Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DrFleischman (talk | contribs) at 00:15, 25 July 2018 (→‎Request for full prot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

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

    Start a new discussion

    Incorrect and defamatory statement on the Wikipedia page about me

    On the Wikipedia page about me at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Brezsny, there is a statement at top that goes as follows:

    "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies."

    It is absolutely untrue that there have been payments from me to anyone to create or edit this page. Please remove this incorrect and defamatory statement.

    I requested that this be removed three days ago, and no action has been taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspiratrix (talk • contribs) 03:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The statement does not say who made the alleged payments, it only says that payments were allegedly made, so why do you assume it is about you? If, for instance, you have a publicist, which seems likely given your profession, the publicist could have made those alleged payments without you even being aware of them. Hence, there is no defamation here -- but in any case, you should be aware of our WP:No legal threats policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I checked Inspiratrix's edits on that page, and while they have a few edits, they aren't COI type edits. It's clearly other editors that created the issues. --Masem (t) 04:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The implication is that the article is biased in favor of the subject and that he paid for this result. There is no reason to believe that. There is nothing in the article that is biased for or against the subject. The tags should be removed. TFD (talk) 05:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the implication is that someone paid someone to write or edit the article. Your conclusion is an inference. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree the notice creates innuendo that the subject is associated with unethical self-promotion. It is a BLP issue. If merely conjecture, the notice should go to the talk page. If based on evidence, the tag should point to the evidence, and we should respond in a timely manner to resolve the problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth I think {{COI}} was a better template for this occasion, as despite of the promotional languages, it doesn't really have the hallmarks of the typical undisclosed paid editing in my opinion. Alex Shih (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we don't have any evidence for paid activity, or at least some sound reasoning based on credible suspicion, then I think the tag should be removed. It is a BLP after all, and the tag does imply nefarious activity. If it is based on this, then I don't see that as justifying it at all - creating an account and making suggestions on the talk page is exactly what the subject of a BLP (or other editor with a COI) should do. If there's evidence that the BLP subject has been editing the article directly rather than via talk page suggestions, then I see it as a COI thing rather than PAID. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, having properly read the very recent contributions of Ronald Joe Record at the talk page, I take that all back - "We are attempting to improve the content and citations" along with the rest of their way of arguing really does suggest marketing/promotional activity. I'm now neutral on whether the tag is appropriate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Foremost in the decision should be respect and the dignity of the subject, per the WMF resolution. The complaint here is a reasonable one, and a vague suspicion of paid editing is a matter for talk page discussion, not appear to be a public allegation in a large notice. I have been bold and removed the notice diff. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse the removal of the tag as a courtesy to the article subject, but not as a validation of the user who was edit warring to retain promotional content. I have issued them a DS alert as well as lengthy advice on the talk page, including warnings against continued disruptive behavior. Swarm ♠ 08:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would assume - and I may be wrong - that if you're going to slap a "undisclosed paid" template on an article you should explain why you feel that this is the case on the talk page, particularly if it's not immediately obvious. Fish+Karate 08:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been well handled by Jytdog and Melcous, appropriately, by editing the article and Fae removed the tag. I'm now having a crack at the associated World Entertainment War article. Nice work. Inspiratrix, if you do have a publicist, it might be worth mentioning to them that their best course of action is requesting edits on talk pages of any artists they represent, because publicists' efforts here often backfire, first on their client, and then, presumably, the client may get irritated enough to find a new publicist.

    FWIW, I neither agree that the tag was defamatory (note the word "may") nor do I think your post here was a legal threat. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    And FWIW on my part, I never said that there was a legal threat made, I merely pointed an editor who had used the legal term "defamation" towards our NLT policy so they would know the limits of what was allowed. A courtesy more than anything else. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    From Inspiratrix: There has been mention of a supposed publicist here when referring to me. Maybe I should have a publicist, but I don't, and haven't had one since 2005, when I hired a publicist for three months to help promote my book "Pronoia Is the Antidote for Paranoia."
    As for the music references, I'm not sure what you mean when you say one is an "op ed," and when you say that two are not independent. The articles in the Good Times, Popmatters.com, and Gnosis magazine are not op-ed and are independent in every way I can conceive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspiratrix (talk • contribs) 04:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    {{ping}Inspiratrix}} Please do insert your replies into the middle of someone else' comment. It disrupts the flow of the discussion and makes it difficult to tell who is saying what. I've moved your comment (just above this) to the correct placement. Also, please "sign" your comment at the end by using 4 tildes, i.e. ~~~~. The system will respond to this by adding your account name and a date/time stamp. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Damn! I can't do an f'ing ping correctly to save my life. @Insporatrix: Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    See what I mean? I give up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond My Ken, You also wrote "Please do insert your replies into the middle of someone else' comment." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yikes! Obviously I meant "do not" - thinking faster than my fingers can type. Thanks for the catch. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Inspiratrix asks Beyond my Ken: Thanks for your note of advice. I'm not sure where to put my comments so that it's clear they're a response to someone els'e comments. Can you offer guidance? Inspiratrix (talk) 06:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Just put your response directly after the end of the comment you're responding to. Use colons to indent: one more colon than the comment you're responding to is the norm. If there have been intervening comments from other editors, and you think it will be unclear who you are responding to, you can put the name of the editor at the beginning of the comment, as in: "@Beyond My Ken: Thanks for your note..." And make sure you're posting in the correct thread - I rescued the comment above from a thread further down the page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll say what I think is obivious--that if the subject of the article contacted an editor, and if that editor starts editing, and if then another editor jumps on that bus, and if then a third editor say "not so fast", sees a poorly written, non-neutral article with absolutely lousy sources and a bunch of linkspam, if all that happens it would be a good idea for the first editor to explain what this contact was about, and for the second editor to not start throwing accusations around. As usual, though, I'm sure sunlight is the best disinfectant: my thanks to all the editors who took an interest in the article, first of all Kleuske. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I swore off engaging with User:Drmies but that seems to have lasted about 5 hours. The narrative he constructs here is orthogonal to the one I perceived transpire rapidly over the course of the last few days. First of all, the Rob Brezsny astrological empire is not paying people to edit Wikipedia. He's not Trump. He's not even Beyonce. He's a writer with an astrology column, a few very good books under his belt, and credits for a couple of songs subsequently recorded by Jefferson Starship. Drmies came in and made such substantive deletions to the article that I initially thought it must be vandalism. I said so in the comment to my revert, taking the page back to the last agreed upon revision. I opened a discussion on the talk page to resolve this. The editor, who I subsequently learned is on the arbitration committee, provided sparse replies on the talk page and completely disregarded the main issue which was his tag bombing of the page including an Undisclosed payments tag. Most of all this has been resolved and I am posting this comment here only for the record. The editor, in my opinion, was combative, aggressive, and most importantly adversarial. There was little to no attempt at collaboration. I opened several sections on the talk page attempting to engage and even added a comment on his talk page attempting to lighten the tone and give him some respect. But all these overtures were met with continued vitriol. There is no evidence and no indication that anyone is taking any money for editing this article. It's ludicrous. The addition of the Undisclosed payments tag in the absence of ANY evidence or indication of ill will is, in my opinion, a violation of the assumption of good will policy. There are a number of really odd comments and maybe misperceptions in this comment thread I would like to comment on but do not have the time right now. One of them, however, I would like to get some clarification on. User: Boing! said Zebedee said that my comment "We are attempting to improve the content and citations" really does suggest marketing/promotional activity. I'm trying to understand how my statement of intent to improve suggests promotional activity. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • (1) Long unbroken paragraphs are difficult to read online, and you should consider expressing your thoughts in smaller sections. If you don't, expect to see comments such as "TL,DNR", meaning "Too long, did not read"
    • (2) It's not in any way "ludicrous". Paid editing is a problem on Wikipedia, it's happened before, it's happening now, and it will happen again. The integrity of the encyclopedia is at stake, and we take that very seriously. That you were momentarily discomfited is hardly of paramount concern.
    • (3) Drmies is not a member of the Arbitration Committee, they are a former member of the Arbitration Committee, having served out their term and choosing not to run again. Nevertheless, Drmies is an administrator, a long-term editor, and a respected member of the Wikipedia community, with a great deal of integrity.
    • (4) Your comments here and on the article talk page show quite clearly that you have a conflict of interest in regard to Rob Brezsny, in that you are obviously incapable of adhering to a neutral point of view concerning them. Whatever the reason is for this, I have no idea, but the inability to edit neutrally is very apparent. I would suggest that you follow the recommended procedures in the WP:COI policy and do not edit the Rob Brezsny article again, instead making suggestions for edits on the talk page, and allowing other, unbiased, editors decide whether to implement them.
    Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • BMK, "integrity"? Ha! I appreciate it, though. As for Doctorfree--BMK, I have, on occasion, made fun of your BOLD and UNDERLINING, but I have always admired your paragraphing: a model to follow. I understand that Doctorfree is still having a hexagonal or orthogonal or diametrical issue with me, but I'm afraid it goes over my head. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know that my bolding and so forth is idiosyncratic, and may put some people off, but as my son says, it makes the words on the page sound exaclty as I would say them, which is my goal: to avoid misinterpretation by providing in some small measure what is missing from words in print - tone of voice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Just mentioning something in support/clarification of point 2, RJR you seem to have the misapprehension that only extremely rich and famous people have had paid editing for them. This isn't the case. Actually the biggest problem tends to IMO come from fairly unknown people. This may be because there are a lot more of them.

    But it's probably also because for such a person, a wikipedia article is often a very important part of what people learn about them. The fact that the subject is here complaining is of course evidence that they do care, and I'm in no way saying I blame them or that indicates fault. Further the people who tend to be involved in promoting them are often a lot less informed about acceptable standards. They themselves are also probably more likely to want to get directly involved in getting the article on them, in their view, fixed or improved. I have no idea about the specifics of this case, so my comment in no way suggests that this actually happened but you mentioned books and music. There are often minor PR people in the publisher who occasionally do work to to promote the work and part of that is often promoting the person. </p

    And as said, speaking generally even a direct payment isn't particularly surprising. It's not like it's tens of thousands of dollars. In fact, if someone in a developing country on a freelancer site is being hired, it could be less than the cost of a simple (i.e. not fine dining) restaurant meal in many developed countries without any alcohol served. Or a weeks worth of coffees.

