Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Arcarius

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

Arcarius has been editing for a decade, but the same issues persist. They do not usually respond to messages from other editors, even when it is clear questions and repeated concerns being raised about the same issues: mainly referencing. You can see at [1] the many messages many editors have sent. I see my name is on the page 72 times - none of the messages were responded to. I have directed Arcaruius to WP:BURDEN and WP:Communication is required and tried many times to engage Arcarius in a discussion about their editing, to no avail.

Arcarius has been editing too long for this, and also did edit their user talk page back in 2016, so does know how to use the page. I would like Arcarius to join a discussion here and show that they understand Wikipedia is a collaborative project where it is required that you respond to editors when they raise concerns. I would also like Arcarius to show a good understanding of WP:V and to realise that if mann issue with sourcing, this should inform their future article creations. Some of the redirects are concerning too, redirects from terms which are not mentioned in the article at all. I'm not sure how else to get Arcarius to engage. Boleyn (talk) 09:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there any current ongoing disruption or any edit disputes in progress that requires this user's input to resolve? I see that you're concerned about ongoing issues over time, but I'd like to review any current issues that are in progress. Someone not responding on their talk page isn't something I can force this user to start doing... obviously :-). But if there are current disputes and issues where communication and his participation are needed and disruption is occurring in lieu of this (such as edit warring), then that's another matter. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. There seems to be a history of failure to engage. And there's a new issue where we can see if they respond. He's just edited an article[2] adding 2 section headings with underneath them "TO BE ELABORATED FROM THE ITALIAN WIKI". I'll try to get him to respond about that, but I'm also concerned about his continued failure to source. Doug Weller talk 14:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I'll bother to post on his talk page. He's been busy editing since he got the ANI notice (at least 10 edits) and still hasn't responded here. I don't have time to waste. Doug Weller talk 14:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

As a long-established editor he doesn't seem to know about date formats - see grotty recent additions to Tharros. PamD 15:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The ongoing issue is the lack of sources in articles Arcarius has created, discussion about the seemingly misleading redirects etc. They are also going against the policy at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Discuss with the other party: Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia...Sustained discussion between the parties, even if not immediately successful, demonstrates your good faith and shows you are trying to reach a consensus...Talk page discussion is a prerequisite to almost all of Wikipedia's venues of higher dispute resolution. Boleyn (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Arcarius, we can see you are still editing, can you please contribute to this discussion? We are just trying to resolve these issues, and we can't do this without you. Please be aware that if you refuse to engage with this discussion, you risk an indefinite block. Just talk to us. Boleyn (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Arcarius has now disappeared as soon as I mentioned here that we could see they were editing but not communicating. I think at this stage an indefinite block is the only way to get Arcarius to communicate. Arcarius, please prove me wrong and join the discussion. Boleyn (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Template hijacking

A template (not sure which one) has been vandalized to redirect clicks anywhere on certain article pages that use it to a Youtube live feed ([3]). One of the affected articles is Barack Obama. To demonstrate the issue, navigate to that page, then attempt to click on any blue link (or even in the white space of the page, as the exploit actually uses a transparent overlay). General Ization ^Talk 04:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't seem to reproduce it on mobile ... maybe fixed already? Or just not working on my browser? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Apparently not working on your mobile browser. General Ization ^Talk 04:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't work on my desktop either.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This was fixed; see the VPT thread. {{Excessive citations inline}} had a overlay element added to it. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Apparently fixed now -- either undone by the initiator of the hijacking or corrected by someone else. General Ization ^Talk 04:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

See my recent contribs. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 04:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I have seen this same exploit before (redirecting clicks, as I recall, to the same webcast). I won't say more because last time it was all revdel'd so as not to give anyone ideas (WP:BEANS). General Ization ^Talk 04:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Spam blacklisted. SQL^{Query me!} 04:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I noticed a few templates in my watchlist getting protected the other day; apparently this process needs to be speeded up. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

One of these templates had 8 transclusions. Whatever standards are applied, a template like that is probably not going to be automatically protected, and even if it was there'll probably appear an autoconfirmed sock. However feel free to join the discussion at WP:VPR. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've run a purge job on all pages where that was transcluded, so it should be clear now. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
• Can I take this opportunity to point out to people that if you see reports of template vandalism, "strange vandalism" or similar, then the first thing to check is this newbie template contribs link (it's easy to reconstruct). The edits are almost always immediately obvious. If there's nothing there you can always check recent changes for unregistered contribs. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

  @Zzuuzz: template "related changes" for a page usually helps as well e.g.. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Xaosflux and Zzuuzz: At least one of the templates in the "newbie" link above - Template:Conservatism sidebar - is still transcluding vandalism onto pages when logged out; this image was just appearing on Republican Party (United States) instead of the template when viewing the page in incognito mode. I've purged the page and it appears to be gone from there, but the template transcludes onto 128 other pages according to the tool. I'll see if I can find any others. Home Lander (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
    • • • @Home Lander: I'll have a bot purge them all now. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
          • Thanks Xaosflux; by chance, can you spill the beans on how to do that? Home Lander (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
          •  Erledigt @Home Lander: you can grab the 'what links here' list from the template, then feed that to anything to script either running WP:PURGE or null-edits to the pages. You could even use AWB and just append {{subst:null}} to a list of pages. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
            • @Xaosflux: Oh lord, you lost me quickly. I have no experience with the AWB or bots (other than the anti-vandal or AIV helpers). I think I'll just leave that to you. Home Lander (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Aww, dang it... I've been meaning to pull a list of our templates with the highest translusion count and make sure that any high risk or highly visible ones are protected. I'll put that back on my to-do list... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

MusikAnimal has done a lot of work to list and protect templates and modules. See the recent User talk:MusikAnimal#List request from Primefac. Johnuniq (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Perfect! This is exactly what we need to be doing so we can reduce the risk of major template vandalism that would impact many pages. Thanks for letting me know that this is a currently in-progress task; I'll see what I can do to help (if it's needed). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Primefac protected a boat load from a report I gave him (which I agree with, for the record :). I'm not sure how much further we should go without broader support, but anyway I have a script that I can run anytime you need me to. A bot task used solely for reporting is probably a bad idea, per WP:BEANS. I suspect however that at least one of the vandals we're dealing with is running their own queries. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Would it be possible to protect all redirects to such protected templates too? Don't know how worthwhile it'd be, but I remember a while back people were hitting template redirects too. ansh666 04:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

We're just talking about redirects, right? Not any pages that reference them? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, like how Template:Info box redirects to Template:Infobox. (Perhaps a bad example, since thankfully the former isn't used at all.) ansh666 01:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I got'cha. I don't think there's an automated way to do that (or at least easily). Cascading protection only protects subpages of a page, but what you're asking for sounds to be almost the same thing (except... with redirects). You'd have to find each one and do it one-by-one if it can't be done with automation... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

If that's the case, we'll need to stay a step ahead and do this ourselves. I agree that having a bot report these things is not a good idea. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Akhiljaxxn

Warned him before[4][5] that if he continues his disruption he will be taken to ANI and it seems that he wishes to continue it. One can agree that he speaks very bad English, and he claims on his userpage that he is "a native speaker of the English language".[6] There are many competence issues. He has been disrupting the articles about Michael Jackson, sometimes creating WP:POVFORKs by violating WP:COPYVIO,[7][8] and removing what he believes to be negative against Michael Jackson.[9][10]

He was blocked months ago for sockpuppetry[11] and recruiting people from social networking sites to help him on-wiki,[12] but he made his way by "canvassing different admins via email",[13] with one admin that he canvassed from Malayalam Wikipedia would assure that the user will "be carefull editing articles".[14]

During debates, he usually posts his opinions and turns talk pages into WP:FORUM.[15][16] Also prefers to edit war about the things where no one else would ever agree with him and he reverts[17][18] until there are multiple editors to revert him. (also see last two diffs of first paragraph) Also contrary to WP:BRD, he will never start the discussion on talk page.

And I have just checked that he reverted one of recent my edit, calling it a "rv possible vandaliam"[19], contrary to WP:NOTVAND, and has been warned about that before as well."possible_vandalism?" I believe that a block or any kind of other sanction for this disruption is warranted. Excelse (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

It appears that most of the diffs are several months old. Besides reverting one of your edits, what has Akhiljaxxn done recently that you feel deserves a block? Billhpike (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. I agree the editor should not have called your edit vandalism but it seems unlikely it's enough to warrant sanction due to months old misbehaviour in different areas. Nil Einne (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the issues presented here are all from 2017 (and many of which took place months ago). Blocking this user or taking administrative action towards them over issues that aren't recent, current, and/or in-progress (especially if they're from the past like this) - would be extremely inappropriate and unjustified. What concerns or issues are occurring with this user's edits that are recent or in progress? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Billhpike, Nil Einne, and Oshwah: His activity is low, he is disrupting Wikipedia for more than 3 years and these incidents demonstrate the long term problems with the user still exist. I omitted the mentions of the incidents where I didn't had the article on watchlist or the incidents are old. He made only a few edits since those "several months old" diffs. The diff from 12 January, where he willfully called constructive edit a "possible vandaliam",[20] alone shows that he is not competent enough to collaborate here. In fact there was no need of making the revert and he also failed to discuss his edit. Even if he decides to discuss his edits, he will just use talk page as forum with his very bad English. These are not small but big problems and the user has demonstrated that he is not going to hear. Since he has serious competence issues it is impossible to think that he will ever reform. Excelse (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you mean by "no need of making the revert and he also failed to discuss his edit". The reversion appears to either have been a mistake or a content dispute. If it was a mistake then I guess you're right there was no need to make the revert. But if it's a content dispute then reversion is sometimes an acceptable part of handling a content dispute per WP:BRD as the information is sourced, and does refer to to the impact of Michael Jackson, there could easily be resonable dispute about whether or not it belong in the article which should be dealt with in the manner of all content disputes, i.e. via discussion not via ANI. And the talk page for the article has some recent discussion from you touching on scope, but nothing that seems to deal with the particular removal. Therefore you have not really discussed it either and cannot resonably complain about someone else "failed to discuss", it's intrinsic on both parties to discuss and it rarely does anyone any favours by arguing the other person should discuss first, nor that edit summaries are sufficient. If you do raise the issue on the talk page and leave time for responses and there are none, it's likely to be resonable to re-instate it and if anyone continues to revert without at least entering the discussion, then you can bring it to ANI. As for the other issues, as already mentioned since sanctions are intented to be preventative not punitive it's difficult to argue in favour of a block when there is very little evidence of much recent misbehaviour. If we blocked everyone for calling something vandalism when they shouldn't I wouldn't be surprised it the number of blocks issued increased by an order of magnitude. If this editor continues serious misbehaviour report it then and they will hopefully be quickly blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes there was no need to make a revert if we go by policies and guidelines, we can remove the undue large quotes that have nothing to do with subject. But these things are just too much for Akhiljaxxn. He hates do discuss his edits, he never starts talk page discussion neither he carries it on, although he prefers to edit war. His problematic approach to turn specific articles into fancruft and misrepresenting policies is also an issue. He won't consider removing the content that makes his preferred article look less of fancruft, yet he edit wars over valid content on other articles, I have already mentioned one,[21] another example is Vijay (actor) where he edit warred over valid content (mostly), by calling it "not fan page", "puffery"[22][23] he falsely claimed that the editor has COI. Of course we can block any editors who are being disruptive for over 3 years and they still don't understand, because competence is required and evidently he lacks it. Excelse (talk) 05:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I’m inclined to agree that this edit removed puffery. Do you think articles should have phrases like honour Vijay's spectacular achievement in the movie industry and rising to glorious heights.? Billhpike (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I had said "mostly", if you read properly. You must have also ignored that in these diffs, he is not just removing the content, but himself adding unsourced and puffery like "is an extremely famous one in Tamil Nadu" and also claiming that the editor has COI, which is itself a serious allegation. We are talking about an editor who spent more than 3 years on Wikipedia, violating copyrights, edit warring, sock puppetry, offline canvassing, has a very bad English and still doesn't understand what is vandalism. I am not seeing how a block is not justified. Excelse (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Billhpike, Nil Einne, and Oshwah: Excelse is a problamatic wikipedian who always fights with different wikipedians and has been warned by different wikipedians and blocked for 2 weeks period for sock puppetery. As you can see he is a elvis fan and he always tries to malign other artist pages and he behaves with me a sense of vengeance. Before taking a decision on this i'm kindly requesting to all the wiki admin over here to take a look of the contribution [24] and talk page [25][26].If you check his contribution we could see that he has a fighting mentality and you could see nobody has an issue with me only to excel but excel got warrned by different users for his conflicted edits. I thought i shouldn't be here to justify my action but i see excel writes several falsehoods about my edit on actor vijay's page like i added puffery's like "is an extremely famous one in Tamil Nadu" This is is factully wrong, i only restored the previous version by removing the puffery.Excel is following me like a shadow And interferes in all activities of mine .Is it possible to hide my contribution from excel? If yes pls help me to do that- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

