B) omitted the first two sentences of the original comment which make it clear why the comment is being made.

As for treating pseudoscience like YEC and

PBUH) when discussing those prophets on talk pages or Jews to render "God" as "G-d" when discussing Him on talk pages because of their beliefs about these constructs, but not in the article space. In the same way, I think I am entitled to reference flood geology as a "theory" (instead of some of the less-flattering descriptors used by others) when discussing it on the talk page. All that said, I know what the prevailing view on YEC is, and IN THE ARTICLE SPACE, I have and will abide by wording that reflects that to the degree required by policy. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs}

So you really can't see that bringing in your personal experience inappropriate anywhere in WP. Your feelings or beliefs about science, are also not relevant, and even here you appear to be unable to keep them out of the discussion. And as others have noted below, your effort to persuade others to treat pseudoscience as anything other than pseudoscience, is not OK here in Wikipedia. This is a policy for a reason. What you are doing is exactly the same, as what the tin foil people (literally) do at

Electromagnetic sensitivity from a policy perspective. It is not OK here in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk

) 17:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

bringing in your personal experience inappropriate anywhere in WP Really? So someone arguing against including a creationist source in an article because they know all creationists lie because they used to be one and, at that time, they lied and helped others lie, that would be an example of bringing in your personal experience on WP, right? The exact kind of thing you have just told me you find unacceptable. But that's exactly what MPants did here. And not only did you not call him out for it, as you have done to me here, you implicitly endorsed it by citing it in this very ANI as an appropriate response to one of my assertions. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow. That was an immature response. Even if you were exactly right (there's a world of difference between discussing the reliability of a source and proposing article contents), pointing a finger and saying "well he did it, too!" doesn't excuse anything. Hell, my 10-year-old knows better than that.

Tell me all about it.

16:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not saying you did anything wrong. But if Jytdog is going to make the statement that bringing in your personal experience inappropriate anywhere in WP ("anywhere"; no exceptions or qualifiers), then I think it is worth noting that he has been inconsistent in taking that position. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

OP: They then made this edit, with edit note per talk, which misrepresents the status of the consensus at talk, in this section. Again, this is the kind of thing I expect from a newbie advocate, not from someone to whom we have entrusted the bit. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

My comment that the edit was "per talk" reflected three editors (myself, 1990'sguy, and Rhododendrites, who I believe has self-identified as non-YEC) who believed the current wording was problematic, to one degree or another, and another (MPants) who indicated an openness to the replacement wording. The replacement wording was not even my suggestion, but that of Rhododendrites. Despite my view (expressed earlier) that "creationist" is not the most correct way to describe the attraction (although certainly not incorrect, as I also acknowledged multiple times), the edit I made included that term because it is supported by reliable sources and the apparent consensus on the talk page. Despite being asked to propose alternatives in light of the disagreement over the current wording, to my knowledge, you proposed none. In the spirit of

WP:BRD

, I hoped the change – again, proposed by an editor who was not a YEC proponent and which included elements I was not personally in favor of – would be, in the best case, acceptable or, in the worst case, would provide a basis for future attempts at compromise. Instead, you simply reverted back to the existing version and have still proposed no alternative wording that would suit you.

As for this edit representing "advocacy", I have stated multiple times that my preference is that there be no qualifier at all on Ark Encounter, trusting our readers to be able to click through to a full article on the topic if they are unfamiliar. That was the state of the article until JzG's addition of a qualifier on September 6, just a week ago. In the spirit of compromise, I both proposed an alternative wording for the qualifier and supported others' proposed alternatives, even though I still maintain one is not needed. How, exactly, does the return of the article to its state of about a week ago, or the support of an alternative proposed by a non-YEC editor, constitute pro-YEC advocacy? Your refusal to propose any alternative while reverting any attempt to change the current version that I and others have concerns about sounds to me a lot like

WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs}

OP: Acdixon's participation in these topics has been pretty much exactly the same as 1990sguys (albeit with less edit warring). But cheek by jowl, and same sorts of arguments. supporting drive-by stripping of "pseudoscience" from the article. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

As 19900'sguy and I share a worldview, it should come as little surprise that our arguments sound similar, no? And I have not supported "drive by" removal of the term "pseudoscience". "Drive by" means "without providing rationale or explanation". I have argued that

WP:PSCI does not explicitly require that the word "pseudoscience" be used in every instance where a concept that is considered pseudoscientific is mentioned. It is sufficient to describe it in terms that make it clear that it is considered pseudoscience. Attempts to wedge the word in – here and in similar articles – result in sentences that I consider to be unnecessarily awkward, redundant, and "piling on". Editors such as Tornado chaser (here and here), MPants (here), and Boing! said Zebedee (here) have agreed with one or more of those stances recently. Moreover, the closer of the RfC about sources explicitly suggested "there's a strong-consensus to include the point [that creation science is pseudoscience] but the editorial details need to be settled" (emphasis mine). Starting the discussion in question was consistent with that suggestion. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs}

PSCI says: The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included.. Your "argument" reads hard against the literal meaning as well as its spirit. "as such". Again, you very clearly cannot be neutral on this topic, and you should step away from it. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

OP: As one can see if you look at the history of Ark Encounter, Acdixon actually created it in draft space in April 2016 and it was moved to mainspace here in May 2016. Per the editing stats, Acdixon is #1 with 196 edits and 1990sguy is #2 with 124 and K.e.coffman is #3 with 94. The history is difficult to work out.

Acdixon for some reason deleted the draft page, using the bit

per the log the page itself was deleted in 2010 and later in August 2017 at the request of LegacyPac, a history merge was done with the draft page. That is all confusing to me, but it is a use of the bit on a creationist topic. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

My use of the bit in this case is consistent with my use of it in non-creationist instances. When I'm done with an article in draft space, I delete it. Just housecleaning. I would have just done a move, but if I recall correctly, because of the previous deletion, that wasn't an option. I may be misremembering that. Regardless, I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Do you think I misused the bit? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

OP: Here are other deletions Acdixon has made using the bit. A bunch of them are creationist related. I don't if they would be viewed as BLP violations by non-INVOLVED admins or not. I can imagine that some of them were drive-by ugliness. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

You may imagine that they were all drive-by ugliness. Nothing that would have improved the encyclopedia by being visible. I invite any interested admin to check them out and verify. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

OP: But more directly, diffs:

here making a very strained argument about how it is OK to use primary sources in Is Genesis History? and similarly here. Here they threw the "censoring" argument as well as playing the "civil" card, which are two favorite tactics of Civil POV-pushers We finally had Talk:Is_Genesis_History?#Rfc which led to the removal of all that in-bubble primary-sourced content. That was a ridiculous amount of work against civil-POV pushing. That is what civil POV-pushing does. Makes small things into time sinks.Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The "strained argument" was that sources that are pro-YEC could still be considered independent of this film because they are from sources not directly associated with the film's production. While it is true that all of the sources that take positions on YEC (both for and against) were eventually removed as a result of the RfC, my "strained argument" was not without support there, or in the two AfDs related to this article. It's not like I was the only one making/agreeing with it. As for the censoring, the closer of the RfC explicitly agreed with that reasoning, stating "it's but a fact that the reliability/independency of a source is not a binary concept and the validity of a source almost-always depends on the content it is used to source...Thus, I am very inclined to accept Acdixon's argument that the edit(s) which removed entirely non-controversial information about the film under the pretext of the sources being not very reliable/independent, is a dis-service to the reader." So, not a time sink, but a worthwhile discussion of the merits of my position, in which there were opinions on both sides. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

OP: * This (saying skeptics lie when they say tax incentives helped to build the ark) was both terrible and OFFTOPIC, as I pointed out here (This is a place where I have edited away profanity before saving, as I did when I responded then. But reading that sort of stuff makes me burn) as did MPants here. The reply from Acdixon was ground-shifting, which is another typical Civil POV-pushing tactic.Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

You are right that it was a bit off topic, but it was offered as a disproof of a rather outrageous claim by MPants ("There's no equivalence between skeptical group and creationist groups. The former tell the truth. The latter lie through their teeth.") To this argument that skeptics "tell the truth", I offered a counterexample about tax incentives that I still believe is a demonstration of dishonesty by groups hostile to AiG. If it is a poor counterexample, so be it, but I'm still not sure anyone wants to seriously defend the proposition that skeptics never lie. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

OP: * Much more recently, in the series of edits that got 1990sguy blocked for edit warring, Acdixon came in hot at the talk page, directly repeating 1990s'sguy's misreading of Guy's edit here as containing "scare quotes" (guy's edit added italics, not quotes) and repeating 1990'sguy's argument that the possessive in English means only ownership. Acdixon acknowledged some of that here, which was great. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

As you note, I acknowledged my error about quotes vs. italics. You seem to ascribe the error to my impulsively agreeing with 1990'sguy because we share a worldview, which is an assumption of bad faith. I was sorting through the diffs in an edit war and didn't read carefully enough, so I took 1990'sguy's word for it (as I would have any other editor's) and immediately corrected my mistake. The larger point is that, whether it was quotes or italics, there was no reason to add either, yet MPants argued to keep them just because he didn't think they were misleading and then bizarrely implied that my wanting to remove them was somehow a result of my YEC worldview.[101][102] Rhododendrites eventually removed the italics and, strangely, no one seemed to care. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

OP: This is not about admins needing to be perfect and I am not seeking their bit.

But as I said to them on their talk page here, an admin should have the wisdom to stay away from topics where they struggle to and perhaps cannot be neutral. As you can see there, Acdixon is not having that. In my view their presence in this topic creates a time sink, and perhaps more importantly, like it or not their pushing against the PSCI policy as hard as they can is going to lead others to feel justified in following that, as 1990'sguy explicitly said at EWN, quoted above. This is good for no one. I am again asking Acdixon to agree to steer clear of creationism, and if they will not, I am asking the community to consider a TBAN. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I have responded inline above, as there are so many points to respond to that I'm not sure {{

tq}} would be effective. I think I have adequately defended myself against the accusations above. I look forward to the community's assessment. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs}

Wow I have read through some of that talk page and it is clear that

WP:POV warrior, repeatedly fighting to keep the word "pseudoscience" out of the article and referencing "flood geology" and "the logistics of life aboard the ark' with a straight face, most inappropriate for an admin or in fact any editor. I don't know how useful this person may be elsewhere on the project but totally agree that s/he should commit to avoid any Biblical or religious article (I don't think "creationism" is broad enough) or be topic banned.Smeat75 (talk

) 03:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

1990'sguy is much easier to engage in discourse with than Acdixon. The huge walls of text posted in response to short comments, the constant use of "dirty" debating tactics, the frequent apparent failures to understand simple statements and the way they contradict themselves through the use of double standards all make it extraordinarily difficult to deal with them. I don't know that Acdixon is intentionally POV pushing (I suspect not), but I do know that, at least when it comes to this topic, they are frustrating and apparently incapable of seeing opposing points of view.

Tell me all about it.

13:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

WRT the deleted draft Draft:Ark Encounter I see that Acdixon restored all the edits after having first deleted them. Anthony Appleyard later selectively deleted a bunch of minor category-related edits. I also spotchecked some revision deletions and didn't see anything problematic. Disclaimer: I did not check in-depth for INVOLVEDness issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps because our paths have crossed less, I've not come to associate Acdixon with the kind of tenacious creationist civil POV pushing that I associate with 1990'sguy. That doesn't mean it's not necessarily the case, but that I'd want to see a whole lot more evidence if that were proposed. Really, if there's no consensus for sanctions against 1990'sguy above, I would have a hard time seeing this section going anywhere. More to the point, however, I haven't seen any evidence at all of misuse of tools such that Adixon's status as administrator needs to be called into question. If someone with a creationist POV went for RfA these days, it might have a negative effect on the process and result in, at minimum, an assurance that the candidate would not be using tools in related topic areas. I've seen tons of admins make bad decisions when it comes to their editing. "Lead by example" becomes a problem when it's particularly egregious, and I'm just not seeing it. Do I think Acdixon is wrong with some of his edits/suggestions? Of course! But, yeah, I just can't see this going anywhere. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I will add that although I am more or less diametrically opposed to the thrust of many of Acdixon's (and 1990'sguy) ideas for this article, I can understand them being a little flumperated (flummoxed + exasperated, coined just now) at some of what they're arguing against. One of the biggest sections on the talk page isn't about pseudoscience, reviews of the film, etc. but the bizarre wording of "Ark Encounter, Ken Ham's creationist exhibit", complete with preposterous italics and imprecise language for a tourist attraction run by a non-profit organization that Ham is associated with. Is it a false statement? Not exactly, but it's so obviously wonky, and BRD did not prevail. It was added just like that and edit warred to reinstate by Jzg, MPants, and Jytdog. When Acdixon wrote at length why it's a goofy phrasing and objected (as did I, though in fewer words), he got ~"TL;DR" responses. And now we're here. So yeah, while I still haven't made up my mind how to articulate my support for the section above, I would oppose and sanction on Acdixon at this time. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Two things:

I never edit warred to reinstate that material. You need to check the history and strike that accusation. I explicitly stated multiple times at talk that I had no strong feelings about the text one way or another, but was merely responding to the vacuous claim that the wording was confusing and inraccurate.
I used to be able to read the OP of this subsection. But that is no longer true. Acdixon decided to refactor Jytdog's post to include his own comments in the middle of it, which is confusing and annoying, and which I've warned Acdixon about before. (Obviously, this second point is not directed at you.)
Tell me all about it.
15:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

It is because of your previous "warning" that I explained why I chose to use this method of replying. In my estimation, trying to respond to the many points raised by Jytdog below the OP would result in a fragmented discussion that would be a bigger mess than what is above. I have used this method of replying in many complicated discussions previously without incident. You are the only one to ever complain about it. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of repeatedly adding it, but after JzG added it, it was challenged by 1990'sguy. Then Jytdog, JzG, and you restored it in an edit war with 1990's guy. Yes, 1990'sguy is the only one who violated 3RR and should've stopped at one, just like it should've gone to the talk page as soon as he challenged it per BRD. I'm not accusing you of violating a rule there, but you did jump in to reinstate the newly added text for the fourth time (the other three being by other users). 1990'sguy had obviously given many more reasons than just "it's confusing and inaccurate". I hate that I'm in the position of defending 1990'sguy on this -- I feel like while 1990'sguy has earned some kind of sanction with his editing, but I don't think that gives anyone license to add and then force a goofy edit rather than follow BRD. If it were reverting an obvious POV push by 1990'sguy, or if the initial change had been his rather than him being the one to challenge it, I'd understand, but I'm straining to believe that anyone thought that "Ark Encounter, Ken Ham's creationist exhibit" was/is primo encyclopedia writing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Acdixon please restore the integrity of my original post, as it stood here. I wrote it as a whole, to be read by other people as a whole. It is not OK for you to refactor my post in a way that thwarts my (or anyone else's) effort to communicate with others. And you did that here at ANI. And you are an admin. Again, this is jaw-droppingly inappropriate behavior. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually to heck with it. I fixed it myself. Jytdog (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I did it here at ANI. Just like I've done it on every one of my FACs (example) without incident. No one there found it "jaw dropping" or an attempt to thwart their communication with the community. Not every edit I make has some nefarious intent behind it.

WP:AGF Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs}

) 17:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't care about your intent. I am looking at what you do. You destroyed my original comment. If you want to know why I think you did it, I imagine it is selfishness and thoughtlessness more than anything nefarious. That doesn't make it any better. You step on other people when you do that. Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The {{

Tell me all about it.

21:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Can someone please remove or hat the verbatim redundancies in this thread? Long-winded ANI threads are hard enough to follow the logic of without the long-windedness being repeated verbatim. I was going to opine on this thread but it really needs to be trimmed first before newcomers can take it all in. Softlavender (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Edited to add: I collapsed the OP myself. I can't think of any other solution to this issue. Softlavender (talk) 23:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, the best solution would have been for Acdixon to not butcher it in the first place, but evidently the user found himself unable to show restraint. Icarosaurvus (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I have not been involved in this dispute, and frankly everything above is tl;dr, but I have worked with Acdixon in the past at Creation Museum, and I have always found him to be reasonable and policy-compliant. He is clear about having personal opinions, and I do not share those opinions, but he is not a POV-pusher. I did read the first paragraph of the OP, and it strikes me as a content dispute in which Jytdog disagrees with what Acdixon said – but that does not rise to the level of requiring something to be done at ANI. If someone edits in a tendentious manner, that belongs here, but if someone holds personal opinions that you don't like, just work with them. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

This should probably be closed; there is clearly going to be no action at this time, and Acdixon has not agreed to step away. So we will keep working. Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Self promotion

All accounts blocked for socking. Looks like everything has been taken care of here. (non-admin closure) — MRD2014 ^Talk 02:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:Maruyuhum page is a problem....looks like every linked page is a user page used for Self promotion. Seems like a whole series of look at us userpages. Notice all this when reverting odd edits.

AshokSaravanan. The film stars Madhuprakash.R and Saranya.M play the lead roles, with Umavathi.A, Mohammed ithrees, Surendharjith, Dhanveerkhan, Shankar.G.K, Saigugan, and Nishanthini in supporting roles. Siva.N composed the film's music and background score, while Anastheen was the cinematographer, Surentharjith & AshokSaravanan was the Dialouge Writers and AshokSaravanan & Anastheen.S was the editors.The film featured an soundtrack Sung by Agathiya.P.The film began production in September 2018 with callsign of Filmcoordinator InamulHassan

--Moxy (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I deleted all of those pages under G11 as obviously promotional. It is clear that someone does not understand how Wikipedia works, and if the film is notable, then perhaps we can offer some assistance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like everything this user has done on Wikipedia is either vandalism or trolling. Has he received a warning? Because it looks like he is headed for a block. Softlavender (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Maruyuhum is not really a "user", it is the name of a movie now being filmed. My theory is that one person created all of these accounts, one for the movie, and one each for everyone involved in the film. If disruption resumes, I will block the accounts. For now, I have deleted the promotional userpages. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

These are all Confirmed to an LTA and now blocked.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1990'sguy

There does not appear to be any discernable consensus whatsoever here. Respondents are bitterly divided over whether a TBAN for 1990sguy is warranted, with an apparent slight majority in opposition. Many users feel that the root of the problem is not in fact this one user's conduct on this one article. Several users express sentiments that there is problematic behavior on both sides of the POV spectrum, and that page-level restrictions, such as full protection or 1RR, would be a more appropriate response. Several others feel that the problem is even more widespread, and that a general 1RR across the creationism subject area would be an appropriate measure. Unfortunately, no clear, fleshed-out alternative solutions have been proposed, and, much like the proposed TBAN, there does not appear to be any discernable agreement as to what a suitable alternative solution would be. I will note that per

WP:ARBPS, standard discretionary sanctions are already authorized "for all pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted", which may offer some limited assistance, but I don't believe the entirety of the topic of creationism can be considered to be in the purview of that case, and the degree to which it can be applied is not particularly clear. Discussion to hammer out discretionary sanctions within that subject area can proceed via AE without delay. It's also important to note that this discussion does not preclude the possibility of community-authorized sanctions such as a general 1RR, or discretionary sanctions, in the creationism subject area. Any such proposals can be made in a new section. This thread, however, does not appear to be yielding any sort of solution, and I will endorse the assessment below that it is "getting nowhere". Swarm ♠

23:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1990'sguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Is Genesis History? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1990sguy is a creationist who wrote the

WP:OWN

the article. Numerous editors, including me, have worked on toning it down and adding a reality-based perspective but 1990'sguy has engaged in a months-long one against many campaign to skew it towards the favourable perspective provided by evangelical Christian sources. This has now resulted in two blocks for edit warring, in rapid succession.

I know that Trump-loving creationists are not a popular class on Wikipedia, I think people have cut him a lot of slack for that reason, but the

WP:OWN is a time sink and I think we need to ask him to step away from this article. Guy (Help!

) 08:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Just a few comments from me, not sure if a topic ban is needed yet. The original version was very one-sided, with the only criticism echoed in the article being from someone who apparently said "the narrative that accompanied the rich display of God’s amazing creation fell far short of reflecting what we actually find revealed in nature." There was nothing about rejection from scientific commentators at all. On the other hand, it looks to me as if some have gone too far the other way and have been going over the top to stress the view that Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is false - yes, the evidence overwhelmingly shows it to be false, but the article about the film should not be a platform for arguing against YEC (and even stating in Wikipedia's voice that it is "incorrect" - which I removed, though I wouldn't be surprised to see that reverted). So, even though I am fully on the side of the scientific evidence and I reject YEC, I can understand 1990'sguy's frustration too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Frankly I am getting a bit of this vibe from both sides of this dispute, what exactly was wrong with this [[104]] it removed a source, but generally the lead should not have sources in it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

There actually is no lead in that article, it's all one section. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, that edit wasn't performed by 1990'sguy but by 1991'sguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a nsmutte sock. Bishonen | talk 09:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC).

It was originally, but was then redone twice by 1990'sguy after it was reverted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Which has been a concern of mine: everytime a driveby edit occurs a new drama ensues. About the sources, the issue is that the content is not in the article's body, so

WP:LEAD would normally be (which is currently not an article summary). —Paleo Neonate

– 09:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

For more context: [105] which also points at another post with diffs (and likely shows my involvement). —Paleo Neonate – 09:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee and PaleoNeonate, one of the problems with this article in particular, is that there is a dearth of mainstream sources about it as a documentary at all, as was pointed out in both the the 2nd AfD (Not just no full-length reviews, no reviews at all. The sources that do discuss it fail the independence test as laid out in NMOVIE: The source needs to be independent of the topic, meaning that the author and the publisher are not directly associated with the topic (which by definition excludes creationist groups).) as well as the 1st AfD. We don't even have pseudoscience-debunking blogs of reasonable quality debunking the propaganda; that is the extent to which the mainstream has simply ignored it. Literally the only mainstream newspaper that paid attention to the subject matter -- the reason why the film exists --, was this snarky passing mention in the Orlando Sentinel (the writer/producer/director's hometown) which said: "Just a guess, the twist is going to be that the movie answers its own question with a resounding 'NO!'". This is why the page should not exist at all here. Given that it does, we are doing what we can to comply with PSCI. It is a difficult situation.

By the way, 1990'sguy has said here on WP that that they edit Conservapedia (originally here, as well as for example in this thread on their talk page).

Here is the article on "Is Genesis History?" at Conservapedia which includes: Through these interviews, Tackett shows that an overwhelming amount of evidence for a young Earth exists, as well as against the pseudoscientific theory of evolution. (sic), which has been there since the page was created in March 2017. Per its history, 1990'sguy has made every edit there but three, and two of those are bots.

1990'sguy created the page here in August 2017 (without that line) and per its editing stats, they are the biggest contributor here too, with almost twice the next person's (me). The

WP:OWN is clear, and it is obvious that the goal is to use the WP article about this propaganda film here in Wikipedia as creationist propaganda, pushing the P&G here as hard as they can and even going beyond them in that effort. Yes, the immune system of the community rejects this sort of behavior and content.Jytdog (talk

) 11:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I can certainly see the problem if there's no RS coverage of this. And yes, I'd seen the Conservapedia article - it's pretty much as I expect from that project. I would not object to a topic ban, but I'd also want to see the other side not trying to shovel in too much "It's all wrong" stuff. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

"Extreme animosity to YEC"? Well, I suppose, in the same way that we have extreme animosity towards ideologically motivated bullshit, but this is not just YEC, it is "creation science", a pseudoscience created by creationists specifically to get creationism taught in science class in violation of the US constitution. So animosity is very much justified. The movie promotes a deliberate fraud. Guy (Help!) 14:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I hear that Boing. I don't think naming creationism as pseudoscience is too much.

By the way, the Christian Post ref cited in the first paragraph now is useful, as it is a secondary source for criticism of the content of the film by Biologos (christians who accept evolution and write about the issue). 1990sguy himself included a primary source blog posting from Biologos criticizing the content of the film when the page was created. That was later cleared out as part of removing blog posts. The secondary-sourced content there now, does the same thing that he himself did, but now with better sourcing (not great, as Christian Post is still in the Christian bubble and we lack anything like the NYT or other high quality mainstream sourcing about the content of the film.) That makes his 2 recent reverts all the worse. Jytdog (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes, calling it pseudoscience is fine. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Adding: The previous version had "pseudoscience", "incorrect", "rejected by the scientific community", plus other statements of rejection - all within the first two sentences. That was over the top. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Those are entirely different points. "Pseudoscience" describes the manner in which the arguments are made, "incorrect" describes the truth-value of the statements, and "rejected by the scientific community" describes the reception of the ideas by the relevant epistemic community. They are not synonymous. Might there be easier ways or more textually beautiful ways to describe such things? Perhaps! But wholesale removal of content that is not otherwise present (e.g. identification of a claim that is incorrect as being incorrect) seems like it is opposed to best practices according to

how we should assert facts. This is not a "shoveling" of "it's all wrong". It's a single word that indicates the truth-value of the statements. jps (talk

) 22:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I encountered the user on the

) 14:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I have had dealings with this editor in this article and at one other. 1990'sguy seems willing to listen to views that are different than their own, even diametrically opposed views, and is someone willing to "bury the hatchet" and work with an editor they have vociferously disagreed with in the recent past in order to find a solution to a shared problem. 1990'sguy is also reasonably intelligent and well-educated. I really don't mind editing alongside them, or even arguing with them.

With that being said, I can't actually argue against the charges in the OP. 1990'sguy certainly does seem to want to WP:OWN this page, similar to the way they are the de-facto owner of the Conservapedia page. Their positions on various discussions seem to alternate between being based on due consideration and reason, and based on their admitted POV. Their behavior, while usually quite good, occasionally descends into stubborn edit warring, such as is currently the case.

At the end of my deliberations, I think a "creationism" topic ban would not be a bad idea. 1990'sguy has the ability to be a useful contributor. They have the skills and -apparently- the desire to improve this project. But their own POV seems to trip them up, resulting in out-of-character edit warring and a certain inconsistency to their arguments as they move back and forth between conviction-driven argumentation and reason-driven argumentation. I think they would do quite well on articles that are not about creationism.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Completely agree. Nice guy, serious blind spot, unable to separate truth from TRUTH. Guy (Help!) 19:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

A few comments. (1) I don't think

WP:PSCI and a non-notable film article that we have the odd situation of being obliged to characterize something in a way sources about it do not, and so are compelled to cite sources per policy-based best practices even though they're unrelated to the underlying subject. (3) 1990'sguy does well when it comes to keeping his cool on talk pages, I think, and I appreciate that. He is also willing to engage with people he disagrees with at length. However, I do have serious concerns about his ability to abide by NPOV and RS. A topic ban on this article would be more or less pointless, as the edits he wars over almost never stick. The issue is the less well attended discussions/articles elsewhere. That he entered into a debate arguing in defense of WorldNetDaily (WND) as a good source is something that should be a red flag for editing any controversial topic. Likewise comparing creationism and the "theory of evolution"... and a variety of other sourcing/POV issues that run into trouble with our policies. Though I won't link to offwiki sources now, the account he links to on Conservapedia frequently adds "examples of bias in Wikipedia", such as that we treat InfoWars as a terrible source, or that our articles on murder, homicide, and genocide do not include content about abortion... — Rhododendrites ^talk

\\ 17:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

About WND, I was defending it specifically as an acceptable source to use as a movie review, considering that it's has a relatively large readership. I would never support citing it on WP other than to cite the website's own opinion on an issue.