    And relatively unknown people are hiring people for PR and related work all the time. I had a quick look at the article in question and sure enough found a webpage. It's possible this was entirely self designed and hosted but I doubt it. In any case even if this is true, domain names nowadays can be cheap but still aren't free (well .com 2LD anyway) and the WHOIS on that fairly specific domain suggests it's been registered since 2000.

    Again, to be clear, I'm not suggesting any paid editing happened. I know hardly anything about the case. I'm simply suggesting your incredulousness that it could have happened simply because the person is relatively unknown makes little sense since it's happened for people who are even less known who are far poorer than this person.

    Nil Einne (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Doctorfree, whenever someone says "we", there will be suspicion due to Wikipedia:Username policy#Shared accounts. I understand this is not the case, so naturally the next question would be, who are the other person(s) implied in your statement? Did the article subject (Rob Brezsny) ask you to improve the article back in 2008, and continued to ask you to monitor the article as of present? In either case, your conflict of interest should be apparent. Alex Shih (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the reply User:Alex Shih. Is it really the case that my use of the word "we" prompted other editors to reach the conclusion that the statement "really does suggest marketing/promotional activity"? The "we" I was referring to was the Wikipedia editors who were and are contributing to the article. No, the article subject did not ask me to improve the article back in 2008. No, the article subject did not continue to ask me to monitor the article as of present. Are we now in the inquisition phase? What the heck is going on? Look at my edit history. What do you mean that my "conflict of interest should be apparent"? How does one reach such a conclusion from the facts? Please point me to evidence that would support an assertion that I have a conflict of interest in this matter. Exasperating and disappointing, Wikipedia was such a wonder for so many years and has grown to become such a fine repository of information. What is happening to the editorial crew? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 05:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    From Inspiratrix: I have never asked anyone or paid anyone or even hinted around to anyone to edit or create anything on the Wikipedia page about me. On July 15, a few days ago, I put a notice on my Facebook page that the article was being edited back and forth after many years of staying the same.

    There have been small inaccuracies on the page for years, but I let them alone, feeling it's not my place to intervene in any way. I don't even know who wrote the original article. I understand that this is a legitimate subject for Wikipedia editors to discuss and ask about any article on Wikipedia, so I'm certainly not angry about editors bringing up the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspiratrix (talk • contribs) 04:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    • Someone isn't telling the truth apparently. Skyerise sounds like the subject contacted her but he has now denied that.

    From Inspiratrix: P.S. I'm sure that Skyerise would agree with my account of what happened. Please ask her/him if you like. On July 15, I made a post on my Facebook page saying that after many years, my Wikipedia page was being edited. Skyerise, who had never before commented on my FB page as far as I know, showed up and made some comments under my post, basically saying that the edits that had been made on my page were sensible and in accordance with Wikipedia policy. We then had a brief back and forth. I never asked her/him to take any action at all in editing my Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspiratrix (talk • contribs) 04:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    Withdrawn

    User:Doctorfree, who signs as "Ronald Joe Record", is editing disruptively here in this thread, on Rob Brezsny and, especially, on Talk:Rob Brezsny:

    • He WP:Bludgeons the talk page constantly, questioning every edit by every editor except himself
    • He insists on adding information to the article supported by sources that a child would know don't fulfill the requirements of WP:RS
    • His fawning attitude towards the subject of the article - a barely notable horoscope columnist - shows that he is incapable of editing neutrally about the subject
    • His editing and comments border on being WP:Tendentious editing
    • His disdain for community standards hides behind the veneer of a WP:CPOV-pusher

    For these reasons, I propose that Doctorfree, aka "Ronald Joe Record", be topic banned from the article Rob Brezsny.

    Still continued disruption by Mayerroute5 / 116.68.79.209

    The user Mayerroute5 was blocked for a week by CambridgeBayWeather: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continued disruption by Mayerroute5 Jul 14, since then he continued his disrupting editing as an IP: 2405:204:D287:B4A6:39E7:20E7:B92F:33AA, 116.68.77.209 and 116.68.79.209. It would be not approbiate if his ban ended tomorrow as scheduled and the pages he disrupts I think need to be semiprotected. That are

    --Anaxagoras13 (talk) 10:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll take a look at the pages and protect them if it's necessary. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Protected 2017, 2016, and 2015 as they seem to be the most vandalised. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, but please do someone protect 2010 - 2014 as well.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The user is fresh from his ban and continous his editwar where he left!--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Julio Puentes

    JP has been creating unreferenced articles or articles with no clear references or just imdb. They have been creating articles for 9 years, most of which (from those I've seen) are tagged as unref, refimprove or notability concerns. After 18 messages I have got nowhere. I have offered help, directed to advice, explained the policies on sourcing and communication etc. but after eight months of this I've run out of other options. Their previous block in 2016 appears to be for edit warring. Some had imdb listed as their source and removed, there have also needed to be re-writing of some of the articles because they were copyvios of imdb. I think imdb has been their only source for most of their articles, but they won't clarify.

    For full details of the discussion, please see User talk:Julio Puentes#Warning. They have replied twice but neither message has been reassuring:

    • Hello, sorry for being a bit lazy, it's just that the whole bureaucracy of Wikipedia can honestly be too much of a hassle at times.
    • Excuse me, but what is it exactly that you want? I've put the necessary references and tried to include as much information as possible on the articles. I really don't know what else to do.

    The second message indicated they were unsure with referencing, despite my explanations and almost a decade of creating articles, so I tried to explain further. 5 more messages later, I don't think they're reading them. Hopefully they'll engage here. Boleyn (talk) 06:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    (Fixed the username spelling in section title and OP's complaint. Will leave it to other admins to rveiew the evidence itself. Abecedare (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) This user is clearly not wanting to learn the ropes regarding use of reliable sources. There are also some WP:POV issues in their editing history. I am confused why there is no attempt, after many repeated warnings, to try to use reliable sources. They are not listening or perhaps this is a CIR issue.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is a problem with articles, they go through the process of proposed deletion. A block is unnecessary. Another alternative suggestion is to move these articles back into the user's draft space for improvement. A block is the last resort. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 16:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and this sure looks like last resort territory if they don't try to communicate effectively about the issues.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Reopening as this was auto-archived without resolution. The articles shouldn't necessarily be prodded, many are on notable topics, and draftifying them brings other issues - many of those who work on drafts are not happy so many on notable topics are moved there. I think an indefinite block would force them to communicate. Boleyn (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:QuanticNut

    Diff 1

    Diff 2

    Diff 3

    User:QuanticNut, as their name (and edit history) seems to suggest, is a single-purpose account making disruptive edits (close to breaking WP:3RR) on Detroit: Become Human, which is undergoing a WP:GOODARTICLE review. The edits are without consensus, as stated on the article talk page. In fact, there is a consensus between User:Sebastian James and I not to include the writer in question because, according to the syntax guide, the infobox is for lead writers; Adam Williams did "additional writing", per opening credits. Cognissonance (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This is largely a content dispute and better suited to WP:3RR or WP:3O. If you think it's disruptive editing, you could use the warning templates {{Uw-disruptive1}} in escalating levels, which could result in a block if they continue to edit despite not reaching consensus on their desired edits.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The guidelines don't rule out anybody but lead writers, they simply rule IN lead writers. We should ask ourselves why anybody would 'disruptively' want to credit the right people... I am active in the detroit community and we all know who the writers were as we've interviewed them together.

    Incidentally I don't see how my username is pertinent to a specific edit, unless you're just playing an ad hominem? Please stick to the facts (QuanticNut (talk) 06:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]

    @CaroleHenson: The editor has made disruptive edits to the point where they broke the three-revert rule and reached level three of your cited template. It is clear these measures are not taken seriously and I would suggest a temporary block. Cognissonance (talk) 08:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @CaroleHenson: The same could equally be said of Cognissonance who broke the three revert rule first, by definition... He doesn't want to engage on substance, just keeps undoing a legitimate edit. He has stopped even disputing the substance, and just keeps suggesting that he gets to decide what is on the page not anyone else. (QuanticNut (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]
    QuanticNut, It is not equal. You are trying to make edits on your own without consensus and seem to have a vested interest in having this information included in the article. The reasoning for not including the information was given, but you are not listening.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Is the reason that william is not listed as a lead writer, or that i'm just a guy from a subreddit who isn't 'experienced' enough to make changes? Both were given...

    The guidelines don't say it has to be a lead writer who goes in the writers box. so what's the reason?

    i tried to find consensus by requesting an edit. was ignored (not disputed). moreover, how can you build consensus about a plain fact? he's credited, nobody disputes it. there was also no consensus to revert the original edit.

    I do have a vested interest, I help out on the detroit subreddit where the two writers in question spend hours doing amas and giving us fans the time of day. i've watched them do interviewd all over the world. i wanted to get involved on here as i've gathered alot of knowledge collectively about the production process, creative process etc. i was so amazed at the reception of a valid edit that i couldn't believe it would be upheld... but Cog has made it clear people like me are not welcome editing 'their' page, even if the edit is correct and in the guidelines.

    i can only assume you agree with cog on the substance of the matter? (QuanticNut (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]

    Actually, no, I don't have an opinion at all about whether the information should be added. But, you are not getting any support to add the information and there is support to not add it. That's the way things work in consensus-based decision making.
    If you have a close connection with the subject, please read conflict of interest. If you want to create content that isn't subject to consensus-based decision-making or COI guidelines, have you thought about a blog?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    A blog? Respectfully, are you aware of the information that I tried to add? It's adding a name to the credits which is in the opening credits and which meets the wikipedia guidelines. It wouldn't make for much of a blog.
    There is support to add it and support to remove it, so no consensus either way. Yet one side gets its views reflected.
    That being said, the issue isn't something you can have an opinion about: someone is listed in the credits and did media all over the world to support the game, but he's missing from the wikipedia page. Ultimately the page and wikipedia suffers, but at least the self-appointed 'owner' of the page gets to win the argument. (QuanticNut (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]
    I thought that there was consensus with Sebastian James to not add that information. I don't know 1) why this is so important to you and 2) why it's so important to the two others to not include it, except that I wasn't finding good sources for the added writer. Perhaps that's it. Anyway, this seems like a lot of effort expended for something not that important in the overall scheme of things. Which makes me more confident that your connection is a bit stronger than I first took your assertion.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, respectfully, the the good source is the opening credits of the game. Alternatively a simple google search turns up dozens of articles:

    https://www.vg247.com/2018/04/23/detroit-become-human-lead-writer-quit-tv/ https://blog.eu.playstation.com/2018/05/23/how-detroit-become-humans-narrative-team-brought-a-world-of-androids-to-life/ https://www.dualshockers.com/detroit-become-human-domestic-abuse/

    Incidentally, it's not just this writer - it's two directors who are missing also (mentioned in the 2nd article here).