But you were indeffed for socking and off-Wiki canvassing a few months ago and you canvassed many admins by emailing them to get yourself unblocked and you have failed to meet their expectations. Yes you had added the puffery, "extremely famous one in Tamil Nadu", twice and also added the COI tag.[27][28] Even your statement confirms that you added this puffery while removing a lot of content that was valid. By calling these diffs a "falsehood" you are only demonstrating your incompetence and giving others a reason why you should be blocked. You have failed to convince others for preserving your MJ fancrufts and it should not mean that I am against you. While your comments are entirely without evidence, I can remind you that you were trolling on a WikiProject and you even claimed that "Michael Jackson literally dominated EVERY MARKET music was sold",[29] though Michael Jackson was always far from that. Do you really want me to count how many editors/admins have warned you to this day? One can always look at the history of your talk page which is full of warnings and you were also engaged in vandalism.[30] Just because you have always removed your warnings it doesn't means that we can't see them. By misrepresenting these two diffs[31][32] and using them as rebuttal, you have made it even more clearer that you have serious competence issues. Don't hope for a fictional feature "to hide" your contributions, because your existence doesn't stop anyone from checking your edits and rectifying them. Excelse (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Excelse: Please read WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, WP:PERSONALATTACK, and WP:DROPTHESTICK. Billhpike (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

So I need to assume good faith with his deliberate deception? You need to read AGF is not a suicide pact, WP:CIR and WP:CHERRYPICK, unless you are telling me that we need to tolerate highly incompetent users and let them disrupt Wikipedia as much as they want. Excelse (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Dilpa kaur

• Dilpa kaur (talk · contribs)

Could an admin take a look at the contribs of this WP:SPA account, especially these diffs here which clearly show that this account is engaged in meat puppetry. —MBL ^Talk 08:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes it's a disruptive meat puppet. See [33] filed a report just after JosephusOfJerusalem (another SPA) had his report rejected.[34] On report he writes, "Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#India-Pakistan_2: A civility restriction. Any suggestion that any editor is not editing in good faith will lead to an immediate block."[35] Same green font and sentence that JosephusOfJerusalem had applied, "Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#India-Pakistan_2: A civility restriction. Any suggestion that any editor is not editing in good faith will lead to an immediate block."[36]

Few things are clear here, they both are obsessively trying hard to get me blocked/banned, and using same templates/style/words and they are edit warring in tandem. Such deception needs to be dealt with indef block, because these accounts are WP:NOTHERE, all they care about is their disruptive ethnic agenda. Anmolbhat (talk) 08:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@MBlaze Lightning and Anmolbhat:--Hmm..Some similarity at the AE report but I ain't seeing much meat-puppetryin light of Ammarpad's evidence, the overlap looks to be strong except the hazy overlaps which is not uncommon, given the highly polarised editing atmosphere at your main-space overlaps with Dilpa.You can file a detailed SPI report, including relevant diffs etc.And, Anmol, it's best to comment on content and not on contributors, at article talk-pages.Winged Blades^Godric 08:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@WBG: I don't think it is ripe for SPI but I believe the above report is beyond talkpage comments. Do you think this is also mere happenstance? Dilpa kaur (talk · contribs) removed content with claim of MOS violation. Reverted by Raymond3023. See the next edit -Ammarpad (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I ran Interwine but missed the diff.Thanks:)Winged Blades^Godric 09:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Saving a template from the preceding report, working on it when the reported person displays more bad behaviour, as is the case here with Anmolbhat, is not meatpuppetry. Your other diffs [37] are a misrepresentation, sometimes i struggle with making my pre-planned edits on my mobile because it gets frozen and goes haywire and copying from my phone notes and pasting and saving becomes a hassle. This[38] was a temporary notice on my part on the page to underline the issues with the text I was trying to remove, until I could fix the text properly when my phone improved, which I did within 5 minutes[39]. This seems like a detraction from the current AE case against MBlaze Lightning's friend Anmolbhat who has just broken the civility restriction. My guess is that when I by mistake pasted my report on Anmolbhat by mistake in the wrong place and came back to insert it in the right place later, during that time MBlaze Lightning started planning a diversion from the AE case against Anmolbhat. What should be looked into is the long-term tag-teaming between MBlaze Lightning, Anmolbhat, Capitals00, Kautilya and some others. Dilpa kaur (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You can make up whatever you want to but we have already understood that you and other disruptive SPAs are meat puppets, with nothing to do here except edit warring in tandem and pushing your disruptive ethnic agenda. According to you, we should investigate long term editors like Mblaze, Kautilya3, Capitals00 so that your meat puppetry can be justified. You make no sense. Anmolbhat (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Just a comment from somebody who has closely watched this go down for the last few weeks but has mostly been a bystander. I have not directly interacted with Dilpa kaur (talk · contribs) or JosephusOfJerusalem (talk · contribs) but have noticed their edits and their editing behavior so far has not been typical of a Wikipedia editor and raised some doubts in my mind. There was a RfC at Talk:Kashmir conflict recently and there seemed to be a Wikipedia:Vote stacking on that page. Now this might seem typical of India-Pakistan pages given the different views. But quite a bit of editors participated in that RfC with little or no edits on the actual page. What was even more concerning was the fact that many of these editors had been dormant for quite some time before the RfC, commented on the RfC and went back to their dormant selves. This behavior clubbed with the behavior on recent articles like Kashmiris, Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus, 1947 Poonch Rebellion, Violence against women during the partition of India is concerning. In these cases editors have been recently created (past 1-2 months) accounts who have very little editing history on Wikipedia and most of it resolves around a limited set (4-5) of India-Pakistan pages and seems to be pushing a certain POV. An editor was recently blocked for a week for violating the 1RR block for their edits which they falsely claimed were copy-right violations. In my opinion, the administrators need to have a closer look at this since there seems to be something more than what meets the eye. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Adamgerber80's uninvolved observer comments are exactly accurate. I couldn't have said it better myself. There is serious tag teaming/meatpuppetry going on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Bishonen I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at this and see whether indefinite blocks are warranted. —MBL ^Talk 00:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I am happy and satisfied reading Dilpa kaur (talk · contribs)'s explanation of the diffs. I don't see any evidence of meat puppetry. I have in the past been falsely accused of socking by MBL and I would encourage people to take into consideration just how many of these accusations he throws around. --Xinjao (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Why you bothered to come back to Wikipedia 29 days only for supporting such nonsensical "explanation"? You can describe though if they are any sensible. Capitals00 (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Filer's tag-teaming and harassment

The filer has been part of several spurious and failed attempts at getting blocked the users he disagrees with. Just last month on here MBlaze Lightning created a report against Dilpa kaur so ridiculous (he could not differentiate between the different IPs of @Dilpa kaur: and @Danish.mehraj26:) that he had to revert himself [40]. He also paarticipated against me and @Danish.mehraj26:/@JosephusOfJerusalem: in a frivolous SPI which ended up confirming our innocence. The question is why is the filer so desperately making multiple attempts to get others blocked (his own block log is hardly one to envy)?

And what was happening in the middle of all of this? Two IPs,[41][42] located in two different [43][44] Indian cities, turn up to frame me and @Owais Khursheed: for meatpuppetry. Both IPs were had knowledge of a user known as @Kautilya3:, which indicates they were old users IP socking to frame me and Owais. The different locations of the IPs suggest collaboration between multiple old users is happening on IP levels, and even worse is happening through the accounts where they are using hook and crook methods to get opposing editors blocked.

Senior editor @Mar4d: is had also complained of this trend of a group of editors close to @Kautilya3: wreaking POV havoc across articles in the India-Pakistan topic area.

MBlaze Lightning, Capitals00, Adamgerber80, D4iNa4 and Kautilya3 have an extensive record of tag teaming and supporting each other on articles, often where they have had minimal or negligible contribution to article content or discussion on the talkpages.

For example the senior editor @NadirAli: observed on Talk:Violence against women during the partition of India that Kautilya3 suddenly arrived on a talkpage discussion for an article he had no contribution to. Even more interestingly, MBlaze Lightning turned up on the same page to do a revert[45] to ensure the page looked the way Kautilya3 wanted [46]. This despite MBlaze Lightning not contributing much to the article either.

Another example is Talk:Annexation_of_Junagadh#MBlaze_Lightning_cuts where Kautilya3 turns up, after a long absence from contributing to the article, to support MBlaze Lightning's POV.

And even more. During extensive discussions on Talk:Kashmir_conflict#KA$HMIR_revert_justifications between me, @NadirAli:, @Kautilya3: and @Mar4d:, MBlaze Lightning is absent. He then suddenly turns up only to agree with Kautilya3 and Capitals00 here Talk:Kashmir_conflict#NadirAli_edits, though again this contribution is no more than a line. Despite having no contribution worth the name to the discussion he then reverts to Kautilya3's preferred version.

And then comes in Adamgerber80, who had no contribution to the discussion, to restore MBlaze Lightning and Kautilya3's preferred version during the edit war [47]. Note his edit summary ad then check how much he has contributed to the discussions on talk.

Just recently, MBlaze Lightning again proved to be part of a tag team. Until now he has had no major contribution to the discussion on Talk:Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus except for one vague statement (and no response thereafter when he was questioned) in support of Anmolbhat and Kautilya3's POV [48]. He then did a disruptive revert on the article [49]. Fortunately the edit war has been ended graciously by the admins who have locked the page now so MBlaze Lightning and Anmolbhat can no longer break WP:NOCON and do disruptive reverts.