About the "theory of evolution" quote, I know that "theory" in scientific jargon has a different meaning than the regular vernacular definition.

About Conservapedia, I rarely edit things related to the topics you mentioned -- I mainly do politics, like here. But that's irrelevant, since I keep my work on both sites separate -- I take extra care that my POV on CP (everyone has a POV) doesn't creep into WP. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

support TBAN from creationism, broadly construed There is so much work to do building and maintaining good content. Dealing with 1990sguy trying to capitalize on ~~every~~ drive-by creationist deletions or additions to promote the validity of creationism is a complete waste of time. We all have better things to do with our time (including 1990s guy). Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC) (nuance Jytdog (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC))
Support 1RR on creationism topic area. I just took a look at the whole situation. From my observation, it seems that 1990'sguy is usually pretty good at keeping a NPOV and has certainly been a very constructive editor even in this topic area. However, his occasional edit warring in this area where he has bias is indeed a big problem. I don't think a topic ban would be necessary, but I do think 1RR on creationism for him would be appropriate in this situation. I don't want him to be forbidden from editing in this area completely, but we do need him to discuss the issues when he does get stubborn. funplussmart (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I have made many constructive, non-controversial edits on YEC topics: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,22,23,24,25 -- this is a selection of all the non-controversial edits I've done -- I could have linked more. In short, I have made many non-controversial content edits on YEC articles, added reliable sources, and expanded them. I assure you that nobody would have made these edits or updated those articles had it not been for me.

Mind you, my views on political topics are just as strong, if not even stronger, than my views on religious/scientific topics such as YEC -- but nobody's complained about my edits on the literal-thousands of political articles I've edited. I take NPOV very seriously on all articles, and it truly pains me to see and intro paragraph like this stay and even be defended despite its

WP:COATRACK violation (and also to see a more mild version, which still calls YEC "pseudoscience" and explains its broad rejection, criticized as somehow being "YEC propaganda"). It also really pains me to see the Ark Encounter labeled and defended as "Ken Ham's creationist exhibit"

when it's actually a theme park (with exhibits, not an exhibit of itself) owned by Answers in Genesis, which is a 501(c)(3) with a board of directors, etc. Imagine if I used similar wording to describe an atheist person or an animal rights activist. I have supported wordings on WP that most YECers would cringe at, and I have done my best to keep an NPOV in my YEC editing.

For whatever reason, multiple editors are talking about me on Conservapedia. While I don't deny editing on the site, I don't bring it up here unless provoked -- and I take care to keep my work on both sites separate. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I looked at those diffs:

diff, adding In December 2016, for the holiday season, AiG lit the Ark with rainbow colors, the purpose being to "reclaim the symbol from the gay rights movement" and remind viewers of the Covenant (biblical)#Noahic covenant. (USA today ref) Of course you neglected to include the reaction of LGBQT people who were cited in the article, including ""The rainbow is a symbol of love, acceptance, unity and inclusion, said Chris Hartman, director of the Kentucky Fairness Campaign. "None of which Mr. Ham or his operation embrace or embody," Hartman said. Hartman admired the look of the lights, though. "It makes the ark look incredibly gay," Hartman said."

diff just as the above, again just more PROMO, again neglecting more reactions: "“I didn’t realize Noah was so progressive,” while another called it an “awesome pride float.”" and also from here: "That is ABSOLUTE GAYEST BOAT and I 💯💯💯 LOVE IT. "

More seriously, here you talked about Nye visiting, but nothing of what he said, which was “I wanted to see how successful this thing is, or could be, and I wanted to see how children are reacting to it,” Nye said Sunday. His takeaway? The kids are being “brainwashed.” “This could be just a charming piece of Americana, just something — I recently used an app called Roadtrippers that takes you to odd or unusual places…but this is much more serious than that,” Nye said. “This guy promotes so very strongly that climate change is not a serious problem, that humans are not causing it, that some deity will see to it that everything is ok.”" Nothing of that. Just PR for Ham.

This one, yet more PR name-dropping, about Jimmy Carter dropping by. With a bareURL. Nothing from the source about Carter being reality-based and not a creationist. Just the PR.

You actually posted this, where you use a spam link. And talk about what AiG is "currently" doing. Not good.

oh look. Another instance of the Nye visit, added to the Ken Ham article this time. Again, nothing of Nye's reaction.

here adding NOTNEWS content about filing a lawsuit.

here wrong content about what happened with the lawsuit and here yet more. Which I fixed.

So yeah, there were some bad, POV/PROMO edits there. Jytdog (talk) 04:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The edits clearly show that I was concise (something I try to do on all articles regardless of topic) and used mainstream RSs. Regarding my linking to the Ark Encouter's website, that was before any consensus was reached that we shouldn't normally link to AiG sources -- the Ken Ham article was full of AiG sources, and the vast majority of them were not added by me. I stopped adding AiG sources once the community decided not to use them. Simply because the edits I linked are not full of expressly negative (or positive) comments (seriously, did you really want me to add the "That is ABSOLUTE GAYEST BOAT and I 💯💯💯 LOVE IT" comment and the other Twitter ones to the article?) does not make them "POV/PROMO" -- if we were to boil down the newsworthy info I added into single sentences (which I prefer to do in general), the resulting edits would look like mine. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

If you had replied here and said "yes i see how i am editing promotionally - pulling happy facts for AiG/Ham out of refs and ignoring any criticism of them instead of summarizing the sources'', I would have rethought my recommendations here. The "concise facts" you chose to pull out are all promotional and fail NPOV. You have just provided evidence to me and others that you don't have the self-insight to manage your very strong POV here. (and no, i don't expect you or anyone to "quote the tweets". I copied them here because they are funny and god knows we all need some laughs. But summarizing the sources, which all give significant space to the reactions -- is something that you should have done, and did not do.) Jytdog (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

It's edits like this (just now) that pain me --

always an urge to have to rub it in the readers' faces -- something I've never considered doing here. --1990'sguy (talk

) 23:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Impugning the motives of others is very much not in the spirit of

WP:NPA. You are claiming that I have an urge to do something which I manifestly do not have. You then go on to imply that you are better than me because you've "never considered" such a thing yourself. This is evidence, I would say, that you are better suited to a collaboration where people agree with your point of view so that you don't have to go around claiming that they have motives that they do not have. jps (talk

) 23:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

That does look like a poor edit, adding nothing but redundancy (there is no such thing as "correct beliefs that contradict scientific facts", so no need to add "incorrect" when we already say "contradict scientific facts"). Tornado chaser (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually there are such things. For example, someone may correctly believe that another person is out to get them, but that belief may be contradicted by the scientific fact that no one knows with certainty the thoughts of another. jps (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

No, there is a difference between unverified and contradicted, contradicted means you have strong evidence that it is false, not just that you can't prove it true. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

That's simply not the case. When you cannot verify something is true this is evidence that it is false. One can argue over whether such evidence is "strong" or not, but that's always case-by-case. In many scenarios, this is all that is possible to do. jps (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

You keep talking about what "pains" you. It seems that what "pains" you is identifying YEC as factually incorrect and "creation science" as pseudoscience. That is exactly the problem: YEC is factually incorrect and "creation science" is pseudoscience. The fact that the reality about your beliefs causes you pain is a full and complete explanation of the observed facts, and a compelling reason for you to take a step back. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Off-wiki, I'm surrounded by people who strongly disagree with me on political/religious/scientific topics, and who don't mind talking/debating them. I hope you're not suggesting that I live in a bubble, because closer to the opposite is true for me. What pains me is editors on an ostensibly objective wiki trying to rub this in readers' faces even if doing so violates other policies such as COATRACK, RGW, or UNDUE. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

What pains me is editors on an ostensibly objective wiki trying to rub this in readers' faces...

That doesn't contradict anything Guy said, you realize? --Calton | Talk 04:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I don't think how someone edits on an intentionally partisan wiki (conservapedia) should make a difference in how we treat them on wikipedia, we should just judge them by their wikipedia edits. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Support 1RR on creationism Honestly, this user's behavior on CP shouldn't matter here, and he does seem to be relatively good at keeping things NPOV here. Even in this topic area, he seems to be making non-disruptive edits, so probably just a 1RR in this area is needed and not a full topic ban. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 21:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

A misunderstanding

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Clarifying re: Conservapedia in light of comments above. To be clear, I have no objections to someone writing on both Conservapedia and Wikipedia, and even writing in significantly different ways on both sites. I understand that when you (or anyone) write about a subject on both sites, it will be different, and I don't hold it against 1990'sguy that his CP version of the IGH article is significantly more sympathetic in tone and content than ours. Furthermore, I appreciate that when he created the article here he did not simply copy the content/tone but worked to make it more compliant with Wikipedia policy. The reason I brought up Conservapedia above wasn't to comment on his article work there, but specifically about edits on Conservapedia about Wikipedia, where he has commented about disputes over NPOV, RS, etc. here as they pertain to subjects like InfoWars, abortion, creationism, conservative politicians, etc., indicating a non-trivial misunderstanding of or disagreement with wikipolicy and/or how we apply it. When you say something like "Even edits that do not appear to criticize creationism and falsely portray evolution as scientific fact are removed," or that there is a "cabal of left-wing administrators whose goal it is to paint [Alex Jones] as an illegitimate crackpot", that suggests to me an approach to Wikipedia based on a fundamental misunderstanding of wikipolicy. It's not about Conservapedia vs. Wikipedia, it's just about Wikipedia. Wikipedia takes the side of mainstream science, and there is overwhelming consensus that our RS policy means we treat Jones as, in so many words, an illegitimate crackpot. There is, of course, room for disagreement and dissent, and I wouldn't say all of the issues of bias you mention on CP (I haven't actually gone through them all, but have looked at those pages in the past) are baseless or skewed. We get things wrong sometimes. It happens. Like when IGH was kept at AfD (brb writing on RationalWiki about a right-wing cabal on Wikipedia [kidding]). In short: editing Conservapedia is not a problem. Being a creationist is not a problem. Editing creationist topics on Wikipedia without starting with the knowledge that NPOV/RS/FRINGE mean defaulting to mainstream scienc and understanding that InfoWars, etc. are not even close to reliable. I haven't actually proposed/supported a topic ban, fwiw, and would want to do additional digging (on WP, not CP, of course) before !voting. I'm more inclined to support the 1RR before jumping to a tban at this point. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I did not write any of the stuff about InfoWars or Alex Jones. That was added by another (apparently single-purpose) user. They only added it to the main article, so I moved it to the sub-article -- maintenance work, nothing more. I don't even use the word "cabal", including when referring to Wikipedia. Please don't attribute things to me that I did not write. I am agnostic towards Wikipedia's treatment of Jones (mainly because I don't really care), and I've actually cited his article as an example for what Wikipedia should do for YEC-related topics (I think on the Ken Ham talk page). --1990'sguy (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: Ah! Very sorry about that. Just going to err on the side of striking the whole thing. First time I think I've brought CP, et al. edits into an on-wiki discussion. I was uneasy about it from the start, and now regret it. Let that be a lesson to me, I guess. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

i shoulda brought diffs above. Here are some

Extended content

I should have brought diffs above.
at Is Genesis History?

28 June 2018‎

- diff IP 69.194.178.18 removed quotation marks with edit notes Quotation marks were used to mock creation science and creation scientists
- restored by IanThompson
- removed by 1990sguy
- restored by Guy
- removed by 1990sguy
- restored by Guy

22 July 2018

- "pseudoscience" removed by IP 69.168.164.33
- restored by Krelnik
- removed by IP 69.168.164.33
- restored by Mpants at work
- removed by Science For The Truth
- restored by Dawn Bard
- blah blah 1990sguy account not involved

6 September

- "pseudoscience" removed by IP 107.77.199.156
- restored by Mpants at work
- removed by 1990'sguy
- restored by Mpants at work
- then the ground shifted and we moved on to other things

at Answers in Genesis

13 July 2017

- diff content added by OtisDixon (blocked for socking Jan 2018) about Andrew A. Snelling "recently" getting a permit to take rocks from the Grand Canyon
- reverted by me as UNDUE
- restored by 1990sguy pointing to discussions elsewhere
- reverted by me as UNDUE
- restored by 1990sguy pointing to discussions elsewhere
- blah blah we ended up with content simply saying "reationist geologist Andrew A. Snelling starting working with AiG in 2007 as its director of research"

14 Nov 2017

- diff by 1990'sguy changed "young Earth creationist science, instead arguing strongly to convert the public to three central points" to "young Earth creationist research, instead focusing on laypeople and teaching them three central points" with edit note better wording
- reverted by me with edit note was worse wording. it is a ministry that seeks to convert, per source
- reverted by 1990sguy with edit note he source does not say convert -- it says spreading the message -- and Christians would strongly object to your wording
- reverted back by me, editing warring. giving notice. Again, PSCI DS are at play here

ended up from others' editing at "Answers in Genesis presents evangelicalism as an all-out battle of their biblical worldview against a naturalistic scientific worldview"

-- Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

If you're accusing me of being IP 69.168.164.33 or another IP, I'm not. I have never socked. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Nope. If I thought you were socking i would have brought an SPI. This is to support my !vote above. That is the second time in this discussion that you have taken stabs at the motivations of others (the first was here, noted here. Unwise. Jytdog (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

You didn't give any context to those diffs, and you included an edit war that I wasn't involved in at all (but it included the IP). Not unreasonable for me to assume that. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The series without you is to show the editing like yours that we have to put up with on this topic. Which reminds me that i have to tweak my vote. Jytdog (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment - This is not a feature film. It purports to portray reality as per the theory. So, all the heavy dose of criticism describing it as unreality is warranted, even three negatives in the lead sentence. (Even for feature films that portray science or history etc., we do include criticisms regarding their correctness. It should be more so here.) All this is content debate. But coming back to the topic, I wouldn't support any sanctions for 1990'sguy, based on just this one incident. They are normally level-headed and I believe they can correct themselves. But, if a repeat of this kind of behaviour occurs at any other creationism article, I would support a t-ban. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Do you mean the first "AN incident"? This report was made because it's a recurrent issue. —Paleo Neonate – 05:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose any sanctions on 1990'sguy individually. I was one of the first editors other than 1990'sguy to come across Is Genesis History?, when I came across it on new page patrol last August. I made a few edits to counter what I thought was an unduly accepting POV towards the film's claims, and had some discussions about it with 1990'sguy. I found him to be receptive to other editor's opinions and committed to NPOV and consensus-building, despite his evident strong, non-mainstream views on the topic The problematic behaviour around this article didn't start with him, they began with the very contentious first AfD, which brought the article to the attention of several editors who very strongly opposed any coverage of the film that wasn't expressly negative. Since then there has been edit warring on both sides, with 1990'sguy more likely to fall afoul of 3RR simply because he was in the minority, not because he was the only one at fault. The locus of this dispute is a particular article, not a particular editor, and something like a 1RR restriction or full protection on Is Genesis History? would be a more effective and fairer remedy than singling out 1990'sguy for a topic ban.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Roe (talk • contribs)
Oppose any sanctions on anybody. It appears that multiple parties have edit warred and sometimes the edit war was completely unnecessary. 1990'sguy appears to have engaged in productive discussion like some other editors however the recent activity and engagement in talk page concludes that some people should really take a break from this subject. I support 1RR or full protection on the article as more effective solution per above. Kraose (talk) 07:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose any sanctions on 1990 Support 1RR on creationism As I said 1990 is not alone in this on the article ion my opinion. I also agree that there has also been a degree of tag teaming over there. There are POV pushers on both sides, so no one sided bans.Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Tag teaming implies collusion. Who is colluding, and where? For context, quackery shills also accuse reality-based editors of "tag-teaming" over articles on things like homeopathy. I am not exactly overjoyed by the use of this term absent actual evidence of collusion. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

"a degree of tag teaming" or to put it another way, there is agreement among certain eds (look at the talk page) that the article will reflect a certain POV. Thus there is a form of tag teaming, they have all agreed on what the article should say they they will make sure it does.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think an accusation of tag teaming and POV is fair. I just see a number of editors trying to make the article reflect the consensus of academic opinion (which is what NPOV requires). I do think there has perhaps been a bit of excessive zeal from time to time in attempting that, but that's something that can be worked out on the talk page (as is actually happening). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

What you call tag teaming is simply policy-based consensus forming. —Paleo Neonate – 13:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Our articles on flat earth typically attract large numbers of editors keen to reflect the consensus view that the earth is not flat. Some of us think this is a feature rather than a bug. Guy (Help!) 17:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Hopefully, the editors on that page don't try to rub the truth in readers' faces. I believe the Earth is round, but I would get annoyed if I read an article that goes overboard trying to prove it's round when it's intended to describe the flat Earth view. Words like "incorrect" don't help me understand the view, even if I solidly come to that conclusion afterward. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

And right now the article on the creationist propaganda film says that creationism is incorrect and that "creation science" is pseudoscience, which is an equivalent level to saying the earth is round. The problem, as always, is the absence of any reality-based reviews of the film. Still no professional movie reviews. Still the only substantive discussion is among evangelicals broadly supportive of at least the idea of YEC, which is a serious problem for NPOV and always has been. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The IGH article had several critical reviews, including from mainstream organizations, such as Biologos (which I originally added) until you removed them. And regardless, the article survived two AfDs, one without any of those movie reviews present. Are you blaming me for the consensus of the WP community? --1990'sguy (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Please don't pay the innocent. There are zero reviews from film critics. It was kept due to default no-consensus and bait-and-switch tactics, which is what it is, but it is an abject

WP:NFILM failure and there is little or no reality-based critique. As far as I can tell not even God Awful Movies has reviewed this film. It gets filed under "meh, more YEC propaganda". Guy (Help!

) 19:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Changed my vote slightly, seems that a 1RR might work, as long as it is no editor can be reverted more then once, else the situation where one edd is being ganged up on persists. As there is POV pushing form both sides no remedy should be in place that rewards one side for it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Support T-Ban I think the closest you'll find to any tag-teaming is a preponderance of editors who follow
not here to build an encyclopedia so I'd suggest they look for other, non-creationism related ways, to contribute. Simonm223 (talk
) 12:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I did not "copy" the article from CP -- I worked on it over a period of several months on my Wikipedia sandbox. The layout is similar (not surprising, considering it had the same creator), but I wanted to rewrite it here to make sure I was fully complying with every relevant Wikipedia policy and guideline. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose sanctions As noted, Is Genesis History? is a little known and little trafficked article. It should be no surprise that the article creator is a frequent contributor, including the addition of several pieces of information that paint the film in a critical light but were since wiped out by an RfC outcome that forbade the use of the sources upon which those additions were based. That he has been, at times, overzealous in reversions is attested to by a recent 3RR block, but I think Joe Roe's contention above that he is more likely to fall afoul of 3RR simply because he was in the minority, not because he was the only one at fault at least deserves consideration, as does Boing's contention that some of the edits 1990'sguy has reverted appear to Boing! (an editor who, I believe, has a diametrically opposed worldview) to be piling on above and beyond what is necessary to comply with
WP:PSCI. Whether or not you agree with Boing!, I think that shows that 1990'sguy's intentions were defensible without resorting to POV arguments, even if his execution has sometimes been less-than-ideal. I have found him to be more than willing to discuss his ideas and work toward compromise on talk pages. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs}
) 14:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

It's more that he reverts every change. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Or any (legitimate) reversion of a drive-by edit. —Paleo Neonate – 16:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

There have been many users and IPs who have made edits like that, on the several YEC-related articles I watch, and the vast majority of the time, I've ignored it. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose sanctions for the user. However, I support 1RR on the article due to lack of normal consensus building in that article. Primarily in agreement with Joe Roe but also due to the civil and apparently here comments made by 1990'sguy here in this discussion. However, to hedge my comments, I also suggest a Checkuser to "verify" that the IP edits in question (cited above) were not made by 1990'sguy. Endercase (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think a checkuser is necessary and my intention was never to suggest socking. I do however urge you to review the examination of the edits (the ones that 1990's guy offered as good edits) that I did above. The PROMO/POV is very clear. And see the collapsed box for their exacerbating of the problems with drive-by creationists. Their clear view that evolution is pseudoscience (!), as they expressed in Conservapedia, bleeds through, even in edits that 1990sguy judges to be neutral. This is the problem that a TBAN (maximally) or 1RR (minimally) would help manage, saving everyone (including 1990sguy) grief. Jytdog (talk) 03:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Checkuser preemptively declined: the policy does not allow connecting an account with an IP address. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

If necessary to assure others that I did not edit through those IPs, I would support using CheckUser on my account.

But regardless, Jytdog, you're conflating edits that add concise sentences that aren't expressly negative or positive which meet every WP policy and guideline, with somehow inserting my personal views into articles. If I was actually inserting my personal biases into articles through those edits, the logical conclusion would be that I don't have any personal beliefs. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I would support using CheckUser on my account. Sorry, but local policy forbids this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I've replied above. Please continue there. The diffs show that you are inserting your POV through the "concise facts" -- context-free -- that you are pulling out of the sources. Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Support TBAN from creationism, broadly construed per Jytdog. --
talk
) PingMe 04:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Support TBAN from creationism per funplussmart. Icarosaurvus (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not saying that I feel funplussmart was also advocating for a Tban from creationism, just that their reasoning that this was a problematic area for the person in question is similar to my own reasoning as to why a Tban may be appropriate. Icarosaurvus (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose sanctions see no evidence against 1990'sguy which would indicate any misconduct. In fact he seems to be insightful. Page sanctions are a better option. Raymond3023 (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment - What is being argued here? Is 1990s guy actually trying to promote the view that earth is flat or YEC is truth or are they just trying to say that one must not berate the people that hold the theories - but rather berate the theories themselves? I support evolution and the fact that YEC and other BS is false - but I also support arguing maturely and respectfully. Please help me decide on this vote - thanks Sdmarathe (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
You don't have to vote, especially if not reading the whole thread. My impression is that the main argument is
WP:OWN-style behavior. —Paleo Neonate
– 06:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm and promotion (see Jytdog's comments and diffs). —Paleo Neonate – 06:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose any sanctions on 1990'sguy. Clearly not a one user problem. The absence of consensus gaining in a collegial manner on the article is too apparent to support the restrictions on the subject or the article in question instead.
Capitals00 (talk
) 15:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose sanctions I don't see that this has reached the point where sanctions are needed yet. -Obsidi (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Support TBAN from creationism, broadly construed. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose sanctions - I didn't see anything egregious in the editing history, at first glance. Indeed, some of the edits improve the piece over tendentious insertions by others. Carrite (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose editor-level sanctions per Boing! largely. I feel that those proposing a topic ban have failed to make the case that this is a problem of 1990'sguy's own, er, creation. Rather they've made the case that this is a POV dispute with civil yet unacceptable POV pushing on both sides of it. Support article-level 1RR restriction as a discretionary sanction. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose sanctions as several of the editors have already expressed above. This is clearly a controversial article. but nothing so far merits a sanction as such. If anything, I would request more admins to watch this page and protect it more often for a cool down and forced discussion. --DBig Xrayᗙ 16:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Support TBAN from creationism broadly construed. As detailed pretty well above, this is at topic that's a serious POV blindspot for this editor and likely to continue to be a timesink for the community. Being as this falls under the
talk
) 17:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

By the way, there is an eye-bleedingly long discussion at Talk:Is_Genesis_History?#"Ken_Ham's_creationist_exhibit". The base content we are talking about there was added in this diff by 1990'sguy, and like many of his edits on creationist subject matter (as I showed above, failed to summarize the source in a neutral way. It name-drops Wheaton College (which for those who don't know, is Christian and generally conservative), leading the reader to think that the movie was well received there, when in fact the source cited is very clear that the film was not well received there. Guy's edit added something to make it more contextual and is the focus of discussion, but even that edit didn't bring in the very very clear context from the source. This POV name-dropping PROMO editing, ignoring what the source actually says, is the far bigger problem with this passage. This is exactly what happens with this relentless yet oh-so-civil POV pushing advocacy editing, that persistently violates NPOV and especially the PSCI portion of it. We waste time dealing with the wrong things. Argh.Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Support TBAN from creationism, broadly construed for "months-long one against many campaign". Son of Kolachi (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose a TBAN, I see the odd bit of problematic wobbling away from NPOV but nothing that warrants a sledgehammer solution such as this. A general 1RR restriction on all editors, either specifically for this article, or broadly to the topic of creationism, is warranted however, as per the evidence provided by Jytdog above. Fish+Karate 12:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
A further note that some of the diffs 1990'sguy has provided demonstrate a similar inability of some senior editors/admins with diametrically opposed views to 1990'sguy on creationism to maintain a neutral and non-adversarial approach to editing. Some of those edits are a whisker away from just adding "bullshit" to the end of every sentence. This doesn't have to be a war, it's supposed to be a collaborative effort. We get you think young Earth creationism is a load of pseudoscience rubbish, you don't need to ensure every related article hammers that point home repeatedly. Fish+Karate 10:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Support something - I'm conflicted. I feel like enough evidence exists for a tban on creationism and/or something like "religion-related controversy", but I don't know if there's enough evidence here for me to feel comfortable supporting something that broad (and I don't have time to track down all the past diffs). I do think 1990'sguy is a civil POV pusher who will generally take an opportunity to promote creationism or Christianity or to take a swipe at atheism (the whole Category:Persecution by atheists saga is a memorable mess). Maybe 1RR on creationist topics is what's fair for now since what's most at issue in this thread is edit warring over particular topics. That's not to say I oppose something else, but that I don't feel comfortable supporting something else at this time. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose sanctions apart from the fact that Jytdog and JzG don't like this person's political views, I'm not convinced of anything by this thread.
π, ν
) 18:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- It is not a matter of "liking". Wikipedia is not based on what people "like". Content is based on RS and the policies and guidelines, and the PSCI policy is clear. WP:Civil POV pushing to promote pseudoscience is a problem that we face on many topics in Wikipedia, because of our open nature and the passion of people who embrace these notions, who keep coming and coming and coming. Creationism is one such topic. 1990sguy and Acdixon are unambiguously doing that. Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  Exactly. A !vote like this has no value and I hope the closer will perceive it as such. While I was considering not to vote personally, a comment like this invites me to do so simply because Jytdog's response reminds me of what a good encyclopedia is about and how it's important for it to reflect reality. —Paleo Neonate – 00:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) I've held my tongue on this for a number of days, but I feel we need discretionary sanctions on creationism-related articles. That being said, I can't fully wrap my head around most of the comments opposing sanctions on 1990'sguy: MjolnirPants (talk · contribs)'s comment is essentially saying that he's seen this user behave well on other articles (something I trust his judgement on), but the natural answer there is a narrow TBAN (or PAGEBAN); Endercase only commented because of his tendency to show up to noticeboard discussions where his "friends" are commenting and support them in the most superficial, counterproductive manner (not that MPants is the friend I'm talking about here, not 1990'sguy), and I still can't believe he was never sanctioned for completely ignoring the advice of multiple admins and "mentors". Anyway, I support a narrow TBAN or PAGEBAN for 1990'sguy, per MPants, and a broader TBAN for Acdixon, and as close as ANI can get us to long-term resolution for the article in question, perhaps 1RR, but I think ArbCom will need to look at this at some point because ANI can't provide the necessary solution. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri, Endercase has gotten much better about what he says when he shows up at the drama boards, and that's a solution to the problems he was having just as much as the advice we'd been giving him (that he should just not comment on them at all, for the time). In fact, the more I think about it, the more I agree with him. Curiously, your proposal of DS for creationism is right along the lines of Ender's suggestion of a 1RR restriction. I'm honestly thinking that might be a better solution. I learned that 1990'sguy is a decent editor on a creationism topic, and while it was clear where his sympathies laid from the get-go, he also wasn't consistently problematic about it. Some of his actions were poorly considered, but other times, he does a good job. So it may be that the blind spot that effects him is one he is capable of dealing with on all but the bad days, and if so, then I think topic-level or page-level restrictions as has been suggested by you and others would be the best route.