    It means a lot to me because these people have spent hours engaging with us fans on the subreddit, running competitions, supporting fan art, streaming live from events. Thy are good people and we all like them for how engaged they are (especially Ben Diebling). Adding them was just a first step in many planned contributions I wanted to make but yes, it was an important one for me as these people contributed to the creation of a game that gave satisfaction to a lot of people.

    That is why I am keen to add: the information is correct and it's a matter close to my interests. As to why Cog is so keen to keep it off... you can see on my talk page. He told me that I am just a 'random person from a subreddit' whereas he is an 'experienced editor'. He initially warned me off because he wanted good article status. I would honestly present to you that his motivation is ownership of the page. (QuanticNut (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]

    I have left a note requesting feedback about the article at WT:VG. --Izno (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Can I just thank you for this Izno? The debate continues (unbelievably) but, in my opinion, without directing senior editors to the page a new editor (me) would have been scared off wikipedia forever. (QuanticNut (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]

    Proposal (User:QuanticNut)

    I am not seeing that an administrator has blocked this account, so I am guessing that they do not think that this issue has risen to the level that a block is required and/or it's a case of edit-warring among all the involved parties.

    It is not clear the extent of the close connection between QuanticNut and the Detroit: Become Human article, but there definitely seems to be a vested interest in having content included in the article that is not in synch with the few other editors of the article and is affecting their ability to agree to consensus building. I propose a one-week topic ban of User:QuanticNut as well as requesting clarification of their connection to the article subject.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Anybody who followed the media of Detroit's promotion and launch, or indeed glanced at the opening credits, would be aware of the information I tried to add and which is sourced in dozens of cited articles. The information is plainly true and meets all guidelines.
    To that extent, my 'closeness' is totally irrelevant, though it is also true I am a Detroit subreddit fan who has engaged with cage and williams on the boards there (which I stated from the beginning). It annoys me to see that plain facts about a game I adore and that means so much to millions of people cannot be recorded because 'a random person from a subreddit' wanted to add it (as I was disparagingly called).
    Does that bother you at all? That wikipedia isn't open to the public anymore? Isn't the whole idea that true and guideline-meeting information can be added by anybody?
    I've given up trying to improve the page, so discipline me away. The page will remain incomplete but at least it will belong to the person who reported me, and whose case you haven't scrutinized at all. But in future, why not discuss the substance of the issue instead of obsessing about process, bans and the exercise of reprimands? (QuanticNut (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]
    Your approach to not edit the article works for me. Answers to your questions would mean repeating things I've already said.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Then there must be an equal vested interest in keeping it off, especially since nobody disputes the correctness of the information. (QuanticNut (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]

    Why is there no discussion of this on the talk page? As far as I can tell both users have violated 3RR and both should be blocked for edit warring. Seems QuanticNut is trying to add something and there has been no discussion and no good reason not to despite some sources having been provided. Seems more like a case of ownership on Cognissonance's behalf. However still this should be discussed on the talk page for the article, or the article locked from editing. Canterbury Tail talk 19:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Canterbury Tail, There was discussion of the edit on the talk page, including this edit, which means that there was tacit consensus between Cognissonance and Wrath X. You're right, it was not clearly discussed on the article talk page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I submitted 2 edit requests some days ago which are on the talk page, along with sources cited. They were closed by Cog without any engagement whatsoever. He then warned me off on my talk page, telling me I was risking his good article status and that I am just a 'random person from a subreddit'. Then he threatened me with a ban. (QuanticNut (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]

    Cognissonance has no ability to ban you, they do not have that editing authority, so put that one out of your mind. I am actually quite concerned with Cognissonance's comments on your talk page. They are failing good faith here and, as you have stated on your talk page, pointed to guidelines that do not say what they said they say. I do think this should still go to the talk page, which I see you have opened a conversation at which is good. Canterbury Tail talk 19:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your interventions and for putting my mind at ease. The initial edit request was made on the 7th of July I believe. I have re-opened it but when I have done this in the past, it has simply been closed again with no response. As the article is currently being reviewed for GA status I fear that cog will continue to shut down the conversation, making the talk page ineffective (QuanticNut (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]

    @Canterbury Tail: QuanticNut said the syntax guide supports his view because of what it doesn't say. You have misrepresented me, saying I disregarded him as "a random subreddit user". I told him, after he said he would bring other subreddit users to the article, "Quality articles (of which there are only a few thousand out of five million) are not edited by random people from a subreddit". This is not an insult, it is a statement of fact. I made Interstellar a Good Article, but only after it was abandoned to the masses, effectively making it a bad article until I showed up. I clearly stated "I do not own Detroit: Become Human, but I have written most of it and vetted all of it", because, since there is no ownership, there better be some credit on Wikipedia. Also, I did not close the edit requests. That was someone else and it was done for lack of consensus, which didn't stop QuanticNut from adding it anyway. Cognissonance (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Respectfully, your comments are there for all to see on my talk page. I know you know that you cannot own a page, but at the same time even this comment (which you present as evidence of a sense of ownership) refers to 'the masses' to which articles are 'abandoned'. This id quite denigrating language to refer to the people for whom wikipedia was created.

    Also, the fact you are still fighting this suggests it has become personal for you. The guidelines don't say what you said they said; you can't ban me just for disagreeing with you; I've cited many sources to support my case. Wouldn't it be better to let this go and perhaps we could work TOGETHER to keep improving the page? :) (QuanticNut (talk) 05:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]

    On Wikipedia, the quality of an article is determined by hierarchy. Quantic Dream is a bad article, the result of unregulated editing; CD Projekt is a good article, the result of being checked against quality-based criteria. In cases such as these, the only way to reach a conclusion is to seek consensus on the talk page. Cognissonance (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to keep this discussion informed @Canterbury Tail:, Cognissonance removed this information once again, this time after the article passed its Good Article review and when debate was still on-going in the talk page [1]. He also deleted all the writers from another videogame article with no comment on their talk page Watch Dogs 2.

    Pritam Mandal

    Page deleted and salted, user blocked. (non-admin closure) -★- PlyrStar93 →Message me. ← 17:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Could we have some admin eyes on this article, please? There's an on-going AfD, but various editors have been removing the CSD, then AfD templates and moving the article to all sorts of odd places —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Page deleted by Alex Shih and account of same name blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 12:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That was a lot of mopping. All done now, thanks to everyone involved. Alex Shih (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User has issues with copyright

    Nuobgu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of adding copyvio plot summaries to anime/manga articles, most recently here (copied from here). Other examples include edits on July 4, 2018 (copied from here), April 11, 2018 (copied from here), April 11, 2018 (copied from here), December 1, 2017 (copied from here), January 12, 2018 (WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE from here), March 13, 2018 (copied from here), October 23, 2018 (copied from here), February 24, 2018 (copied from here), January 25, 2018 (copied from here), and August 15, 2017 (copied from here). This is not a comprehensive list, and other examples could be found with a bit of searching. I have warned them about this behaviour previously (see here and here), but they show no signs of stopping. They also are unresponsive to communications on their talk page (with a few exceptions) and hardly leave edit summaries. Additionally, they have a history of regularly adding unsourced information to articles (see warnings on their talk page) and sometimes remove parts of citations without explanation (I've seen them doing this in the past, so it's not an isolated incident). Given all this, it may be necessary to block them for at least a short while to get their attention. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked the account. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ihardlythinkso, AKA IHTS

    On 30 January 2018Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), AKA IHTS was blocked with the listed reason "chronic battleground mentality, misuse of talk page while blocked, topic ban violations, multiple prior blocks have not solved the problem". There are 25 entries in his block log. There are 14 blocks in his block log.[2]

    The battleground mentality and incivility has continued. Examples from the last three days:

    • "Bug off"[3]
    • "There's an editor going out of his way looking for ways he thinks will antagonize me, based on long-term held grudge."[4]
    • "The fact is, it's your continued personal/WP:OR interpretations of same that I've repeatedly objected to, when you're uninformed and wrong. But yeah, the fact "[you] don't care" has been repeatedly demonstrated by you WP:IDHT-style. "[5]
    • "here you go again, mouthing off your own WP:OR re how Pritchard writes (again), when in fact you don't know what you're taking about (again)... I'm sick of shielding from your steady WP:IDHT WP:OR trying to steamroll discussions."[6]
    • "Oh that's very disturbing. With you it's all about mob rule, isn't it. And not quality of argumment."[7]
    • "You dont' know what you're talking about... You, are dishonest here, harassing me once again. Your arguments have to be taken in that context, since you're repeating old arguments already refuted, without new argument, as though you haven't read the thread. You like to start more shit between us whereby I have to ask you to stop badgering me again, after all these years?? Don't pretend none of this is true. You have even documented elsewhere how to harass others and still be under the WP radar of 'policy'. Go blow."[8]
    • "Since you're "into" making assumptions, there's plenty here to guide your assumption-making"[9]
    • "And why aren't you put your xxx where your mouth is, by responding at Talk:Three check chess#Test your mettle? You are oh-so confident here in this thread, but strangely absent from replying Yes or No in that Talk sec. Lacking confidence much?"[10]
    • "Your arguments are all bogus. Plus you're an insulting jackass... You know nothing what you're talking about... What a blowhard in-the-dark argument!... What an argument! Don't make me laugh so hard I throw up. "[11]
    • "If you editors really had confidence in your assertions, instead of OR and bullying, and if you cared about encyclopedic value, then you'll agree with the following:"[12]
    • "Gosh, such a real convincing argument, that! What a joke. You don't know waht you're taking about."[13]
    • "Quit destroying articles."[14]
    • "Your arguments are bull.... You have no idea."[15]