Then there is Capitals00. In an extensive discussion on sourcing between Kautilya3 and JosephusOfJerusalem Capitals00 turns up to make vitriolic comments,[50] with no other contribution to the discussion, and does a revert [51] to Kautilya3's preferred version while there is still discussion going on on the talkpage.

I do not believe for an instant that we can ignore all this collaboration as a coincidence. KA$HMIR (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• But they are years old accounts with thousands of edits. That's why the actual issue here is with the disruptive tagteaming/meat-puppetry involving you and other very new accounts with no edits outside this subject (WP:SPA). Also you have selectively canvassed only those editors in your message that push same POV as yours. Anmolbhat (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I am adding to my comment since I have been accused of "tag-teaming" by KA$HMIR. I do have all these pages on my Watchlist for quite sometime including the ones I have mentioned. Even though I have no edits on them, I still keep track of all the discussions on their talk pages and additions by other users. I only interject when I feel the need to. This was the very reason that I had reverted some edits of your earlier username on a different page. My edit comments on that revert was out of the fact that the page was turning into state of constant reverts and it was me who requested the full protection of the page to ensure a proper discussion took place. I reverted those edits to a point in the page which was before the edits by NadirAli since they were the topic of discussion on the Talk page to maintain STATUSQUO. Lastly, I do not believe in Vote-stacking and unnecessary "show of support comments" as was on display during that RfC. Other editors had raised valid points and continue to raise valid points in the on-going discussion and I have not felt the need to interject so far. And as a matter of fact I have add disagreements with Kautilya3 and MBlaze Lightning on different topics in the past so your accusation of "tag-teaming" seems pre-mature and ill-thought. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, let us see KA$HMIR. Here are your edits intertwined with Dilpa kaur's (who is supposedly a Punjabi and Khalistani), and your edits intertwined with Danish.mehraj26, and your edits intertwined with Josephus (who is a Jewish historian no doubt).

On the the other hand, here are the filer's edits intertwined with mine, those intertwined with Capitals00 and those intertwined with Adamgerber80.

Do you see the difference? I doubt you would. So let me spell it out for you. We all watch whatever pages interest us, and we jump in when we see the need. In contrast, your troops show up wherever you go. No matter what their professed interests are. That is what we are talking about. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Intertwined contributions only display the ″last 1000 cumulated contributions of the two users″. It does not show intersections. To check intersections you need to use this tool [52]. The tool shows that Dilpa kaur and I have only edited in 4 same places,[53] of which only 2 are talkpages and the remaining two are ANI and AE boards, likely not even on the same threads. JosephusOfJerusalem intersects with Dilpa on 6 pages,[54] of which 1 is the article you mysteriously turned up to 'uninvited' and only 2 are talkpages. His intersections with me are also only in 6 places.[55] JosephusOfJerusalem has contributed to several places [56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65] where I and Dilpa have not and similarly Dilpa[66] and I[67][68][69][70][71] have contributed where each other has not.

The same is not true for your friends. The tool shows you and MBlaze Lightning intersecting on 404 pages,[72] many of them talkpages. You intersect with Capitals00 on 404 pages too.[73] All three of you intersect in 103 places,[74] many of them talkpages, whereas I, Dilpa and Josephus intersect only on 2 places[75], 1 of them an AE board. Whatever you say now does not wipe the proof I have provided of obvious tag teaming between your meat puppets. I would even request admins to check your emails. Do you really think you can get away with all the tag-teaming without the rest of us knowing that all this is not a coincidence? KA$HMIR (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

That is bogus logic. A sample has to be fair for it to have any validity. The size of the intersection doesn't mean a thing. The longer people are here, the more pages they watch, and the more they watch, the more they will intersect with the others. The intertwine results show a fair simple, and they are showing for you and your friends, people moving into pages they never visited before and siding with one another. This confirms Adamgerber80 observed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Its very curious isn't it how you all end up reverting to each other's versions, even if your meatpuppets such as MBlaze Lightning and Capitals00 have had scant input on the discussion talkpages/article content. The tool for catching the socks and meats is intersection tool. The intertwined contributions show nothing except the last 1000 cumulated edits. The intertwined tool, unlike the intersection tool, is not useful for showing overlaps and tag-teamers supporting each other. KA$HMIR (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

MBL is not helping himself by persistently throwing accusations of sock puppetry, meat puppetry or single purpose accounts. He has been doing this for months, perhaps years; only recently accusing me of sockpuppeterring. He is offending numerous people with such accusations. If he continues, he should be topic banned from filing any ANIs and SPIs or at the least strictly warned. This is becoming too much.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It's probably worth noting that User:NadirAli has edited ANI 48 times in the last eleven years: 46 of those were to a single thread about him last July, one more was this, and then there was the above. Posting comments like the above about an editor one doesn't like to threads in which one is not involved is generally seen as a form of hounding. Even if one was ping-canvassed. The good faith way of responding to canvassing like KA$HMIR's above would be to tell them to buzz off. I know nothing about this dispute, but interactions like this make me really, really think that the various editors not on MBL's "side" should be at the very least cautioned. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri, it's almost as if you've missed the fact that MBL filed an SPI against me despite having almost no prior interaction with me. He has been doing that numerous times. Given all this, are you still sure it's me who's doing the "hounding". Forgive me but your comment is indeed humerus, even if not intended to be so.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Why is having prior interactions with someone a prerequisite to opening an SPI? I would think most SPIs are opened to report accounts one has not interacted with before. Anyway, I didn't miss anything -- you showed up on an ANI involving a user you had conflicted with some months ago (at which time said user had managed to convince a quite conservative CU-enabled user to perform a check on you), and, as a former (repeat) victim of hounding that looked very similar to this, I decided to call it what it was. It seems like MBL opened only one SPI on you, so it's really unclear what you mean by He has been doing that numerous times. [...] it's [not] me who's doing the "hounding" -- are you accusing MBL of hounding you? If so, I would encourage you to present evidence or read WP:KETTLE and retract that baseless accusation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

PS, your comment about my ANI edits are incorrect. I have edited more ANI threads than that in the past 11 years, with only two being directly against me and one indirectly against me and another group of Pakistanis.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Wait, did you do so under an alternate account or something? I did a pretty thorough check, and it wasn't hard (you've made less than 500 WP-space edits in that time). Are you being pedantic and saying that technically February 12, 2007 was less than 11 years ago? If that's the case then let's just say 10 years, 11 months and 5 days. I was rounding up. The above 2014 diff is the only edit your current account made to ANI between February 12, 2007 and your above off-topic remark MBL, whose edit summary did not include Tendentious editing by NadirAli across Multiple Articles. Ctrl+F "Incidents" and that section title yourself here if you don't believe me -- the former brings up 48 results, the latter 46. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

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

---

Persistent disruptive editing by User:2601:CB:8200:15B6:99F5:1672:479C:17B at Gandhara. See history of that page, and warnings at User talk:2601:CB:8200:15B6:99F5:1672:479C:17B. See also Talk:Gandhara#Animism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 36 hours by Callanecc. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Based on his edits and personal attacks, I'm sure he's not a new user and is IP-sock of a blocked account. If you review his edits on other targeted articles like Arachosia, Bactria, Bactrian language, and Kanishka, all of them have a similar pattern of POV-pushing. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• The IP is with 100% certainty a sock of indefinitely blocked user Spalagdama, based on both the subject area, the edits and the geolocation (Alpharetta, GA). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spalagdama for a number of previous named socks, but they have also used a considerable number of IPs from their own home area over the years, and also open proxies from around the world. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The IP is a static connection from Comcast Cable, part of an IPv6 /64-subnet (i.e. what a single user gets) that has been used by Spalagdama only for more than a month now, so I recommend a lengthy rangeblock (see combined contributions for the /64). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked three months. Thank you for the info, Thomas.W. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Dan56 (again)

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

---

• Dan56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not surprisingly, Dan56, who once declared that he was done "wast[ing] too much time on here as it is concerning myself with self-righteous bores and misguided pests at articles no one reads", is back, and although he doesn't seem to be as active as he used to be, he's still up to no good; on Raw Power, for example, we get into a dispute and have a lengthy discussion about it, he stops responding, and after I proceed to make the edit again, he reverts it within half a fucking hour and even opens an RfC about it. This isn't the first time he's opened an RfC about something so trivial; even if it isn't ownership anymore, can someone please do something about it? Esszet (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

You didn't get the memo? Jimbo Wales is editing Wikipedia under the username "Dan56" these days. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'm straining to see the good faith in this request, but it is difficult. If someone reverts you, talks, then you change it, then they revert you and then start an RFC, that sounds like the normal editing process. Doesn't mean it is always pretty, but as long as he actively engaging in the topic in good faith. He started the RFC, a few participated, all of them agreed. Whether it is an official RFC or just talk page poling is meaningless to me, its all the same: building consensus. Right now, it sounds like you are complaining about someone building consensus. Unanimous consensus in the one example. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, but he was the one who stopped responding, and if you were more familiar with him, you'd see what I mean; if you look at his contributions, you'll see that pretty much all he does now is revert other people's edits, often without explanation. By the way, both of the other people in the previous RfC (yes, there were only two) said it was a stupid thing to have an RfC for. Esszet (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

First of all, calling someone a "raging egoist" is a personal attack, so I would recommend striking it. Second, your report here is mainly complaining about how you don't like him yet you haven't managed to articulate a single policy he has violated. Claims like "he's still up to no good". You complain that he stopped responding, right after complaining about the lengthy discussion. You complain about the revert, but you admit he immediately put up an RFC to get a broad consensus view. If two people are reverting each other back and forth, on any point (petty or not), putting it up for the community to decide is exactly the right solution. As for looking through his contribs, the onus is on you to present diffs that demonstrate a policy violation, to at least give us some direction. Throw us a bone. Telling us that you simply don't like someone and that we should just go on a fishing expedition through hundreds of diffs, that isn't likely to bear fruit. If you have a specific policy violation claim and the diffs to demonstrate it, by all means, present it. Otherwise, this is frittering away a lot of time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

His last edit appears to be tagged with rollback - which if rollback was actually used is an abuse of the tool. -edit- actually taking a look at his contributions, quite a lot are tagged with rollback which are almost all content/style changes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

In Twinkle, there are three rollback features: a bad faith, a good faith and a neutral one. The neutral and good faith are not much different than an undo, except they are much more convenient. If he is tagging good faith edits as vandalism, that is a problem. If he isn't, then he's just using the tools that we've provided for faster reverts. Not always optimum, but the tools exist for a reason. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

As I understood twinkle, if the editor has the rollback permission it uses that, if it doesn't, it performs a standard revert? As he appears to have rollback rights, is twinkle using that permission to rollback non-vandalism? If it is, its irrelevant what tool he is using, the rollback user-right is not to be used for non-vandalism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