Tell me all about it.

21:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: I posted the above at the very bottom of the level-1 thread because it was about both 1990'sguy and Acdixon; the Acdixon part doesn't make a lot of sense now that you've moved it.

Anyway, how can you say he's gotten better about what he says on drama boards when the above is the only drama board comment he's made in over 16 months? I'd prefer DS on creationism so an admin could TBAN 1990'sguy (or any other editor) for disruptive edits to that specific page, whereas Ender just opposed sanctions on 1990'sguy outright. (Although I might be misreading this as his showing up to a discussion and taking what he perceives to be the side of his friend when in fact he's showing up to a noticeboard and opposing user-targeted sanctions, which was another pattern I observed last year.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Question: I have a question: Is the problem confined to a single article? (Is Genesis History?) Or is the problem Young Earth creationism in general? If the former, I suggest full-protecting the article, and also disallowing Acdixon (mentioned in the below thread) from making direct edits to the article. If the problem is Young Earth creationism in general, then this solution would not work. Bottom line: Obviously Wikipedia cannot be a platform for (promotion of) scientifically proven gross impossibilities, and we need to find some workable way of preventing this that does not exhaust the community's time and energy. Softlavender (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Various creationism-related articles. There however are various conservative BLPs on which there was no such drama. —Paleo Neonate – 00:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

No, I have constructively (and non-controversially) updated and improved several articles related to YEC, only using RSs (edits I seriously doubt other editors would have done if it hadn't been for me). I had a completely clean record until I violated 3RR trying to revert POV edits like these, which several admins have agreed were over-the-top: [107][108][109][110] I will take extra care not to violate 3RR again. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Support topic ban from creatinism, broadly construed. I've observed similar pattern of POV-based editing two years ago, on Ark Encounter and Answers in Genesis, for example. Not surprised that this ended up here. It's time for the community to take action. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Support topic ban from creationism, broadly construed. Wikipedia is not, and cannot be, a platform for (promotion of) the most impossibly pseudo-scientific imaginings. There are plenty of other platforms for that, as the editor well knows. The community should not have to exhaust its time policing these articles against this kind of anti-factual POV-pushing. Softlavender (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I have not tried to promote YEC on Wikipedia. Most YECers would cringe at some of my proposals, where I accepted and even proposed wording acknowledging Wikipedia's PSCI policy. On the other hand, intro paragraphs like this,[111] serious talk page proposals like this,[112] and other over-the-top wording like this.[113][114] are unacceptable on this website, as several admins have affirmed on this thread. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Support topic ban per Jytdog and the evidence presented in this AN/I discussion. Wikipedia's integrity is not something to be trifled with by ideological advocates of any ilk. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's integrity is not something to be trifled with by ideological advocates of any ilk. Exactly -- that's why we should avoid intro paragraphs like this,[115] serious talk page proposals like this,[116] and other over-the-top wording like this.[117][118] --1990'sguy (talk) 03:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Support temporary topic ban - While I didn't feel like piling on initially, the comments by power~enwiki and Jydog, then K.e.coffman's reminder about the time range, convinced me. Although unfortunate, I think that a topic ban would reduce drama while at the same time permit 1990'sguy to keep up their good work in other areas (some US politics BLPs come to mind, for instance). Persisting drama could otherwise eventually lead to stronger sanctions and prevent such opportunity. It's sad because it reminds me of myself when younger (mostly before my Wikipedia days, but I do remember inserting JW antitrinitarian POV in a Catholicism related article around 2005 or so, receiving a "test edit" template then angrily replying that it was not a mistake). I know what it is to believe and to sometimes think the world is against me. Sanctions are of course not about that, it's a question of attitude, tension management, accuracy and other technicalities... —Paleo Neonate – 04:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose topic ban – I haven't seen any particularly egregious offenses, and I'm sure the editor has learned their lesson simply from this discussion. All editors are encouraged to attempt to set aside their own biases and edit from a neutral point of view. Some people may have more of an issue with this than others, but if they're truly here to help build an encyclopedia, their contributions are welcome. Brad v 04:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose topic ban. Everyone has an ideology. I don't think Wikipedia benefits from a purge. It's not appropriate to denounce the film as pseudoscientific or whatever in the opening. Give the readers the facts and let them make their own conclusions. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 05:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
It's not appropriate to denounce the film as pseudoscientific or whatever in the opening. Please read
WP:LEAD. —Paleo Neonate
– 22:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Strong oppose editor level sanctions or full protection I would not mind 1RR on the article, but this looks like a content dispute where many editors are doing a poor job of being neutral, the solution is to use the talk page to gain consensus for changes, not to only ban one side of the dispute. Per PSCI we do need to say creation science is pseudoscientific, but the pro-science side of this dispute has gone overboard, for example, this intro paragraph [119] was over the top and POV, attempts to use the DS to shut down debate[120] are unacceptable and damaging to the proper functioning of the encyclopedia, and this talk proposal was also less than neutral[121]. Ok, 1990sguy has not perfectly adhered to NPOV either, but TBANs must not be used to settle content disputes. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose any sanctions. 1990sguy should use the discussion here to reflect and improve their editing before sanctions are needed. I think they will. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I think they will That's possible, thanks for the good intentions. —Paleo Neonate – 22:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Strong oppose to one sided sanctions. As Above has shown there are neutrality issues on both sides here, POV pushing all over the place, in both directions with the results being less than neutral. There are ways of addressing these issues withoht going into the heavy handed, over the top comments that have been added to the article. Sanctions towards one side punishes people for pushing "the wrong" POV, not for simply pushing their POV. That sends a bad message to ediors - "as long as you agree with us you can push your POV into the articles." MPJ-DK (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment This ANI thread is getting nowhere. Something needs to be done, but no one can agree on what to do. I'm thinking of requesting arbitration to deal with this. funplussmart (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Which I just did. Maybe we'll finally get a solution. funplussmart (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible compromised account

(non-admin closure) Blocked for three months by Alex Shih. Icarosaurvus (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neptune's Trident (over 78k edit count) first did this and this to TFA. Then my inquiry was removed without explanation. Not sure what's going on here. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I made some mistakes with edits, I corrected them right away. That's all, my apologies for any confusion. Neptune's Trident (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Neptune's Trident: How is adding "Dick!" to TFA a "mistake"? Seems like an unlikely sequence of characters to type by accident. The only explanation I can think of is a bungled vandalism revert, but I can find nothing similar in the recent history. And why did you remove my comment from your talk page, if there was a simple explanation? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I would also like to know what happened, Neptune's Trident... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

That was me joking around out of boredom and I changed it back right away, I've never done that before in all my thousands of edits. I remove most comments from my talk page, since I don't like having them on there. Neptune's Trident (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

vandalism is not acceptable, regardless of your tenure, number of edits, and your intentions upon doing so. I hope that this won't become an issue again :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

04:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Not naming any names, but somehow, McKinley isn't who the phrase "President Dick! of the United States" brings to my mind, just saying... —{{u|

T/C

｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 08:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing...

Tell me all about it.

15:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I looked into this as a checkuser, since it wouldn't be the weirdest thing for someone to take over an account and then say something like this once they had access. There's no reason from a technical standpoint to believe this account is compromised. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why people think this account was compromised. He's been intermittently disruptive for years. The last block was for two months, and the next one should probably be indefinite. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with NinjaRobotPirate. This is a longstanding issue, and the next vandalism/disruptive/BLP violation edit should result in indefinite block. Alex Shih (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, he should probably avoid additions to BLPs such as this. --Calton | Talk 10:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Neptune's Trident makes edits willy-nilly, nary a single edit summary or explanation in sight, rarely if ever communicates with others. This is not a collaborative editor, not suitable for a project that requires collaborative editing. Softlavender (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Is there any reason why we shouldn't just indef now? Giant Snowman 13:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Because blocking after certain time has elapsed is looked negatively upon. But on a second thought, I will take the potential fallout and apply an initial 3-month block; otherwise we would be just encouraging disruptive editing, lack of communication and freedom to vandalise at will for someone that certainly should know better. Alex Shih (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Support indef - Having over 78k edits doesn't give you the right to vandalise articles - Whether they self revert or not is irrelevant, The fact of the matter is they shouldn't be making these edits in the first place, Sorry but in my eyes we shouldn't tolerate editors like this. –Davey2010^Talk 13:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Note that Neptune's Trident usually removes warnings and most other notices from their talk page immediately, without replying or archiving them. That's their prerogative, of course, but it does tend to obscure the fact that, despite being a prolific editor, they frequently receive complaints about problematic editing. – Joe (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Neptune's Trident has been blocked for 3 months. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Alex Shih announced that above. Softlavender (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Concerns about an admin user. My edits are not disruptive, uncivil, or harassing. Don't accuse me of it.

I still see no admin action required here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There's nothing more to do here. If the IP wants to remove the material from the article, they should go to the article Talk page and obtain a consensus for their change.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I made this edit. It is a legitimate edit; this is some random story about some random game and it's simply not noteworthy. It was reverted. Assuming it was reverted only because of the comment -- clearly the info is not encyclopedic -- I made the edit again, this time with a better comment.

Because of that edit, I was told that I am a disruptive editor. I left a comment with the person who said I'm disruptive. There is nothing uncivil about this comment, yet the admin not only removed it from his page as uncivil, but he commented at my ip address to say I might be harassing editors.

Come on now. Recognize a good-faith edit when you see it. I removed an unencyclopedic random story that should be removed. Then I was tagged as being disruptive, uncivil, and a harassing editor. Please someone remove User:Sakaimover's admin rights. His ego needs to be examined, not my edits. 73.173.218.150 (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Sakaimover is not an administrator. 331dot (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Well that was a quick fix :D MPJ-DK (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not an administrator and I have taken no action against you except to revert your removal of sourced content without talk page discussion. I then left a notice to explain that your edit appeared disruptive. In response, you issued a demand to my talk page that I apologize for acting in good faith - which I found to be uncivil. As I explained in my most recent comment to your talk page, this report appears to be a bad-faith attempt to have sanctions brought against me for a perceived slight. Sakaimover (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The OP cannot post here as they are not autocomfirmed(as they use an IP) so I am transferring their response here: Ok, so he's not an admin. He certainly seems to be reverting and harassing me. My complaint about the user -- admin or not -- is still valid. As are my edits Transferred by 331dot (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I left a note on Sakaimover's talk page about their behaviour Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I 110% disagree with the closing note. The IP should have provided a better comment first time round. But to tell them they need consensus for every content removal flies in the face of our standards. Removing an unencylopedic trivial portion was NOT against the guidelines, on the contrary. Reverting editor pepperingt the IP with templates and reverting after a proper rationale, biting the newbie is to me the actual problem here. Instructing them to basically get consensus on any edit that reduces content is unproductive and wrong. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
to tell them they need consensus for every content removal - that's not what the closing statement is saying at all. In this case, the removal has been contested, so the
next step is to discuss on the talk page. The statement doesn't say anything about any other case. ansh 666
20:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Alright my attempt at some positive dialogue: Talk:Juan Soto#Let's not war, let us talk. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Pdineen03 and personal attacks

User warned and also blocked one month for socking while logged out. Softlavender (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is regarding the behaviour of User:Pdineen03 and they have previously been blocked for unsourced and disruptive editing. They have had additional warnings which have made no difference.

I condensed plot information on a fictional character's article Kim Butterfield and they were unhappy. This is from that and includes swearing. [122]

When I removed unsourced information from an article I received this: [123]

Insulting editors, branding one a "looney": [124]

Attacking other editors [125]

So today - This one is very uncivil. [126]

I hope this can be dealt with before the editor can cause more disruption. It is not possible to have a constructive conversation with this user as they resort to name calling and degrading others efforts.Rain the 1 16:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

People, please keep discussions about article content on the talkpage of the article.. Pinging Pdineen03. Now will both of you please go back and discuss only on the article talkpages? Please stay off each other's usertalk. Softlavender (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

dispute resolution. Thank you. Softlavender (talk
) 17:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to offer one more suggestion (to
fancruft" (overlong over-emphasis on fictional characters or events) is not, since it is non-encyclopedic. Character descriptions or pages on Wikipedia should be concise and to the point. I hope that makes sense. Softlavender (talk
) 18:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I warned Pdineen03 for the behavior described above, and two minutes later, Bbb23 blocked them for socking. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP range replacing wikiproject classes with redirect on talk pages, can anyone roll them all back?

It's [127]. Unless I've misunderstood something, this is all vandalism. Certainly removing a merge template a few days in is. Doug Weller talk 05:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the IP editor replaced "stub" with "redirect" on pages that are redirects. I don't see the problem with that. You can use WritKeeper's mass-rollback script to instantly rollback all edits made by one account (or IP address), but I don't think there are any scripts that work on entire IP ranges. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

If left empty for redirects, the banner will update automatically--either assessing the page as Redirect-class or as Unknown-class, so the IP could actually be making better edits than he is. --Izno (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I only see productive edits. Which ones are an issue? Even if there are one or two problem edits that does not justify reverting the rest. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Odd, I thought I'd checked. I blame it on lack of sleep and editing right after I got up far too early. However, this removal of an active merge tag was clearly wrong. Doug Weller talk 14:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

IP user expressing incivility in almost every post on The Troubles article.

user:131.164.141.250
This Kind of talk can't possibly be of any benefit to our project across the board, let alone on such a controversial article. The above diff is one of the most serious I could find, but most of this IP editor's posts contain varying degrees of hostility. I can't believe that anyone would come here with a good general understanding of Wikipedia's processes and let themselves go so quickly. I'm therefore also recommending a check user. Edaham (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The editor was warned for this behavior last month,[128] however he still violates
WP:NPA.[129] A block would be fine now. Kraose (talk
) 06:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The attack shown was at 20:52, 25 August 2018, before the warning at 23:05, 25 August 2018, and I see no further attacks since the warning. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I see. I hope all goes well then. Edaham (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Just to note. The Troubles and all related articles and anything broadly defined as related to The Troubles, are under 1RR and subject to discretionary sanctions. Canterbury Tail talk 12:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The IP's comments are seriously out of line and should be sanctioned. If they don't alter their behaviour afterwards then they should be blocked outright. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The diffed comment is very nasty, but it was made on Aug 25, and altogether I don't quite understand why Edaham brought this here 8 days after the IP last edited. The horse has bolted, not much point in closing the stable door. Bishonen | talk 00:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC).

RM close by new account

Blocked indef, after some contemplation. User needs to explain what their goals here are. Not an unambiguous troll or anything, but a majority of their few edits are problematic. 𝔰𝔴𝔞𝔯𝔪 ^𝔛 08:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A requested move discussion for a city (Pondicherry > Puducherry (city)) was closed by a new account specifically created for that purpose (as indicated by the username and edits), which also voted participated in the discussion. There was no consensus regarding the move and a new account closing it does not fall in

WP:CONSENSUS. Please see if this can be looked into and the move discussion be reopened. Gotitbro (talk

) 16:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I reverted his close as an involved close. I'll let administrators take it from here. Softlavender (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe a sock? Probably

WP:NOTHERE. New account cannot close discussion Hhkohh (talk

) 16:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

All of his edits are odd, even on the article itself -- I've had to revert each one as either inaccurate, irrelevant, uncited, or all three. Might be socking, trolling, block-evading, or all three. Softlavender (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blocked User:20gz using talk page to harass

TPA revoked. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 12:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seeking a talk page block for User: User:20gz, using talk page to harass other editors. Flat Out (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Talkpage access revoked. Acroterion (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Flat Out (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inappropriate use of Rollback by Waddie96

OP agrees to close [130], not ripe for ANI, the article talk page is a good place to continue the discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

At [131] this edit to Parasitism, user used Rollback to revert a good faith edit. I have not looked at the users contributions, but further Rollback abuses may be possible. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@GhostOfDanGurney: Did you consider the possibility of discussing the issue with the editor directly, before coming here to the Drama Board? Favonian (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi @GhostOfDanGurney: I don't see the addition as constructive? How does it make sense that the reason parasites have a negative connotation in human culture is because humans are host to them? Surely, this would make parasitism as acceptable and normalised. It seems this is an opinion and not encyclopedic and no edit summary was provided. Best, Waddie96 (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Ringworm and Mosquitoes are accepted and normalized? They are not seen as pests? Okay then. Interesting. Still doesn't excuse the use of rollback on a good faith edit, even if the revert was justified. That's why I brought it up. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Colleagues, this is talk page material. Unless there is a chronic misuse of rollback, this does not seem to be the venue for this at this time. It would seem from the above exchange that you are positively discussing content. I would say drop it. Simon Adler (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The talk page of the article is completely empty. In which page where you two discussing article content? Dimadick (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Racist vandalism at SPLC

User blocked, edits redacted. (non-admin closure) TheDragonFire (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is grossly offensive. I wonder whether an admin could delete it from the revision history, and perhaps consider whether any action needs to be taken to prevent ObservingEgo from causing further disruption? They were warned on their talk page about it but promptly blanked the warning - I'm not convinced that they realise how inappropriate that kind of edit is. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that edit is severe enough to warrant redaction, but in examining the user's edit history, they seem to be here to push an agenda, so I have blocked them as

WP:NOTHERE. 331dot (talk

) 09:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLANKING, it is an acknowledgement that user has read it. --DBig Xrayᗙ

09:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think GS was saying it was- the last part of their statement refers to the edit reported. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

331dot, yes, my comment was simply an observation on Blanking. Basically the reported editor has not said anything other than blanking after the said vandalism. They might already be convinced the vandalism was inappropriate, or may be not. As of now it is just our speculation.

The Block was clearlw well deserved for a repeat offender, and I agree with you that the said edit does not deserve a redaction in my opinion. Offensiveness is a subjective term. --DBig Xrayᗙ 10:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I realise that blanking is permitted, and I'm not suggesting that ObservingEgo was necessarily wrong to do it. I just didn't think that as a response it was really sufficient to convince me that they realised how totally inappropriate an edit like that was.

As for the redaction, I'll bow to your greater experience on whether or not it is necessary, but is there a policy or guideline that defines what is serious enough to warrant it (just for future reference)? GirthSummit _(blether) 11:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:CFRD. It's always a bit nebulous though in terms of what would and would not justify revision deletion, as it's got to be a judgement call (there is no scientific way of measuring the severity of potential offense). The rule of thumb I use is that if the negative content is addressed against a named individual, this is worse than content addressed against a group, and the severity is exacerbated if based on one or more protected characteristics, but others may have a different opinion. Fish+Karate

11:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CEriksen

Indeffed; diffs revdelled. Softlavender (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cross post from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, since I think it serious enough & am unsure which page should be dealing with it:

CEriksen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Might we move, please, to an immediate indef block for this user, for this diff, an ugly, misogynistic and threatening contribution which has been noted by the article's subject. Given that the user's only other contribution is the hagiographic Stephen Bernard, might that article be deleted as COI/SPAM? This being an egregious offence I have not troubled to give the user a warning. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

And a revdel of the diff, please. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely beyond the pale. CEriksen has been indefinitely blocked, and the relevant diffs revdelled. Fish+Karate 11:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conflict of interest and legal threats

Named account blocked; article semi-protected. Softlavender (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Jack.E.Alexander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
67.1.218.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
74.77.190.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I was originally going to list this at

legal threats

I found makes me bring this here instead. I (or someone else) can still make a post regarding this issue on COIN.

Over the last two weeks, the editors listed above have attempted to remove a section from the listed article (KAVV) which discusses a controversy about the radio station's owner. In their edit summaries, they claim to be making these edits by request of the station's owner. The section of the article in question is reliably sourced, and requests for these users to discuss this issue on the article's talk page seem to have so far been ignored.

Jack.E.Alexander posted at least one legal threat in connection to the article, which can be found in the first sentence on this page. I am not going to quote the legal threat, but it should be pretty obvious. EclipseDude (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked Jack Alexander, another editor has been blocked as a sock. Doug Weller talk 16:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:RFPP. Particularly if the problem continues. Would you agree, Doug Weller? If so, this thread can probably be closed. Softlavender (talk
) 17:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I already have posted a request for pending changes at RfPP. I suppose semi is also an appropriate choice. I will leave that up to an admin's discretion. EclipseDude (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I agree that we've done all we can here. Doug Weller talk 17:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller, can you CU Btthevoice, who has joined the fray? Softlavender (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hello hello
  Talk:KAVV#Who is Jack E. Alexander. -- Softlavender (talk
  ) 05:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I've semiprotected
KAVV for one month, due to the apparent COI edits by IPs. EdJohnston (talk
) 00:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I can neither confirm nor disconfirm, maybe a more experience CU such as User:Bbb23 with more technical knowledge might be able to tell if it's likely. Doug Weller talk 09:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

"disconfirm"?

The two users are ~~disconfirmed~~

Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I had a problem with that word too. I think he learned English from Drmies. Softlavender (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oxford dictionary definition of "disconfirm" is to "Show that (a belief or hypothesis) is not or may not be true."[132]. It's in Merriam-Webster also. Doug Weller talk 17:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Clannism

general sanctions for all Horn of Africa articles (broadly construed) has been made in an attempt to stop these endless disruptive editing threads at ANI. Closing this thread without prejudice to reopening should a new issue arise. TomStar81 (Talk

) 18:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kzl55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
GeelJire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The ongoing and deadly

clannist Darod (Puntland)-Isaaq (Somaliland) dispute. Unfortunately, the anti-Darod/pro-Isaaq pair User:Kzl55 and User:GeelJire have transferred this conflict onto Wikipdia through a campaign to erase or malign Darod

-related history. Some examples:

[133], [134], They collaborate to delete the Harti article, even though (a) "'harti' somali" produces 2,850 returns on google books and (b) harti unity is a founding principle of Puntland (see [135]).
[136], Similar deletion at Dhulbahante.
[137] Maligning of a Darod subclan. BTW, "Ogaden" is a Somali word meaning "knowledge", so there is no doubt GeelJire is mocking both the epithet and the IQ of this clan.
[138] Name change that deletes the statehood of a predominantly Darod state and insinuates its some Taliban outfit.
[139]
wp:neo
article title.
[140] Antipathy towards Dervish (read: Darod) flag
[141]
WP:OR
by adding Nur Ahmed Aman (read: Isaaq) with undiscernible source, someone with zero google books hits to the lede as a joint-state founder, which is impossible given that this was an autocracy.
[142] misrepresents source by not quoting the full quote. The full quote says that Hassan (read: a Darod) solely sent that letter. Geeljire makes it sound like various people wrote it.
[143] Geeljire whilst
wp:socking as an IP (compare with current IP (85.210.182.208
) makes the historical revisionist claim that Nur (an Isaaq), not Hassan (a Darod) founded Dervish state.
- [144] Same historical revisionism
- [145] Same historical revisionism
[146], [147] GeelJire misrepresents an advisor/lieutenant as a leader/commander (source
[148], [149], [150] Pushes
WP:UNDUE by promoting the notion that Dhulbahante (a Darod subclan) were pro-colonial, even though most reliable sources describe Dhulbahante as the "strongest base
" of anti-colonialism

[151] Canvassing one another.
[152] Kzl55 censures the following sources and publishers as unreliable: Newsweek, University of Manitoba Press
[153] kzl55 censures ref sourced to Random House
[154] kzl55 censures the following citations: Michigan State University, and [155] by historian John Drysdale (historian)
[156] kzl55 misrepresents source - original source says he was Hassan's (read: Darod) right-hand man, not the "movements right hand man" whatever that means.
[157] kzl removes a sourced infobox
[158] unexplained image removal pertaining Somaliland massacre, removes Hassan's positive alias, replaces with negative one
[159] Kzl55 adds false/unsourced claim that Sudi is a founder
[160] Kzl55 Removes Dhahar, despite the fact they have Puntland representatives on the ground ([161],
[162] KZL55 Inserts "Somaliland", despite the city only has Somalian or Puntland adminostrators
[163] KZL55 removes Warsangali (read: Darod) map even though the map is sourced at Commons
[164] kzl55 Adds a 20th century census to a 19th century state.
[165] tendentious/unsourced geographic edits

This is just the tip of the iceberg. A white supremacist erasing African-American history wouldn't last. But because most admins are unfamiliar with Somali clan dynamics, this Horn African version of racism flies under the radar. Im not sure whether to propose a warning, or that GeelJire and Kzl55 are topic-banned from Darod-related pages. Thylacoop5 (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment. Retaliatory filing, please see above Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_Thylacoop5. More than happy to discuss my edits if needed. --Kzl55 (talk) 06:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Asnswer these questions: (a) do you admit that you edits are motivated by

WP:OR? Thylacoop5 (talk

) 07:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, please do not use slurs again per WP:Civility. This is not the appropriate avenue for content-related discussions, use the talk pages. As I said this is a retaliatory report. I reiterate that I am happy to discuss any edits with admins if needed. --Kzl55 (talk) 10:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk page discussion is unviable because your deletion of reliable sources and insertion of Nur Aman or Haji Sudi spans several articles. So I ask a second time. (a) What makes Newsweek, University of Manitoba Press, Michigan State University, historian John Drysdale, ABC-CLIO, Zed Books and Random House unreliable? (b) do you have any sources that describe either Haji Sudi or Nur Aman as state founders? Thylacoop5 (talk) 12:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment No action suggested. FWIW, after a quick review of some of edit diffs above, I am having trouble verifying parts of the allegations. For example, this, claims Thylacoop5, "Kzl55 censures the following sources and publishers as unreliable: Newsweek, University of Manitoba Press".... but I see no UMP through that edit diff and we do need some care in using newspapers/magazines beyond recent news and events. For other reasons too complex to elaborate on this board, I also concur with Yamaguchi's actions to the Harti article and redirect. The editors should take the specific content disputes to respective articles. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The only reason I knew that the insertion of three rulers was a hoax because I knew that Daraawiish was an autocracy. So it couldn't possibly have been ruled by 3 people. If not for this knowledge, such mistakes would have remained int he page. As such, I want more eyes on the article so Kzl55 or GeelJire don't reinsert such inaccuracy into the article. Thylacoop5 (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, With regards to Newsweek, in addition to what Ms Sarah Welch said above regarding care in using newspapers/magazines beyond recent news and events, it was actually removed because it is listed on the Wikipedia: Reliable Sources Checklist under the heading Journalistic entities known to have bad (or no) fact-checking operations. I concur with using talk pages for content discussion. --Kzl55 (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Here is someone who Kzl55/GeelJire are promoting as the founder of one of the bloodiest anti-colonial movements in Africa:
Zero google books hits
Zero google scholar hits Thylacoop5 (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: This was a retaliatory subthread opened by Thylacoop5 in retaliation for this thread: Disruptive editing by Thylacoop5. I have changed it to its own separate thread, since the subject matter is different. Softlavender (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Off-wiki canvassing to get editors banned: As GeelJire pointed out in the previous thread [166], Thylacoop5 appears to have been WP:CANVASSING message boards. A guest post usernamed "Thyla" encourages Darod people to help ban editors. "Please join wikipedia and help me get these clannist Isaaq editors banned." -- Softlavender (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Striking, as this is being discussed in the original thread up above. Softlavender (talk) 06:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
UPDATE: Following the results of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Middayexpress, GeelJire (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sock of NoShaqo (talk · contribs). TomStar81 (Talk) 14:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by Thylacoop5

general sanctions for all Horn of Africa articles (broadly construed) has been made in an attempt to stop these endless disruptive editing threads at ANI. Closing this thread without prejudice to reopening should a new issue arise. TomStar81 (Talk

) 18:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thylacoop5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor Thylacoop5 continues to create disruptive redirects/moves on Dervish_movement_(Somali) despite repeated requests to stop and against consensus on the talk page.