    The above is just from the last three days. He has been doing this for years. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC) Modified 13:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support indefinite ban! I know I'm jumping the gun here even before IHTS has had a chance to respond. But in my review, I think this is a lost case and a waste of our community time to allow this editor to continue disrupting the project with this kind of mentality – which can be summarized with the statement, "you're an insulting jackass" used by this editor. Enough is... Lourdes 11:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • IHTS is frustrating. On one hand, I feel like we should get along as two of the rare people who care at all about chess variants (IHTS is almost certainly the most active editor in that area). If he were banned, I would miss having someone so passionate about the subject on Wikipedia. On the other hand, his tendency to treat other editors badly and turn even minor disagreements toxic is well documented in the AN archives, AE, other noticeboards, talk pages, etc. I don't think I've been part of any of them in the past, and if it were just a matter of IHTS having a problem with me in particular (many of the quotes above were directed at me), I wouldn't be leaving this comment. But it's an awful lot of people -- and untold others that were put off of editing those articles (or from Wikipedia) after accidentally drawing IHTS's ire or seeing it on various talk pages. Ultimately, Wikipedia is not a place where one can reliably work autonomously. Content disputes will come up, and it's necessary to the collaborative process to be able to stick to the content without lashing out at people. If it were just on rare occasion, that would be one thing, but when it's persistent, it creates not just toxic environment, but discourages participation. I'd have a hard time !voting to indef, but certainly wouldn't oppose it -- I just don't know what other lesser approach would have any meaningful effect. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Guess what?: I find you frustrating. (But just like at Talk:Three-check chess, just like at CV article, my views count zero, your views must be implemented, right??) --IHTS (talk) 12:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) Let's give Ihardlythinkso a chance to respond, of course, but, pending said response, I'm in favor of a months-long block, say, three months or so; steady escalation of blocks over slapping an indefinite block, in my opinion, properly balances the history of the editor (as a chess enthusiast) with, well, the history of the editor (insofar as the block log and invective is concerned). —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Disclaimer: As I made clear at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive814#Request interaction ban, I am fairly confident that User:Ihardlythinkso, is not a fossorial mammal, is not a Melanocytic nevus, is not made of exactly 6.02214179(30)×1023 atoms, not a massive stone structure between places separated by water, not a sauce used in Mexican cuisine, and is definitely not a Soviet Beriev Be-8 amphibian aircraft. I hope that this clears up any confusion on this matter.

    The following prior interactions with AE, AN and ANI lead me to believe that any sanction that depends on Ihardlythinkso agreeing to behave a certain way and then sticking to that agreement is doomed to failure.

    --Guy Macon (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Huh, I remember the whac-a-mole stuff now but I'd forgotten you and IHTS were the editors involved. His tirades have been going on way too long. Maybe a talk page ban would be the way to go, since that- rather than IHTS's article work- seems to be the problem. If he then starts screeching at people in edit summaries we can rethink. Reyk YO! 07:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a really interesting idea! Other than edit warring (which a 1RR or 2RR restriction would fix) has he ever been disruptive when editing articles as opposed to talk pages? Or maybe a limit of one talk page comment per talk page per 24 hours would be sufficient. On the other hand, I haven't had a lot of success with carefully crafted sanctions designed to keep an editor editing without being disruptive. The admins usually ignore the suggestion and either apply an indef block or decide to wait for further disruption before acting. I can't say that I blame them. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without comment on the merits of applying it to the current issue, I have long been a believer that some editors would be better topic-banned from the subject of "other Wikipedia editors (broadly construed)". - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not an option. Collaboration is required. If you ban someone from article talk pages not only can they not collaborate with anyone else, when they get into a content dispute it also means other editors can't possibly resolves it with them. If we have got to the point where banning them from talking to others is considered a solution, then it needs to be a complete ban as that is a core requirement to edit here. Play nice with others. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We have already reached the point where if another editor gets into a content dispute with Ihardlythinkso they cannot possibly resolve it with him, except by letting him have his way. All you can do is stop editing the page, as I and many others have done with the chess pages. Alas, even that didn't work, because Ihardlythinkso started being disruptive on the reliable sources noticeboard and on an AfD. I like chess. I miss being able to edit the chess pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Tough questions. Can't have the continued personal attacks and angry rambling, but you don't want to lose the content contributions. But I wonder how much good work would get done in chess articles if other people were allowed to edit there. Reyk YO! 10:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "I wonder how much good work would get done in chess articles if other people were allowed to edit there." If we're even having to ask ourselves that question, that to me is a clear sign that a topic ban or equitable sanctions are in order. Nobody owns a page.--WaltCip (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    A topic ban is unlikely to be effective. His previous topic ban was "Ihardlythinkso is banned from the topic of post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, broadly construed"[16][17] and he couldn't or wouldn't abide by it.[18][19] --Guy Macon (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am unaware of the previous blocks of IHTS and the prospect of reading all the associated walls of text is not enticing, but in my experience he has been reasonably amiable and of course has made many useful contributions to chess-related articles. So since he is HTBAE I oppose an indefinite block but he needs to be less combative in discussions as it does seem to be a recurrent problem that is not helpful to anyone. Whether this change is a realistic expectation, I do not know. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    UTRS appeal #20545

    Ihardlythinkso's block log has the following entries:

    • 17:45, 30 January 2018 Floquenbeam changed block settings for Ihardlythinkso with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (chronic battleground mentality, misuse of talk page while blocked, topic ban violations, multiple prior blocks have not solved the problem)
    • 17:52, 30 January 2018 Floquenbeam changed block settings for Ihardlythinkso with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Additional note to say that the block extension is not AE enforcement; the original 2 week duration, and talk page access removal for those 2 weeks, *are* arbitration enforcement. Any UTRS admin can unblock after 2 weeks without fear of desysop.)
    • 16:30, 11 February 2018 Alex Shih changed block settings for Ihardlythinkso with an expiration time of 13:56, 27 February 2018 (account creation blocked, email disabled) (Reducing the block extension to 2 weeks per UTRS appeal #20545, making this a one-month block. TPA turned back after both UTRS discussion and consultation with blocking administrator)

    Without revealing anything that shouldn't be revealed, could someone please post some sort of indication as to what is in UTRS appeal #20545?

    In particular, was there a commitment on the part of Ihardlythinkso that is inconsistent with the behavior documented elsewhere in this report? It seems to me that "chronic battleground mentality ... multiple prior blocks have not solved the problem) is a good description of his behavior during the three days that I checked.

    @Floquenbeam and Alex Shih:

    --Guy Macon (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Guy Macon, the UTRS discussion was mostly about unblock conditions, in which I have posted on their talk page after ([20]). Unfortunately I did not explicitly ask for commitment on their behaviour, partially because I thought it was already implied when they apologised for several instances of their misbehaviour in the incident that led to the indefinite block. I would endorse re-blocking Ihardlythinkso indefinitely. Alex Shih (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe this is the last discussion I've had regarding IHTS: [21]. Here were the unblock conditions: [22]. I never saw the UTRS appeal, I just defered to Alex's judgement. I recall being skeptical at the time; IHTS does not interact well with people he disagrees with. His reaction to GoldenRing (who was just enacting a very clear consensus of admins at AE) was typical of almost every interaction he has.
    I'm just responding to the ping, I have not (and will not) looked at IHTS's latest interactions to see what's happening now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The unblock conditions were:

    1. Please do not violate your current AP2 topic ban again.
    2. No more compiling lists of any kind that could be considered as attack pages, please.
    3. Next topic ban violation would have to be indefinite block (and probably needs public discussion if it was to be appealed).

    Would User:Ihardlythinkso/Headlong to gray goo be considered a list list that could be considered an attack page? (I am not claiming that it is or is not; this is a good-faith question posted because I don't know the answer). --Guy Macon (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • "IHTS does not interact well with people he disagrees with. His reaction to GoldenRing (who was just enacting a very clear consensus of admins at AE) was typical of almost every interaction he has." I think this comment by Floquenbeam sums things up very accurately and precisely. IHTS has a clear, pervasive, and very long-term CIR problem which he refuses to correct or modify. No matter how valuable his content work, if he cannot adjust civilly to Wikipedia's collaborative environment, he needs to be shown the door, per WP:CIR. I support a site ban; the indef blocks have not worked because he always weasels his way out of them, and his promises to change are empty. The community has wasted far too much time on his problematical behaviors already. Softlavender (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support site ban or indef - This user has proven time and again that he is unable or unwilling to participate in the project in an acceptable manner. His combative attempt to bargain with Alex an his talk page underscores exactly why removing him from Wikipedia is in our best interest.- MrX 🖋 11:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Stalking my Talk!? Gosh I wonder why! (Not a long-term grudge-holder, for sure.) p.s. Your comment when I correctly stated that words "Latino" and "Hispanic" are neither race nor even ethnicity, as "obtuse" -- I really didn't get that. I thought I was as clear as a person can be. --IHTS (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      "Combative attempt to bargain". Not try and say the truth as best I can, and asking consideration for same, right? And Softlavender, not liking to see any past block lifted, says "he always weasels his way out", even she was never witness to any block lift rationale, discussion, or argument. (Both your behaviors are not vindictive-nasty??) --IHTS (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Normally this is the point where I tell you that you need to examine your own behavior and inform you that blaming other people is an ineffective way of avoiding a block, but in this case you are pretty much an expert on what gets you blocked and what gets you unblocked, so In won't bother telling you what has been told to you so many times already.
    That being said, a new user may run across this discussion, so I will say for the new user's benefit that we are each responsible for our own behavior, and that pointing to bad behavior by someone else -- even if it is true -- in no way excuses bad behavior on your part.
    I expect that we will now an example of the Law of holes in action as Ihardlythinkso explains in entertaining detail what an evil and vindictive person I am, but I will be very disappointed if this turns into yet another game of Whac-A-Mole.[23]. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was impressed favorably by IHTS's handling, in March of this year, of the discussion of how MOS:NICKNAME was to be handled in the lead paragraph of Bobby Fischer. (Now in archive #8 of the talk page.) Moreover, I would have to say, in the two and a half years that I have been editing Chess on Wikipedia, I have never had so much as a difficult moment with this guy. I concur with some other editors that his competence is not at issue -- his edits to chess articles are exemplary, and he edits a lot. Nevertheless, I can see that there is a serious problem; I've watched him get into hot water on several occasions, and it baffles me how quickly it seems to happen. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block, not sure how long, but maybe indef. Really starting to think IHTS's name might be better as WP:IDHT... --Tarage (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban violations Jzsj

    Jzsj (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from editing, discussing, or mentioning, any articles related to education or schools, broadly construed. They may participate in deletion discussions related to these topics if they created the page(s) in question.