About to make the commute, so I don't have time to look up. Mainly, I'm looking at the summary, which doesn't mention vandalism and the verbiage is no different than an UNDO except it says ROLLBACK instead of UNDO. No mention of vandalism or other negative words. Rollback used to be a negative thing only, but not now. It is just a fast way to automatically undo all of an edit, or multiple edits, without the chance to modify them along the way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Note - In the last ANI discussion between these two, Dan56 was on his way for a boomerang and 1RR restriction before he "retired" to avoid scrutiny. I recommended for the restriction to still be implemented for his inevitable return but it seems the thread was simply closed without any action.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Actually, it appeared that there was no consensus. Had there been a clear consensus, it would have been closed with action. I'm not going to retry that case, the community has already shown they were split on those issues. I've looked for clear policy violations in this report but no one has presented them. I can see some potential problems, but it isn't my job to do all the homework and present the case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

May I ask how you read this discussion as having no clear consensus? There were 7 editors in favour of the sanction (6 if you don't count Dan56 himself), and of the two opposes, one was clearly in bad faith by an editor who has been indefinitely banned, and the other had clearly misunderstood the proposal. Cjhard (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I guess the issue here really is ownership; judge for yourself whether an RfC was necessary here or in the previous instance. Especially in light of his past behavior (see here), I really am inclined to think a lot of this really isn't in good faith and he's trying to drag out the discussion as much as he can just to make it difficult to make edits he doesn't like. It may not seem that bad – yet – but I'm trying to nip this in the bud. By the way, the vote count in the previous thread here was 6-2 in favor of sanctioning him – I'm not trying to be snotty, but is that not enough? Esszet (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

And yes, using rollback to revert good-faith edits is considered an abuse of the tool, but sanctioning him for that probably wouldn't do much; he'd just start doing standard reverts instead. Esszet (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

In this case, for example, I ‘’was’’ trying to establish consensus (hence the discussion on the article’s talk page), and what I think he’s doing is trying to discourage other people from participating by the sheer length of the discussion (if he was, it worked) and then opening RfCs when the other person simply won’t give up. As I said, it isn’t that bad – yet – but at the same time, you shouldn’t have to have a lengthy discussion and an RfC every time you try to make an edit he doesn’t like. Esszet (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown and Only in death:? Esszet (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I've said all that I felt needed saying. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Now I'm confused, I thought I spelled things out pretty clearly the second time around. Esszet (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this was very poorly done. What I was going after was WP:FILIBUSTER or maybe WP:DISRUPTIVE, but two (petty) RfC's aren't enough for that. This can be closed now. Esszet (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User: Chaipau(Disruptive editing)

• Chaipau (talk · contribs)

Could an admin take a look at the contribs of this WP:SPA account, especially the edits made on the pages Chutiya kingdom[76],[77] and Paik system[78](The used references can be verified if necessary).The user seems not to stop disruptive editing the pages and uses fake excuses like wrong sources mentioned, could not find source(whereas proper links and sourced are added) and sock-puppetry, thus deleting important information in the guise of essential edits.2405:205:1084:A4F0:B46E:F42F:82B4:EAC9 (talk)

• • This incident has been added here by a suspected sock puppet who is under investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LauraGoldstein67. The user has been blanking the page [79]. This user has the habit of top posting[80], which he did on this page as well [81]. Chaipau (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• • @Kleuske: Chaipau (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• As it is evident here, the user Chaipau has been taking down valid users under the case of sock-puppetry, while himself cunningly removing sourced info. I am a new user well versed with these articles. He has some POV mentality involved with the articles related to the Chutia community.
• Even the top posting he mentions seems to be not valid as "Chutia" is the correct spelling of the word. For instance look at Sonaram Chutia. Even the organisation involved with the community has the name All Assam Chutia students (https://m.facebook.com/allassamchutiastudentsunion/). On the other hand the word "Chutiya" is a well known slang/curse word in India. Therefore, it is evident that the user is trying to defame the community name due to some personal reasons.(https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/chutiya).

2405:205:1084:A4F0:B46E:F42F:82B4:EAC9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I reverted blanking of an SPI-page. That's where my involvement ends. The rest looks like a content dispute to me, on which I have no particular opinion, although diffs are required to back up any claims. Kleuske (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Zakkax1

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

---

• Zakkax1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over the last month, I've sent this editor several messages about creating unreferenced biographies of living people. I've listed the articles in question, pointed out WP:Communication is required, WP:V and WP:BURDEN, but no response at all, even though they have continued to edit. Similar issues have ben raised many times over the last 2 years, also with no response and with the creation of such articles continuing. Boleyn (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

A total of one talk page post made 3+ years ago and that was complaining about another editor. As Zakkax1 edits only sporadically, I've placed an indefinite block until we get an answer about what's going on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Chutiya POV-pushing and sockpuppetry

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

---

There has been long term disruption centred on Chutiya Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles, promoting a specific POV. A number of socks were just linked to Qwertywander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) by CheckUser, I am not sure if it is al one person but it seems to me that the Chutiya POV-pusher should be banned. The most recent spate of this was:

• LauraGoldstein67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MattGordon900 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Akashkachari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (just blocked - new account whose first and only action was to undo reversion of edits by the previous two)
• Jalal567 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Also numerous IPs. I have semiprotected various articles. I guess that sockpuppetry this blatant is a de facto banning offence. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Given this SPI, every sock editing this article can be blocked for block evasion.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Continued disruptive activity by an IP

It looks like IP 173.177.124.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing their disruptive editing behavior, even after they were released from a recent 3 day block. From what I can tell, very few edits appear to be in good faith. I do not follow much NASCAR so I would not know about the quality of their edits on relevant articles, though my reversions on such articles, if any, were primarily based on other previous reversions of similar material made by the same IP. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 22:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• The only thing I know about NASCAR is that it's boring and pollutes the world so companies can sell beer, but you are going to have to explain what is disruptive, because all I see on the user talk page are generic warning templates. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• I have to ask - why is Quaker State 400 presented by Advance Auto Parts called that, rather than simply Quaker State 400? (And the same for all of the other races). Are we an advertising firm now? This seriously needs to be sorted - we don't call the FA Cup the "Emirates FA Cup" or the Grand National the "Randox Health Grand National". This is nonsense and needs to be looked at seriously ASAP. Black Kite (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Black Kite - that article title is beyond the pale.SeraphWiki (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It was moved from just Quaker State 400 back in November by Zacharycook597. As the move is clearly controversial, I have moved it back and would encourage anyone who wants the title changed to start a move discussion. SkyWarrior 01:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Ditto with Buckle Up in Your Truck 225 presented by Click It or Ticket. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted Coke Zero 400 powered by Coca-Cola back to its original name as well; thankfully, that appears to be the last of them Zachary has made, though I do see some other questionable moves in his log. SkyWarrior 02:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Drmies Simply put, it's not just NASCAR that's the issue, but rather other subject areas. i.e. I do not see why one would make an edit like this IP did to Superman (1999 video game), which Freikorp reverted for what I assume is a violation of WP:COMMONNAME (not all sources refer to the game as Superman 64.) jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 01:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Jd22292, I also don't see why the IP would make that edit but I don't know Superman. The problem is I also don't easily see why Freikorp reverted it--the problem with this edit is that it says nothing at all and I'd count it as rollback/Twinkle abuse. There is no way an admin like me who doesn't know the subject matter can decide what's what. If those editors leave edit summaries, and more detailed notes on the user talk page, we can do stuff. Without it, not so much--and it's obvious from your words above that you're also having to assume why editors revert. If they did their work better, you could present a better report, and I could do something, if justified. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I reverted the edit because Superman 64 was not the official title of the game. This should not require an explanation, any more than I'd need to explain reverting an IP who changed the name of Green Day to "Green Day 75" or Star Wars to "Star Wars 69". How about we don't add random numbers to the names of things? Ping me back if you need me for some reason; this conversation does not interest me. Freikorp (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Gross reversions without reference to Wiki guidelines

I'm in a situation where a person dedicated to high school article editing according to his own very strict standards is clearly calling on his close contacts to support him without any critical judgment (see time schedule on reverts, and immediate comments on talk page). Neither they nor he (User talk:John from Idegon) have given me answers to where I might find the interpretations that he is insisting upon. I think that in the article Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School it is helpful to any reader to know the successfulness of this model at this school, by drawing on evaluations of the model as they have occurred, with relation to the model itself. I know noone at this school and have no connection to it, but I believe that it would benefit any reader to get the best objective appraisal of what is going on there that we can provide them. There's no way I can get a host of editors to back me up as John can: I don't know personally a single editor in Wikipedia. Could I get your independent opinion on what parts of my edit is against Wikipedia policy, and perhaps also where I can get the most explicit guideline on this? Jzsj (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Have you tried WP:Third Opinion? If that doesn’t work, you are welcome to try to establish a consensus via an Request for Comment. Billhpike (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• In this edit, you write "As described in a Presidential Medal citation..." and then cite from an award ceremony--"as described" means "the following is true and it is described this way in this document". That is not appropriate (per WP:NPOV), and neither is the namedropping of what all colleges the students got into: we cut that in every single article we run into, where it is usually placed by school administrators who copy it from their annual report. WP:NAMEDROPPING doesn't exist, but it should be obvious. And these aren't John's "own very strict standards"--the rules are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Jzsj, by posting here at this noticeboard, you have ensured that several other editors and administrators who share John from Idegon's strict standards for high school articles will evaluate and comment on this article. But we do not resolve content disputes here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I just hadn't run into such crude comments from administrators as I was getting from him, or such collusion from associates who obviously didn't take time to read the article (check timing) or to be specific or distinguishing in their criticism. I made 5 separate edits hoping that he would allow one or other of them, but he simply dismissed all at once without any further explanation. I appreciate your taking the time to give me some Wiki references to pursue. Thanks. Jzsj (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I don't believe John from Idegon or anyone who commented on the article's talk page is an administrator and even if they were that would not give them any special advantage in a content dispute. As I mentioned on the article's talk page, you were WP:BOLD and made what you percieved to be an improvement to the article; another editor, however, felt differently and reverted your change in good-faith. This is part and parcel of participating in a collaborative editing project such as Wikipedia and the thing to do when there are disagreements over content such as this is to discuss them on the article's talk page per WP:BRD. Moreover, assuming that everyone who feels differently from you is in cohoots with John and posting comments such as this are not very conducive to such discussion; you're basically accussing him of WP:CANVASS without providing any WP:DIFFs in support. If people disagree with you, it could simply mean that you have not done a good job in explaining why your proposed changes should be made. Finally, making multiple edits involving the repeated addition of contentous content in the hope that one might stick is not a very constructive approach to editing in my opinion; it would be better to propose the changes on the article's talk page first and see if there's a consensus for them per WP:CAUTIOUS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Aw, c'mon. Y'all throw a party for me at ANI, and I have to hear about it from a third party? That ain't right! Sorry I was late to the ball, but it looks like you've got this wrapped up without me, assuming the OP actually internalizes what was said here. I'm not gonna do the stereotypical thing and shout boomerang. G'nite from Idegon. John from Idegon (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Editor adding neutrality disputed tag and refusing to discuss