A discussion was started on the article's talk page, regarding a name change. Editor Thylacoop5 declared their opposition to the move [167], then went ahead and unilaterally decided to make redirects using every single title suggested in the talk page discussion, all pointing to a different page in an attempt to stall any future moves [168], [169], [170], [171], [172]. They were uncooperative on the talk page and did not offer any explanation for their edits despite requests, nor engagement with the ongoing discussion.

They've also not responded to requests for RS support of their edits by other editors [173].

Despite a consensus being reached on the talk page by other editors, they continue to

refuse to get the point

and keep changing the article's title against talk page consensus, and changing redirect targets, creating more redirects and generally causing a lot of confusion, examples:

Unilaterally moving article despite ongoing discussion on talk page and consensus against such moves [174]
Redirects to other articles, again, done unilaterally and without explanation [175], [176], [177],

Which culminated in their creation of 40 redirects which prompted [discussion] on
WP:RFD
, where this list of their redirects was compiled:

Full list

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Somaliland Campaign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

They are still creating a redirect of any title suggested on the talk page. Example: "Somali Dervish movement" was suggested by Ms Sarah Welch on the talk page [178]. Thylacoop5 promptly used the title here [179] earlier today to preempt any move.

Thylacoop5 has been warned that this is disruptive, and requested to engage in the talk page/explain their edits instead of constantly moving the article, to no avail: [180], [181], [182].

They are still adamant on continuing this behaviour with their most recent move being one done earlier today [183]. This prompted editor Anthony Appleyard to intervene and rectify the confusion from all these moves.

Any help with Thylacoop5's behaviour would be appreciated. Regards--Kzl55 (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment. The newly made page move' title is a
Sufi dervish movement. Thylacoop5 (talk
) 21:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

We were discussing possible titles to be used on the article's talk page, and presumably because you opposed that [184], you went and systematically made every suggested title a redirect to a different page (

Sufi dervish movement were created by you yesterday [185], [186], there was no confusion prior to your creation of these redirects. --Kzl55 (talk

) 06:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Dervish state has been the stable title for 10 years. Instead of seeking wider participation through an RfC, you

WP:CANVASSED your fellow darodphobic buddy GeelJire because you knew he would support shifting the focus of the article from a state to a movement. The words "movement" and "state" are not synonymous, and the content of the article suggests a state focus. Thylacoop5 (talk

) 07:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Please do not use slurs again per WP:Civility. What you describe is a content issue, this is not the place for it, we are discussing your disruptive conduct in that article here. At any rate, you were asked to provide evidence from RS for your solo support for "Dervish state" against consensus on the talk page [187], you failed to do so. Please stop content-related discussions as it can be seen as an attempt to derail the report. --Kzl55 (talk) 10:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Its not a slur. It is relevant to point out GeelJire's POV because then it would fall under

WP:CANVASSING if you're messaging someone with the same clannish POV as you.Thylacoop5 (talk

) 12:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment Other than the impatient redirects by Thylacoop5 that needs to stop (an admin has already left a caution on the article's talk page), I consider this a content dispute about an article that has much room for improvement. The current version of the Dervish movement (Somali) article generally lacks quality peer-reviewed sources, some cite very old sources and a few of the citations are vague, they need details to encourage verifiability. I suggest encouraging Kzl55, GeelJire and Thylacoop5 to return to the talk page and work through the content dispute through a polite discussion that focuses on the sources, such as some found in this recently created article by Thylacoop5, that was deleted and redirected by GeelJire. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

First and foremost, I oppose the normalization of participation by someone (GeelJire) who engages in overt racism as I have linked below where he mocks Ogaden (clan). Thylacoop5 (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, the redirects were done to sabotage any future move, Thylacoop5 went systematically through every single title suggested and created a redirect to a different page. Even when Somali Dervish movement was discussed as a potential new title [188], separate from Thylacoop's previous redirects, they promptly went and created a redirect of that specific title as well [189]. Its very disruptive. --Kzl55 (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't create a redirect in your last diff, I created an article. Thylacoop5 (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

You have systematically and promptly used every single potential title suggested in that talk page discussion and created multitude of redirects in an effort to stall/sabotage any future moves. That is disruptive editing. --Kzl55 (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment. This does seem to be getting out of hand. It is disruptive editing. I propose move-protecting the article, and official
WP:RM for any page-move, which can only be carried out by an admin. I also propose a topic ban on redirects and moves relating to this specific subject matter. Softlavender (talk
) 17:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

) 20:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE and in my opinion is deserving of sanctions. --Kzl55 (talk

My suggestion is a sanction, Kzl55. Topic-banning Thylacoop5 from redirects and moves relating to this subject. Softlavender (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Support I support Softlavender's suggestions. This page is currently used for geopolitical soapboxing. Softlavender's helpful suggestion may stymie this. Thylacoop5 (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment. On top of ignoring consensus and making disruptive edits, i also believe that
WP:CANVASSING off wikipedia onto message boards. Here-[ https://somalilane.com/forum/index.php?threads/need-darod-wikipedia-editors.7816/]. An individual with a similar name encourages Darod people to help ban editors. I left a message on his talk page concerning this and he promptly deleted it from his talkpage. Not sure whether this is a seperate issue to the one being discussed above. Should i proceed to make seperate report?. GeelJire (talk
) 21:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- "Please join wikipedia and help me get these clannist Isaaq editors banned." This is not good. Softlavender (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Lol. I'm 100% convinced that the above is GeelJire posing as me. This is my evidence that the above was posted by GeelJire:

GeelJire is already prone to pseudonymous online accounts for abuse (see 85.210.177.159 this account where he misrepresents a source) and (compare with current IP (85.210.182.208)
Why would I out myself by using my own name?
I have never opened a social media account in my life
GeelJire is active on forums; compare for instance these forum posts "the incident that sparked", with the exact same source, which is copied almost verbatim to "the incident that sparked" - with the same citation.
GeelJire is aware of that thread immediately. I only found out about the post because of SoftLavender's link.
I'm not even a Darod clan member. I can confirm this through memorabilia at my home in a livestream. Or check my diverse/heterogeneous article creation history: I have created pages on a Hawiye clan member and Rahanweyn clan member, Bimaal and others.
I would never engage in such clannist diatribes as that post. I despise clannism, unlike GeelJire who seems to revel in it (see below link where he's mocking the Ogaden clan).
Why would I try to ban editors when I'm in the midst of attempting to verify sources from them?

The online post made by GeelJire seems to be an attempt at sidetracking due to my exposure of his historical revisionism and misrepresented sources. Thylacoop5 (talk) 06:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

"GeelJire is aware of that thread immediately." This is the most convincing argument, I think. Especially since someone with a similar username to his posts on that board. Also, check this out, another parody: [190]. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:SIGFORGE may apply here. Thylacoop5 (talk

) 09:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The online canvassing is very alarming, particularly due to previous attempts to canvass off-wiki by longterm persistent vandal of the project Middayexpress/Soupforone. With regards to the first point raised above by Thylacoop5 on IP abuse, as far as I know, Thylacoop5 is the only editor in this conversation to have received a warning by an admin that they will be blocked if they do not stop their disruptive attempts to evade scrutiny by excessive editing whilst logged out [191]. There is a pattern of disruptive behaviour exhibited by Thylacoop5, but off-wiki canvassing is a serious issue and raises even more concerns of the possibility of Thylacoop5 being a sock of Middayexpress/Soupforone, in addition to the striking POV similarity. Pinging Cordless Larry and TomStar81 both of whom are familiar with earlier instances of canvassing by Middayexpress. Worthy of note is this SPI report [192] where, despite requests, only technical evidence was looked into. --Kzl55 (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point, Kzl55. That wasn't Thylacoop5 canvassing offline. That was apparently GeelJire impersonating Thylacoop5 offline. Softlavender (talk) 10:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender, the language used points to Thylacoop5. The word "clannist" used in the canvassing forum post [193] is only ever used by Thylacoop5 on Wikipedia [194], [195], [196], [197], they even created a redirect with the word "clannist" [198]. --Kzl55 (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course he used that word when impersonating Thyla and using his screenname. That's exactly what impersonators do. Softlavender (talk) 10:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The use of the word, to me, points to Thylacoop5. Obviously there is still a chance it is an impersonation, I would wait to hear Geeljire's defence regarding the timing issue. --Kzl55 (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Of course it points to Thylacoop5; that's what impersonators do. Your lack of logic here is really showing your hand. Softlavender (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I think I have explained my position. There is a history of the section's perennial disruptive editor (Middayexpress/Soupforone) canvassing off-wikipedia. Thylacoop shares the same POV and other idiosyncratic habits with Middayexpress/Soupforone. It is entirely possible this is a continuation of that same pattern. You may want to read the Middayexpress SPI file if you've got the time. Where, for instance, one sock would argue/rev another sock (both belonging to the same disruptive editor) in an attempt to evade detection, their actions defy logic. Lets not get into an argument over this please. --Kzl55 (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thylacoop has never socked. You are supporting a proven, now-blocked sockpuppeteer (GeelJire) in spite of overwhelming evidence that it was not Thylacoop who posted those forum posts but rather GeelJire -- simply because you hate Thylacoop and want to see him blocked. That's the same response you had when I presented the perfect and simple solution above to the issue you opened this thread with. Your desire to strike at Thylacoop could not be more in evidence, and is symptomatic of why this whole situation is so problematic. Softlavender (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

While it is true that Thylacoop5 has never socked, he has been warned before during his last SPI case (may 19, 2018) in which the SPI cleared him for matching against Middayexpress/Soupforone BUT explicitly warned the editor concerning his disruptive behavior, for which I am now requesting a check of isp addresses. If it should come to light that he has edited while logged out to stir the pot such as it were it I judge that it would be grounds for a topic ban at a minimum, and possibly a timed block for disruptive editing. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Seeing as they have demonstrated a clear intent and pattern of disruptive editing despite explicit warning, would the timed block still include a topic ban per above? Also, would it be possible for the SPI case to be left open so it can also be judged on grounds of behavioural evidence presented? Seeing as the IPs geographical stretch shows they are actively attempting to evade technical scrutiny and that only technical evidence was considered in the previous report. --Kzl55 (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

That's where the battleships come in - see here for a full explanation :) If that proposal passes then we'll be in a position to turn some very heavy guns against the article's editors who engage in disruptive behavior. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Proposal

~~I propose a topic ban for anyone misrepresenting sources or removing reliable sources regarding the topic of the Dervish state, broadly construed.~~ Thylacoop5 (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Support as nom. Thylacoop5 (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose as nonsensical, unnamed, subjective, and unenforceable. Softlavender (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Snow oppose this is not the type of topic-ban that can be enacted at this board, and not possible to fairly enforce.
π, ν
) 02:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - Misrepresenting sources or removing reliable sources is already considered disruptive editing, so that this says nothing useful and will just result in trolling. That is probably what Softlavender is saying. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Originally, Middayexpress was listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Archive/Placed by the Wikipedia community where he was topic banned (broadly) from all Somalia related articles. Following the closure of the SPI case involving him and soupforone I rewrote the topic ban to include an escalation clause stipulating that the admin corps "...may at their discretion take any and all measures deemed necessary and appropriate to safeguard articles from Middayexpress's edits, including (but not limited to) standard discretionary sanctions as may be warranted on a case by case basis provided that such measures are undertaken through appropriate channels or with the consensus of the community." In light of this, I would propose the following:

The community here adopt standard discretionary sanctions for our Somalia related articles as a counterbalance to this un-constructive editing. Right now, with no restrictions per se in place its easy for blocked accounts to resurface under different names and then proceed to pick up right where they left off. Circling the wagons such as it were will make it easier for us to act in defense of our Somalia related articles by keeping questionable edits and editors off them.
There is a mandate listed as part of Middayexpress's editing restrictions requiring any editor encountering suspected socks of the user to list them at Middayexpress's SPI case page for comparison of the accounts, but I note that as of the timestamp on this post that has not been done. However, a look at the editing history against the main SPI page shows that this account was registered May 9, 2018, but went active such as it were on May 14, which was two days after several suspect Middayexpress accounts were blocked and 4 days before the following SPI report, suggesting a probable Middayexpress sock. Off particular interest (to me) is the focus on Somalia and African related articles, a known trait of Middayexpress et al. It is my opinion that this is likely a sock, but it needs listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Middayexpress for comparison to prove that.

Finally, given that this has been occurring for several months, I wonder if this would warrant listing at

Wikipedia:Long term abuse? We seem to be here consistently over these matters, hence the question, but I do understand if people feel that we are not there yet. TomStar81 (Talk

) 10:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Listing who/what at LTA? Softlavender (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Softlavender, I forgot to clarify when I saved. Listing Middayexpress et al for "disruptive editing on Somalia related articles" or something to that effect. I confess that this is the first time in all my years here that I've ever placed this option before the community, so I haven't had too much time to look into it. If I have jump too far ahead I apologize, that was not my intent. On an related note, I've opened an SPI case for this editor at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Middayexpress for comparison of the accounts, we'll see what the folks there have to say. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

BTW There's no credible evidence Thylacoop5 was recently canvassing off-wiki, but there is very credible evidence that GeelJire was impersonating him off-wiki. Softlavender (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I see that. FWIW, there wasn't any credible evidence provided during the topic ban discussion for Middayexpress either, however the perception that it had or would possibly happen lead me to authorize a 1RR if needed for Somalia related articles in question, broadly construed. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I hear ya, good call. If I may speak plainly, considering the trainwreck that both of these threads (this one and the retaliatory one below) have become, if this bunch of editors don't get their act together and stop lying about each other and stabbing each other in the back, there's going to be an ArbCom case and they will all get topic banned from Somalia-related articles. Softlavender (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Frankly Softlavender, I'm sorely tempted to be the one to open that arbcom case. Somalia is such a cluster&%^# here that editorial issues on and related to it make the boards at least once a month. Even here and now, the case against Middayexpress explicitly states that the restrictions will hold "...until community consensus of ARBCOM rule otherwise," and given community failures to implement restrictions at this point I think an Arbcom case may be the lesser of the two evils. If nothing else, they'll authorize standard discretionary sanctions for the articles, which will make it easier, faster, and far more efficient for us to deal with BS like this. In the mean time, I've listed all three editors at SPI for case comparison and locked down the relevant article in question, including reverting all edits by the three anti-migos to the last stable version by a neutral and well respected editor. For the time being, at least, this seems contained, but we'll make our final moves once the SPI case concludes. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender and TomStar81, this is OT but has to be said so I will keep it brief. I have followed guidelines throughout this episode on the Dervish movement (Somali) article, where I listed the move discussion and waited more than a year for opinions, provided RS, tried to build consensus with other editors, and requested Thylacoop5 multiple times to stop what we all agree to be disruptive editing before bringing the matter here. And though I value your help, I do not appreciate being lumped with them in the discussion above as somehow being 'part of the problem' with language like "if this bunch of editors don't get their act together and stop lying about each other and stabbing each other in the back" and "the three anti-migos...". Its completely uncalled for. If opening an arbcom case is whats needed to end this mess then I support that. --Kzl55 (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The three of you don't get along, so it couldn't be said that your acting together as the three amigos, hence the anti-amigo remark, which I concede may have been in bad taste. And part of the problem in this context only means that you haven't had any luck settling the matter with others peacefully. I've been part of the problem before myself, still going through official channels, and sometimes the best outcome is to simply strike the colors and move on. As for arbcom, thats a little trickier to call. ARBCOM is empowered to look at a problem area on the Wikipedia and take all necessary and appropriate actions to resolve the issue, however an arbcom case requires that names be named and actions be scrutinized, and in all honesty this issue between the three of you is not grievous enough to justify an arbcom case yet, nor do I have any particular desire to drive what are at the moment hard working editors who simply can not agree on a course of action before a group of arbitrators who will pass judgement on the editors and the articles equally. There's been no grievous civility issues here, or accusations of falsified references, no claims of paid editing, etc, so I'd prefer keep this confined to the realm of the community...for now. Depending on what the SPI case shows we may be able to consider an arbcom case, but as noted above we shouldn't get too far ahead of ourselves at the moment. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Well the result of the SPI was the blocking of GeelJire (talk · contribs) and NoShaqo (talk · contribs), so that 1/3 of the problem. In addition, the remaining two accounts are cleared of any relation to each other or to Middayexpress, which means its now two editors in a disagreement. With the third wheel off the the cart maybe we can get somewhere with this thread.TomStar81 (Talk) 14:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Tomstar81, this is not a case of the three of us not getting along, I have no personal issues against Thylacoop5, this discussion was about their disruptive editing of the article, multitude of redirects leading to an RFD discussion, refusal to present RS despite requests (by other WP editors), editing against talk page consensus; these are all conduct related issues. And then we have the Middayexpress/Soupforone angle. Please remember that Soupforone made the same attempts at derailing their report as Thylacoop5 is doing now. Lastly, if you read the talk page there are three editors (Geeljire, Ms Sarah Welch, and myself) who presented RS and were discussing possible titles when Thylacoop5 started making their redirects. At this stage, your suggestion of striking the colours and moving on is not bad shout at all. I agree the SPI case will hopefully make the situation a bit clearer. I hope that the community will consider behavioural evidence instead of just technical evidence (IP...etc, which is what Middayexpress/Soupforone was campaigning for prior to their block). --Kzl55 (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Based on the outcome of the SPI and considering behavior evidence, I've blocked Thylacoop5 (talk · contribs) for two weeks. I'll adjust the protection level for the article to semi as opposed to full and hopefully we can all move forward from here. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

82.4.173.193

Blocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Hi. Could someone please explain the numerous warning messages which I have received on my talk page.

I am not trolling.

I genuinely do not understand why I have received these warnings.

I am now afraid to edit, because "You may be blocked from editing without further warning". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.173.193 (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure all the warnings were needed, but no editor who is "afraid to edit" would post to both
π, ν
) 20:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

It smells like footwear. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and rather skilled at handling diffs as well.

IP, perhaps your telling another editor to "STFU and eat kibbles" and referring to another mockingly as "furry dude" on Jimbo's Talk page could have something to do with it. General Ization ^Talk 20:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Could someone please explain the numerous warning messages which I have received on my talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.173.193 (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. They're telling you you're one edit away from being blocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd say closer to -5 SarekOfVulcan. Why are we even entertaining this? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan Sure, but why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.173.193 (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

And that was the one. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Legal Threat by IP

IP blocked by Widr Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP 2401:4900:12f2:8416:8c3d:5546:5408:15a5 left a legal threat on a userpage: Special:Diff/860159736. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The legal threat is the least of the issues there. That IP should be blocked for that nastygram, legal threat or no. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Already blocked by Widr. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Nothing travels faster than the Speed of Widr. Kleuske (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(

WP:AIV? Natureium (talk

) 19:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Genre warring

IP blocked. (non-admin closure) TheDragonFire (talk) 10:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:AIV. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel

) 17:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@FlightTime:, I recommend you withdraw from arguing with the anon, since it clearly is having no effect. Whether he's right or wrong, he is out of order calling you a "retard", and I have given him a final warning. Deb (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Deb: Well, I wasn't arguing with them, just reverting their unsourced, un-discussed changes, but thanx for the support :) - FlightTime (open channel) 18:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Edgy. Imagine being offended at the word retarded. Also, you do know that you'll never win this right? I can just circumvent your bans with VPN's — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.163.13.139 (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 1 week. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:IUC by Pahlevun

I'm not sure if it's the right venue but

WP:IUC (the part "belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts"). Also, an WP:SPI would be nice here. Pinging User:Pahlevun. Ladsgroup^overleg

10:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

We have a long-standing conflict between several users in

People's Mujahedin of Iran, which was featured at noticeboards a couple iof times. Did anybody look at it in some detail?--Ymblanter (talk

) 10:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The other party, Stefka, was steadily removing a well-sourced content from two articles on a false allegation. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

People's Mujahedin of Iran article. This used to also include Expectant of Light, who was recently blocked for sockpupetry and aggressive POV pushing. Stefka Bulgaria (talk

) 09:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Wakari07

Wakari07 (talk · contribs)

Somewhat Pro-Russian activism and Misinformation campaign. As well as several instances of edit warring. I have noticed the user removing some important facts from the Portal:Current_events regarding the illness suspected of Novichok poisoning today. user:Wakari07 seems to be reverting any and all words mentioning the connections of this incident to past instances or poisonings citing not enough evidence in source. And somewhat misinforming people on the recent case. Marjdabi (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

1) content dispute, 2) the mention you keep adding isn't what the source says. The source says tensions are heightened due to the recent Novichok poisoning, not that they sealed off due to Novichok poisoning. The removal is correct based on the source. You're adding

Original research into it. And you're also extremely clear on the edit warring rules, you've been informed of them enough and even said that the next time you get involved like this with someone removing your content you'd take it to the talk page. However you have not. Canterbury Tail talk

22:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The area is sealed off due to the concern of Novichok poisoning, that is a no brainer. Yet the user keeps citing not mentioned by the source. Do we deny 2+2=4 if its not mentioned by a source? Also I have taken it to the talk page, had no success there however. Admins should notice pro-russian activists if they wanna keep Wikipedia legit. Marjdabi (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

For now I think the restaurant event is non-notable. This is more relevant for the people who are interested in what really happens in Salisbury. As to the "pro-Russian" accusation, I replied on my talk page. And just to be clear, it was I who warned User:Marjdabi first on their talk page (about adding unsourced content). Wakari07 (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

That external link looks like a non sequitur to me, Wakari07. Please explain its relevance to this discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

It, and the rest of the sentence, is meant as the illustration of a

ad absurdum". Wakari07 (talk

) 03:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Reactions to the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, but we can't be expected to search through them all for evidence which you should provide as the ANI filer. Softlavender (talk
) 00:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Alright, here are some. (1), (2), (3), (4), (5). Nothing too substantial but I don't want to user to make it harder for news readers to understand the issue. Marjdabi (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  - I agree with Wakari07's edits, and you shouldn't be edit-warring. I'm not even sure why the incident is in the Current events portal, as it is
    run-of-the-mill and plainly unconnected to Novichok poisoning. I recommend the item be completely removed, especially since it was a non-starter, non-notable, and you folks are edit-warring about it. Softlavender (talk
    ) 00:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    - Well no one knows it is related or not. There was a second poisoning after Skripal case which turned out to be Novichok after about 2 months. So this could be too. Also I read on twitter the patients were displaying similar symptoms to Novichok as well. Marjdabi (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
      - Wikipedia is not a venue for speculation, and it is not a social media site. Since the restaurant illness has been determined to be unrelated, it does not bear mention in Current Events in my opinion. If there is an actual development related to Russian poisonings, that can be added to Current Events when and if that is determined. Softlavender (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
        Alright so should I remove the whole thing? Marjdabi (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
        That is my position, and according to his post above it is Wakari07's position as well. Softlavender (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
        I concur. Canterbury Tail talk 12:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

"Well no one knows it is related or not." Then we can't publishe any reliable information on the subject. Per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Dimadick (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Grayfell

This editor has displayed repeated incivility that he's refused to address over the course of the discussion on Julius Evola:Talk page.

Examples -

Implying editors who are not academics and have read Julius Evola are 'confused new-agers and a still larger number of emotionally constipated edgelords.'
Implying editors who offer opposing views to his are 'nazi apologists' on his talkpage- 'I do not have any patience for Evola apologists, and Evola apologists are Nazi apologists. Grayfell (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)'
A veiled personal attack on a new editor holding a dissenting view - 'your personal opinions about the definition of rape have some disturbing implications' which was entirely unwarranted.

I have commented on his behaviour several times and templated him on his talkpage for his most recent personal attack, but he dismissed this as 'nonsense' and invited me to bring it to your intention. I understand that inevitably emotions become raised during the course of a debate, but this is becoming increasingly frequent and disruptive. I'm also concerned by the potential this behaviour has to drive away new editors from contributing, particularly in the last attack on Bananaman2018 which I strongly object to as an obvious ad hominem when discussing a delicate subject. VeritasVox (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:DIFFs of your claims? The link explains how to create them. Thanks. Softlavender (talk
) 07:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yep- sorry for the wait, took a bit to figure it out recent personal attacks edit summary here talkpage where repeats 'nazi apologist' accusation VeritasVox (talk) 08:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  - VeritasVox, you need to place diffs by each of your specifics accusations in your OP. No one has the time to figure out why you are posting those three links you just did. Softlavender (talk) 09:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

No case to answer. Keep up the good work Greyfell. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Julius Evola collaborated with the SS during the war, admired Himmler, met with Mussolini multiple times and worked with him over several years (including at Hitler's Wolf's Lair), was friends with Codreanu, and so on. I still feel pretty safe in saying that an Evola apologist is a Nazi apologist. There's also this: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 71#Julius Evola, which I had forgotten about until now. The article would benefit from attention and sources, but I can't blame editors (or academic sources) for not wanting to deal with this crap. Grayfell (talk) 09:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but that doesn't mean you should call other editors Nazi apologists anyway. There are other options to deal with POV-pushers than namecalling. And VeritasVox is right about one thing: Julius Evola only became a talking point for the culture warriors after Steve Bannon mentioned him in a speech, and a lot of American newspapers made articles about it. It's a common pattern really, Trump also mentioned the South africa farmer murders and suddenly a lot of people are edit-warring the obscure topic. --Pudeo (talk) 12:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Similar impugnations can be made about

guilt by association beyond the fact that it is a civility violation when used to describe other editors.

I am not involved in this discussion and I have not read enough about it all to come to any conclusion about it, but if part of it is the fact that you find it acceptable to describe those whose overt hostility to Evola is not effluent as "Nazi ~~sympathizers~~ apologists", then I am not seeing how that is tenable. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs

) 13:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC); last edited (major changes shown above) at 20:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

An IP came along changed the article to remove a use of the word "extremism", and to replace "nationalism" with "advocacy of a European Imperium". This is much less informative, and is contradicted by the comparatively large number of sources which link him to extremism and nationalism. The IP then edit warred over this, as well as a bunch of CN tags, this was fallowed by posts to editor's talk pages demanding we "justify" included material which was already supported by sources. This is apologism, not "guilt by association".

Comparisons to established philosophers gives Evola far, far, far more credit than any reliable source seems to. We do not treat all ideas as equally deserving of our time or respect, because that would be very disrespectful to ourselves and to the project. There's also the

WP:FRINGE

ideas on "magic", and his equally extreme opposition to equality. If you think his contributions to fascist theory laid any groundwork, you're not alone but you're also implying that fascism has a coherent, well-developed groundwork. That's is, itself, pretty controversial. Still, perhaps that's true, but Evola himself stubbornly refused to allow himself to be labeled a fascist even as he supported fascists personally, worked with fascist leaders, befriended fascists, and consistently sided with fascists against their many opponents.