    By now, he has already served two blocks for violating the topic ban. One for 1 "oversight", the second for 42 "oversights". And now, to my opinion he violated the topic ban again:

    1. Margaret Mary Vojtko, an adjunct professor, here (and after a polite warning self reverted)
    2. Gustavo Gutiérrez, a professor, here (6 edits).

    I do not believe any more that these violations are plain "oversights". The Banner talk 11:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • (Non-administrator comment) I was going to comment to the effect that the Vojtko edit should probably not be held against them as they retracted it, and the Gutiérrez edits are borderline since an article on someone who holds a professorship but is not known for his educational work. Until I noticed that one of the edits related specifically to his academic work,[24] and I dug a little deeper and noticed this: if it could be called wikilawyering to block the editor for editing articles on people who happen to hold professorships, it would be just as wikilawyer-ish to say that being technically permitted to "participate in deletion discussions" allows them to thank editors for saving the entire content of those articles by copy-pasting them verbatim several months after the deletion discussions in question have been closed. And then there're all these edits whose edit summaries or article titles include "school", "college", etc., and while an argument could be made that the last group was not specifically related to schools the group founded, education is apparently such an integral part of their raison d'être that it's in their name.
    I'm really thinking that at this point the editor probably needs an IDHT/CIR indef block, or a broader TBAN that covers "Christianity" since it's so easy to skirt the boundaries of the current ban by editing articles on religious institutions that are very closely (only?) associated with education but the edits themselves might not technically look like they are related to education.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm editing dozens of articles and sincerely trying to avoid violations of the ban. Please note that it was imposed mainly for my effort to get religious post-nominals accepted in infoboxes. I have learned since then the meaning of consensus in Wikipedia, and I respect that. I was also involved in a dispute over religious organizations and the poverty background of Catholic schools, with some support but little consensus. These are the only places where I have run into problems, all since last January, which I fully intend to avoid in the future. I have over 27,000 edits and over 400 articles created and remaining in Wikipedia. With regard to extending the ban to other related areas, if these are grey areas then why not wait until my editing there results in the kind of dispute that brought on the ban? Jzsj (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Jzsj, the topic ban was mainly the result of time and time again ignoring consensus. And every time restarting a discussion when the consensus went against your desire. For example here. The Banner talk 13:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're citing the one example of where I went against consensus and was banned. The previous discussions had not reached consensus. I have since learned that consensus is determined by administrators very largely on the basis of pro and con votes. Your "time and time again" ignores that none of this took place before last January, when I first encountered these issues after 30 months of work in Wikipedia, 10 to 14 hours most days. I am determined to abide by Wikipedia policies and am sorry for slips, which I will make greater efforts to avoid. I have reverted the ref I added to the Gutiérrez article; you're correct about it dealing with schools. I would be a fool to deliberately touch school issues, even if I was not being so carefully watched. (Also, please reference what you mean by 42 "oversights" in your opening statement.) Jzsj (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    A kinder, and truer, interpretation of this was the one given there, leading to a reasonable, 72 hour block: "Thanks for reminding me, it was an oversight. I began just correcting the links to sisters, and got into the schools inadvertently." It was a single incident, on a single oversight, on a single day when I added the "Sister" link in 81 articles and regrettably strayed into the sisters at the schools in the sisters category. Jzsj (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • As to the "Wikilawyering" charge, I haven't dealt with that issue before, but when I looked up relevant material, this is all I found. Where does it say that I shouldn't thank an editor who on his/her own "merged" (not "saving the entire content") an article and mentioning that there are other articles of mine where this recommended merging was not carried out at the time of deletion. Jzsj (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure how you conclude that I may not edit articles like all these edits, where the names of the groups do not mention schools, and where I was careful to avoid touching parts of their work related to education. Give me some credit! Jzsj (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found no relation to education in the first and third examples. In the middle one I deliberately avoided touching on the work Fr. Garcia did in education. But you are right, that in one (and only one) of the four edits in the section on education the reference I added was to his being on the board of a social research institute, which was indeed an oversight on my part. I will try harder to note the verboten nature of such edits. All the trouble both of us are going through in this discourse here will have the salutary effect of bringing to my mind the matter of the ban while editing. Jzsj (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You clearly do not understand what the meaning of your topic ban is in reality. To try to explain it one more time: you are not allowed to touch articles that are related to education or schools. This includes teachers, professors, buildings etc., no matter how remote related to education. The Banner talk 10:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Cyberpower678: Please give us your decision on this. It seems to me that if one looks into the material behind the ban (acting against consensus on post-nominals) then such further generalization of it is unnecessary, especially in light of the fact that I had made c. 25,000 edits and this dispute at NDCRHS is the only time I ran into this problem, and learned from it. My present editings try to respect the ban. Please clarify the ban in this regard. Thanks, Jzsj (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      My interpretation of the ban, as per the "broadly construed", is that any article remotely related to education or covering education is within the scope of the ban. However, articles not primarily about education, universities, and similar topics, and are at best a few sentences in articles mentioning the topic, should not be including in the ban's scope.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 03:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose indef block

    NOT HAPPENING
    Clearly not going to pass.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 03:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Sigh This is unfortunate to see. Clearly this editor is either unwilling to or incapable of staying far the hell away from education-related edits. Rather than trying to engineer a much broader TBAN to keep him as far away from the parts of the encyclopedia he's not supposed to be editing as possible, an indef block is in order. I would say escalating blocks (he's only been blocked for violating this ban twice so far, the latest for 72 hours), but he doesn't show the slightest sign of being willing to abide by the ban, so the escalating blocks so far have not been doing their job. If you are not going to appeal your ban, you have to abide by it; them's the rules. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support as proposer. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I’ve stayed out of this until now, but I really do think it is entirely reasonable to make a distinction about biographies of academics and “education”. An article on a theologian and another about a decreased adjunct professor (where he self-reverted) are a bit beyond broadly construed for me, and I’d personally question if this is even a TBAN vio: if this sanction applied to me, I would not consider edits to an article on a theologian to be a TBAN, and would likely consider them well within what I could edit to the point where I wouldn’t seek clarification. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @TonyBallioni: I would agree with you, as I said near the top of this thread, but everything we say before "but" is horse-shit, and one of the edits he didn't self-revert and apologize for was to amend and add a citation to the sentence Gutiérrez is a member of the Peruvian Academy of Language, and a founder of the Bartolomé de las Casas Institute. That's not a reasonable distinction between a biography of an academic and "education"; it falls so squarely into the area covered by the ban (editing, discussing, or mentioning, any articles related to education or schools, broadly construed) that it would even fall under it if the ban was from "editing articles related to schools, narrowly construed". Also I should clarify that I have not looked into any of the background here related to the imposition of the ban or the original reasoning for it, and have only been looking at the ban as it exists and how it might relate to the recent edits; if, as may well be the case, the subject feels, rightly or wrongly, that he was subjected to an unfair and unreasonably broad ban, I sympathize (and Tony -- you know how much I sympathize), but such editors need to appeal through the normal processes, not try to find ways they can get around the ban and pretend it doesn't exist. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t consider that to be a TBAN violation, sorry. This could be because I view academics (including theologians) more as researchers than educators, but by this standard we’d be considering any edit to Daniel Dennett and Thomas Aquinas to be TBAN vios because they are/were both professors. Also add literally every MD at an academic medical centre who has never taught a day in their life but who holds the courtesy title of assistant professor (this is a common practice in the United States.) If we are considering every academic biography or everyone with academic honours or titles part of this TBAN then it might be the worst sanction I’ve seen on this website. A priest who was a liberation theologian who happens to hold academic appointments is pretty clearly outside the intent of the TBAN. It doesn’t appear either biography was about an academic who’s field of research was education. The former was a French professor and the latter is a significant figure in Liberation theology, one of the most significant theological schools of the 20th century. Neither of their fields of study are/were education. I’m sorry if it seems like I’m splitting hairs here, but to me this is an absolute no-brainer for “clearly allowed edits.” TonyBallioni (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Your opinion is definitely at odds with the topic ban topic banned from editing, discussing, or mentioning, any articles related to education or schools, broadly construed and the classic phrase when in doubt, do not edit. And it is in fact rewarding his skirting of the topic ban by narrowing his ban, something what was turned down only on the 19th of this month (see WP:AN). The Banner talk 06:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I have never tried to skirt the ban, and that is why I made a proposal, to allow me to restore deleted material to its source: I respected the ban and proposed a narrowing of it for a specific purpose. I accept the fact that the scope of the ban has not been narrowed. Jzsj (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no narrowing. Editing articles on the universities themselves is out of limits. Editing articles on academics who have primary fields other than education is not. The wideness you are attributing to this TBAN is far beyond what is reasonable to broadly construe. Especially in the case of the theologian, reading the topic ban this way would have the impact of functionally banning him from a significant number of articles on figures in the Catholic Church (Benedict XVI was a professor, and notable for being one, Alasdair MacIntyre is a moral philosopher who holds professorships, etc.) The TBAN was not a ban on editing about scholars. It was a ban on editing about education. People who happen to work at a higher education institution but focus on other fields are not within it. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I know, professors are involved in education. The Banner talk 14:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Contrary to what you surmise, @Hijiri88:, I have never felt that I "was subjected to an unfair and unreasonably broad ban" and Tony is correct, I am trying to carry on work that at times led to overstepping the line without being aware of it. I have promised to be more alert as I edit. I just gave up copy editing Nguyễn Trường Tộ because, as a diplomat, he got into buying books and encouraging Western education in Vietnam. I think you should weigh the loss if I ceased copy editing these articles, against the damage from the few innocent oversights which I promise to try harder to avoid in the future. I had found an obvious pleonasm in the Tộ article (However, but) yet I left it and abandoned copy editing this article lest I slip into an edit dealing with "education or schools, broadly construed". And this was before I came here and found this new proposal. I insist that it would be a very unfair judgment on my actions, and without any evidence to prove it, if one would surmise that I was trying "to find ways they can get around the ban and pretend it doesn't exist". This is blatantly false. Jzsj (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a thought. When in ANY doubt, don't. If it even SOUNDS like it could be related IN ANY WAY to education, don't make the edit. Period. Hell, if the page has the word "education" on it, don't fucking edit. Don't edit if it has the word "learn" in it. Stay the fuck away from it. It's not THAT hard. --Tarage (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm dealing with a church and with abbeys and with people all the time, and they do get involved in education. Unless the ban is extended to all things Catholic I propose to keep editing these articles, with greater care to avoid all things educational. The fact that I've edited so many article with education mentioned somewhere within them and had so few slips shows that I am trying. I have promised to redouble my efforts at avoiding the few verifiable slips that have turned up here. Jzsj (talk) 09:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    the few verifiable slips... Ow, goodie. You have been blocked twice for a total of 43 slips. And I have entered two more slips but when I read the discussion, there are many more. Are you kidding with "just a few slips"? The Banner talk 13:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you look carefully and count you will find that most of those "many more" are charges that turn out false or questionable. And I can hope that others will see as one slip my 42 quick edits on a part of one day, when I was editing sisters and religious congregations and slipped into linking their names in schools articles (to the article on Religious sisters that I had newly produced). I had reached those articles through the category congregations of sisters and for a small part of my long editing in that category slipped in to the articles on schools listed there. I avoided their names in schools articles after that, and am now avoiding schools as I copy edit articles recommended by the Catholic Project. Jzsj (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support You have to be some sort of thick not to understand that editing a section called "Emphasis on education" IS related to education and thus falls under the topic ban. But really, we shouldn't even be voting. Any admin could step in and enforce the damn topic ban. Why none have is a mystery to me. --Tarage (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see it as obvious that we must go by the title of a section that discusses various issues, and we are tending to the issues that do not pertain to education. But I'll know to be more attentive in the future to the titles of sections, when I am editing matter that is not related to education. Jzsj (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Phrase used in sanctions. Roughly translated, it means "We can't really explain what you're restricted from doing, but we'll know it when we block you for doing it." as the hilarious but often deeply wise Wikipedia:WikiSpeak defines this. I see no reason for such a drastic measure to be enacted at this stage. I would agree that any level of "disruption" so far perceived from this colleague in no way merits such a draconian step. Irondome (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    DS violation (or not)