This is fairly minor as far as these things go but I would like an admin to explain to editor Lalvia that since when a POV tag is added to an article or section of an article it leaves a note on the page "The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page" the editor who has added that tag needs to discuss the problems he or she sees on the talk page. Lalvia added a tag with no explanation and without opening a discussion on the talk page of the article Barabbas[82], I took it off, he or she put it back on with original research in the edit summary (Not at all, it's more likely that Barabbas is patronymic, and that the first name "Jesus" was removed by scribes because the name Jesus had become too holy of a name. Anyone who knows a shred of Hebrew understands), I removed it again and left a note on the user's talk page that they need to discuss the issues and that opinions such as Few scholars would agree with the section,also in an edit summary, are not worth anything here as they must be cited to WP:RS he or she simply removed the note I left and put the tag on again, this time with an edit summary that says (partially) Too bad, it's fact, not opinion[83]. So I left a note on the talk page of the article asking the editor to discuss the issues there to which the (partial) response was "Don't waste my time" [84]. Can an admin please explain to this newish editor that this is not how we do things here, they need to discuss issues not edit war, do not put original research in edit summaries or anywhere else and do not tell other editors not to waste their time. ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Just because my account is new doesn't mean I'm new. I know the rules quite well.Lalvia (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Apparently I am a "normie" [85].I had to google that, it seems be meant as a WP:PA but I can think of worse things to be called. And "Just because my account is new doesn't mean I'm new" hmm, what does that mean? Reappearance of a blocked or banned user, maybe?Smeat75 (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The large number of warnings over a short editing history[86][87][88][89][90][91] makes me suspect a blocked user editing under a new account. Does anyone know of a blocked user who shares the same interests as Lalvia? You can email me if you aren't sure enough to post in public. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I don't; if it was Til Eulenspiegel, I suppose Doug Weller would already have recognized them. In any case, there's too much disruption, especially repeatedly edit warring right up the the 3RR "bright line". They are indeed wrong about adding "disputed" tags without opening discussion on talk, and I see that was the first thing the account ever did, here. Blocked 48 hours for persistent disruption, while we wait to see if/when it becomes clear whose sock they are. Bishonen | talk 05:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC).

Although I don't see any evidence either of these banned users have ever socked, I see possible behavioural connections to Alastair Haines (interactions) and Andycjp (interactions), although looking at this now it seems possible-to-likely to me that Andycjp was Alastair Haines' sockpuppet (3-way interactions). Lalvia also edits the same biblical historicity articles previously hit by socks of ItsLassieTime but behaviour doesn't match. That's all I've got time for right now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not Til. Doug Weller talk 14:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Tahamzd

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

Tahamzd has been creating unreferenced articles and adding unreferenced material despite many warnings. You can see at User talk:Tahamzd many of these warnings, but many messages from other editors were simply reverted, e.g. [92]. Tahamzd only seems to have edited their talk page to delete messages from other editors, but not to respond or to address the issues.

Tahamzd has also on at least two articles repeatedly removed unreferenced/refimprove tags from articles which clearly have empty references sections - Tahamzd removed reference tags four times from Supercoppa italiana [93] but did not add references. There is no communication, not even edit summaries. Tahamzd has repeatedly been referred to WP:Communication is required, WP:V and WP:BURDEN but continues this editing with no response. Boleyn (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

This user has created many articles; which articles are you referring to that the user created that were completely unreferenced? I've gone through all of the ones created after December 23, and many appear to have references, and they all appear to at least have an external link. The Supercoppa italiana article you refer to ended up being redirected to the main article due to already being created. It doesn't excuse the concerns you're expressing, but I did want to point this out as well. Other than this article, are there other disputes that are currently occurring and in progress where this is an issue? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Good find, Boleyn. It appears this user has created 62 articles with the bulk comprising stubs of volleyball teams and players. The first stub I checked for copyvio Camillo Placì failed. Rather than ANI, this needs to go to either AfC or NPP for clean-up. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah, many have an external link but few have references. I have repeatedly asked if the editor means references by external links, but no response. If you look at their talk page, you'll see many of the articles with these issues such as [94]. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Geogene

For this comment in response to my prior. At what point does such suppression warrant a topic ban? Can someone kindly evaluate? Humanengr (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

"Suppression"? And no, one comment observing that apparent endless sealioning of an issue "looks like trolling" is not ever going to "warrant a topic ban," so I'm not sure what you're proposing to accomplish here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, Humanengr has been aggressively using article and user talk pages to promote personal (non-mainstream/fringe) beliefs and Original Research, and he has persisted without acknowledging the good faith responses of other users. In particular, instead of building on other editors' responses to try to reach synthesis or common ground that might result in article improvement, he responds with leading questions that unilaterally attribute POV to other editors with whom he disagrees. This pattern of interaction is unproductive and provocative and in my opinion, yes, it's what we call "trolling". And far from "suppressing" Humanengr, the editors on American Politics articles have bent over backwards to AGF and try, in vain, to explain basic WP policy and guidelines. If anyone has the energy to document OP's behavior in detail, we could consider some restriction on him to end the huge waste of time and attention he brings with him to these difficult topics. SPECIFICO talk 17:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to point out that Humanengr has, since March 2017, made over 500 edits to Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, but in that same time, only 21 edits to the article itself. I'm not going to dive into that pool of edits to evaluate their quality, but, at least on the surface, it does seems as if Humanengr may be attempting to dominate the discussion by volume of edits, Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking at the WP:CPUSH essay, checking off how many of these things describe what Humanengr has been doing in the Russian interference article every day for months.

* They often edit primarily or entirely on one topic or theme.

* They attempt to water down language, unreasonably exclude, marginalize or push views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV, or give undue weight to fringe theories – pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, marginal nationalist or historic viewpoints, and the like. Like trying over and over again to put "alleged" in front of "Russian interference".

* They frivolously request citations for obvious or well known information. Like they were doing immediately before I called them out on trolling.

* They argue endlessly about the neutral-point-of-view policy and particularly try to undermine the undue weight clause. They try to add information that is (at best) peripherally relevant on the grounds that "it is verifiable, so it should be in."

* They repeatedly use the talk page for soapboxing, and/or to re-raise the same issues that have already been discussed numerous times.

* They hang around forever, wearing down more serious editors and become an expert in an odd kind of way on their niche POV. They outlast their competitors because they're more invested in their point of view.

* They often make a series of frivolous and time-wasting requests for comment, mediation or arbitration, again in an attempt to wear down other editors.

These behaviors would be considered "trolling" pretty much anywhere. Geogene (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure if Humanengr is trolling or just a POV pusher, But I have not been impressed with some of Geogene styles of attack either. Both users I think have issues with NPOV.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I'd like to see some examples of my "issues" with NPOV. Thanks. Geogene (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

[95] is a dismissive comment that implies you accept there was interference we we should accept there was (As no RS does explicitly say there was interference). It is certainly POV pushing as much as the OP is a troll. This can also be seen as POV pushing as you clearly comment on another users motives [96], with this added for good measure[97]. This is (of course) borderline and not actionable, but then neither is the Trolling accusation. But what many of them are (including) the trolling accusations are disruptive in that they make article talk pages about users, not the article. As you say about the IP's here [98] these posts are a huge time sink, and wastes everyones time.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, you claim it's "POV pushing" when I told somebody to quit casting aspersions? [99]. Also, you just accused me of violating NPOV because I accept that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. Are you serious? Geogene (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I said "This can also be seen as POV pushing as you clearly comment on another users motives", as I also went on to say "This is (of course) borderline and not actionable, but then neither is the Trolling accusation.". My point is that (yes) if you want to assume bad faith and read the worst possible motive into a users comments yours can be seen as POV pushing (and how about the first link, are there any RS that say unreservedly that Russia interfered?). No I did not say you violated POV because you accept that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election (which is by the way a POV, one you claim you were saying in an article talk page). I said you claimed RS agreed.Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Let me ask another question. Do you have any sort of positive doubt that Russia was involved in some way in Donald Trump's election? Are you trying to influence the article in that direction? Geogene (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not about my views (or me). Oh and this can also be read as POV pushing, it does not matter what you or I think, what matters is what RS say. Anything else is POV pushing "it did happen and our article must not be allowed to imply otherwise) is POV pushing.Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: this is about you, since you're deeply involved there, and since you have found your way into this thread and begun to throw accusations. And, where are those sources that say it didn't happen? I'm assuming you must have them. Geogene (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

(ec)Slatersteven: That link shows a straightforward summary of the problems with Humanengr's longstanding behavior wrt American Politics. Personally, I would characterize Humanengr as a user who does not understand site policy about due weight and original research, but it's been explained over and over and other editors have concluded his behavior is not constructive and have lost all patience with him. SPECIFICO talk 19:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I said he has issues, I do not agree he is a troll.Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

And if you want to wikilawyer this, I didn't say they were a troll. I said they were trolling.

Which is the same thing, and you know it. But agreeing he has issues, but not the one he had been accused of is not.Slatersteven (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't agree that it is. And I think you should be introduced to WP:SPADE. Geogene (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

(ec)I think both Geogene and Slatersteven are great collegial editors who've made lots of article improvements. "You're a troll" is a personal remark and cannot be evaluated. "You're trolling" describes a specific action and is readily verified or falsified. Humanengr often trolls, according to the definition of that behavior we commonly understand around here. Geogene did not label him a troll, which would be an hurtful personal remark, especially where the problem arises from incompetence rather than ill will or malevolent intention. The two statements are formally and substantively dissimilar. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I've noticed a tendency to not learn from RS, but to constantly push views that can only come from fringe and unreliable ones. This creates endless circular discussions with no progress. This makes them a time sink, where we cover the same stuff again and again. No positive learning curve shown by abandonment of debunked views and adoption of newer and improved ways of seeing things. An inability to see the difference between a RS and an unreliable one gets right to the heart of WP:COMPETENCE. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• I can see how that comment could look like trolling (I can't imagine a person who follows this issue would actually need a citation for that), but I don't think that it was trolling. A number of points could be made by first asking for a citation, and then responding when such is given.