Evola played word games to avoid making any factual claims which could be refuted, interpreted sources to be most convenient to his prior assumptions, shifted goal posts, and threw a bunch of weird nonsense against the wall to see what stuck. This is also precisely what VeritasVox has been doing on the article's talk page (included an RFC which went nowhere), this noticeboard, and the NPOV noticeboard, for the past few months. Grayfell (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful reply, Grayfell, and I apologize for the initial errors I have since corrected above. I should have been more careful in my original post; the fact that I had not yet been caffeinated is no excuse. I was not aware of the context of the Evola apologism comment, since it was not clear to me, so providing that is especially appreciated. In that context, the IP user was engaging in behavior that can understandably be interpreted as apologetic (and as not), though editing the article on Greg Johnson to insert an external link to his RationalWiki entry as their first edit is odd for someone who might be. Perhaps they just wanted to be more specific and imply a sort of pan-European position that conflicts with the nationalism claim, which the article now better reflects, but even then they should have explained that when challenged. Anyway, I still think such descriptions and comparisons are at best unhelpful and can be argued without much difficulty as uncivil, as Pudeo did at the time. Perhaps you disagree and still think it's fair game, but even if so, that does not seem to have been received as such.

Just to clarify my positions on the other, tangential matters: Evola is definitely a fringe philosopher and his spookiness (in the Stirnerian sense, who surprisingly was familiar to Evola and—not as surprisingly—very "fringe" as well) vaguely reminds me of Crowley's sorcery. I did not mean to suggest otherwise; evoking Plato and Aristotle was just about naming known names, not his peers. I also agree that fascism's own theory and philosophic foundations are in no way clear or coherent; nonetheless, Evola was a significant source for providing some semblance of both for fascists and neo-fascists which followed him, despite rejecting fascism himself. In that sense, he was a bit like Sorel and De Ambris, neither of whom were fascists and both of whom vocally criticized such ideas. Lastly, for the record, I agree with exactly zero of Evola's ideas and have yet to find one that has earned any sympathy from me (even his criticisms of fascism are bad), though I find him and his philosophy to be very interesting and consider both to be a serious influence among the reactionary intelligentsia and their newer ilk.

Lastly, on whether any action should be taken with anyone involved, I have no comment because I am still trying to understand the full context and I tend to avoid opining on such matters anyway. Regardless, your commentary has been informative; thank you for providing it. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 21:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I dunno, lack of caffeine excuses a lot, in my book. As I've said many times, I would be thrilled to have more diverse sources in the article, because there is a lot to be said. I would really enjoy seeing a well-sourced addition on how Stirner influenced Evola, or what Sterner thought of Evola.

The 'apologist' comment, back in May, was brusque, sure, but "civility" needs to be seen in context. That specific paragraph of the article has, for several years, been the target of edits by SPAs and random IP addresses. Almost all of them have been trying to downplay his extremism and misogyny, but none of them were willing to tackle the sourcing problems. Many were pure SPAs, but some have edited other articles, and that overlap isn't about philosophy or occultism, it's about the alt-right. I could start listing examples, but I don't think it's worth the hassle to notify a dozen editors who've since disappeared. There is also some very strange disruptive sock puppetry in the article's past (would I have to notify a blocked user if I linked to their SPI? Also probably not important here). Does this excuse rudeness? Perhaps not, but I don't think it should be ignored. Saying that an Evola apologist is a Nazi apologist is accurate, and if we cannot speak accurately about actual political extremism, we have a censorship problem. Grayfell (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the reply and further contextualization. My initial reply may have been needlessly aggressive, but you responded to it with grace. To avoid this tangent becoming definitely off-topic, I'll drop it and have posted the rest I omitted here (with elaboration) at your talk page—it seems to have largely concluded, anyway. I still think that the Venn diagram of Evola apologists and Nazi apologists is further apart than you do, but that's also beside the point at this point.

I doubt I will comment any further about this matter, but I am glad that my posts at least served as an opportunity for you to provide context for statements that have been recurrently cited throughout this whole affair. Regardless of who did what, context is important and so is its provision. Apologies for the length of this digression. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 01:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposal (TBAN)

The full quote is:

Nuance? What nuance? Using many words to describe simplistic ideas is not the same as nuance. His works are mostly seen as the self-indulgent ramblings of a failed dilettante. He is historically noteworthy for having served a politically expedient purpose in fascism. This elevated him from total obscurity to become a name to be often mentioned, but seldom read, by a tiny number of scholars, a slightly larger number of confused new-agers and a still larger number of emotionally constipated edgelords. If you don't agree with me, find a reliable source which actually takes his opinions seriously. Provide reliable sources discussing his "nuance". Provide any reliable source at all. You've been at this for months and have completely failed to produce any usable sources. If Evola's opinions on sexuality are relevant to anything written in this article, let's see the sources.

That is a masterful summary of the facts and not in any way a personal attack. The problem here is the

WP:TBAN for both of these editors would do no harm and would give poor Grayfell some peace. Guy (Help!

) 09:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

'confused new-agers' and 'emotionally constipated edgelords' is 'masterful' and not a personal attack against Bananaman2018 who was explicitly saying he's read Evola in the comments before this? VeritasVox (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Support topic ban of Bananaman2018 (talk · contribs) and VeritasVox (talk · contribs) on the subject of Julius Evola, as proposed above by JzG. Enough is enough. Softlavender (talk) 10:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Support topic ban to prevent Bananaman2018 and VeritasVox from editing any page relating to
WP:IDHT parrying from VeritasVox (for example, in the first talk section where VeritasVox repeatedly tries to draw an unhelpful analogy with Mahmoud Abbas and resorts to listing links to essays/policies without any engagement with the issues raised by Grayfell that I can see). Johnuniq (talk
) 10:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Support topic ban for both - As usual, editors with some version of "truth" in their usernames are generally here to push a POV or to
WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. That appears to be the case with one of these two. I'd be interested in the results if a CU should see fit to look into this. Beyond My Ken (talk
) 21:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment Bananaman2018 has been active only since September 11, 2018, and has made no worthwhile contributions so far. But VeritasVox does not seem to be a single-purpose account. His/her edit history includes discussions and substantial edits on Inanna, the Code of Ur-Nammu, and Naram-Sin of Akkad. Not that bad for an editor only active since May 15, 2018. Should I remind you that Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers is a behavioral guideline? Dimadick (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah, no, actually. Having made 229 edits in 4 months isn't particularly "not bad", especially when only 20 are to articles, and 69 to article talk. The rest of them -- 140 edits -- are to User talk, Wikipedia, User and Wikipedia talk. I don't know why you would characterize one edit each to Eanna and Ur-Nammu as "substantial", and the 8 edits to Code of Ur-Nammu are hardly much better. I think you're much too laudatory for what is basically a pretty minimal number of contributions to the encyclopedia. [199] Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Support topic bans on OP and the new account I'm not seeing the problem in the links presented, but I definitely see some pushing to whitewash the article at the talk page. Note that sanctions are not punitive; a topic ban is not "biting" the newcomer, but simply saying "Hey, you should stay away from this topic until you're more experienced".
Tell me all about it.
17:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Support, especially for VeritasVox. Bananaman2018 is a very new account and appears to be genuinely not aware of
WP:OR etc; nor has he attempted to edit the article. VeritasVox, on the other hand, appears to have spent much of his time on wiki just on this article. For example, his first 50 edits were editing the Evola article, its Talk page, noticeboards and user Talk pages, all in re: the Evola page. The editing itself has been problematic advancing the theory of the page / source used were about a "political attack by proxy" on Steve Bannon. An enforced break from the article is called for at this point. K.e.coffman (talk
) 01:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Unable to log in

I think this can be closed now. Thanks everybody for good advice. Bishonen | talk 11:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC).

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I got an e-mail from a user I'd rather not name, who complained that he wasn't able to log in with his usual username and password from abroad. It had worked OK from his home, and as I understood it, he used his phone in both places. Can anybody explain or help? Bishonen | talk 18:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC).

Without knowing details of the ISP used abroad, I don't think anyone could offer any useful insight specific to this issue. But a few tips: If they're getting an error stating that they're unable to log in for an unknown or non-credentials-based reason, then they should try using going through a proxy that isn't blocked on WP. I know NordVPN has a few that are set up for editing WP (they don't show up as open proxies). If they're getting the "wrong username/password" error, then they're probably being hit by a MITM of some sort (the "middle" might be the machine they're logging on, a malicious or hacked ISP, a local proxy, etc, etc), and their account should be blocked until you can confirm that they're back in the states and able to change their password. If they're just not able to connect to WP, then try the proxy tactic again, as WP might be blocked by the ISP or even the government wherever they are.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

18:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

One last tip: US and UK keyboards have different layouts for some of the Shift keys. Have them double check that any sybols they're getting by holding down shift and pressing a key are being typed correctly by checking it in a text editor, or anywhere that they can type and see the results. I'm pretty sure there are other Roman Alphabet keyboard layouts, as well. This can generally be changed in the input settings on the computer pretty easily.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

18:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you, MjolnirPants. Would the executive summary be that it's not surprising, and he had better pursue some other hobby until he gets back home? (Which won't be that many days, but we all know the wikipediholism can bite.) Anyway, I'll just point him to your reply. People don't need to log in in order to read ANI, surely. Bishonen | talk 18:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC).

That's what I would do, yes. And I'd change my password when I got home. And if I were you, I'd keep an eye on that account's contribs, just in case it did get compromised. It's not particularly likely, but there's no downside to keeping eyes on. Note that, at least in my not-so-humble-yet-occasionally-self-deprecating opinion, editing Wikipedia should be a hobby. As in, it's something you do for the fun, sense of accomplishment and entertainment value. If you find yourself lacking in those things while on vacation (or with sufficient free time to notice the lack on a business trip), I'd say you're getting traveling wrong. I've been to quite a few exotic and mundane locales, and I assure you that there is always something worthwhile to do, even if it's as simple as watching the local kids playing soccer and rewarding the winning team with candy.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

19:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

This person is your secret lover, isn't it, Bishonen? That's why you cannot reveal his identity. Well, have fun, is all I can say. Softlavender (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Sadly, no, he's just a member of Bishzilla's harem. Susceptible monster! Not picky! Bishonen | talk 00:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC).

Just to add to the keyboard layout point. I remember many years ago traveling in France. I went to an internet cafe and found to my horror that they change the position of a couple of their keys. See AZERTY. It was a nightmare because I can largely touch type on a QWERTY. Blackmane (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bishonen: AFAIK no block should effect a user's ability to log in (that's "locking", as you probably know). So, if the account's not locked, it's not an innocuous error with a different keyboard layout, and their account is not compromised with a changed password, the user can consult mw:Help:Logging in#Log in problems to see if they're experiencing what is described there. If that still doesn't help, we actually have great tech support available at mw:Project:Support desk. 𝔰𝔴𝔞𝔯𝔪 ^𝔛 07:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: Ah, cool. No, it's not a keyboard layout issue, people. As I said, but I guess not emphatically enough, he's using his own phone. Bishonen | talk 08:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC).

@

Adminhelp}} patrol. 10/10 would recommend. 𝔰𝔴𝔞𝔯𝔪 ^𝔛

08:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I would repeat the OP at

WP:VPT but add a brief explanation of exactly what happens. Are they using the phone's browser or the Wikipedia app? Did they log out before leaving home? When abroad, they use "log in" and enter name/password. What exactly happens then and what is the exact text of any message? Johnuniq (talk

) 23:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NOTHERE

Involved and (non-admin closure), but OP agrees to close. We'll see what we'll see.O3000 (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Indefinitely blocked. Black Kite (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kingdamian1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been edit warring on the article Racial views of Donald Trump [200], which resulted in the page being fully protected. Afterward, he went to the talk page, ranting about all of the problems the article had and not assuming good faith, such as saying "Big brother" and stuff like that. He also removed important messages from his talk page, including a message from me, an editor with somewhat similar viewpoints [201]. From what I can see, he is refusing to behave in a civil and collaborative manner. funplussmart (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

He stopped edit warring when warned, and is allowed to remove most messages from his talkpage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, I think he’s NOTHERE. But, I think this is premature and would suggest withdrawing this for now unless he starts up again. Although, I think he’ll eventually be blocked. I just believe in a bit more rope. O3000 (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree, this is premature. The message you left on their talk page was excellent and well-written, and I hope they take the message to heart. Brad v 00:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I sure hope he does. And yes I do agree to a close. We can start this up again if problems continue. I do realize this is premature. funplussmart (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Just noting that I've indefinitely blocked Kingdamian since, after this was closed started edit warring on Joe Biden. This is especially concerning given the final warning from ArbCom when unblocked and that the content being added was questionable (BLP). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Yikes, they didn't listen to funplussmart at all. Brad v 13:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that was quick, and inevitable. O3000 (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. This user had all of the signs of a battleground mentality. funplussmart (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could somebody block a conspiracy theorist for a while to show what they're doing is not welcome here

I have collapsed the section per

WP:BLP. Black Kite (talk)

15:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In

Dmcq (talk

) 15:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but until it shows up in the article text, it's still just a talk page discussion. I am disinclined to block someone for being bullheaded on a talk page, if that is all they are doing. Unless and until they start disrupting the article text against consensus, you could just ignore them, and then nothing happens. If there is consensus against his proposed edits, and he's still not editing the article, then there is no blockable offense. Being wrong is not disallowed at Wikipedia. Being wrong and edit warring over an article is. He doesn't appear to have done that yet. --Jayron 32 15:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Dmcq (talk · contribs

) keeps accusing me of "insinuations" which I never made, and, in fact, have explicitly denied. I take responsibility for what I have written, but not for what someone wrongly imagines I've insinuated between the lines -- especially after I've already explained my meaning to him (or her).

I've twice reminded Dmcq that his insults and accusations are in violation of

WP:CIVIL

, but as his name-calling here ("conspiracy theorist") demonstrates, he obviously doesn't care. To be perfectly clear: I am not a conspiracy theorist!

He has now thrice falsely accused me promoting a "conspiracy theory," even though I explained to him that, "I don't know of any evidence of a conspiracy."

Likewise, he has repeatedly accused me of "insinuat[ing] improper action by the [U.S.] attorney," even though I explained to him that, "I have not expressed an opinion about it. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know what constitutes what the legal profession considers "proper" or "improper" exercise of prosecutorial discretion by a U.S. Attorney."

Would someone please explain

WP:CIVIL to Dmcq, and, in particular, explain that insults, name-calling, and ill-considered accusations of impropriety are all explicitly forbidden? NCdave (talk

) 15:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Realcasapa

I just stumbled across this page: CasaPound and noticed that Realcasapa seems to be engaged in a slow edit war with a few different users over there. I'm not involved and I don't anything about it, but they were warned weeks ago on their talk page. It looks like they also gave a legal threat here. The username itself might be a violation, too. BoogieWithStu (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh boy, this could be a bad one. CasaPound is one of those... yeah. Simonm223 (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

This is not the first time the article has been disrupted by CasaPound users. Others include User:Casaponda (no article), User:Casapounda1 and User:Casaponda2, all presumably the same person! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Anyone want to run a checkuser? Simonm223 (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23 already did, the account is blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Oxycodone weirdness

Yesterday, a spa posted a bizarre... thing on the Hydrocodone talk page. I asked him what it meant, but it was removed (probably rightfully) before he could answer, and he was then blocked as a sock. Today, I come back to see.... this trash all over my talk page. Could an admin or someone look into what the hell is going on here?

💸

16:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@

long term abuser. Kleuske (talk

) 16:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Money emoji, I went ahead and reverted that garbage. Feel free to revert if you really, really want it back. Hopefully that editor gets blocked soon as Kleuske points out this is clearly that LTA.

Ravensfire (talk

) 17:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. Ping me if more show up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Bad content about health effects of food

topic ban from food, nutrition and health, broadly construed. Guy (Help!

) 08:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bodhi Peace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The entire thrust of their editing about food. They do OKish if it is just about food (e.g. this editto Ketchup or but when it comes to health effects they go off the rails, especially if it is about "functional foods" or "superfoods" or any of that crap that the internet is full of.

If you look at this person's talk page you will see warning after warning for bad editing about alt-health foods. (they just delete stuff, so you have to look at the history).

I tried to have a discussion with them -- see here -- and they wrote But the short of it is that I am not employed or receiving compensation from any company involved in the space... but as of yet it remains an interest and a hobby of trying exotic foods with purported health claims. I am also potentially seeking to create new products out of so-called beneficial ingredients and so to get to the bottom of any health claims and to understand why marketing is or is not false. I suppose some of my recent edits were a bit of a statement made against any existing conservative bias I see in the article. I feel that it can be explained how things are marketed without selling it on wikipedia. I may have to take my edits elsewhere on the web, but now with your latest revert I feel you lost some critically useful information: that superfoods often pick out omega 3, antioxidants, etc. The "economics" section is a mess and moreover, with the discussion of the marketing of bananas, I see that may be outside the narrow scope of a "superfood" article and more towards the marketing of "health foods". I come to the article to understand why the superfood label is used and what it means and the article is lacking examples.

I replied: I think it is great that you are trying to understand the market for "superfoods" on a very practical level and want to share your learning in WP as you go. I do this sort of thing all the time, as well. There is just a very fine between describing accepted knowledge about the market and how people have been addressing and growing the market, and replicating the hype within that market..... you are crossing over into the latter a bit much

They have continued unabated. Some sample diffs:

edit to Sugar substitute
creating Category:Health drinks defined as "Drinks that promote health". Dogshit health food marketing.
1st set of edits to Kombucha; toning down dangers, emphasizing potential benefits. Adding unsourced/badly souced content.
2nd set of edits to Kombucha, more aggressively citing putative health benefits using bad sources
3rd set of edits to Kombucha, adding a bunch of brand spam via images.
1st set of edits to Chocolate with badly sourced health content
2nd set of edits to Chocolate, as before but now just blowing off sources altogether
3rd to Chocolate (see bottom-most, same as before)
4th to Chocolate, better in parts but still bringing in primary sources and unsourced
5th and 6th to Chocolate, still with the unsourced content.

There is too much work to do here in WP, to be cleaning up after somebody who is this aggressive and who ignores MEDRS so persistently and willfully, and even when they do pay it some mind, skews the content in a marketing way.

Please topic ban this person from editing about food and health. (I don't know how to tailor it more narrowly). I thought about doing this more narrowly to just health (so they could still do edits like the potato one) but I don't want to waste people's time further or get into the boundary issues of "nutrients". So let's be done with this. Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

User Bodhi Peace seems particularly vulnerable to accepting spam, marketing or personal experience as the basis for changing content on several food and health articles, and has often cited healthline.com as a source (it is a multiauthor, non-expert blog, remote from

WP:MEDRS). This talk edit is an example of where a childhood observation led to several reverts and source checks. Each of the user's edits has to be monitored for fact and quality of source, often resulting in reversion or rewrites, and finding a quality source. Rarely does the interaction feel collaborative and productive. I support the topic ban. --Zefr (talk

) 02:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

A ban from "Health and nutrition, broadly construed", perhaps? It seems such a thing is needed, since they've proven unable to take polite advice. Icarosaurvus (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I am just passing by this thread, being completely unfamiliar with the situation; however, I do want to interject here on a minor issue, since I have witnessed this become a rather contentious ambiguity in at least one prior topic ban of a user. Namely, it may be important to explicate whether "health and nutrition" here is restricted to human health and nutrition or includes the much broader interpretation of animals (organisms?) more generally. This seems mainly limited to human matters, but it may be best to clarify that now before it serves as a potential problem in the future.

For the record, I maintain no position on the topic ban or this issue, since I am not involved in this issue and have not evaluated it whatsoever. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 05:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC); last edited at 05:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

If a topic ban is necessary, and I am not convinced of that yet because parts of the edits seem okay, perhaps constraining it to adding primary sources and information based on primary sources to medical articles would be adequate. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

It's that "parts of the edits seem okay" which makes it such a time-sink for other editors to fix, as teasing out source misrepresentations takes a lot of time. The fact there is no proper engagement on the Talk page makes it worse.

talk

) 06:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I support this ban, with some appropriate time limit, as I too have had to waste time reviewing and fixing this editor's work in this area. They mean well, but have simply not grasped the requirements for writing about health and nutrition related matters in an encyclopedic manner, and certainly not in accord with
WP:MEDRS. (The ban should include animal related matters as well, having had to fix some material on dogs and chocolate.) However, I think they are capable of learning, given some time. Peter coxhead (talk
) 08:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Support for at least some months, this is into
WP:CIR territory given the number of warnings. Guy (Help!
) 13:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose I see no attempt by the proposer to engage the editor and explain at the talk page of the three articles Sugar substitute, Kombucha and Chocolate why these edits are so problematic. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC) [revised 13:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)]
- Err, of those articles I've looked just at
  talk
  ) 20:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC); amended 15:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I looked at the first edit of the long list:

edit to Sugar substitute

This edit adds substantially new content to a high-profile article which has not been removed or even challenged at the article. If it is so problematic that it is the first on the list as justification for topic-banning, then why has the content not been removed and discussed on the talk page of the article before coming here? If the content cannot be contested, this suggests a reason to not topic-ban the editor. I went to Kombucha and Chocolate and saw the OP did not try to raise objections at the article before coming here to raise them. (I had not noticed that other editors have raised objections about the edits at Kombucha and Chocolate. On that I stand corrected.) The lists of warnings on Bodhi Peace's talk page are indeed concerning, particularly the responses here. Ultimately, because of the diff provided at Sugar substitute, my feeling is that we need to work with the editor first in correcting issues. A request that the editor "slow down" before adding new content might be in order as well. But topic-banning seems extreme without first working with the editor. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

As everybody else is saying, they don't engage on Talk. In your haste to disagree with Jytdog you are enabling a problem editor IMO.

talk

) 06:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

"[T]hey don't engage on Talk." That's clearly not true, as you well know, because Bodhi Peace responded directly to concerns you and another editor raised in this discussion at Kombucha. Bodhi Peace even conceded to a requested change with "I don't exactly know what you are getting at so go ahead and make the edit." diff That seems pretty reasonable.

Additionally, Bodhi Peace responded at the talk page of Chocolate here. After being accused of using blogs, Bodhi Peace replied, "All that information on chocolate poisoning in pets was copy/pasted, cut, summarized, etc. from theobromine poisoning." diff

--David Tornheim (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

They respond but they don't "engage" - the edit then continuing on.

talk

) 12:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

And at Talk:Chocolate#Theobromine poisoning. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Off topic question Am I the only one who just drinks Kombucha because I think it's delicious and doesn't care about the supposed health benefits? Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Do you mean actual kombucha or black-tea mushroom? (笑) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I think the plain old undiluted

T/C

｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 01:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@

I left?), the distinction is somewhat amusing. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや

) 03:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 04:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

T/C

The kind I buy at the farmer's market probably ultimately descends from the black tea mushroom variant. But it's basically a thoroughly modern fermented tea beverage. ;) Simonm223 (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I have experience with this editor on Ted Kaczynski. Some of their edits are useful but it is time consuming to review and fix the not-so-useful contributions. Edits such as this, changing the parameter "days between" (something I challenged but was reverted) to "time between" in order to give data such as "~1 year" and "~1 1/2 years" alongside data such as "2 years 317 days" and "6 years 123 days", just confuse me. None of their edits individually are that bad but it is a persistent pattern where they will need to be reviewed and retouched. To my knowledge, they have not added any referenced material to the article so it is particularly frustrating when you are having to review copyediting. There also are edits such as this, which was explicitly argued against shortly before on the talk page, with no response on the talk page or rationale for addition. In my opinion, they either edit on a whim without much care to the result or Guy's assessment is accurate. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- I was aware of their editing on other topics like Kaczysnki but had not looked at them. I was hoping they were better. Apparently not. Jytdog (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Support indef block User was subject to an indef block six months ago, then a few days later accepted a conditional unblock.[203][204] In the subsequent months, they have violated their unblock condition 35 times (Ctrl+F this for "Tag: New redirect"). It's also unfortunate to see David Tornheim still advocating for NOTHERE editors; I would suggest also TBANning David from AN/ANI/AE discussions in which he is not involved. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC) (Edited 01:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC))

Can we TBAN someone from administrative pages though? From my understanding TBANing was about articles not Wikipedia processes. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 00:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It's definitely been done. Banning someone from a prescribed DR process is really a no-go, so my initial wording was problematic (I've now fixed it); DT's involvement in ANI threads over the last eighteen months or so (going back, as far as I know, to his highly questionable actions here, which resulted in this mess -- someone who proposed mandatory mentoring as preferable to an indef block, and volunteered himself as the mentor, should never be allowed get away with saying please continue this discussion elsewhere... thanks... when a third party asks them to rein their mentee in, and I think NeilN would have been

almost immediately blocked for ignoring said TBAN. Actually, his suddenly showing back up on ANI now comes across as a bit HOUNDish given his history with Jytdog (which, for the sake of full disclosure, I found out about by Ctrl+Fing Jytdog's name on the DT TBAN entry, and noticed him quasi-GRAVEDANCing on Jytdog for having been TBANned by ArbCom from the same topic area the previous year; I actually didn't know Jtydog was subject to a TBAN when I started typing this, else I probably wouldn't have brought up DT's own TBAN from the same topic area). Hijiri 88 (聖やや

) 01:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

A one-way interaction ban might be the way to go with respect to David's hounding problems. I haven't bothered opening a case at AE for David's recent topic ban violations (most other people that did have to deal with his issues in the past can easily ignore him now due to his topic ban), but this seems to be a bit of a loose end from the GMO stuff. I don't think this is the best venue for that avenue though.