    No, this is not the appropriate place. Requests for enforcement of DS should go through WP:AE. ansh666 18:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    AR-15 style rifle is under DS violation and now the talk page has been taken over with an argument about who violated it [[25]]. user:Waleswatcher says user:Thomas.W, user:Mr rnddude. Whilst they (and others say Waleswatcher did [[26]]. Now it is clear that someone did (as there have been a number of reverts and that violates the DS). The question is does this edit [[27]] constitute a revert of this edit [[28]], or (as Waleswatcher contends) this is a new edit and his [[29]] was technically the first revert?

    Either way someone needs a warning.Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This was discussed yesterday. The conclusion was it needs to go to Arbitration Enforcement, not here. Suggest speedy close and reopen there. Springee (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Was not aware of that.Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please not that DS enforcement does not need to go through AE. Any uninvolved admin may assess the situation and impose sanctions themselves. Is this not the appropriate place to request the hep of an admin? –dlthewave ☎ 11:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have thought so but see this closing [[30]] from yesterday. Springee (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like a bad close to me. –dlthewave ☎ 12:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for trying this, Slatersteven, I hope an admin will take a look. Unfortunately I'm on a phone with very poor internet, and in a place where Wikipedia is at least partially blocked. That makes it really hard to post diffs or much of anything fancier than a little text like this (and please excuse typos and bad indenting). Anyway it seems to me the situation is pretty clear, so hopefully that will suffice.

    By the way, it looks like User:Afootpluto should be added to the editors who may have violated ds. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • If anyone looks at this I suggest a close look at Waleswatcher's behaviour on the article, gaming the system by reverting every 26 hours or so, against multiple other editors, in order not to violate the 1 revert per 24 hours rule, but obviously with no intention to stop... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Vlaich at AfD

    Pretty much the definition of NOTHERE. Blocked indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Vlaich is engaged WP:UNCIVIL behavior at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camilo Him (2nd nomination), an article Vlaich created. Vlaich did similarly on the first nomination. Vlaich appears to have not edited any content beyond topics related to Camilo Him. I and others have been called a "troll" repeatedly, that I am in "nothing but in full Conspiracy Theory territory," and that we are "FaceBook Fake News Trolls on coffee break who know nothing about fashion, photography or art! You can’t fact check anything that is not on Instagram! Go ahead I dare you to delete article within 24 hours… because you know all from the basement of your mother’s house!" I am tired

    If you have any questions about my own participation at AfD, you can see from my Stats, that I vote with consensus 93% of the time (96% if you include no consensus). I am tired of being abused in this way by hostile article creator and/or COI editors at AfD. --Theredproject (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, Vlaich was warned on talk page, and yet continued to harass.--Theredproject (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like an SPA here to promote this person. I am also getting a strong hint of COI.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    and this [[31]] demonstrates they are not here to build an encyclopedia I think. All they have done is to make PA's and edit on one topic (as far as I can tell). Normally I would not (for a first offence) call straight away for a block, but I am really not seeing what the are bringing here other then a disruptive, promotional, attitude.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Unconstructive edits by anonymous IP

    An anonymous IP user that goes by Special:Contributions/2402:8100:2009:548C:4733:8B35:2D89:CABE keeps making unconstructive edits on the Godzilla (1998 film) article. He/she has no talk page, so I can't send him a message to stop or anything. Armegon (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Armegon: it looks like he may have stopped, I am not sure why you think you can't leave a massage on his talk? Tornado chaser (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah! Just figured out how. Armegon (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe he is using 2402:8100:2009:548C::/64 which means he is using this one, too.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Both my comments on Talk Page discussion and my RFC were removed

    We're done here.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    After not receiving any additional outside input at Talk:Malcolm X#Assassination (for 3 weeks) outsideof the two users I was in debate with. I made an RFC on the discussion, along with leaving a separate comment to the thread saying I disagree, et al.

    The RFC and my comment were both manual reverted in one go [32], with no attempt at informing me. Perhaps my RFC was indeed wrong to be included in that existing section (I did so because RFC etiquette asks that we start a discussion first, and then if no resolution start an RFC for outside input; perhaps it was my mistake to not create a separate section). But there was no reason to delete my own personal comment to the discussion thread as well, which goes against WP:TALKO.

    User:EEng manual reverting my entire edit, which leaves me without notice, I feel the removal of my personal [non-Rfc] comment was completely without basis, and such excessive reverts is disruptive and against the spirit of WP:REVERT, which was an issue leading into the discussion. I hoped to resolve our disagreement because I did not want edit warring, but to then start reverting my Talk Page comment (which include no offensive behavior or errors) is uncalled for.

    Was this a proper way of handling this? DA1 (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • You prepended your RfC notice to a discussion thread already underway [33], making it look like other editors' comments were in response to that RfC, which they were not. If you have new comments to make in the ongoing discussion, make them; if you want to start an RfC (which I don't think is a very good idea, but knock yourself out) then do that. You added a new comment to the ongoing discussion and at the same time made a mess of the chronological sequence of others' posts, so I simply reverted you; it's not up to me to surgically salvage bits and pieces for you. EEng 19:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The RFC had a Signature and date assigned. If you thought it was still misleading, then leave a comment reminding me of pointing it out. If you were right in removing it, then that's acceptable. What's not acceptable is you removing my personal comments in violation of WP:TALKO, and making no attempt at informing me about this to avoid misunderstanding.
    You did not "simply revert" me, you manually reverted me which means you could have chosen to selectively remove the RFC while leaving my personal comment untouched but instead went out of your way–via manual revert–to delete the perfectly acceptable comment (and leaving me without a notice, which a standard revert would have given me). DA1 (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Could somebody explain the difference between "simply reverting" and "manually reverting"? Just open an Rfc in a new section where it is supposed to go, and all will be well. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 20:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Just open an Rfc in a new section where it is supposed to go, and all will be well – exactly, but instead, as seen below, the OP wants to press this idea that he's been wronged somehow. EEng 20:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Roxy the dog: Manual reversions include using cursor and backspace to selectively choose text to remove (my two blocks of RFC and comment were in opposite ends of the discussion thread, so impossible to confuse). It's different from using the revert function on History Page which usually sends the original poster a notice. I received no notice, nor was there any attempt at a message/comment or ping to point out possible errors in my post. My comment was essentially censored or removed with haste. That's why it's an issue. EEng's over-eagerness to revert everything is becoming disruptive, when it should and can be worked in line with WP:COOPERATION. I specifically started the Talk discussion because I did not want an edit war on the main article (Malcom X). DA1 (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats 'nonsense'. your comment was removed because it was incompetently placed. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 20:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Roxy the dog: Which comment? The one as part of the discussion I'm objecting about? Please point out how it was incompetently placed. The RFC and discussion comment to the thread are two different blocks of text [34], and should not be conflated. Otherwise that opens the floodgate for any of my preexisting comments to be deleted once I open an RFC even in a new section (I intend to followup on that existing thread, but apparently my posting doesn't go there?). Note, the comment was placed completely separate from the RFC. The comment was part of the discussion thread following standard discussion norms, not part of the RFC in the section opener. DA1 (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a hint: Help: pages are out of date, and even that aside they were often written by not-the-brightest editors who know less than you do. Sorry to disappoint but I didn't use my evil cursor and backspace, but simply went to the last good version before you made a mess and clicked Revert to this version; as already stated you're free to reinsert your comment, and your RfC notice, in appropriate places (since you're so big on reading instructions it's strange you missed where it says WP:RFCST says Create a new section at the bottom of the talk page). You can't expect others to move your stuff around for you; your somewhat huffy attitude in the discussion to date doesn't make me want to do you any favors; and your behavior in this very thread reinforces that feeling.