I can't speak to the disruption caused by either party on that page as I've not been paying close attention to it lately, but I will say that I've seen both editors contribute positively to discussions in the past, and haven't seen either behave in an over-the-top partisan manner, or engage in disruptive behavior before. One or both may well have become disruptive in the past few months, but given my experience with them, I'd need to see some pretty clear evidence before accepting it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Denial of the Russian interference went from plausible ignorance to fringe conspiracy theory nonsense over the past +/- 2 years. Of course that could change when the 400 pound basement Hackensack hacker is apprehended. In the meanwhile however, for Humanengr and a collection of IPs to bring up a continuous unfocused stream of carping complaints without the remotest suggestion of workable edit improvements is unacceptable. It doesn't matter whether it's called trolling, it should be prevented and as long as we're here we have the opportunity to craft a fair and constructive restriction on this kind of disruption. SPECIFICO talk 19:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• I think Humanengr (talk · contribs) was extremely unhelpful on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. This is WP:TE. They should stop editing this page or this may finally lead to a topic ban. My very best wishes (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Ongoing disruption from IP 50.254.21.213

The IP 50.254.21.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been a source of ongoing disruption. The user has displayed an astonishing level of WP:IDHT resulting in widespread WP:ADMINSHOP behavior. Combined with a possible misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works along with marginal communication skills on talk pages, the result has been ongoing disruption on multiple pages. A quick scan through their edit history find the following forum and admin shopping:

• User talk:SlimVirgin#external links
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive973#External links
• User talk:NZ Footballs Conscience#Sybil Shearer
• User talk:Barek#external links
• User talk:The Bushranger#external links
• User talk:Dennis_Brown#HELP
• User talk:Seraphimblade#edit war
• User talk:50.254.21.213#WP: FORUMSHOP and consensus
• Talk:Sybil Shearer#The Morrison-Shearer Foundation
• Talk:Helen Balfour Morrison#Foundation link

The user has received at least two warnings to stop the disruption: (here) and (here); To which they have continued to post to the article talk pages as well as pinging yet another editor at User talk:Grnbk222#Helen Balfour Morrison

The only reason I have chosen not to block the user myself over WP:NOTHERE or WP:DISRUPTIVE is I am one of the admins with which the user has shopped their views. I don't believe it comes to the level of WP:INVOLVED, but decided to bring it here just in case someone sees it otherwise. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

This IP user is frustrating and seems to have a real ownership issue of both pages Sybil Shearer and Helen Balfour Morrison. They are a dog with a bone regarding the external link to the Foundation website and Facebook which has resulted in all this. They are a big fan of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST despite being told a number of times about consensus. There editing style is also frustrating with a lack of understanding how to edit and use talk pages and multiple edits on same page because of lack of using preview button. NZFC^(talk) 18:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• I had previously given them a final warning. They have an admitted conflict of interest and been bludgeoning a number of us with the same wall of text. They refuse to capitulate on any point, instead they mis-attribute quotes and keep trying to convince others of the same (mis)interpretation of policy without attempting to understand what anyone else is saying. They aren't here to build an encyclopedia, just to add social media links in a couple of articles. I honestly feel there is no hope for change. I would welcome a long term block, and on the verge of implementing it myself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• Enough's way more than enough at this point (and no, I don't consider myself "involved" because I gave a user a previous warning). Blocked for a week, and will be longer next time if they persist after the block is up. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with the block. There have been far too many posts about those links. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Charlene McMann

I was wondering if Ms. McMann's outing of her IP address [[REDACTED - Oshwah] here] ought to be revdeled? Regards,   Aloha27  talk  18:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll message this user and direct her to the proper place to receive help. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible block evasion by Mariasfixing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

^^ My thoughts as well re: Mariasfixing. I remember this from a couple of summers springs ago. I also remember (quite strongly) that to the extent the husband "put [the subject] on Wikipedia," it was prior to the criminal case and was part of a COI public relations effort to promote the cancer charity (i.e., lest there be any confusion, the article hasn't been put up by a vengeful estranged spouse as part of a smear campaign), and that there is an AN/I thread documenting same, and that at some noticeboardAFD the conclusion was drawn that the article's subject was indeed notable. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

There is this too, FYI. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Good call on the sock puppetry - thanks for digging into this :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Akandkur

Akandkur has been creating errors and adding irrelevant information on KQEH, making the article hard to read. He is not here to build an encyclopedia. He has also been engaged in an edit war. [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be a NOTHERE pattern of editing to me. I see that you've attempted to engage on talk, but you need to either continue doing that, or find someone else to help you deal with their lack of response. Edit warring along with them will get you both blocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I've warned him not to add unsourced content. What Sarek said - keep discussing. If the problem continues then let me know. ElAhrairah ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Deleting opinion in RfC on Talk:Cary Grant

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

---

Hi, folks. I added a Support opinion in a Request for Comments on Talk:Cary Grant. User:Cassianto removed it, writing this has been closed by a bot. I did my best to explain to Cassianto on his talk page that Legobot doesn't actually close RfCs, only humans do, and restored my opinion. Cassianto deleted my comment off his user page, without response, and deleted my comment from the RfC on the article talk page with the edit comment are you doing your best to piss everyone off today?. So, rather than edit war, to reinstate my opinion yet again, I'm asking for administrator assistance. And for some opinions on Cassianto's last question - have I really done my best? I mean, I wasn't really aiming towards that goal; and yet, I have been told that I should try to do my best in everything I do ... --GRuban (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, well, well, you are busy tonight, aren't you. Cassianto^Talk 19:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Cassianto, if the discussion hasn't been formally closed, then it doesn't really matter if the bot's timer has expired. You shouldn't be removing comments there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Talk page trolling

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

---

If someone wants to revoke talk access for this range which is blocked for long-term abuse, they're clearly trolling on the talk page of their current IP. Not notifying them of this discussion. Home Lander (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• For various reasons, I do not want to revoke talk-page access for that entire range, instead, I've semi-protected the talk page that is currently being abused. Let me know if problems resume elsewhere. Courcelles (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

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

@Courcelles: They're now doing the same thing at User talk:2606:A000:6940:3500:419D:8A93:32C0:AEEE, including misuse of unblocking templates, so I think something more needs to be done. Home Lander (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

As a "hacky" solution, I've blocked 2606:A000:6940:3500:0:0:0:0/63 (Note the difference) for 24 hours without talk page access. I don't want to take the block on the /64 to no talk page unless we have to. Courcelles (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer

There's an ongoing situation which does not appear to be getting any better. TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs)

Hammer, as is his habit, and his right, has been busy AfDing articles. A typical example (no involvement of mine) would be Education in Moldova / Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education in Moldova as "Meandering mess with no central topic, no sources, no notability. If there is a topic here, then WP:TNT and start over. This has been sitting to rot for over 10 years and no one will even so much as look at it. "

It's not the AfD that's the issue here, it's the attitude. There is no way "Education in Nambia" is going anywhere, so just what is this AfD expected to achieve - other than an opportunity to slag off editors in general? TNT is not policy (I'm one of those who's long advocated it). There is a stream of those, all of much the same "How about fixing it instead of sitting on your fucking hands?" attitude.

I got involved here: WikiProject Automobiles#Bandini deletions where 18 articles were blanked as redirects in 5 minutes flat, their category speedy deleted as WP:CSD#G6 for being empty (a technically invalid CSD anyway, see WT:Criteria for speedy deletion#G6 on "empty" categories?) and the related category and template XfDed at CfD:Bandini Automobili / TfD:Bandini Automobili. These deletions were robustly opposed. I also warned Hammer that this was heading ANI-wards.

There's plenty more of the same - AfD:List of ecclesiastical abbreviations AfD:Petroleum politics for just a couple.

At AfD:History of Oldham Athletic A.F.C. we see another where there is no chance of that topic being deleted. Closed as an unsurprising speedy keep. After which all of the keep !voters were then boilerplated with "So are you going to fix History of Oldham Athletic A.F.C. with the sourcing that supposedly exists, or are you going to just let it stink up the wiki forever?! "

Given that I'd just removed his prod of Sterilant gas monitoring and fixed up the issues involved, I do not need or deserve this sort of abuse.

It is not acceptable to stalk opposing !votes like this. Certainly not in this continuing context. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• I replied that way because none of the Oldham !votes addressed how the article was notable. They were just WP:USEFUL, WP:ILIKEIT, and WP:DEADLINE, none of which are valid rationales for keeping an article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

No, you are lying here. RetiredDuke gave you six sources for it, right in that AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

To clarify my own position here, I would like to delete it per IDONTLIKEIT. It is sports content, I have zero interest in it being here (and I'm also the last person able to expand it). But that is not policy, so it doesn't count for anything. The topic, given its significance, is a shoo-in for GNG and (as confirmed by the sources given) there will be sources around for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See also this very recent thread at WT:MILHIST; TPH has been on something of a spree lately of nominating obviously-notable topics on the basis that he hasn't heard of them or doesn't like the sourcing. This isn't a new issue—TPH has been doing it for close to a decade—but the problem seems to have significantly intensified recently; as well as the AFD activities Andy Dingley raises above, I'd estimate that whenever I clear out CAT:EX at least 50% of the WP:PROD nominations I decline as inappropriate turn out to have been nominated by TPH when I check the history. ‑ Iridescent 21:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Check out for Articles_for_deletion/Cliff_Padgett as well; there is a series for false claims about inability to source. (The fellow shows up, in context, in good sources, from a simple Google search.) Before that, it was PRODed] with a rather low-key edit summary. Anmccaff (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest making a list of editors who post the most PRODs that are declined, double check to make sure that it isn't one admin doing all the declining, then topic banning the editors on the top of the list from PRODing articles.

This is getting a little meta-, but I'd suggest doing no such thing unless you also checked it against AfDs, too. Anmccaff (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't check PRODs at all, because they can be removed for any, and indeed spurious, reasons. AfDs would be the only metric to use here. Black Kite (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Meh. There's guaranteed to be someone at the top of the list regardless, so that's not automatically evidence of a problem. Reyk _YO! 08:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Most of this was me trying to clean out the backlog at Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field. Most of the articles I found were in such dire shape that I felt WP:TNT was the only way to treat them. And it infuriates me when people scream for a "keep" in an AFD but are utterly unwilling to do the legwork to unfuck the article. So it gets stuck in an endless loop of "Keep, it's notable, here are sources." -> no one adds sources -> Article looks like trash -> Gets nominated for AFD for looking like trash -> "Keep, it's notable, here are sources." -> no one adds sources, on and on and on. It wouldn't get under my skin so much if the people who are clamoring for the sources they find would add them to the article because it's really not that fucking hard.

That said, I'm going to be less deletion crazy next time I attempt to plow through a backlog that big. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The thing is, you either did not bother to check for sources, or you checked and lied about it. That's not a minor error. Anmccaff (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:ATD is policy, TPH. Trying to use AfD to clear a cleanup backlog is inappropriate, disruptive and, as you surely must have noticed by now, futile. We don't delete articles for fixable content problems and editors who !vote to keep an article because they think it is fixable are under no obligation to work on it. It's not a case of "being less deletion happy", it's paying attention to what deletion is actually for and doing your due diligence so that you're not wasting others' time. – Joe (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• It's also a shame that when Andy Dingley removed the PROD from Sterilant gas monitoring and spent a while cleaning it up, he didn't check that at least half of it was a copyright violation. Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a point, or are you just shit-stirring? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Charming. But, yeah, the somewhat obvious point would be that if you're going to remove a PROD from something, it might be a good idea to actually check it for obvious issues, but perhaps that's just me. Black Kite (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• No action: I don't see trolling here. Just a deletionism-inclusionism dispute that's boiled over to a noticeboard. When someone holds a belief that's different from yours as to policy and practice, it's entirely possible for that belief to be held sincerely, and for those actions to be taken in good faith. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Have you read the comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles#Bandini_deletions? Bulk-blanking 18 articles in 5 minutes (so no actual review of each) with descriptions of "not notable", "all technical garbage", "redundant and all technical crap" and "unsourced fanwank" is not a valid attempt to clean up anything, it's an excuse to slag other editors. Then boilerplating the keep !voters [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] is not any part of the AfD process that I recognise. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

What's bold redirects have to do with this? Redirecting poorly-sourced small articles containing primarily technical details to a master article is good practice. Frankly, all those articles should be merged and redirected to something like List of Bandini Automobili vehicles, and all the cruft should be removed. As to the talk page messages, they may be a bit confrontational, but again, this is WikiPolitics: deletion vs. inclusion. It's not trolling, let alone sanctionable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

And here[111] is another case of inadequate prod summaries. There is clearly an abuse of procedure here. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC).