) 18:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

) 08:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Kingofaces43: Continuing to hound the editors who "got him banned" would almost certainly be taken as violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the ban (which was meant to stem, not intensify, disruption). I'm wondering if a community indef block isn't called for at this point, especially given how little of his time seems to go into building the encyclopedia (120 mainspace edits in the last year) compared to the drahma he seems to cause. Hijiri 88 (聖やや

As it has been proposed, I also support an indefinite block. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Support indef block. I would have been more prone to a health content topic ban, but the problems Hijiri 88 brought up compound the issue. This editor was already on a short rope.
talk
) 18:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Support indef block. The case for a CIR indef is already overwhelming, per the OP and Hrodvarsson, and per the previous issue regarding the endless spamming of dubious redirects, which apparently continues via AFC/R (ironically, according to a user who awarded them a redirect barnstar—"a lot of your requests get declined or don't survive AFD"—not even the competence issue that has already led to an indef has improved). Unbelievably, the user has completely failed to even address this AN/I thread, demonstrating that they're unwilling to understand and to be accountable for their disruption. And, that's not even getting into the fact that, as evidenced by Hijiri, the user has been egregiously violating the editing restriction that allowed them to return from their previous indef. I see absolutely no reason we should continue to invest volunteer resources into this straightforward CIR case. Swarm ♠ 22:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose or Partial support. I suppose I will come here to oppose the proposed topic ban of the editor in question, which is me and the topic is "food and health". I don't know how these proceedings work for the most part, so I avoided discussion and have not read the comments until this moment. The reason I avoided reading or commenting is that I partly desired the break from editing, but more because I wanted to avoid conflict and was trying to assume that the issue was going to be resolved in a short amount of time (1-2 days). I am suprised at the number of comments from different parties. I do need to slow down with some edits of the food and health topics, so I would support a one to two week ban on those topics, however it is mostly the intersection of those two topics that brings me into conflicts with other editors. I don't know how a topic ban is administered and enforced or how the scope is defined, whether technically or through agreement. I am starting to work hard towards making constructive edits by restraining myself from some idiosyncracies that are not within the style guidelines, and realizing when creativity isn't appropriate.
- I may as well address the edits in question.
  - Sugar substitute: All I did was sort the types by heading alphabetically and add the type "sugar alcohols".
  - Category:Health drinks: I am not very good at some categories, but I can see this is not encyclopedic, just something that is vague and could encompass many different marketing claims, such that the category would not withstand the scrutiny of other editors. In my desire to quickly categorize drinks with health claims, I should have looked for a different method than the category system.
  - Kombucha: I tried to work towards WP:NPOV because I saw the article didn't bring up minor beneficial attributes, but rather sought to refute the most implausible health claims without even mentioning "probiotic" or given examples of those health claims in the lede. I came into conflict with other editors and have bad experiences occasionally on some articles so we began to resolve the disagreement through edits rather than on the talk page. I went to the talk page, but was not quite sure what one editor was getting at so I left the article for a while. The conflict was mostly about how to phrase a 2003 review they cited as a recommendation against the drink, as well as using certain language in portraying the tone ("some", "implausible", etc.). I added images of bottled kombucha drinks sold commercially because that is commonly how it is consumed at least where I live in the US, and I would appreciate it if someone could point out the policy on that issue because, e.g. the lemonade article shows a commercial brand's label.
  - Chocolate: The conflict arose because I saw the article either didn't mention or adequately address the compounds "caffeine" and "theobromine". I directly stated that they could be stimulating but User:Zefr came to say that it was an issue of dosage and pointed me to WP:MEDRS on this. I was stubborn on the issue of theobromine poisoning because of what I had heard and a quick Internet search provided, but you can see on Talk:Chocolate that I engaged in discussion. I can see that I needed to be more level-headed when starting to write some of edits on those stimulating compounds, because, as Zefr said, it is a matter of dose and portraying facts about those compounds can yield BIAS if not backed by the relative dose and amounts.
  - Most of all the redirects I made through WP:AFCRD, but I made some that I thought were unambiguous e.g.
    Konbucha
    - Bod (talk) 06:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Support indef block. I can't believe somebody who was unblocked on certain conditions six months ago, and who has been diligently violating those conditions ever since, is still editing here. You say you only made "some" redirects, Bodhi Peace? Compare Hijiri's recommendation to Ctrl+F this for "Tag: New redirect". That doesn't look like "some" to me. Also, the condition for your unblock was that you don't create any new redirects. As for the comments above about David Tornheim, yes, the community can certainly ban a user from one, several, or all noticeboards if that user is persistently unhelpful there. If people believe the cap fits David Tornheim, I suggest they open a separate thread about it. Bishonen | talk 17:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC).

FYI, searching for mw-new-redirect in the tag filter may help in viewing. Blackmane (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Blackmane: While that is a useful trick, as I told another editor on my talk page, the egregiousness actually comes across more clearly when you search for it the old-fashioned way (yeah, I know tags aren't "old", but if it wasn't for the tags I would have have said Ctrl+F for edit summaries that include "redirect"), since it shows 35 redirects against only four mainspace page creations that aren't redirects. Bodhi doesn't appear to be under a TBAN from writing new articles, and while it would likely not be a valid exception to create useful redirects for variant names of the topics of new articles created, an argument could be made that it should be an exception; the fact that this is not the case is highlighted by the fact that Bodhi hasn't been creating new articles. (Also @Bishonen: While checking this, I noticed that the new redirect tag is automatically placed on the original titles of pages Bodhi moved, which I think probably is a legitimate exception: the actual number is 29, not 35. Still more than "a few", mind you.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I accepted the conditions on March 11 2018 and realized that I had a problem with creating redirects and would stop. I did stop. I didn't create any new redirects without WP:AFCRD for over 5 months. On August 12, I created the first actual real redirect (

Red Bluff, Montana

) and as you searched for some others that I thought were uncontroversial. The vast majority of redirects were done through WP:AFCRD and I was even awarded a "Redirect Barnstar" for having mastered the art of creating helpful redirects. That issue has not been brought up independently of my conflicts with other editors over the intersection of food and health.

So you decided after five months that you no longer wanted to abide by your TBAN, and in the month thence you have violated it on a daily basis. And The Duke of Nonsense (talk · contribs), a sock of a troll, decided to thank you for doing so. That you would make such an argument in your own defense shows that you are either trying to mislead the community or are simply too dense to be allowed to continue editing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't have a TBAN, if I understand what that means; I had a redirect ban. I have not violated it daily. It seems you want to play politics and I don't really want to play that game. I realize inherently there will be a political side to wikipedia, but I prefer rather to do stick to editing. I don't know that user (again a political thing) until I saw that they thought they made a mistake on their talk page regarding me. I'm not really even bringing a defense but I have to say something because it was mentioned. It doesn't even have to do with the issue at hand. Bod (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

You have a TBAN from redirects. Yes, that is a "redirect ban" as you put it, but it is still a TBAN. Even so, let's just say it's not. So you don't have a TBAN. You have a redirect ban. And I would argue that

this. Yes, "daily" may be a slight exaggeration, but that doesn't mean you have a free pass to ignore editing restrictions. -A lad insane (Channel 2)

19:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Yes, after 6 months, I should have officially appealed to have the TBAN from redirects removed. Bod (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Then why didn't you? Waiting five months (not six) before beginning to ignore your TBAN is asking to have your block reinstated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment Frankly, I would still like to be able to occasionally edit food articles, especially to structure and grammar fix, without introducing a lot of new material. I would accept a time-limited ban on rewriting or adding new information specifically related to the health or nutrition in food-categorized articles. Over that time period I could observe and learn generally how edits are made to those sections. I could also promise to only use the WP:AFCRD mechanism if it is an issue for some editors, which wasn't brought up independently of the current conflict. Finally, I could promise to try to judge and refrain from unorthodox or "confusing" edits as Hrodvarsson brought up on all unrelated articles to the topic-specific ban. But I still would like clarity on the policy of adding images showing commercial products or brand labels to e.g. lemonade. Bod (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

"I could also promise to only use the WP:AFCRD mechanism if it is an issue for some editors, which wasn't brought up independently of the current conflict"

Facepalm. You already did promise to do that, after you were indefinitely blocked for spamming bad redirects. There has been a formal editing restriction, logged in your block log and at

WP:ER/UC the whole time, which required you to do what you're offering to do. And, as evidenced in this thread, you've been repeatedly violating it. And now all you have to say is "I'll do it if it's an issue." Did the indef block not make it clear that "it is an issue"? This is exactly the type of disruptive lack of competence that makes me support a formal indef. Swarm ♠

19:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment Again, for many months I learned to use the process of WP:AFCRD, which can slow you down quite a bit if, for example, you notice a whole bunch of related and interconnected terms that need redirects created for an article you are working on. Obviously I should have gone through the appropriate administrative channels to have the ban lifted. And I still would like policy reference on the use of brand labels and pictures of commercial products on articles, which was part of the aforementioned edits and I have not been referred to any official policy, for example lemonade. Bod (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Support TBan but ~~Oppose Site Ban~~see belowOppose indef block. As an
AFCRD regular, I was very surprised an autoconfirmed account was making that many good AFCRD requests. From what I saw, Bod is trying to abide by terms of their TBan, and occasional redirect creations are probably errors. L293D (☎ • ✎
) 13:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you very much, I have been trying to use the WP:AFCRD mechanism in order to make new redirects and to only be constructive. For all my efforts, I was quite pleased to receive an award (a barnstar). And to me, at least, it seems like a lot of the people here just enjoy the process of banning people. Bod (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  - No, saying people enjoy banning people is not
    assuming good faith and the site ban proposers have reasonable arguments for it. I do not believe they are sufficient, though, so I'm opposing. I will also point out that being uncivil on admin boards will hurt your case more than anything else. L293D (☎ • ✎
    ) 19:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
    - Thank you again, I will try to be civil. Bod (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@L293D: Umm ... who proposed a site ban? I proposed enforcement of Bodhi's already-in-place TBAN. Your comments don't make a whole lot of sense. If someone is subject to an indef block, accepts and unblock condition, and then ignores that condition, it's standard procedure to put them back under the original block, and I can't for the life of me figure out why no admin has done that yet. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Since you haven't figured it out, then I will tell you: because Bod has made many constructive edits elsewhere. The indef you are always taking about was six months ago. L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

He was subjected to an indefinite block, and then was unblocked on condition that he accept a binding TBAN indefinitely. He has not successfully appealed that TBAN, and is therefore still subject to it, and on his first infraction (now that it has been noticed) the indef block needs to be restored per the conditions of the unblock. You do not have the authority to "oppose indef block" under these circumstances; you are requesting that the indef block to which he is already subject (and no admin has got around to implementing) be lifted, which is a different procedure. As for whether he is allowed violate his editing restriction with impunity because you think he makes constructive edits elsewhere: NO. That wouldn't be fair to the rest of us who make more constructive edits ("more" here describing both the mass of edits and their level of constructiveness) while still abiding by our TBANs. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Although you made it fairly clear, the issue has become somewhat muddled because now blocking editing privileges would look like it relates to the conflicts over "food and health", rather than a couple infractions of creating redirects against a TBAN, which wasn't what was brought to the noticeboard. Bod (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

No, it's perfectly normal to, when an editor is brought to a noticeboard for disruptive edits in one area of the project, examine their record in other areas. In this case, doing so quickly revealed that you shouldn't have been editing in the first place, as you are subject to an indefinite unblock condition which you have been ignoring, making the food edits issue redundant. If a blocking admin chooses to impose a stronger restriction that specifically addresses your food edits, that can be addressed, but that you need to be reblocked is not in dispute. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

There is still a very big problem with Sweetener and Sugar substitute that someone has to fix. Bod (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Time to close

Sorry, but it's painfully obvious what needs to be done here, and I have to imagine the only reason it hasn't been implemented yet is because every uninvolved admin who happened across it decided that !voting for a community sanction would be more useful than enforcing the already-existing unblock condition. Whether an uninvolved admin wants to implement a community block or just say there's not a clear enough consensus for that and reinstate the original block doesn't really matter, and the only risk here is that the thread gets archived without a proper (admin) close. BTW, he violated the ban again several days after I brought it up here,[205] and has retargeted six redirects, which while not technically a violation seems like a really stupid stunt to pull with this discussion still live. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Asking for 2-way no-fault IBAN with User:Jytdog

OP indefinitely topic banned from blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed. MER-C 08:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

First of all, as a person that edits WP once a year or so, let me express one feeling

I have been told off for being
WP:BOLD [206]

When politely asking to elucidate the issue I have been told to "RTFM" [207]

Things have changed around here.

The rationale for the 2-way no-fault IBAN is that I don't fell I am (or ever will be) able to reach consensus with Jytdog. This exchange serves as an excellent case in point [208]. And to be frank I don't feel like tiptoeing around a person that I feel is hyper-aggressive.

I'm not totally without fault, this particular comment seems to have upset Jytdog in particular [209]. He has linked it in all relevant discussions.

I would like to also address two related issues that are likely to crop up.

Edit warring

When I became aware that Jytdog has a different stylistic preference for the article (integrating controversial use-cases vs separating them into another section), I asked him to edit the article [210]. Next day I left a message on his talk page asking him if he still intends to do that [211]. After another day and no reply, I reinstated the parts that he didn't object to [212] [213]. Both were reverted by Jytdog.

Right now Jytdog has reverted the article to a factually incorrect version. I folded. I will let other editors pick it up for at least a week or two.

COI

I helped to develop about a dozen crypto-currencies. I have a profit-making software related to

WP:NOR

. I accept that I was wrong on both counts.

Ending

I am aware that Jytdog is a force of nature around here, and I don't want to poke that particular anthill. All I ask that I am allowed to reach consensus with other editors without his personality dominating the discussion and taking it in unproductive directions.

Relevant links

Talk:Monero_(cryptocurrency)#Reformatting_of_"implementations"_to_"illicit_uses"

User_talk:Fireice#Editing_with_a_conflict_of_interest

User_talk:Jytdog#Monero_(cryptocurrency)

Fireice (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

In your "COI" section, your first three sentences renders the fourth sentence completely useless: whether your belief about "keep[ing] neutral POV in [your] edits", your obvious COI means you shouldn't be anywhere near the article.

All I ask that I am allowed to reach consensus with other editors without his personality dominating the discussion and taking it in unproductive directions

This sounds to me like you want someone you view as opponent unilaterally taken out of the equation. --Calton | Talk 22:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy not to make direct edits to that article with the 2-way IBAN in place.Fireice (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

So? Doesn't address the issue at all, since it wasn't what you were complaining about. --Calton | Talk 04:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Nope, not appropriate. I was planning to just keep working through this at the article talk page, but given this yet deeper hole-digging, I'll suggest a TBAN for Fireice from all things blockchain per
WP:CIR and their completely blowing off the COI guideline and the GS on blockchain. Please do read the discussion at User_talk:Fireice#Editing_with_a_conflict_of_interest and imagine being in my shoes there. This person is just yet another crypto-conflicted advocate abusing WP and now wasting community time at ANI. The Monero community just loves me btw (reddit
).

Their "offer" to follow the COI guideline if they get their IBAN really ices the cake. Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Since you somehow started to use a plural to refer to me, can you explain if I'm pro- or anti- Monero? It was anti a few hours ago according to yourself [215]. Also please recall [216] Fireice (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't know your gender, hence "they". i have no idea what your angle is. What i know is that you have resolutely refused to engage in any sort of good faith way with the COI guideline and GS and are urgently bludgeoning WP to try to get your content into play. The behavior is entirely typical of a conflicted advocate. I will not be replying to you further here. It is just clutter. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Let me just point out that your statements are not supported by the facts. I made two edits in good faith while avoiding the issue that you objected to. The article is in its incorrect version, as you left it.

) 23:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I can't help noticing that the anthill does appear to have been poked. IBANS are typically used for editors who follow one another around, and this does not sound like that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I was RTFM Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Interaction_ban, if this is not a correct sanction I'm sorry Fireice (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Support topic ban for the OP from crypto-currencies, broadly construed. The OP states "I have a profit-making software related to Monero. I also have money invested in it." Jytdog correctly pointed out the COI concerns in this edit summary: Nope, and you should not be editing this directly per the COI guideline. Yet, the OP continued to directly edit the article. This discussion on the OP's Talk page ("Editing with a conflict of interest") is also quite enlightening. Since the area is under GS, any uninvolved admin can act to prevent further disruption. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Support topic ban for OP from cryptocurrencies. There's absolutely no justification for a two-way ban between Jytdog and the OP, what's needed is for the OP to stop being overly aggressive in an area they have an admitted serious conflict of interest in. Since their comments here and on their talk page indicate that they have no intention of doing this of their own volition, the community must step in and force them to do so by levying a topic ban for cryptocurrencies, broadly construed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Support topic ban for Fireice from cryptocurrencies. Sadly supporting, as I see him attempting to edit neutrally and using consensus. Fireice It will also be better for you not to edit the crypto articles here with your declared status of involvement, you wouldn't get anywhere apart from stressed and blocked. Govindaharihari (talk) 04:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Support topic ban for OP from cryptocurrencies BMK summarises the situation rather well. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 06:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Note. despite the comment below by OP my ivote has not changed. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 06:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Withdrawal I re-read my comments after sleeping on it and I was out of line. Sorry for clobbering you, Jytdog. The only thing I can say in my defence is that I asked you about COI directly, and all I got was a riddle. [217] Fireice (talk) 06:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
TBAN Fireice from cryptocurrencies, broadly construed. Enough already. Guy (Help!) 07:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Threats of harm

Per the red box in the editnotice on this page, please do not post about threats of violence here. Treat all threats seriously, and email emergency

wikimedia.org. More information can be found at Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I just received this message on German Wiki [218] (I am not sure why I even have a username on there....) but this LTA from

WP:DENY but I'm not sure who else to email. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk

) 04:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: we all have usernames on all Wikimedia projects nowadays. That's not always an advantage in my experience, as it means we can be harassed all over the globe. Anyway, your diff now leads to a non-existent page. I tried looking for your German talkpage as such, which is also a redlink, and has a log indicating it has been deleted twice [sic]. That suggests a couple of German admins are already on it. You can "thank" (danken) them right there in the log, if you like! Bishonen | talk 10:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC).

Hello. Can somebody please review this death threat i’ve received over on the Japanese Wikipedia? For some reason I don’t feel safe about this.

Content

05:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@

StormContent: Same as mine on German Wiki (see above). HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk

) 05:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Honestly that's some troll level dumbassery. Also they say they would "like to", not that they will. I'd revert and ignore it. --Tarage (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I would just ignore if it is isolated incident. If there is a pattern of IP/throwaway accounts that emerges, they can be globally blocked/locked accordingly. I removed the trolling post; if you would like to revdel it, I can ask a jawiki admin. Alex Shih (talk) 05:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Much appreciated.

Content

05:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

FYI, that's almost certainly JarlaxleArtemis. They've been making the same threats for many years. You are of course welcome to use

WP:TOV if you receive threats. -- zzuuzz ^(talk)

10:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: I have received the exact same threat here on Spanish Wikipedia. I am virtually certain that this is Wittgenstein123, who has been trolling the article Yahweh for over the past year now. His signature move is spamming the article with NPOV tags, a reference to the fact that he originally started out as a POV-pusher who kept arguing that the "Yahweh" page was unduly promotional of atheism and insisted that the NPOV tag needed to be kept at the top of the article to warn readers of atheist bias. We know Wittgenstein123 is still active because he recently spammed the article with NPOV tags just four days ago and, in the four days since then, various sockpuppets of the same user have been leaving lewd and abusive comments on the article talk page. As you can see from the history I have linked to, all of the users who have received these death threats on other language Wikipedias are users who were involved in reverting the abusive insults at Talk:Yahweh over the course of the past four days. Once again, these kind of abusive comments are exactly Wittgenstein123's MO. The first time we discovered one of his sockpuppets, he went on a very obscene rant calling me a Nazi homosexual Jew. (He does not seem to have noticed the self-contradiction in this, considering that that Nazis are most famous for having murdered millions of Jews and homosexuals.) This user is a persistent, long-time troublemaker and will doubtlessly continue these attacks. I do not believe I have received death threats from him before, though, so he seems to be growing more extreme. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: I received a notice last night that someone had posted a threatening message on my Talk page at the German Wikipedia. By the time I got there, the message had been deleted and the user who placed it had been blocked. But this is probably related, as I recently reverted one of the socks at Yahweh. Should I report this anywhere to connect the German username and its IP to the abuse here? General Ization ^Talk 13:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP at University of London

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

Edit-warring over the inclusion of a sentence about an article from the THE website which has been inappropriately shoehorned into the lead. The content is written in broken English, misrepresents the article as a THE ranking, and shouldn't appear in the lead of the article in any case. The IP editor has been warned on their talk page, but they show no sign of stopping. The IP is also using edit summaries to abuse other editors [219][220]. Endymion.12 (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

If it was just the edit warring I would suggest asking for temporary semi-protection at the article, but the abusive edit summaries are the real problem here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I've issued a final warning for the personal attacks. GAB^gab 14:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) agree, if the IP fails to

WP:NPA is well deserved for the "next time" this IP reverts. --DBig Xrayᗙ

14:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

This is block evasion. Just block any other IP socks who show up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Rollback edits by Backendgaming

Moved from

WP:AN

Sorry for posting this here because I don't know where else to post this, but could I please request for someone to perhaps go through some of the edits by Backendgaming and roll them back. For instance, in the Chinese people in Myanmar article, he made multiple edits that have now given the article an anti-Chinese slant, and this I believe this violates NPOV. And besides, I don't think we should be allowing bigotry to take root here, and the way the section in question is written stinks of anti-Chinese bigotry in my opinion. If someone can roll back all those edits, then I think we can remove the POV section banner that I inserted. The dog2 (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It is unlikely to be appropriate to use the WP:rollback tool to do this since these edits aren't bad faith. I mean it could come under number 5, but these edits are only in one article and long ago enough with enough new edits plus edits interspersed within the edits that roll back doesn't make sense anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 09:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

More generally this looks to be a case where I'm not sure if we can do much at ANI. As always, we don't deal with

WP:CCI perhaps. Nil Einne (talk

) 12:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Just about every one of the past 204 edits of theirs is no longer current. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Continued unsourced additions

Well that was quick. Blocked x 1 week by Swarm. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Newyearbaby (

WP:OR?) after numerous warnings. Toddst1 (talk

) 22:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Please remember to alert any involved parties of ANI discussions. I have posted the required notification on their talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

obvious sock

Blocked x 2 years by SQL. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2A01:7C8:AAB2:30E:0:0:0:1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been screwing around on blocked admin Michael Hardy (talk · contribs)'s talk page including obliquely calling Ritchie333 a "sociopath" and threatening to "de-sysop" him. Obvious IPsock of someone up to no good. Perhaps an uninvolved CU could take a look. Toddst1 (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Interaction ban violation?

I have reblocked

WP:ROPE, seems MaranoFan brought the chair. This should not be seen as in any way exonerating Winkelvi and the 2016 two-way IBAN, that is a separate question. Guy (Help!

) 11:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The user MaranoFan (talk · contribs · count) was unblocked less than 24 hours ago via AN. One of the conditions was "a self-imposed interaction ban with those editors whom MaranoFan have feuded with". Within this time, she has reverted (or at least partially reverted) Winkelvi (talk · contribs · count) on Better (Meghan Trainor song) (Winkelvi edit followed by MaranoFan revert) and No (Meghan Trainor song) (Winkelvi edit followed by MaranoFan revert). Unless I've misconstrued something, reverting an editor counts as interacting with them, and thus the interaction ban condition has been violated when Winkelvi has had past issues with her. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Unbeknownst to me while I was writing it, this AN/I filing was done almost simultaneously with comments I placed at
WP:AN here: [224] -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓
01:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The aforementioned user reverted me once on three different Meghan Trainor articles despite not editing them at all since I was blocked. I started talk page discussions on every talk page to discuss what's wrong about the edits and the user made no attempt to justify it. I went back to restoring them per

WP:BOLD, it was not a revert it was a restoration of my contents because there's virtually nothing wrong with them except "You changed it too much". The above user's battleground mentality and vendetta against me go way back. [225]

. Please give us a two way interaction ban so I can edit in peace.

Here are the edits and the respective talk page discussions I started which the user was absent from:

My edit, an uncontroversial edit which only contains improvements, talk page discussion which user didn't participate in

My edit restored by another user, talk page discussion which he was again absent from

My edit which again only contains improvements talk page discussion which the user posted in after my edits were already restored.

I worked on a revamp of these articles while I was blocked for two years. If someone would objectively go through all of it, most of it is uncontroversial improvements which only make the articles more suitable for GA criteria. Which I plan on nominating them for very shortly. --MaranoFan (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

You're missing the point, MaranoFan; you aren't supposed to interact with editors you had past feuds with even if it is to improve pages. Don't make excuses for violating an interaction ban you promised to and broke your word on. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't break the interaction ban though, I restored my edits which had virtually no violation of any policy and were actually encouraged by

WP:BOLD. I didn't realize at the time that this would count as interaction. I went to Drmies' talk page here who suggested that I focus on the content and not the editor. I had talk page discussions after that where I and User:Another Believer concluded that the edits are useful for the article. The only thing yesterday's interaction suggests is the interaction ban should be official and two-sided.--MaranoFan (talk

) 02:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Unless reverting others doesn't count as interacting (and I'm pretty sure it counts), you DID violate the ban. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I broke it unintentionally (even though this is a voluntarily accepted IBAN which isn't currently officially enforced). There is nothing to be done here though because there's no problem with the edits themselves. They were improvements. If anything, it only suggests a two-sided interaction ban is the way to go because two years wasn't enough for the above user to get over our feud. I got over it and had no plans of interacting with them if they didn't revert two of my edits. Its WV who needs to stop interacting with me too to make this work.--MaranoFan (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

To get further input, I'm pinging admin Alex Shih who unblocked you. Violating interaction bans within edits most certainly is a problem and you know it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Even if these edits should be in the article, you reverting a user that you have an IBAN with to add them back, is a violation of the IBAN. I suggest stop blaming others

WP:NOTTHEM. Also if I am correct the IBAN was apart of your unblock conditions, which makes it enforceable. Afootpluto (talk

) 02:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

User has clearly demonstrated that they are just out to get me banned by tagging everyone who voted for me to be unblocked over here in a highly biased fashion to manipulate them into turning against me over two edits. [226]. There is nothing to be done here except making the IBAN two sided. This is just my suggestion of course, but I would suggest you just make the interaction ban two sided between me and Winkelvi and archive this. Thanks in advance User:Alex Shih.--MaranoFan (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

It is time to stop digging a deeper hole. Just by proposing sanctions is a violation of your IBAN. Afootpluto (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I knew it. Feuding resumes immediately. By the same two people I blocked for long-term feuding with others in April and May of 2016. This is the fault of both parties, and I'm not interested in figuring out who is 45% responsible and who is 55% responsible this particular time; I'm sure if it's not stopped it will be 55%-45% the other way the next time. So, if Winkelvi ever reverts MaranoFan again, I'll block him for another month. If MaranoFan ever reverts *anyone* again, I'll block her for another month, because sweet Jesus, MaranoFan, it's been less than a day since your indef block was lifted, and you think "Revert per
WP:BOLD" is a good idea?! Or "restore my preferred version now that I'm unblocked"?! Really? Come *ON*. One month blocks worked pretty well last time... the feud kind of died down for 6-8 months. We'll see if the imminent danger of another works again. I'll wait until this thread closes to make it official, in case there's no support for this, but I'm familiar with the history of these two, and it won't stop without severe consequences. --Floquenbeam (talk
) 02:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Excuse me, Floquenbeam, but this "The edits you are making right now look like you have a mission to restore your version of the articles. Please remember there is a policy on WP:OWN. What you're doing fits that description. Please come back on a good note rather than the opposite. You want to edit constructively and not with an agenda, am I right? Don't blow it." [227] and this "MF, look at your talk page and the message I have left there. Look at the edit summaries and the reasoning for the reversions and request that you start a talk page discussion before making huge, blanket reversions to your preferred version of articles. I'm not stalking you, these articles are all on my watchlist and have been for months, years. Please don't go this direction. Make the best use of your unblock and stick around this time, please?" [228] is not feuding. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

MaranoFan, Winkelvi was simply reporting the ban violation in the instance you've linked, and saying the user is "just out to get me banned" is blatantly exaggerating. The pings were so your violation didn't just get swept under the rug. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging the problem is two sided @Floquenbeam:. Users around here are really good at framing others as the bad guy and getting them blocked and escaping consequences for their own actions completely. I definitely don't think I should be indef-blocked because one of my known bullies came back to revert my first major additions after being unblocked.--MaranoFan (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's two sided, which means you are at fault too. If you use the phrase "known bullies" about someone you are not supposed to interact with or refer to again, I will block you indefinitely with no further warning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I will reiterate what Floquenbeam said also. Resuming editing the same topic/articles that created the problems in the first place in a reckless manner is not what to be expected of an editor coming off an indefinite block. Mass restoring your preferred version of articles using being now unblocked as a justification should be a form of disruptive editing, and you don't get to revert editors you promised not to interact with simply because they have reverted you. Although I did not write explicitly "please edit carefully", that should have been already implied in my comment. Alex Shih (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, it's probably best to just re-block MaranoFan indefinitely now due to her problematic history just getting worse. She's basically asking for it at this point and nothing less than that would help now. I admittedly had my doubts about her promises as well and am not at all surprised they were quickly broken given her past deceit. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- I would agree, except I hesitate to let Winkelvi's bad faith actions pay off. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I have little patience for continued disruption from this editor, but I'm not entirely convinced that it's fair to jump on Marano for 'resuming feuds' when they were reverted without any legitimate reason. Also, as evidenced above, they did take it to the talk page, and the only editor who commented supported the edits. WV gave no reason to oppose the edits ("edits too big, seek consensus" is not a valid reason to revert, nor is maintaining a "
silent consensus)...it kind of just looks like they were baited into violating the IBAN. I'd be inclined to support making it a two way. (Swarm ♠ talk
) 02:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