    As for "leaving you without a notice", if you aren't watching a page to which you just added an RfC notice, I don't know what to say. In fact, smartypants, since you're so big on notifying people I'd have expected you to know that pings added post facto to an existing post [35] won't work. EEng 20:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @EEng: As an experienced user yourself, you should have known that my comment was adding to the discussion and shouldn't have been conflating with removing the RFC. Perhaps this is all a big misunderstanding, but at that time when you see your regular comment being reverted when our discussion stems from reversions, that leaves much misunderstanding to be had. I have well early accepted the removal of my RFC, the reason I sought additional advice was because of my uncertainty, perhaps misplaced, that any comment I would make hereon would be removed (because I did not think my comment deserved to be). DA1 (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "In fact, smartypants, since you're so big on notifying people I'd have expected you to know that pings added post facto to an existing post" Let's not conflate these two issues either. Whether my ping worked or didn't (because I added it in after) isn't the same as telling a user in discussion you are removing their comments and possibly correcting them that their use of RFC formatting is incorrect. The issue is you shouldn't have removed my discussion comment to begin with, with or without a courtesy message. Although a message would have certainly avoided misunderstanding. DA1 (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse revert Trying to turn a normal discussion thread into an RfC that makes it appear as if the comments in that thread were made during the RfC is deceptive. Expecting other editors to note and collate the timestamps on each individual comment during a thread when trying to read through it is ridiculous: Timestamps are only useful when looking at a very small number of comments. The edit that was reverted looks for all the world to me like an attempt to artificially weight a discussion, considering that the RfC question included a statement condemning the (perfectly acceptable) editing practices of those who disagreed with the proposed addition. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @MjolnirPants: This does not address the removal of my normal discussion comment. It is a conflation. For example: had a completely different user reverted my edit on another article, while cussing me out, and I brought the latter fact to admin attention. The justification of the former would not be a justification of the latter. In this case, my issue is with the reversion of my personal comment adding to the discussion. It should not have been removed by another user. DA1 (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Then put the personal comment back, you twit. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 21:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I will now, now that I have certainty that this was likely a misunderstanding and not at attempt at removing me from the discussion. That provides some needed relief. You can fix your tone now. DA1 (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For the last time: there was no attempt to remove you from anything, just to undo the mess you made so that you could try again to do it right. You're wasting a lot of editor time trying to prove you've been wronged, which you have not. Have you read WP:BOOMERANG? EEng 21:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Personal attacks

    Deacon Vorbis is quick to attack editor(s) who disagree with their edits. See Talk:Potato. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    In my defense, you kind of deserved it. I don't use that kind of language here very often, so when I do, there was probably a good reason for it. But as far as I'm concerned, the argument is over, so unless there's anything else to bring up, I'd be fine with letting this drop. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be fine with an apology for that instance and this one also. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 22:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Any apology from me is going to be pretty insincere (which might be worse than none at all), but my willingness to let this all drop is genuine. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, then maybe a block would deter you from going off on others in the future, I'll let the community decide. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 22:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Deacon Vorbis WP:TRHAT. It doesn't get much more trivial than using a hat note to point to a few sentences in an article that describe how 26 years ago a former US Vice President mis-spelled the word. Also, your edit summary definitely violates WP:ESDONTS. Nobody can force you to issue an apology, but what you did violated Wikipedia's code of conduct.— Maile (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked the editor for 24 hours and made it clear that this behavior is unacceptable. I certainly hope that it does not resume. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ligma, etc

    Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but many VOAs (now blocked) have been inserting vandalism talking about how the fortnight player "Ninja" just died of the fictitious disease "ligma", especially at the Celebrity article, which has now been protected.

    I thought this might be over, but this diff [36]makes me question that (look on urban dictionary, 4th answer down, [37] bofa has to do with ligma). Tornado chaser (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    And I thought we hit peak Deez Nuts in 2016. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s a joke. pewdiepie made a video where he made a joke about Ninja catching “ligma”, so his fans are now trying to goof on us. It’ll die in a week, whatever.💵Money💵emoji💵💸 00:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And then there's the numerous ones who made their guest appearances when reported at AIV. Do a user Contributions name search under Deez and Deeez and Deeeez and Deeeeez. Just keep adding an "e" to the name in the search, and more names pop up. Some of the edits never made it past the filters, but they had fun. Perhaps not all went thru AIV. Must be a lot of people out there who think this is the funniest thing they ever saw, or thought of. — Maile (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Money emoji: Ah. I suspected this was something like the Todd Howard incident that happened a few months ago. SemiHypercube ✎ 00:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I feel like every time a youtuber encourages wiki vandalism their own article should be made worse. --Tarage (talk) 03:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tarage: to be fair, he doesn’t actually ask his viewers to vandalize the article in the video, they did it themselves... also ligma=lick my balls, so dont y’all fall for it.💵Money💵emoji💵💸 05:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    He should know better. --Tarage (talk) 05:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I watched the video (funny skit about how to insult people on Roblox). He doesn't mention Wikipedia, let alone encourage vandalism. Kleuske (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I just deleted Draft:Ligma. If this doesn't die down soon, an edit filter might be potentially useful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking the same thing, I reported a few ligma vandals today. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still happening as of now. SemiHypercube ✎ 22:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, I just reported Da G0od sUcC. L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Failure to watch own talk page or blatant disregard

    AnnaElizabethGray is having problems with one of these. At a loss on how to get thier attention abount the copyvois. It was a coin toss either here or 3RR. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Endorse blocking. Time to get them to talk or leave, I care not which. --Tarage (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also you should have titled it "failure to communicate". --Tarage (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    :P - FlightTime (open channel) 03:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have left them a final warning. Hopefully they will heed it, or the alternative is an indefinite block. I've also speedy deleted the obviously NFCC-violating non-free images. Black Kite (talk) 10:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite: Thank you :) - FlightTime (open channel) 12:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User Miska5DT

    User:Miska5DT keeps blanking, doing disruptive editing, and removing contents from articles Societat Civil Catalana, Somatemps, Javier Barraycoa, Josep Alsina and Catalan independence movement. Then he adds an AfD deletion template to Somatemps and after blanking the article states in the deletion discussion that there is not a single reference in the sources about the matter. Filiprino (talk) 11:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Filiprino Somatemps has been nominated for deletion, there is nothing wrong with that. Its non-notable and no credible source discusses it. I am extremely concerned about your creation of an article about Catalan academic Josep Alsina in which you call him a Nazi without a credible source. Mr. Alsina is not a nazi he is an academic you dislike. Wikipedia is extremely strict about slandering living persons and you cannot use the platform to attack people you oppose politically. Equally, the article you created about Javier Barraycoa is dedicated solely to disparage his books which you dislike. Finally your recent nomination for deletion of Tabarnia, an entry which literally has hundreds of credible sources discussing it in various languages, shows you are not editing wikipedia in good faith and are here for spurious reasons. I really think this is a boomerang situation which requires admin attention. Particularly regarding Mr. Alsina who should be alerted of this online slander. I will contact him personally ASAP so he is aware of the situation. Miska5DT (talk) 11:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to recall you that this discussion is not to attack my articles nor myself but to defend yourself. Filiprino (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Filiprino: When you start a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard, all sides of the issue in question are looked it. In many cases, that means the reporting editor's edits will be scrutinized. (See the essay WP:BOOMERANG.) Further, you complain that he removed content from an article; he replied that he removed it to comply with WP:BLP because you added material in violation of that policy. In that regard, Miska5DT's comments are appropriate (with the exception of taking this offline and contacting the subject of an article directly). —C.Fred (talk) 11:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware that my edits will be scrutinised. And you won't find any of the violations he reports. Thanks for your attention. Filiprino (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @C.Fred: I want to note that the user is now blanking and removing sourced content from the article Sardana. Diffs: [38] [39]. He claims it is not in the source, but it is. It's not in the quotation, but that's all. The source is an article from JSTOR with 59 references. It's a known peer-reviewed paper from Stanley Brandes. I was now going to add information from [40] (2015) but the user blanked the whole Wikipedia article. Filiprino (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Filiprino, (also pinging C.Fred) I note from your talk page you are in extremely problematic editor pushing a hyper nationalistic line, this is why I had a look through your recent edit history. Sardana is a traditional dance of Catalonia which, incidentally my mother was made to learn during the Francoist dictatorship. The rather sinister far-right, xenophobic edit you have included in what should be a nice, normal article about a fricking dance is the following:
    Immigration is also a concern for Catalans due to possible cultural loss. Andalusian immigration in the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries introduced the Andalusian feria de abril and flamenco dancing. It has been perceived by some as a manipulated instrument of Spanish state domination. In fact, learning sardana can be considered a way of expressing solidarity with Catalans. Catalans consider that sardana has to be defended against possible incursions by the dominant Castilian culture. Failing to adopt Catalan culture might cause it to disappear, effectively annihilating Catalan people.
    Filiprino, I am not even going to comment. Miska5DT (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Filiprino: "my articles" ? No one owns any articles here. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @FlightTime: Where I wrote articles I wanted to write edits. Filiprino (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:Both users have edit warred extensively in articles related to Catalonia, including over deletion templates. I think they've both offered valid critiques in places, but they have also both lain it on way to thick when citing criticisms. The Josep Alsina article is a good example: it's fair to describe him as far right, but it's probably not fair to create an entry on him primarily to detail that connection. I sympathize on some level with Filiprino's apparent frustration, but I think they might benefit from taking a step back from Catalonia issues and edit other areas for a time and/or working on writing for the opponent. I would offer the same advise to Miska5DT, but they've been blocked for sockpuppetry, making it kind of a moot point. Nblund talk 17:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Process question on admin undelete/delete