• Comment TPH has also been using "No sourcing found" as a reason to delete well-sourced articles. For example, List of Marvell Technology Group chipsets has no less than 36 references. –dlthewave ☎ 01:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

And this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detrended correspondence analysis had plenty of sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC).

Just stumbled over that. Got my goat too. This reminds me of someone angrily lashing out at things that don't fall into their personal area of interest or understanding. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't think it's "trolling", per se, but the fact of the matter is that when I first became an admin back in the halcyon days of 2011, I quickly noticed that, WP:HAMMER-subjects aside, TPH's nominations at xFD were...we'll call them spotty at best, and they have not improved - if anything, they've gotten worse, with nominations that indicate a complete failure of WP:BEFORE (for instance the nomination of {{Petty family}} for deletion, which was refuted with five seconds at Google - and, some times, the distinct impression the subject being nominated wasn't even read. I'm not sure what can be done here, procedurally, as TPH does do good work, but he needs at least to spend more time researching topics before nominating, as this is a continuing behavorial issue. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I suggest a week's ban on prods and AfDs, to be extended for a further period if behavior does not improve. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC).

• Not "trolling", but as Iridescent says above, ill-advised deletion attempts have been an issue with TPH for about a decade. He gets impatient about articles that are in poor shape and slaps Prod and AfD tags willy-nilly. Then people complain (and sometimes topic bans or blocks are suggested) and he takes it easy for a while. The last RFC/U (remember those?) in 2012, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TenPoundHammer, led to an endorsement by TPH that "some of his nominations to AfD are problematic and will endeavor to make nominations more in line with current community consensus". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment – The user's recent commentary at AfD discussions is troubling, such as ordering users what to do, belittling, ad hominem statements and swearing at them. See below for examples. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Diff – "You just admitted there is no sourcing, yet it's notable anyway? On what planet do you live?"
• Diff – "You seem lost. Sources go in the article, not in the AFD. Try again."
• Diff – "So are you going to fix it, or are you going to just let the article fester and rot forever?"
• Diff – "You seem to have confused the AFD for the article. IF you find sources, put them in the article, not in the AFD. Try again."
• Diff – "And saying that there are sources = adding them to the article right? If there are souces, WHERE THE FUCKING FUCK ARE THEY and why are they not in the article? Don't say there are sources unless you can fucking prove it yourself, mmkay? Otherwise, I could say there are sources out there on my own ass, and it could have a fucking article."
• Diff – "And that means the article is now automatically FA right? No one ever needs to do anything to it again? It's notable, it's the best thing ever on this goddamn wiki? How about fixing it instead of sitting on your fucking hands?"
• Diff – "So trivial that you didn't even add them to the article. Because you clearly believe that saying "I found sources" is the same thing as adding them to the article right? They will just magically add themselves."
• Diff – "Again, finding the source means it automatically adds itself to the article, right? Nothing more has to be done here? It's automatically turned into an FA just because you found that? If you're going to argue notability and dig up sources, then how much harder is it to fucking add them? I see this all the time: people scream their heads off that it's notable, argue that it be kept, but no one ever adds the sources, so 10 years later the article is still an unsourced trainwreck."
• Diff – "What's stopping you from adding them? AGain, are you expecting the article to magically turn into an FA overnight just because you said keep? If you're gonna talk the talk, walk the walk. Not that fucking hard."

• Comment This user, in addition to clearly working against WP:CIVILITY, does not often reference proper deletion policy, acknowledge WP:GNG, and their WP:BEFORE checks have been incredibly insufficient (if they are even performed). It took me 20 seconds to find that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuel Asajile Mwambulukutu fulfilled WP:NPOL. I've suggested to them that if they are really oh so bothered by the poor quality of certain articles, they ought to make the fixes themselves (curiously, they did not respond). These accusations that other users do all the work are rather hypocritical. After all, if it's "not that fucking hard" for someone else to add cited info with new sources, then surely TPH can do it themselves, "fixing it instead of sitting on [their] fucking hands". I don't consider this trolling; TPH isn't disrupting the system for the sake of disruption. They just want to get rid of things because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This user has been around too long to be unaware of the criteria for deletion and ignorant of how to conduct a proper BEFORE (aka Google search and clicking). They should know better. I for one would like to see them topic banned from AfD until they demonstrate some civility and an understanding of deletion policy and BEFORE. Otherwise they are just wasting more of our time with Deletion nominations that should never have been thrown into the queue in the first place. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment- This looks like TPH making a bunch of ill-advised deletion nominations and exasperated comments at how crappy some sections of Wikipedia are, but not trolling. Reyk _YO! 08:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe not for the PRODs and AfDs, but when it comes to these, after the AfD has closed, [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] I find it hard to think of any other term for it. It's a closed AfD, even though he then re-filed it immediately afterwards (and then thought better of it) so just what are these comments intended for, or likely to have the effect of? They won't change the article, all they're going to achieve is to gratuitously piss off a bunch of editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - this will go around in circles until TenPoundHammer gets a topic ban from the deletion process. fish&karate 09:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• I understand his frustration. There are a number of articles - a very large number in fact - whose current content fails core policy, but whose subjects are asserted to be notable and thus they are defended. This is an existential conflict between "the subject is notable, therefore the article must exist and it's not my job to render it compliant with policy" and "the article is not compliant with policy so should be nuked regardless of the importance of the subject" (ake WP:TNT). This struggle is as old as Wikipedia and will never go away. My suggestion to TPH is to try stubbing them instead. Just nuke the no-compliant content and recognise that any article that is part of Wikipedia's international directory of education topics will never be deleted. We don't need to re-fight the school wars. Guy (Help!) 11:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • ​The thing is, he's not restricting himself to pages whose current content fails core policy, and it's fairly clear from his deletion rationales that he's not actually reading the articles either; he's just slapping deletion tags on anything he doesn't like the sound of. As a very recent example, this is what Chad–Sudan relations looked like at the moment he tagged it for deletion with a rationale of No basis for an article. Like most X-Y relations articles, this is just a random slapdash collection with no focus; for the benefit of those who aren't aware, the borderland between Chad and Sudan is better known in the west as Darfur and the uneasy relationship between the two countries is one of the most significant in Africa, and if TPH had even performed a 30-second skim-read he'd have been aware of this. This isn't a one-off but a consistent pattern; as well as the assorted examples given in the OP and the claim that the Battle of Pęcice must have been a hoax because he'd never heard of it and his lying about there being "no sources" when I pointed out that I'd found multiple RSs within two minutes, we have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latin house, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petroleum politics, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public domain film just from a dip-sample in the last few days. ‑ Iridescent 16:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. Most of this bilateral relations articles are either a series of news stories or blatant OR, but I take the point. However, I also share TPH's frustration with people who !vote Keep, assert that there are sources, and leave an article unsourced or otherwise crappy. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

There are two points of concern here:

• There is clearly no attempt to follow WP:BEFORE here. While a one-off AFD nomination without BEFORE could be understood, and a few of these look obvious that BEFORE wouldn't have helped, most show that the AFD nominator should have done work ahead of time to better justify the reason to AFD the articles. AFD is not cleanup. The AFD process is geared to put the onus on those deleting, though if the issue is something completely unsourced, then yes, those !voting keep need to be doing some legwork to avoid deletion via WP:V.
• WP:FAIT is also appropriate here. While the breadth of the articles do not necessary impact one set of editors too much, still nominating this many articles at one time is flooding the system (particularly admins and regular AFD editors). This FAIT point would likely be less of an issue if the first point about BEFORE had been followed, but this still should be kept in mind.

Why we ask these is not something well documented in policy so I can fully see TPH's argument that they were using tools available to do necessary cleanup work. That's a reasonable AGF argument, but that's why TPH should be well aware now that this is not the approach to take in the future. --Masem (t) 16:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment -- I am not an admin, and am currently mainly patrolling CFD and the AFD lists for History and Christianity, which is as much as I currently have time for. Most of my time is devoted to editing a book on the history of the iron industry, which often contains research based on primary sources. If I come across blatant mistakes I correct them: in one recent case I was mistaken and my edit was very properly reverted. The problem as I see it is that certain editors are nominating articles for AFD, because they lack (or have inadequate) in-line references. However WP:V requires that content should be verifiable, not that it should be verified by in-line references. A distinction needs to be drawn between articles that are not credible and are probably WP:OR and those which may be correct, but lack references. Some of these will require research in secondary (or even primary) sources, because relevant and credible material (WP:RS) is not available on-line. The right answer in such cases is to tag the article for its defects, in the hope that some one will fix them. As far as I am aware there is no time limit for this. TenPoundHammer's fault seems to applying a time limit, rather than devoting his time to fixing those defects that he can fix. Some of these may require the editor to have access to a library or even primary (archival) sources, but not every book is available in every library, and archives (unless digitised or filmed) are generally only available in a single repository. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Potential WP:NLT violation

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

---

Nice short and sweet one. Vaugnandco00001111 was reverted by CBNG, so the user decided to come to my talk page with... not so much threats, but anyway, you'll see. Helpful Link: User talk:Rich Smith#JAMES O'TOOLE WIKI ENTRY

Cheers!

-- - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 22:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Panix comics

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

---

A very new and very combative editor is making non-constructive edits that do not follow MOS or grammar; has edited others' comments on a talk page; has started an RfC with a contentious and heated post rather than a neutral statement or question; and is edit-warring despite my good-faith attempts at discussion — as well as admin C.Fred's request [118] that this editor "propose some smaller edits that can be more easily evaluated" in discussion, rather than edit-war.

On January 12, Panix comics, made edits to Marshall Rogers that were filled with non-constructive edits such as

• an unexplained deletion [119],
• a large number of MOS errors and grammatical errors (for example, see line beginning "Rogers Born in Flushing, Queens, NY" here),
• and clunky, non-encyclopedic-tone (for example, see sentence containing "his heart wasn't totally committed to it" here).

After I reverted [120], stating those reasons, he did not follow WP:BRD but instead began of series of edits restoring his non-constructive additions and adding more (see edits of 21:17 - 21:53, 13 January 2018‎).

I restored the last stable version and began discussion at Talk:Marshall Rogers#Today's edits on 01:20, 13 January 2018. There he gave a hostile reply with the uncivil edit summary ""Tenebrae - war on editors". He again began edit-warring on the article, and at some point — and it's hard to tell because his talk-page posts are non-chronological and all over the place — he began an RfC with a screed containing phrases such as "I fixed this and then it was reverse make false claims as to me not identifying the reasons for the edits" and "he seems intent on zero sum rollbacks and refuses discussion or compromise." Obviously, that's not a neutral statement or question, which I pointed out here.

After C.Fred urged discussion, I wholeheartedly agreed [121]. After Panix comics replied, I posted the first of my comments about his edits here.

And that began a series of nasty, insulting comments by him that displayed little or no understanding of Wikipedia policies, guidelines or MOS (starting here). Additionally, he posted a series wall-of-text responses with poor grammar and lots of meandering. And he edited my comments by changing my subhead and by confusingly inserting his comments within my own. He also blatantly added a subhead ("refusal to collaberate" [sic]") above one of my sentences ("What are your thoughts?") that he separated from a larger post.