First of all, I had no inkling MF had an interaction ban imposed (officially or unofficially). You've done this before, Swarm: made accusations against me, even told me I'm lying when giving explanations, and have nothing to support your accusations other than your personal and unfairly biased opinion. I didn't appreciate it then, I don't appreciate it now. My reason for opposing the edits was sound, and guess what? Others at Drmies' talk page agreed with my reasoning. Here's the thread: [229]. There was no - I repeat, NO - baiting going on. My comments to MF at both her talk page and Drmies talk page attest to that. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, to be clear, I'm not saying you maliciously baited MF into violating an IBAN, I'm just saying that's what it looks like. In other words, you may as well have, because you gave no valid reason whatsoever for your reverts. That's not some sort of character judgment or aspersion I'm making against you, that's just a fact. You can't just revert large edits that change longstanding versions of articles on principle, without making any specific objections. On the contrary,

refusing to listen. (Swarm ♠ talk

) 03:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with Swarm. While MaranoFan's edit summary justification for these restoration edits were poorly thought out, Winkelvi's reverts were equally as problematic. I think it's sensible to impose an two-way interaction ban now. Alex Shih (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you even reading what I wrote to MF in two separate places? Are you reading what others wrote that supported my take on things in one of those same places? Did you read my response to Swarm above or are you also calling me a liar? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Your aggression is unnecessary, as no one is calling anyone a liar. I left you a comment on your talk page. What you have written is irrelevant; simply because MaranoFan is making blind restore edits is not a justification for you to make blind reverts, especially when you (correct me if I am wrong) are familiar with how this other editor perceives you in a negative manner. There are more sensible way to do things. Alex Shih (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am being called a liar. By Floquenbeam, by Swarm, and by you (both here and at my talk page). Maybe not blatantly, but you implied it. The "aggression" you see is me being very pissed off that anyone would say I'm being dishonest and is totally ignoring the good faith gestures and honestly kind comments I made to MF on two separate user talk pages (one includes hers). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I support Swarm and Alex’s sentiments expressed above. I had no intention of interacting with this user had they not reverted my edits first with a bogus summary. It would be unfair for me to get blocked when this user purposely set up a trap to get me to violate my ban. I support a two-sided IBAN. Also, the user isn’t helping his case by attacking everyone who doesn’t agree with them.—MaranoFan (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

No, MaranoFan. Re-read what Floquenbeam and I said, I don't think you are getting the right message. You are not in a position to assess editor you have feuded with, please stop. Alex Shih (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, will refrain from posting in this discussion any further. Just making it known I support a two-way interaction ban and that’s also more likely to make my voluntary IBAN succeed.—MaranoFan (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Here is sincere advice to both MaranoFan and Winkelvi: Dial back the antagonism, and be quiet unless someone asks you a direct question. Do not make matters worse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

MaranoFan, I decided to take you at your word, and have reverted the edit you made after you gave your word, just so that us admins don't fall all over each other to block you from ongoing disruption. Stay out of this, for your own good. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment. Winkelvi was one of the ringleaders of the group of editors meatpuppeting and wiki-lawyering against MaranoFan's every edit, which eventually, because she is much younger and was a much less experienced editor, caused her to be blocked. I had mentioned the meatpuppet group, whom I declined to name individually, in my two neutral comments on the AN unblock request thread [230]. The fact that Winkelvi is jumping in again right away to revert MaranoFan and also to report her is not surprising (he has a long history of disruption and retaliation, and a block log and ANI log to show it), but it is disheartening. I suggest that an ArbCom case may be necessary to sort out the bad-faith group targeting of MaranoFan's edits. It was never just MaranoFan who was disruptive, and it was generally many unfairly against one. In my opinion, a one-way interaction ban which allows the retaliatory meatpuppet group to target her with impunity is not a workable solution. Softlavender (talk) 03:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Complete bullshit. I've never acted as a meatpuppet, a ringleader of anything, or have been part of a "meatpuppet group". You better have some real good evidence with plenty of diffs to support this accusation (the second time you've made the same accusation today, by the way [231]), Softlavender. If this isn't a blatant personal attack and aggressive disparagement, I don't know what is. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi I have refrained from saying anything about your behavior since it seemed to me that MaranoFan's problems and problematic edits were more pressing. But if you have a couple of admins telling you that your behavior is problematic, yelling at them is not going to make anything easier. I didn't comment on your immediate revert of MaranoFan's edits because I saw no evidence of hounding or stalking, or whatever they accused you of--but it is true, as my colleagues suggested, that you did not have to do that. The edits themselves, and their edit summaries, aren't necessarily disruptive, but this discussion places them in a context that I had not considered. However those circumstances are described (and obviously you don't agree with some of the descriptions), they were there, and you need to reckon with them one way or another. So yeah, it is unwise to jump on this editor and their first edits (to borrow a colleague's word); it's a collaborative joint and if those edits are so bad, another editor can revert them too. But I'm sure I've already bored you enough today. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Drmies, I already addressed what you have brought up here at my own talk page in a response to Alex Shih. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

So, to recap, MF gets unblocked, makes some good faith edits, and immediately gets reverted by one of the users they have a history with, who provides no policy-based reasoning for their reverts. She takes it to the talk page, and two neutral parties endorse her edits, and the reverting user does not ever provide any specific objections (all of this is evidenced in MF's reply above), so she reverts. But, in spite of all that, it immediately goes to the dramaboards and people are clamoring to indef-block her over it?? The intent of the unofficial IBAN was obviously to avoid continued feuding behavior and other disruption. This isn't disruptive behavior, nor feuding. If anything, MF is the victim of such behavior here. These kinds of spurious reverts, where editors are denied the right to make
WP:OWN. So, yes, I see what is technically an IBAN violation, and it is, in this instance, a perfectly reasonable one. This complaint is not appropriate or reasonable. It comes across as a frivolous attempt to relitigate the community's decision to unblock. (Swarm ♠ talk
) 04:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Your recap is wrong, Swarm. Try this for how it really went down: [232] I also note you are implying once again that I am lying. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Your recap is right,

WP:BOLD (It was a third party editor who restored my edits on the third one). And there was no justification made in the talk pages as to why my edits should be deleted prior to the restoration based on three people consensus.—MaranoFan (talk

) 04:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Advice for MF to take it slow and steady does not change the fact that you obstructed their editing without valid reason. Also, it's entirely inappropriate for you to be policing their editing, or to be involved with it in any way. (Swarm ♠ talk) 04:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Veteran editors disagree with your assessment and agreed with mine. Here's that link, too [233]. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand. You're referring to editors giving MF advice. That advice has anything to do with anything I said about the disruptive editing behavior you engaged in. Nothing about that discussion gives you license to police or obstruct or revert MF without reason. If you thought it did, you're in the wrong. You should not be involved with MF, period. (Swarm ♠ talk) 04:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not having any difficulty understanding what you're saying. You, on the other hand are having difficulty grasping what I'm saying, what I've said, and why I said it, continuing to assign intent that wasn't there, continuing to make accusations for which there is no evidence, continuing to believe and claim I had some evil, harmful plan up my sleeve. Please stop it. I've already explained myself and my intent repeatedly. Being an admin with the power to sanction doesn't give you a special ability to know deep into the recesses of my being what my real I tentions were. I've already told you what my intentions were. Stop gaslighting. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not having any difficulty understanding what you're saying.

Yes, you are. Nothing you say -- true or false -- contradicts a damned thing you've been told. Jimbo Wales did not die and leave you in charge of policing MaranoFan, and the longer you go on and on without addressing the very obvious bad look, the more your claims of it being accidental look hollow. If you're unable to recognize that, then an interaction ban is called for to protect you from yourself. --Calton | Talk 05:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

"Jimbo Wales did not die and leave you in charge of policing MaranoFan" Reverting back to the stable version of an article (three articles, actually) isn't policing an individual, it's keeping those articles from being changes in a large way, all at once, in a manner that was objected to by several veteran editors, including an administrator. My comments to MF don't indicate I was attempting to police her at all, rather, to help her to not get blocked again from choosing to implode in less than a day's time. Since when is trying to genuinely help someone a bad thing? I can see now I should not have reverted first, I should have talked to them first. I noted that hours ago at my own talk page when Alex Shih brought it up there. I admit it was the wrong tack, and that's that. I haven't engaged MF further since my attempt to discuss with her at the article talk page. Which, I might note, she never really attempted to do in a productive manner. It was more like, "I want to make massive changes. Oh, someone reverted Winkelvi, so now I have carte blanche to not discuss but revert the other two articles back to my preferred version again. Cool." Which was totally against the advice she was given by several editors, including an administrator. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 09:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems that a formal, two-way iBan would be the best way to prevent further disruption from these two.
Lepricavark (talk
) 04:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment - I agree with Swarm here. MaranoFan is indeed the victim. One-way IBAN's almost never work, and they particularly do not ever work when they are unofficial. The threat held over MaranoFan's head, if they failed to go through with the conditions of the unblock, is [b]oth of these voluntary restrictions ... should be swiftly implemented as mandatory restriction if it is not being followed through – one was immediately made official. I support two-way indefinite IBAN's, and most specifically a two-way indefinite IBAN between Winkelvi and MaranoFan. This is not a valid reason to revert, Winkelvi. Moreover, when I read the comments at Talk:No (Meghan Trainor song)#Proposing some changes, I do not see appropriate constructive engagement. I also note User talk:Winkelvi#ANI, and most specifically [i]magine the odds of our timing :P. Just read your post, and I'm sure at least one thread will lead to a block by SNUGGUMS. Hmm... Mr rnddude (talk) 05:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

"Hmm..." Hmm..indeed. I didn't make that statement, someone else did. Perhaps you should be directing your tongue clucking and tsk-ing to the other editor who said it. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 09:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi I did. Read the two words right before Hmm.... Those words are by SNUGGUMS for reference, in allcaps too. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment - if we're having an interaction ban, it needs to be two-way. And Winklevi, you really should not have reverted Maranofan's three edits, each within 3-4 minutes of their being made, saying "take it to talk". And then not participating in the talk discussions? It just shows you were reverting for the sake of reverting and didn't actually care about the content of the edits, just the name of the person making them. That's a shitty, passive-aggressive way of editing. And then to run to ANI to try and get them indefinitely blocked again? Nope. Not on. Fish+Karate 08:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

"saying "take it to talk". And then not participating in the talk discussions?" What talk page discussions? She started one. I participated in it when I was able to. The other two articles -- there was no discussion attempted. There was discussion at Drmies' talk page, I took part there. That's where MF was told she was in the wrong, how to deal with it, and then she did the exact opposite. Drmies can attest to that.

And, could you please show me where I ran to ANI? (I didn't, I posted a notification at AN) Or where I mentioned anything about getting them indefinitely blocked? (I didn't, not once - in fact, I told them on two separate talk pages that I wanted to see them succeed, not fail and end up blocked again. I'm fine with admitting I shouldn't have reverted them but should have gone to their talk page first, but I will not take the mischaracterization that I have tried at all to see them indefinitely blocked. That is an out-and-out blatant lie/mischaracterization of what actually happened. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 09:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Fish and karate, I'm a little confused here. Wikipedia:Editing restrictions already says "Interaction ban - On balance there is consensus for a no-fault, two-way interaction ban between MaranoFan and Winkelvi." with an 'expiry' of "indefinite". Now that is from 2016; did it lapse somehow, or was it superceded in some way? If so then it seems it was never updated on that page. Apologies if I'm missing something in this long 'to-and-fro'... -- Begoon 10:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Begoon You are correct. The indef interaction ban listed here was enforced shortly before I got blocked (in 2016). That means WV is the one who broke it when he reverted me at the Trainor articles and posted in my userspace.--MaranoFan (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I have responded in the subsection below. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 10:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Two sided indef IBAN from 2016 still exists

I think this information is vital enough to get its own sub-section. A two-sided IBAN between Winkelvi and I is already in place at this page. This essentially means Winkelvi was the person who violated the IBAN and that too explicitly and four times in succession. [234] [235] [236] [237]. Also replied to a section I started here and tagged me here and here.--MaranoFan (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, crap. Begoon, I didn't even remember that it existed. I still don't, but imagine that could be from putting it out of my mind after MaranoFan was indefinitely blocked for disruption and then further indeffed for persistent sockpuppetry, thinking they would not return. It could also be because this was two years ago when I was undergoing cancer dramatics that included chemo and radiation, which could have contributed to me not recalling any interaction ban to this moment (see related articles on chemo brain and stress from cancer that causes memory issues). If this truly is the case, and there is an interaction ban already in place, I have no problem abiding by it. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 10:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well I think that page has problems in that it relies on manual updates, and not everyone even knows it exists. I don't think it would be reasonable to suggest sanctions if you genuinely forgot about it, and I didn't intend that by pointing it out - it simply confused me that something which seemed to already exist was being suggested as if new. Nevertheless, you two don't seem to get along, and nobody enjoys pointless arguments, so perhaps it might be the best idea in the long run? -- Begoon 11:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Close?

Given that (a) we should assume AGF that Winkelvi genuinely had forgotten the interaction ban (b) no-one is going to block MaranoFan for responding to edits that shouldn't have been made in the first place, and (c) that both parties are now very clearly aware of the interaction ban, I would suggest closing this with no further action. I am sure that both parties are aware what will be the result if the interaction ban is flouted again. Black Kite (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree this discussion can now be archived with both of us now aware of this officially enforced indef interaction ban. Since whatever consequences are decided upon would have to be applied to us both, and I'm sure neither of us want to be blocked.--MaranoFan (talk) 11:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unfair outcome

Considering that (a) MF forgot about the mutual i-ban, and (b) no one (until Begoon came along) remembered it, it isn't unreasonable to believe WV forgot too. MF's block has been reduced to 1 day by Ritchie, WV and MF both now aware of i-ban, and the latest direction this subthread has veered off to has reduced my faith in humanity even more. This subthread has jumped the shark. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

With all due respect, this is not a fair outcome. Near the end of this thread, it was revealed that Winkelvi and MaranoFan have been subject to an iBan since 2016. Winkelvi was the one who broke that iBan by reverting MF's edits. Winkelvi and Snuggums then both opened noticeboard threads after MF reinstated her own edits. After considerable discussion, and with the conversation clearly trending in a different direction, MaranoFan was indeffed while Winkelvi got off scot free. I am glad that MF's block has been reduced to 24 hours, but it is not okay that Winkelvi was rewarded for gaming the iBan and rushing to get sanctions against MF. And I don't know why we should accept Winkelvi's explanation for forgetting the iBan. This editor has previously used his Asperger's as an excuse for bad behavior, and now he is using cancer. When are we going to require him to take some responsibility for his behavior? We should start now by handing Winkelvi a block to match the one given to MF. Perhaps this would help Winkelvi to think first before violating an iBan in the future. If a block is somehow too harsh, we should tBan Winkelvi from the pages at which he reverted MF. Whatever we do, we can't allow Winkelvi to get away with his underhanded behavior any longer.

Lepricavark (talk

) 15:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. @
Lepricavark, Fish and karate, Mr rnddude, and myself were all in favor of sanctioning WV (by placing him under an IBAN) in recognition of the fact that he was the offender here. The only person who opposed this course of action was WV himself. When it came out that he was already under the proposed sanction, Black Kite proposed a close with no action, stating that "no-one is going to block MaranoFan for responding to edits that shouldn't have been made in the first place". I don't know how you reached the decision to block indef in spite of all this, but apart from the fact that it is "unfair", as I have extensively explained above in an assessment that was unanimously endorsed by uninvolved users, it's simply out of line with the consensus here. (Swarm ♠ talk
) 17:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I certainly did not see a consensus for a block here, but a consensus more along the lines that User:Swarm describes above. I think the block should be undone. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I was a bit unsettled by this situation ever since I saw this diff [238] in which Winkelvi went to a page of somebody who had recently been ibanned from them (and who apparently they were ibanned from a previous encounter) and basically tried to provoke interaction. Simonm223 (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Agree. Winkelvi needs a block. Blaming medical issues is an insult to people who have said issues and edit constructively. If he has cancer and can't hold himself to remember, then he should stop editing until he can. --Tarage (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Jesus Tarage, is this how you conduct yourself across Wikipedia? That isn't colourful commentary, it's cold and vile and unnecessarily cruel. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

(Headslap) Yes, horribly insensitive. I don't see a need for blocks for anyone here, just an unblock for MaranoFan and an enforcement of the 2-way interaction ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

How is it cruel? Wikipedia is not therapy. If you can't edit and remember who you are forbidden from interacting with, why should you get a pass if you have a condition that makes it so you probably shouldn't be editing in the first place. It's like going to the doctor and saying "It hurts when I do this" and then punching yourself in the face. The doctor is going to say "Stop doing that". It's not cruel, it's logical. --Tarage (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Just in case nobody is aware, Ritchie333 has already reduced MaranoFan's block to 24 hours, but there does seem to be consensus here to reduce it to zero. She and Winkelvi are now both aware that there is a 2-way interaction ban between them that remains in force and will be enforced if there's any more "pushing the edges" or "baiting". And Tarage, maybe don't make incendiary comments about editors' medical conditions any more. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I didn't do a straight unblock because I didn't see a consensus for it, and I thought further discussion would be required. Additionally, Guy thought reducing the block was okay, but not necessarily an unblock, MaranoFan has decided to take a short break while the block plays out, somebody has criticised the block reduction on my talk page, and Drmies has said the reduction was generous (and I'll remind everyone of the rules 1) Drmies is always right and 2) when Drmies is wrong, see rule 1). So, if we're all cool about just waiting until about 15:00UTC tomorrow, the block will have expired and everything will be back to normal. As for Winkelvi, I think the community has told him loud and clear that he has got lucky this time, a block would now be
punishment in my view, and he should be warned that he may not be so fortunate next time. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont)
18:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Isn't the block of MaranoFan basically punitive at this point? Is there some reason why she needs to remain blocked? I wouldn't worry about gaining consensus for an unblock. After all, there was certainly no consensus for the indef.
Lepricavark (talk
) 18:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd concur with that. MaranoFan has agreed to step back, and she has acknowledged the existing 2-way IBAN (which she was not the first to break); the block is no longer necessary. An early unblock would be a friendly gesture to someone who has arguably been provoked into their inappropriate actions, and I don't really think that anyone expects any further disruption to occur in the remaining 22ish hours of the block. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bretonbanquet

No admin action needed. --Jayron 32 13:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Two or three weeks ago,

Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap (album), for example, one of the albums in question, the cover I'm in favor of came first from 20 February 2008 to 17 March 2013, when he changed it himself – even though he made NUMEROUS edits in the meantime (see here and here, for example; just go through the page's history and you'll see that there are lots of others). Something needs to be done about it. Esszet (talk

) 12:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

May I summarize this with a succinct "Who Cares"? I think it would be difficult to find a more trivial thing to get worked up about. Both sets are present; let it go. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? this is ANI worthy? Open a RFC if it really matters so much to you. Blackmane (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The issue is that he's lying, not that the issue is relatively minor. Esszet (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

What administrative action would you like to be made here, to punish a user for not remembering two images were the other way round over five years ago? Fish+Karate 12:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

You really think he just didn't remember? You really think so? Esszet (talk) 12:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Do I really care? Do I really? Nobody else cares. Drop the

stick and find something better to do. Fish+Karate

12:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not trying to keep it going, but you seriously don't care that he's lying through his teeth? Esszet (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd have to think that if it was you in my situation, you'd at least be pissed off. Esszet (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Again. What administrative action would you like to be made here? Fish+Karate 13:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

You want me and Vinny No-Neck should go edumacate him on da error of 'is ways? Or maybe, juust maybe... You want to go open an RfC before an admin in a bad mood comes along and decides this threat constitutes a disruption?

Sorry to break it to you, but this content dispute (and that is exactly what it is) is not appropriate here. I suggest you follow

Tell me all about it.

13:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Really? How many times do I have to say this is a conduct dispute? I'd like to see him blocked for a while, but if all you're willing to do is give him a warning or something, I will grudgingly accept it. Esszet (talk) 13:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say this is a conduct dispute? It doesn't matter how many times you say that, you're wrong. You two are in a dispute over content. Whether the other editor is lying or not doesn't magically turn this into a behavior dispute, and you're very unlikely to get them blocked with this thread. The most likely outcome if you don't abandon this thread is getting yourself blocked for ignoring the advice you've been given here and trying to get the admins to block another editor over a content dispute. I strongly suggest you drop this and go read

Tell me all about it.

13:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Bare-faced lying is not acceptable conduct, and if all you’re willing to do is give him a warning, I will acvept it. I will accept it. Esszet (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith, as I am finding myself doing daily. Fish+Karate 13:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I believe User:Jayron32 was kind when they omitted "SMH" from their closing comment. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Glerent - indef under Blockchain GS

Blocked and topic banned. There is zero tolerance of cryptocurrency touting on Wikipedia. MER-C 19:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

This person is a SPA for Waves platform.

They have just plain edit warred, not to mention violating the GS on blockchain, by making three reverts this morning (diff, diff, diff) and in doing so they have:

edit warred to restore unsourced and badly sourced promotional content (see 1st two diffs, the second one calling the removal "vandalism")
stripped a speedy tag from "their" page, calling it "spurious" (third diff)

All their edits are unsourced badly sourced PROMO per their contribs above. They also have an even more promotional version of the page in their sandbox: User:Glerant/sandbox. They also created Waves platform AG which was deleted via AfD, unambiguously.

I have:

reminded them of the GS (diff)
gave them the edit war notice
asked them to disclose any connection with the company. After that, they did the second two reverts. I
gave them the chance to self-revert their 1RR violation (diff) and even sent them an email to be sure they saw it (diff of notice at 15:12 today).

Instead they went to the article talk page and argued that what they are doing is fine.

Am asking for an admin to indef under the GS and to please restore the speedy tag, since this person, editing with a very

WP:APPARENTCOI that is undisclosed and unmanaged, should not have stripped it. Just another crypto-advocate here to abuse WP for promotion. Thanks. Jytdog (talk

) 16:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

They have now made their fourth revert today. Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

That looks like 3 by my count. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

And in any case there is 1RR on this page, of which the person had notice. And the content they are edit warring to retain is god awful. It is behavior like this, that we have the GS for. Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Diffs 2 and 3 had no edits between them, so they count as a single revert. Granted, they did revert again after you reminded them of the 1RR restriction, so that's pretty much unjustifiable. But please, get the reports right so we don't have to nitpick - and maybe tone down your OMGWTFBBQFINALWARNINGs a bit? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I thought you were going to come back with that two-is-one thing. Debatable.

You actually don't have to nitpick. You chose to.

If you don't want to deal swiftly and decisively with the just-the-latest crypto-promoter per the GS, that is your deal. There are and will continue to be so many of them. Jytdog (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Glernt has now been TBANed by User:MER-C, diff. I am still looking for the speedy deletion nomination to be restored. It should not have been removed by this person and I would like an uninvolved admin to be able to review the nomination, to see if we can skip the AfD. Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- I have reason to believe that this user also holds a non-trivial amount of Waves cryptocurrency or otherwise has an undeclared conflict of interest. I'm imposing the maximum sanction I can under GS: an indef block as well, the first year subject to GS appeal provisions. There is zero tolerance of cryptocurrency pumping on Wikipedia. MER-C 19:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

KrzyKlerk

Indeffed by SarekOfVulcan. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 15:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could someone indefinitely block KrzyKlerk (talk · contribs)? They are very likely an LTA, based on their behavioral similarlities to CrzyClerk and 21Shark18. They are claiming to be a check user when they're really not, closing SPIs inappropriately.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked, and cloned userpage deleted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

White supremacist POV pushing

(non-admin closure)Blocked indef, SPI filed.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

00:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I recently came across Vergilianae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who had made a troubling edit at a talk page that was quickly hatted. Looking through their history, I found plenty more troubling edits:

Adding excessive parentheses to the name of a city often derided by by white supremacists.
Arguing that homosexuality and paraphilias are "deviant".
Misrepresentation about sourcing in order to minimize native Australian history.
Using OR and handwaving to advance a variation of the "white people are the most oppressed" argument, while distinguishing between Jewish and "white" people.
Attempting to downplay the link between Alternative for Germany and Neo-Nazism. Also note the claim that they are "unrelated" to Germany, which flies in the face of this earlier edit.
Misrepresenting sources for the same purpose as in last point.
Complaining of "extensive bias" against far-right groups in Germany.
Claims to be a "leftie" to lend credence to claims of a left-wing conspiracy to implicate Russia of interfering in the 2016 elections.
Trying to ellicit a discussion implicating a
Famous pre-civil war slave
of wrongdoing in his own whippings.
Attempting to cast shade on the investigation surrounding the 2017 Las Vegas shooting.
More of the same.
Edit warring over their own SYNTH.
Speculating about the "motives" of a witness who testified to Stephen Paddock's conspiracy theory beliefs.
Attempting to implicate Black Lives Matter in the 2017 Chicago torture incident.

I'm quite certain that this editor is here to push a White supremacist POV, and should be blocked indefinitely.

Tell me all about it.

20:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Is this a DisuseKid sock? Regardless, the parentheses thing alone is worthy of a permablock.- Mr X 🖋 21:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I concur that the POV-pushing seems quite apparent here, despite the appeals to moderation and repetition of "speaking as a..." The AfD, Russian interference, Whitewashing, Gordon, Stephen Paddock, and Chicago diffs are especially concerning. There's also this complaint about race riot articles, which fits into the pattern. GAB^gab 21:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought I'd gotten that one... I guess not. Thanks.

Tell me all about it.

21:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

That parenthesis thing was unambiguous vandalism. Grounds for a block? Simonm223 (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

To wit:

"I'm from a non-English speaking background in southeast Asia... someone with no dog in this race..."
"As an outsider looking in..."
"...as a person of Jewish ancestry..." (plus the classic "Attacking an entire peoples for my peoples actions")
"As someone unrelated to Germany with no knowledge on this topic..."
"...as a person on the other side of the planet with no knowledge of the groups involved..."
"...speaking as a British colonist here..." GAB^gab 21:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Yup, and the whole "i'm a leftist but we are going to far" smacks of concern trolling Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Someone indef block please. When I hatted that talk page post on the russian interference article I did look at their history and saw issues but didn't follow up and also didn't notice that parenthesis thing, which itself is indef block worthy. They're

WP:NOTHERE Galobtter (pingó mió

) 21:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Yup. There's a reason I listed that one first, and the rest in rough chronological order.

Tell me all about it.

21:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

As an ousider admin from the other side of the planet looking in with no dog in this race, I've indeffed this user as

WP:NOTTHERE. Jauerback^dude?/_dude.

21:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

For anyone interested, I think I'm going to open an SPI. I'm not familiar with the account
Tell me all about it.
21:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jauerback: But are you a British colonist from a non-Anglophone background? I wondered how exactly that would work... GAB^gab 21:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

You forgot to mention someone who is "unrelated" to Germany but complains about the lack of representation of German folklore in pop culture, and has a keen interest in German politics.

Tell me all about it.

21:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harassment, spurious warning and vandalism report by Bluexander

Taken care of--Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bluexander (talk · contribs)

Apparent competence issue, or just not real sharp. See [239]; [240]; [241]. This started with my efforts to curb promotional sock edits at Sachiin J. Joshi, and somehow this editor thought it appropriate to target me and mess with my talk page. Rather than acknowledge the mistakes, we get this [242]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:188:180:1481:65f5:930c:b0b2:cd63 (talk) 07:19, 22 September 2018‎ (UTC)

See a similar reply to another editor [243]. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 07:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Looking at this for two minutes, I was not able to understand what is going on, but whatever is going on it is certainly not ok. I am sure some blocks must be awarded as a result of investigation. We have either massive sockpuppetry and vandalism, or sheer incompetence, or both, depending on who is right and who is wrong in this dispute.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
What the hell you're doing?! --Bluexander (^Talk/_{Contributions}) 07:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- It was block evasion--[244]. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 07:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Filedelinkerbot is malfunctioning

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_P._Rettig

Balintawak (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

In what way is that malfunctioning? It appears to have done what it said it was doing and was intended to do - removing the link for an image which had been deleted from Commons. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw the bot did the last edit and wrongly assumed it did the damage. --Balintawak (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

A Wikipedian may be in need of help

(non-admin closure) Authorities have been contacted by Ritchie333 -- MarnetteD|Talk 21:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm not sure it's more than just vandalism, but I'm concerned about the well-being of someone with a new account. Can someone please take a look at Special:Contributions/Poise1978? —BarrelProof (talk) 04:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I've emailed [email protected] per the procedures set out in Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. It does look like vandalism, but I can't see a reason not to follow due procedure. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Serial IP BLP violator back again

(non-admin closure) 6 mmonth block has been applied by Ymblanter -- MarnetteD|Talk 21:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We've had ongoing problems for two or three months with a regular IP (110.22.50.32) adding BLP-violating rubbish to some conservative Australian political figures that he's obsessed with (centrally Marcus Bastiaan, but spread to others). He has previously been blocked twice for short periods of time and then come back and resumed exactly the same behaviour. He has been warned countless times by various Australian users and the admins who've blocked him. Today, coming back from the latest block for the first time, and he's adding stuff like this. Can he clearly be blocked for a longer period of time? He's clearly the only one editing from the IP and it's an ongoing deluge of BLP-violating rubbish for as long as it's unblocked. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 6 months. I will not be available now for some time, just in case.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aetzbarr

(non-admin closure) Block has been applied by Ymblanter -- MarnetteD|Talk 21:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Despite multiple warnings and attempts to explain about adding original research (see talk page), user continues to push his idiosyncratic ideas about pi (most recently here, but see entire contribs, too). Not directly relevant, but for some context, they were recently blocked from the Hebrew Wikipedia for essentially the same story. I think this case is beyond hope. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

A clear-cut case of

WP:CIR, blocked indef.--Ymblanter (talk

) 12:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fellow editor's account possibly compromised

(

π, ν

) 20:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have been contacted by a user who is unable to log on, and who account looks like it might be compromised (they have only ever had one password, which is now being refused by the system). They have asked for a password reset, but the system now states that "There is no email address recorded for user". Who should they contact for steps they can take to secure their account, if the system has locked them out, or is under someone else's control?

Pinging Bishonen who also knows about the problem. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:VPT too although I cannot seem to find the thread. Alex Shih (talk

) 19:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't talk about the e-mail address, Alex, because I really find it hard to believe the account is compromised. But SchroCat, I have repeatedly advised our mutual friend to contact somebody who understands these things, instead of idjits like me and (I assume) you, and have suggested a very reliable and discreet person. I just did so again. Bishonen | talk 19:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC).

Ah - thanks to both - I didn't realise this had been raised already. (And yes, Bish, I also fall into the idjit category on things like this!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What's the problem here? I thought we encourage compromise. E Eng 21:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

IP continuing to add copyvio links to YouTube

47.201.190.53 (talk · contribs) IP has been reverted several times. I note that a claim at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Sri Somesvara Temple that " The TV Asia producer posted this video himself, so no copyright problem" but I'm not convinced, as IMDB[246] calls him (or he calls himself) " passionate volunteer Video Journalist for TV ASIA". IP also calls Gowri Goli the owner of TV Asia but that's nonsense. I think I am within my rights to block but would prefer someone uninvolved to act. He's also been removing a 2017 template from Michael Mamas although how the IP can be so sure I have no idea, and a self-published template on the grounds Mamas writes for the media, although his books seem self-published. That article's a mess anyway. Doug Weller talk 13:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 31h,

WP:3RR is pretty clear, and they have been warned for edit-warring. Concerning videos of doubtful provenance, isn't it what we have OTRS for?--Ymblanter (talk

) 14:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Could someone please have a look at Talk:Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya#Multiple MOS and other guideline violations

I would appreciate if someone had a look at the edits at Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya and the discussion at Talk:Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya#Multiple MOS and other guideline violations. An IP made six reverts in a day (changing address in the middle). I try to be civil and explain what is wrong with their edit, but to no avail. I warned them more than enough times about violating guidelines but they don't care. Help appreciated. --Muhandes (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I've put in my two cents after history-merging the article, but other opinions would also be helpful. Graham87 08:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, indeed, other opinions would be helpful. --Muhandes (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Nabil Gabol 2

Nabil Gabol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Saqib (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Balochworld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've just blocked both of these users for perpetuating an edit war on this article, after the page had been protected due to their previous edit warring and one of them had already been blocked for it. Saqib clued me in to this discussion where it seems this issue has already been brought up, and on investigation it appears I've erred, but I'd like some more opinions on what is the best course of action here.

Saqib has been trying to add some allegations of criminal activity on this Pakistani politician's article, which appear on the surface to be reliably sourced (I'm not very familiar with sources from this part of the world so I have not investigated in great depth). This, approximately, is Saqib's proposed edit. Balochworld objects to negative information being added to the BLP, but has been advised by at least one admin besides myself that this material does not qualify for the

WP:BLPREMOVE

exemption from 3RR.

Unlike last time there has been discussion on the talk page, but I'm concerned that it amounts to Saqib and

filibustering to ensure no negative material is added at all, and the previous discussion does seem to have concluded that they were at fault. I'm leaning towards proposing topic-banning Balochworld from the article, and reducing Saqib's block to time-served, but I don't want to issue a one-sided sanction without some more uninvolved opinions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits

) 19:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute and the blocks are warranted. I don't see ANI as the correct venue for the content dispute itself and suggest reverting back to Black Kite's stable version and holding on to that till the dispute is sorted out. --regentspark (comment) 19:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
All of Balochworld's mainspace edits since 2012 have been to three articles: Nabil Gabol, Gabol, and Allah Bakhsh Gabol. I think it's about time they were encouraged to contribute elsewhere, possibly with a t-ban. Unfortunately, they haven't been warned about ARBIPA DS that I can see, so that may have to wait. I also see that they may have been using sockpuppets. That said; their behavior was not so egregious that Saqib should have been warring with them, and even if it had been, as an experienced editor he should have known to ask for admin attention rather that to continue edit-warring. As such I think both blocks were warranted. Saqib has, at least, admitted error, so I wouldn't be against lifting the block for a persuasive unblock request. Vanamonde (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if this fell under ARBIPA since it doesn't seem to concern India, but I alerted both to the ARBBLP discretionary sanctions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the description of the 2013 murder allegations as a BLP violation, since he has not been arrested, tried or convicted. Major Pakistani press coverage of him in recent years does not even mention these five year old unproven allegations of involvement in a murder. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I do not think there was any thing wrong in Saqib's edit. It was balanced and NPOV'd and covered all aspects of the allegation, from allegation to investigation to exoneration to rejection of investigation findings by the other party. As long as the content is sticking to the sources, there is nothing wrong in its inclusion and I do not think it is a BLPVIO in anyway. We cannot appease folks by removing information which they do not like. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry but I must disagree with you about this matter, SheriffIsInTown. Coverage of a completely unproven allegation of involvement in murder, made five years ago by the father of the victim, without any evidence, and without a trial, let alone a conviction, is a serious BLP violation in my judgment. Removing such content does not "appease" anyone. It is required by policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: He was accused of murder, a joint investigation team was formed to investigate the allegations. This was all reported in reliable sources. I thought it was fair to tell the whole story in the article as per the sources instead of just completely removing the mention at all. This was not the only allegation against this individual so I think it is fair to mention the murder allegation in addition to other allegations and let the reader decide for themselves. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown, I removed a single sentence which read ""In September 2013, Gabol was named in the murder of Zafar Baloch, leader of Peoples' Aman Committee," and two supporting references. There was nothing there about an investigation or an exoneration. This sentence by itself is most definitely a BLP violation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

A fundamental problem that everyone should have with the section that Saqib added is the section header "Criminal activities". Activities ... meaning Gabol did something ... but everything in the section is accusation and investigations that apparently led to absolutely nothing. That's a falt out BLP violation that should be removed on the spot. Unless you want an article that doubles as a hit piece.

Ravensfire (talk

) 02:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector and Cullen328: The only problem I see with Saqib's version is the section heading as pointed out by Ravensfire otherwise I see everything fine. Some of the content was agreed upon by me beforehand and with everything else I am agreeing now. If you disagree then let us discuss every bit and piece of that edit so we can come to a conclusion. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@

Ravensfire: I acknowledge the section header was not appropriate. I'll be more careful next time. --Saqib (talk

) 05:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment Balochworld is an SPA and they had made very less contributions outside that page.
not here to build encyclopedia but that is not the case with Saqib. Saqib has displayed time and again how valuable he is for the project. Blocking Saqib is the loss of the project not his! Sheriff | ☎ 911
| 21:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Balochworld offered this comment via their talk page: "I have read the discussion so far and completely agree with Observance22 Cullen328 and Ravensfire. Saqib is clearly making the article about the BLP a hit piece by including accusations that are over 5 years old. In Pakistani politics accusations come on a daily basis and are purely politically motivated. I clearly requested on several occasions that it should be removed because these accusations did not result in an investigation let alone any conviction. I thank SheriffsinTown for his effort but he will agree that the only thing all three of us reached consensus on was removal of 1990 and 1997 election results because clearly it was a common case of a candidate simply submitting nomination papers as his party's covering candidate (someone who has gotten several thousands votes in the same election cannot possibly get 24 votes at the same time). Hence after consensus a protected edit request was made successfully. Once the protection on the page expired Saqib went ahead with his own agenda and added information that was never even discussed let alone agreed upon. I did not expect this from an experienced editor like Saqib. I initiated a discussion on the article's talk page but Saqib seemed bent upon sticking to his version and that is when I warned him on his talk page and involved other editors. Balochworld (talk) 05:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)" added by Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
For my part, I was not intending for this post to substitute for discussion that should be occurring on the article's talk page, and I encourage everyone who's commented on the subject matter to continue discussion at Talk:Nabil Gabol. My question is about the blocks. I think it's reasonably clear that both of the blocked editors have reasonable points worth discussing, since others are now discussing them, so this was clear edit-warring-in-place-of-discussion, and since protection didn't work then removing the two edit warriors is a reasonable next step. Of course this comment is me reviewing my own action, so I'd still like to hear from others on the matter of the sanctions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: As suggested by User:Vanamonde93, I too recommend that Balochworld (talk · contribs) be topic banned for sake of WP:N because he has a clear conflict of interest with this particular BLP. --Saqib (talk) 06:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Please note:
WP:BLPCRIME applies in this case. Softlavender (talk
) 23:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

NG2 proposal: topic ban

If I'm not wrong @Vanamonde93: above suggested a topic ban for Balochworld so here I propose a t/ban for Balochworld (talk · contribs) because of ownership and COI issues. Nabil Gabol, Gabol, and Allah Bakhsh Gabol are the only topic he ever edits since joining WP a decade ago. I'm not the only who think the user has COI on this BLP. (see [247] and this). Balochworld said here that xe's the original author of this BLP and that I should not edit it - a clear example of ownership behaviour. As one can here, xe claims to be an expert on the subject but I guess we don't need his expertise on this particular BLP and xe better contribute elsewhere to avoid further disruption.

Support as nom. --Saqib (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Note There's also an account User:Balochworlds (note the extra "s") with exactly the same focus. I presume they're the same editor, and there is some overlap in 2008, but this account hasn't edited for ten years. Black Kite (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Balochworlds Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment Due to their previous socking and recent socking during their current block, I do not think they should be allowed to even edit anytime soon but if somehow admins consider them useful for the project and decide to unblock them then I will support the topic ban otherwise Wikipedia is better off without them and their block should continue indefinitely! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Support I was mistaken about their block period. They are only blocked for one week after all this. After their block is over, they should only be able to edit with a topic ban on Nabil Gabol, his family members, and the Gabol tribe overall! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Balochworld has been closed with no finding of fault against Balochworld. No evidence has been presented here that justifies a topic ban, in particular, zero convincing evidence of a conflict of interest. It seems instead that a few other editors are engaged in a content dispute with Balochworld. This looks to me like an attempt to prevail in a content dispute by removing one party to the dispute. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Cullen328: Did you check their editing history? Their third edit, 10 years ago on 23 April 2008 was on Nabil Gabol and since then they almost exclusively edited that page. They had access to almost every picture ever taken of Gabol. Doesn't that signal an SPA and would not it be a good idea to force them to edit something else for a while? Your assessment about few editors attempting to prevail in content dispute is wrong, there is a genuine concern about this editor. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
WP:SPA and tell me where it says that an editor should be topic banned just for being an SPA. No, it would not be a good idea to force them to edit something else for a while, unless there is solid evidence that their edits violate policies and guidelines. Yes, the editor seems to have a pro-Gabol point of view, just as you and several others seem to have an anti-Gabol point of view. Concerns are "genuine" only when convincing evidence of misconduct is furnished. Where is the evidence? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it
00:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@Cullen328: You again accused me of having anti-Gabol view but if I must describe my views in this matter then I will brand them as anti-censorship. I saw an attempt to censor by an SPA on Nabil Gabol and I tried to prevent that because I believe that censorship is not good for the health of encyclopedia. You can see this discussion where you will see me opposing Saqib and supporting Balochworld which resulted in removal of negative information about Gabol. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
SheriffIsInTown, it is not censorship to place a high priority on BLP policy. It is not censorship to exercise good editorial judgment. It is not censorship to remove completely unproven allegations of murder from five years ago that resulted in no arrest, no trial and no conviction. But my main point, which you have not addressed, is that no evidence has been furnished here that justifies a topic ban for Balochworld. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@Cullen328: This is the picture of Allah Bakhsh Gabol with Fatima Jinnah. Allah Bakhsh Gabol who died in 1972 was the grandfather of Nabil Gabol. The uploader User:Balochworld claims, it is "my own picture". Such claim can only come from a close family member and that family member could possibly be the grandson himself, we cannot say for sure. A user with COI issues would never say that they are the subject themselves or related to the subject. We can only use the evidence at hand to come to a conclusion whether user has COI issues or not. And, in this user's case, we have multiple indications that the user has COI issues which includes user's edit history which tells us that they mostly only edited Allah Bakhsh Gabol and Nabil Gabol, access to such pictures to which only a family member can have access to, and claim that Nabil Gabol's grandfather's picture is their own picture. What other proof we need? If we allow a user with COI issues to edit their own or their family member's article then they ought to try to censor everything negative! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Sierra Nevada mountains of California. Do you think that is evidence that Eichorn is a relative of mine, and that I have a conflict of interest regarding Eichorn? If you think that, you would be wrong. I met him only once on that mountaineering trip. Take a look at the infobox photo at Arlene Blum. Is she my relative? I took that photo 41 years ago at a mountaineering equipment shop in Berkeley, California, where she was giving a fundraising pitch, and that was the only time I ever met her. Do I have a conflict of interest about Blum? No. Bottom line: The photos are not evidence of a conflict of interest requiring a topic ban. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it
04:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

) 06:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

talk · contribs) was renamed Balochworlds (talk · contribs) in 2008 as per this request. Nadlr Gabol is son of Nabil Gabol as per this news story. This indeed establish COI. I'm posting this information after checking with Black Kite to avoid outing concerns. --Saqib (talk

This is concerning, and makes sense (it also explains the oddly incongruous username "Balochworld" as a sort of disguise). I'm going to strike my !vote, but I'm not going to !vote support because the edits Saqib has made on the article are serious policy violations. Softlavender (talk) 07:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I acknowledge the header was not appropriate. Will be more careful next time. --Saqib (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not just the header. Most of that text was problematical in some way. Softlavender (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. --Saqib (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose per Cullen. Please also note that
dispute resolution procedures if necessary. Softlavender (talk
) 23:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@
WP:WELLKNOWN applies. Since you based your vote on argument by Cullen328 thus please see my reply to Cullen 328 above! Sheriff | ☎ 911
| 00:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
To have a section in a BLP titled "Criminal activities" [248], full of unproven allegations, is most definitely a BLP violation and a violation of
WP:BLPCRIME. -- Softlavender (talk
) 00:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@Softlavender: I opposed that section heading and it was added during the time I was not watching the article but we cannot remove all content just because of a bad heading. A bad heading can be changed into a good heading! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment: I think it may be appropriate to allow Balochworld to make edit requests on the talkpage of the articles. He may have a blatant COI but it should probably be his right to sometimes request changes if the articles start to become hit pieces again. We generally allow COI editors to make edit requests and ask for administrative review. As long as he does not bludgeon conversations or press his points beyond seeking administrative input, this may be a good way to go. Softlavender (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I don't have any problem with your proposal but xe is likely to engage in filibustering. --Saqib (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Not if it's properly worded. He could be allowed one request for any given edit he wanted to see made, and an administrator would review it and either make the change or not. It would be like an edit request to a full-protected page. If an admin decided to make the change, it could only be reverted by another admin. No bludgeoning or filibustering allowed. Softlavender (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:WELLKNOWN as WP:BLPCRIME states This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN.. Myself and Saqib thought and I think we are still of the same opinion that this individual is not a relatively unknown individual, he is a public figure and WP:WELLKNOWN applies in his case which states If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article-even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. Sheriff | ☎ 911

| 13:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment from Balochworld - the user asked me to post a comment here that they made on their talk page; I've copied two that seemed directed at this conversation.

[249] - Saqib is proposing that I be topic banned because I have conflict of interest. I strictly deny this accusation. I never claimed ownership of the article either. I am however well read on the subject and have been cotributing to the article for over 10 years. If anyone should be banned from the topic it should be saqib as he made a decade old article unstable and controversial. Further, one of the comments above by "Faithfullguy" appears to be sock-puppetry by Saqib. I request that SPA investigation be initiated against Saqib as Faithfullguy has been blocked already and was used while Saqibs account was blocked. Thank you Balochworld (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
[250] - While I'm not being allowed to contribute Saqib continues to hurl false allegations now against me. He is now claiming that I am Nadir Gabol son of Nabil Gabol. This is insane. First of all I am not going to disclose my real name as that is a privacy issue but even if my name was Nadir Gabol do you all seriously think there is only one person with that name in the whole world? Balochworld (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

-- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

My concern was genuine when I said someone is trying to impersonate me via Faithfullguy (talk · contribs) to give an impression that I'm socking while blocked. --Saqib (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The sockpuppet investigation is just confusing things here. It would be best to consider it closed (because it is) and focus on the matter at hand here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose topic ban - after a few rounds of admin-moderated discussion it's become apparent that Balochworld has valid concerns about the article, and this only led to edit warring and blocks because the editors proposing this ban declined to discuss the matter in good faith. Balochworld was not the [only] guilty party in that dispute. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree Balochworld is by no means the only guilty party. However he does have a very noticeable COI no matter how you look at it (deny it though he may): the old username; in possession of all kinds of family photos. So that tips the balance. I don't know what the best solution is. We can't let the article(s) be a hit piece, but we must also be cautious with COIs. Maybe if we full-protect the article(s) longterm. Softlavender (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The best way to handle COI is through edit requests and discussion as you suggested further up. If we feel that the conflicted editor's direct contributions are serially problematic then it wouldn't be unusual to restrict them to edit requests, which I would prefer to topic banning them outright. I don't think that we're that far with Balochworld on this article, though, this was a matter where the editors should have discussed but didn't. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose topic ban as draconian measure to silence disagreement. Support possible editing restriction(s) – such as using talkpage edit requests – if needed due to COI. Softlavender (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. Yes, I know I suggested this, but since BW has now been cleared of socking, this would be overkill. BalochWorld, might I suggest that you broaden your participation a little? Vanamonde (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. I have been reading this sorry mess. User:Cullen328's forensic arguments lead me to believe this is just a way of silencing an 'opponent'. Would support measures indicated by User:Softlavender above. Simon Adler (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Support (alternatively also support Softlavender's talkpage-only solution). There's far more going on here. The images uploaded by Balochworld/Balochworlds on the subject (File:Gabolandpm.jpg and File:ABGABOLJINNAH.jpg), are currently both up for deletion. Balochworld is still claiming, even now, that they took both of the photographs. Unfortunately, the first is from a video of the Pakistani PM and Gabol that can be found on the Internet Tineye and the second would have had to be taken in 1967 or before as Fatima Jinnah is in the photo (possible, but very unlikely). Of the latter, this one has been previously uploaded a couple of times by Balochworld(s) with the claim "Picture provided courtesy of Mir Nadir Khan Gabol" - i.e. they didn't take it themselves, even if they are close to the family. That's just straight-up lying (either then or now). Then there's the insertion of massive amounts of OR into Gabol articles ... and the fact that the SPI still came up Likely, if not conclusive. Balochworld(s) has been here for 11 years and hasn't edited on any other subject. They clearly can't keep a NPOV on the subject and therefore they should be steered away from it. Black Kite (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment Balochworld has been indefinitely blocked by User:Huon for persistent copyright violations - see their talk page. Black Kite (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

NG2 proposal: talk page restriction

See what Black Kite wrote above; it seems at this point somewhat unlikely that the user will be back, but in the event they successfully navigate their copyright issue, it's pretty apparent that they have a conflict of interest on this topic leading to some disruptive editing. As an alternative to an outright topic ban from all of the topics they've ever edited (effectively a site ban) I suggest adopting Softlavender's solution of restricting Balochworld to suggesting edits via the articles' talk pages, so that they can participate but their edits are vetted. Let's say this is for "all pages related to the

broadly construed". Several others have implicitly or explicitly endorsed this outcome already, let's make it formal. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits

) 13:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

After reading everything on this page (under NG2 proposal: topic ban) I am under the impression that editors think I was not acting in good faith. I'm still unsure whether a BLP violation was committed on my part but I acknowledge the information was indeed controversial and wider community consensus was required. But my intention was not to malign

WP:PROUD states The neutral point of view (NPOV) policy will ensure that both the good and the bad about you will be told, and that whitewashing is not allowed. As the principle other guilty party, I am voluntarily placing myself under editing restriction which means I will stay away from making additions to this BLP (but I may revert controversial or OR edits such as this) and will recommend the changes on talk page when and if needed. --Saqib (talk

) 17:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Support as proposer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Support Though I initially was in favor of a topic ban, but as long Balochworld does not engage in filibustering, I'm willing to support this proposal. --Saqib (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Support As the goal is to prevent a COI user from controlling the articles to which they have COI and engage in endless edit-warring. A talk page restriction will provide necessary cushion against this behavior! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Support, and in fact we could use this as a test of the new block features when rolled out. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Genre warring

(non-admin closure) Block has been applied by Swarm -- MarnetteD|Talk 21:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

reliable sources and has not heeded multiple warnings. Reporting here because disruptive editing such as genre warring have been increasingly denied at WP:AIV. Thank you, - FlightTime Phone (open channel

) 19:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked indef, straightforward CIR or NOTHERE case. Thanks for reporting. (Swarm ♠ talk) 20:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Swarm Thank you, - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 20:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problematic
WP:NOTHERE
edits

Blocked indef. (Swarm ♠ talk) 18:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Prolific SPA account that replaces references to the United States with references to China in articles about the foreign policies of countries in South East Asia and the wider region. Often grossly misrepresents the sources used. Here is one of the more outrageous examples: none of the references provided claim that Thailand "remains a major ally of China"—they're simply articles about Thai-Chinese foreign policy.

Some more examples:

Although some of the content added is of value, it usually comes with a heavy editorial bias, and I have had to check the references to find whether the claims are actually supported. Here, for instance, they've claimed that China is "the linchpin in the foreign policy of Australia and New Zealand", which is neither true nor supported by any of the references provided. I doubt anyone has sufficient time to police their edits (I certainly don't). Endymion.12 (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if someone could address this. Endymion.12 (talk) 11:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

As a new user, I'd also be interested to know why no one is commenting on this. Am I in the wrong place? Endymion.12 (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

No, you are in a right place, it just seems to be a complex matter which requires an analysis of many diffs. I see for example, that the user was edit-warring without ever visited the talk page of the article, and that they outright dismissed [256] a complaint on their talk page without any reaction. This clearly means they have communication problems. But whether those are sufficient for a block, and how promotional their edits are, requires quite some time to analyze, and I currently just do not have this time (I might have or might not have it tomorrow evening). I hope someone will take the task of wading through these diffs.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I was just considering posting something like this. Yes,

drama board—that unfortunately matters. If it is not a good enough show, the peanut gallery may remain empty.

I am saying this without reviewing the case myself, as well, so I have no comment on its merits or actionability. I am also not an administrator (and I typically just observe proceedings on this page), so I doubt I will be able to help much anyway. Regardless, thanks for taking the time to report. Even if it is meritless or unactionable, at least you are showing a commitment to be bold when it comes to problems you think need to be addressed. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs

) 23:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:DAPE

This doesn't appear to be going anywhere and has been largely distracted by a revelation of an inappropriate policy change made by an editor regarding

assume good faith. Both users are encouraged to reflect on the criticisms they've received. (Swarm ♠ talk

) 20:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

WP:DAPE

16 April 2018 I created the article People's Vote (diff) and expanded it to include the article "Britain for Europe" (see draft version of "Britain for Europe") diff.

17 April 2018 I created an extra section for Template:United Kingdom in the European Union including a link to the article "Britain for Europe" diff (rationale: Creation of "Calls for a second vote" section).

I also created Template:People's Vote, diff.

24 May 2018 I brought

Rewrite 27 May 2018

).

4 June 2018

European Parliament election, 2019 (United Kingdom) without notifying me diff

, knowing it was a controversial deletion.

7 June 2018 RaviC added a Notability template to People's Vote with no edit summary explaining why diff.

RaviC also added a

European Parliament election, 2019 (United Kingdom) diff

20 June 2018 RaviC opened an Afd on Britain for Europe.

12 July 2018 I created the artcle Mike Galsworthy (diff)

16 July 2018 RaviC added a Coatrack template to the Galsworthy article diff.

22 July 2018 RaviC added a PROD template to the Galsworthy article without notifying me diff knowing it was a controversial deletion.

23 July 2018 RaviC opened WP:Articles for deletion/Mike Galsworthy without notifying me diff.

16 August 2018 RaviC restored coatrack and notability templates on the basis that the AfD "was a no consensus close" diff.

19 September 2018 Commented on

WP:SOAPBOX. diff