I asked him to please put his talk-page posts in chronological order and not within other editors' comments, so that we could properly continue discussion [122]. That request was met with another nasty reply, insisting it's "normal" to edit others' comments by sticking your own within them! [123]

It gets worse. I made that request at Monday 23:00, 15 January 2018. I was then away from Talk:Marshall Rogers for one day, returning today, Wednesday, 21:57, 17 January 2018‎ ... and in the meantime, that one day was enough for him to accuse me of "refusing" to collaborate. He unilaterally restored his contentious, poorly written and non-MOS version ... with the barely comprehensible edit summary "RFC and refusal to colab or discus" [sic].

After days of this, including my own genuine, perfectly reasonable attempt to discuss specific edits (here), I think his abusive and combative behavior needs to be brought to admin attention. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Note that it is considered normal in some contexts to comment within a thread. Since he's a new editor, he probably just needs to adjust. It took me a while to get used to it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This situation looks WP:BITEy to me. I agree that Panix comics' edits were poor quality and that the original seems to be better, just from a basic English perspective, but I also understand why they got annoyed with Tenebrae's response. To a new editor, an edit summary like "rvt numerous inexplicable, non-constructive edits by an editor with one day editing Wikipedia" looks a lot like "I've been here longer than you so I get to revert what I don't like", especially when it's the initial piece of communication (and followed by this). Maybe both parties should step back for a day or so, do something off-Wikipedia, and then return with a clear head. Marianna251TALK 00:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, WP:TPO states, "Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points; this confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent." And I did ask him politely to restore my edits, rather than touch his talk-page edits myself. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Continuous IP disruption on NFL subjects

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

---

It has been almost a month since this IP was released from their previous block, and 98.167.47.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to add material without sources as well as speculative information about future events. Also pinging Jauerback as the last administrator to block this IP in December. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 03:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

He's pretending Minnesota and Jacksonville are already going to the Super Bowl. A block would seem to be in order. At least until after February 4! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Three months this time. And it'll probably be Seaman vs. Rhinos again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Assistance needed at AfD

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

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woody Allen sexual assault allegations has been open for nine days. Coffee has arrived and instead of closing it, he has relisted, announced that he will probably close it and that he will be doing something unusual, although it's not clear what. I'm concerned that this sounds like a plan to cast a supervote, and I've asked him not to close it. Would an uninvolved admin please decide whether it ought to be closed, and if so how, or whether it ought to remain relisted? SarahSV ^(talk) 03:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I appreciate you taking this concern over here (so as to not pull the AFD off track). It is common practice for any deletion discussion to be relisted if consensus cannot be found after the first set 7 days (this will sometimes be a few days longer due to administrative lag). This can happen up to twice, and in some rare cases 3 times. Each of these relists are for an additional 7 days. This is only this discussions first relist, after I determined that consensus was not clear yet. My rather long (and self-admittedly unorthodox) relisting comment, is just to point out to the community that I am trying something new: A bi-gender administrative close of a potentially contentious topic which if a single gender closes may cause a form of bias to be displayed. Interestingly enough, and I don't know if you realized this, the main reason I even thought to do this was because I noticed your statement in the AFD about the perceived male-gender bias that is manifested in Wikipedia on some of the sexual assault/harassment allegations (or beyond) articles. I took that into severe consideration, and pondered on how to come up with a good way to fix this from becoming an issue. This isn't the first time I've seen the type of concern brought up, but it was the first time I had seen it discussing a possible misuse of BLP to stifle female editor or female article subject opinions. I knew that the most likely gender who would close this in 7 days time, not with nefarious intent but just out of the nature of our site's gender ratio, would likely be male. And as I've been in discussions with several former female administrators/oversighters/checkusers/editors, who all have stated they left because of the perceived toxic nature of some of the males here, I took a step back and questioned if just letting this get closed without ensuring the closing administrator wasn't missing anything was the best idea. I decided that it wasn't. So, I thought ensuring that two administrators from two sides of the gender spectrum closed it would be the most non-controversial way forward... as counter-intuitive as that sounds. I hope that's a bit of a better explanation. And I hope you can see how I don't intend to do anything more than evaluate the consensus in 7 days time with a second pair of eyes. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisting is for discussions where "insufficient discussion took place to determine a consensus or lack thereof". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions. There has been sufficient discussion to determine that there is consensus or that there is no consensus.

I can see the appeal of multi-gender closes, but they wouldn't necessarily solve anything (sexism can come from anywhere). And in this case, there has been sufficient discussion, so any uninvolved admin would be able to close it. No special set-up is needed. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Why would they not solve anything? That comment surprises me honestly, I would have thought the status quo was seen as not solving anything. Would it not at least be a positive step to try this out before making such a harsh judgement of it? Has it even been tried before? What happened to the days of "being bold" and trying new things to solve problems on this site? At any rate, the relist is final. Even if I decide to not go forward on the bi-gender close in 7 days... as apparently the person I thought would appreciate it the most, does not like the idea of trying to do it at all. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Coffee, this is a routine AfD. It doesn't need special handling. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

That's not how you made it sound in your original comments at the AFD regarding the interpretations of BLP that you had seen, but whatever. I don't know why I even try sometimes. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• The last thing this project needs is the impugning of editors' capacity to carry out routine functions because of where on the "gender spectrum" they are. EEng 04:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

A discussion can be relisted if it's believed further discussion might lead to a clearer result. I'm not sure that one's a hopeless no consensus. That being said, I object to someone who relisted a discussion being the one to close it, let alone trying to "reserve the right" to close it. After the discussion has run for at least seven days, any admin can close the discussion if they believe either a clear result has been reached or there's little chance one will be. And I've always thought admins who relist discussions and then close them can give the appearance of trying to put the discussion back until the result they favor is reached, whether or not that was in fact their intent. So, if it got relisted it got relisted, but let the close take place in the natural course of things, and absolutely not on a relister "reserving" the close. I also firmly disagree that an editor's gender should be taken into consideration for performing a function as normal as closing a discussion, and think that's a very poor example to be setting. So, I don't necessarily disagree with the relisting, but I strongly disagree with everything that comes after. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Meh. I don't care about it enough to get my head chopped off at the stake. I just wanted to try a new possible way to solve a very old problem here. The relist is staying, but I'll remove everything after since it's such a terrible thing to try to ensure our very long and obvious history of male editor bias, and very long and obvious history of low female editor/administrator retention has any fix at all. Let's just keep the status quo as it is forever. I hope everyone else can also post a 300 word reply about how obviously terrible and outrageous a move this was for me to do. Good day y'all. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• The relisting is good: I had looked at this earlier today and thought about doing it myself, but decided to pass. I tend to agree with Seraphimblade in terms of my general views on relisting (admins should generally avoid relisting and closing). That being said, i know of at least one specific instance where a current arb relisted with commentary and announced their intent to close. I was critical of it then as a bad idea, but I also don’t think it is any policy violation, and it is something that is done even if I personally don’t like it. I also don’t see why this is at ANI: from Coffee’s response it seems he would have been perfectly fine talking about it on his talk page. Might I suggest this thread be closed and any further discussion take place there if it is needed? It seems to have been largely resolved. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Disclose: I recommended "keep" at the AfD. I disagree with relisting in this fashion and trying to create gender balanced administrator closing teams. This matter is straightforward and requires no innovative gymnastics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• TonyBallioni, I brought it here for wider input, and I'd prefer to keep it here. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• It’s not an incident that needs administrator intervention. His talk page was the first place you should have gone, where he would likely have backed down from the creative close like he did here. Everything here is resolved per Coffee’s responses, and I think you should close this yourself. There is literally nothing to review other than the relisting itself now, and that is well within the norm of administrative discretion at AfDs, not to mention I’ve never seen a XfD relist by an admin reviewed in any forum, much less ANI. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• I don't mind closing this myself, but I disagree that he would have changed his mind had I gone to his talk; otherwise I would have done it. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• I can close it if you'd like. I'm a neutral party and have no bias or involvement here - shouldn't be a problem :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Plagiarism

Active plagiarism by User:Starple on page Joyce Carol Oates

diffs https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joyce_Carol_Oates&type=revision&diff=820230359&oldid=819822500

I believe it violates WP:PLAG Specifically section 1.1.2. I also believe it violates WP:NPOV. Can an admin review please, and see if it's a violation? S806 (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

User:86.20.193.222

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

---

This user is trying so hard to be a smart ass in my view, I don't find the comments here above my response constructive. Could a administrator have a look at this? I seriously don't want to speak to not-registered users and if they would like to contribute then they should register. And if they continue to lets say cyber-bully they should be blocked! They've already had a number of warnings on its talk page but no action. And not to mention the signature which I use was copied and edited and it was originally an administrators signature can't remember which one though. Central · Python ✉ 18:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@CentralPython: I suggest you lose your "don't want to speak to not-registered users" attitude pretty darn quick. You also failed to notify the IP that you posted here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @CentralPython: Tbh, your reply was hardly conducive to a collegiate editing atmosphere ("Don't gve a shit about the sig bit" does not persuade me that you are in the business of taking criticism—however possibly unfounded—calmly). You could've discussed it on the IP's talk (and no, a template does not constitute an attempt at discussion) before filing at AN/I. Over-reaction, much? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry! I'll loose that attitude then. But it doesn't explain the IP's attitude to me. Central · Python ✉ 18:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@CentralPython: The IP made a valid observation. You then dialed up the aggressiveness unnecessarily. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

No attitude here.I removed one comment that the user made - diff. My edit summary should have been enough, but I took the additional trouble of notifying the user [124].

If we AGF on the OP in the helpdesk thread, then I feel it is entirely inappropriate to say "check out #myhotwife"; but I am prepared to discuss that.

I have no 'attitude' toward the user, other than I believe their helpdesk comment was - just as I wrote previously - an "unhelpful comment, not conducive to helping users" - and I believe that removing it was helpful towards to goals of Wikipedia.

86.20.193.222 (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Perhaps the administratori looking at this might inform Mr. Design that calling fellow Wikipedians a "smart ass" is not helpful. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @86.20.193.222|IP 86.20.193.222, I'm missing the connection between CentralPython and Nualdesign, could you clarify? Cheers, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I think both parties involved just need to agree to mutually stop with the uncivil comments being made toward one another - and agree to pick up the discussion on the right foot civility-wise. You both were throwing sticks at one another; just calm down and agree that things went off on the wrong foot and take the discussion to a positive direction from there. That way, we can consider this ANI discussion closed and just move on... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah, please show me where I was uncivil? Many thanks, 86.20.193.222 (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Sorry, I don't think this is a case where both sides are equally at fault. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 86.20.193.222 - I apologize. I just realized that I worded my response above terribly wrong. I've modified it to better reflect what I was trying to say. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 - it's concerning my recent activity posting on the helpdesk; my contribs will show the full story if you wish.

Oshwah, thank you for actually investigating.

I would be extremely happy to be accused of a mis-step and shown evidence of such, but I see nothing of that nature here.

I see nothing requiring admin action, other than a trout to Mr. Python.86.20.193.222 (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

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