    KAVEBEAR made a request on my user page that I restore one of his user space pages that had previously been deleted at the user's own request. I made the undeletion. RHaworth immediately deleted the page again with an edit summary saying the request needs to go through WP:REFUND. My question is why is this such a hard and fast rule (if it is)? We may have various process boards, but users make requests directly to admins all the time. And admins may elect to take care of the request or not. Why this one? It was the user's own page. — Maile (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    That seems to be the standard summary for G7 deletion, not specific to undeletion. Could it be that the restored page was blank or had a deletion template on it? Peter James (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like the page that was deleted on February 21, 2017, was done so because the user himself placed a G7 template in the See Also section. I prefer not to engage in a Wheel War, but could we just get the July 3, 2016 version restored for the user? The user himself just wants his page restored. Please advise. — Maile (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    RHaworth almost certainly deleted it because it appeared in the CSD category. If it was restored again and the tag was removed then I'm sure nobody else would redelete it. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    All right. I restored the correct version, with an edit summary link to this thread. Not trying to wheel war. Just trying to get it correct. If I erred, please advise. — Maile (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Per above. Maybe RHaworth should have checked page history (this doesn't always happen), or maybe Maile66 should have checked the CSD tag left intact (although it was buried in the content instead of being on top; I probably would have missed it myself)... In either case it was a good faith miscommunication, no wheel warning and no harm done. Alex Shih (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Page history wouldn't have helped since the tag wasn't removed; you'd have to check the logs. Userpages get G7'd all the time so it's understandable that it wouldn't be noticed. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. I have been scolded a couple times for not checking page history when patrolling CSD; if I have checked the page history for this one (User:KAVEBEAR/Kepelino), I would have done a double take when I saw the date "02:21, 21 February 2017". Userpages get G7'd all the time, but it doesn't get unnoticed until a year and half later especially for someone that works tirelessly (that's the catch) almost daily in CSD. Alex Shih (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't check the history, how do you know if the user placed the tag themself? Natureium (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say both history and logs are equally valuable. If an admin clicks on the red link, it brings up the logs, which tells you who nominated it for deletion, who deleted it, undeleted it, how many times it's been deleted or undeleted, or any other pertinent logs. If you click on the more current view/restore link, it brings up the Page History. There might be something in that history that tells you if there is anything to indicate the delete nomination was in error. — Maile (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I've misunderstood something, I don't see how logs will tell you whether the author is the one who nominated it for deletion. E.g. [41]. I'm discounting someone noting it in the logs e.g. when deleting it, that this is what happened. It presumes whoever it is checked the history (so someone needed to) and obviously doesn't apply to the first deletion. BTW, in case there is some confusion, I think Natureium's point which also occurred to me is that it seems an admin should always be checking the page history before carrying out a G7 or alternatively relying on someone or thing they trust e.g. a bot to do it for them. Otherwise I could G7 tag this page and ignoring the fact that an admin should recognise without checking I'm not the only author of ANI, an admin would just G7 it. For a U1, a check of the specific diff where it was U1nd should be sufficient. (Well there is a minor risk there that someone else could revert to a previously placed U1, but probably too minor to worry too much about.) Of course checking the history for these details doesn't guarantee you will always notice the time frames. Nil Einne (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Unconstructive edits on Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019 film)

    IP blocked by TonyBallioni--Ymblanter (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article is suffering from persistent vandalism from User talk:106.71.115.29. The anonymous IP keeps removing the poster repeatedly under the claim it is "the wrong poster" but on the contrary, it is official, a verified source was added to its fair use rationale template. The anonymous IP has removed the poster 4 times in the last 8 hours and other editors and I had to keep restoring the poster. Looking at the anonymous IP's talk page, he/she has a history of vandalism and has been blocked before. Perhaps one block wasn't enough. Armegon (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Wouldn't this be better handled at WP:RFPP ? - FlightTime (open channel) 15:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Or AIV? Natureium (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! I had no idea that page existed. Armegon (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    But shouldn't anything be done about this anonymous IP? If we do nothing, then we're practically setting him loose to vandalize other pages. I will submit a request for page protection but I brought this issue here so an admin can take action against this anonymous IP. As I've said before, he/she has a history of persistent vandalism and has been blocked before. Armegon (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Armegon: See WP:AIV. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ju Ming and Zhu Ming

    The article, a target of extensive efforts to cannibalize it on behalf of the unrelated Zhu, has been protected for two weeks--thank you, Widr. A few concerns can be addressed in the interim (one expects the vandalism will resume next month). First, the bio can use some clean up of unsourced and promotional content. But there's also been lots of peripheral damage, where Mr. Zhu's name has been added to maybe dozens of other articles; I've removed it from about ten. More eyes welcome in addressing this mass disruption. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This will needs quite a lot of watching. The account which first tried to turn this into Zhu Ming is User:Wirterss, an indef-blocked sockmaster. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wirterss. He's also indef blocked on the Dutch Wikipedia for repeated cross-wiki attempts to spam Zhu Ming [42]. His Draft:Zhu Ming（thinker） is up for deletion. His IP socks have been variously blocked at WikiQuote for repeated spamming [43] and one of them has been at it at Commons too. I don't imagine he'll give up easily. Voceditenore (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Obvious sock of indefinitely blocked and banned User:HughD

    IP blocked by — Maile--User:DBigXray(talk) 21:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Posting here since WP:AIV don't want to deal with it. Edits, geolocation and everything else matches HughD, so there's no doubt about it. It's a static IP that he has used for five days, and he's active on that IP as I post this here. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This is already done. — Maile (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive unblock requests

    All mopped up. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Can someone revoke talk access from User talk:37.9.169.5 (a webhost); someone is filling the page with endless nonsense requests. Not notifying. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Widr beat me by a minute.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Miss HollyJ brought up inappropriate comments/personally attacked in ANEW discussion

    User:Miss HollyJ was put on the ANEW after they edit warred ~5 times (down below). The result was stale because "no further issues arose" (with edit warring). Inside the discussion the user said that "I shouldn't be calling for unjustified bans" and then brought up the fact that I've have "numerous blocks" and then displayed them all. The user later claimed that I "don't have any credibility" and that I made "baseless smears" and "lies". I never did any of that. My original comment on the discussion was civil. I do believe the user did personally attack me as they brought up accusations about my personal behaviour without evidence. Also, on the user's talk page they are telling others that they have "no authority to leave messages on their page and that they are violating policies. Tagging @TheDoctorWho:, as they were the original nominator on ANEW.
    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 21:54, 22 July 2018‎
    2. 00:39, 23 July 2018‎
    3. 00:48, 23 July 2018‎
    4. 00:53, 23 July 2018‎
    5. The following revert was a partial revert completed in three parts:
      1. 03:27, 23 July 2018‎
      2. 03:31, 23 July 2018‎
      3. 03:32, 23 July 2018‎

    Computer40 «»(talk) 01:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    1) The edit warring issue has been resolved. I took the administrators (@EdJohnston: and @Black Kite:) deal without issue. So I don't understand why you had to copy and paste what @TheDoctorWho: originally said onto this post. 2) You literally made up lies about me and I called out every single one. How is that personally attacking you? It's clear this has now escalated into a personal vendetta against me to get me blocked because the previous discussion didn't result in that. 3) Yes, I was wrong to tell that user to not leave that template on my talk page. That was my mistake and I own up to it. 4) All I did was bring up the fact that you are a user known to make disruptive edits and receive blocks which is a fact. 5) And finally, no, you originally were not civil because you inappropriately accused me, without proof, of holding some sort of "personal grudge" when me and you have never even interacted before this.
    1. [44]
    2. [45]
    3. [46]
    4. [47]
    5. [48]
    6. [49]

    Miss HollyJ (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I think Hawkeye75, aka Computer40 has about used up all available rope. A look at the user's talk page shows clearly that the promises made in his unban request a little over a month ago were empty. It's time to realize a mistake was made and reimpose the site ban. John from Idegon (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't make comments unrelated to this noticeboard section here. You are creating a problem out of nothing. I've already changed my signature. Plus, you were one of the only people that opposed my unblock, so it's clear you're not going to change you're opinion on me. Computer40 «»(talk) 05:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't say you took the administrators deal without issue. Rather that you decided to argue with an admin and only when that very admin inquired if you were declining the deal did you agree to "Wait for consensus" (See diffs below).

    For the record, i don't care what WP:Boomerang says. Unless it's an official Wikipedia policy (Which it is not) then i will not be following it in regards to this ANI report (Or any ANI report). My focus is solely on you and only you.

    • Discussion between Miss HollyJ and EdJohnston:

    1. [50]

    2. [51]

    3. [52]

    4. [53]

    • Statement by Miss HollyJ regarding the reliability of two sources (Only after TheDoctorWho reverted your edit did you clarify in the edit summary that you were referring to recaps which i'm going to go off on a limb here and say this was a misunderstanding):

    1. [54]

    2. [55]

    In your defence, the TMZ article you mentioned "only listed the personal opinion of one former houseguest, Devin." which is hardly what i'd call a reliable source.

    Regarding the diffs you provided about Computer40, those diffs are utterly stale as they were made in 2017 and 2016.

    As for Computer40s insinuation that "This user clearly had some kind of personal grudge against the paragraph that they kept on reverting", i wouldn't say there was ever a personal grudge involved.

    Be that as it may, you should have refrained from reverting after the third revert rather than breaking the 3RR rule.

    • One last thing

    Regarding John from Idegon's reply, i see the unban request was indeed over a month ago (May 28th 2018) but do not believe it applies in the here and now nor would a site ban be warranted in my opinion. AryaTargaryen (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)AryaTargaryen[reply]

    A couple of points:
    • Reply to the above statement: @AryaTargaryen: I don't recall saying that Miss HollyJ had a personal grudge against it? (If I did please point it out to me)
    • Computer40's previous blocks: I don't believe those hold any point or argument here whatsoever. This thread is about supposedly inappropriate comments made by Miss HollyJ an WP:ANEW report.
    • The ANEW thread I personally disagree with the closure by Black Kite based on "no further issues have arisen". The reason no further issues had arisen was because there was an ongoing thread. Without the ANEW thread I believe the issues could've continued mainly because Miss HollyJ still preformed another revert following a warning and discussion on their talk page.
    • Where to go from here: Miss HollyJ has begun a discussion on the article talk page. However, I believe a large portion of reasoning Miss HollyJ provided is irrelevant and completely violates WP:OTHERSTUFF:
    • We don't do it for the Survivor articles, we shouldn't do it here either.
    • Something as tame as Rockstar saying "On my daughters birthday" is nowhere near the levels of controversy regarding the comments Angela, Rachel, JC and Kaitlyn have made.
    • If you ask me it looks ridiculous being listed next to something as serious as the JC-Bayleigh debacle.
    • Brett was not a victim like Bayleigh was and we should stop treating it as such.
    • It's actually insulting to actual victims of racism to think someone calling a white man "rich, snobby, white-privileged ass dude" is anywhere near the severity of being called the n word or other derogatory slurs.
    all the above content violates WP:OTHERSTUFF by comparing what is in one paragraph to another. I believe that OTHERSTUFF could be used to some extent in some discussion only as a supplement to another point but to base your entire argument solely on it is invalid. Therefore I believe that this could use further discussion but NOT based on Miss HollyJ's original points.
    • Personal attack or not?: The point that covers this in WP:PA reads as follows: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.
    • Why I'm bringing this up?: I believe that Computer40's original statement of Miss HollyJ having a "personal grudge" is not invalid because Computer40 provided diffs to why they believed that statement. But I also believe that the information is irrelevant as the point weather they had a personal grudge was not important it's that they violated WP:3RR.
    • Miss HollyJ's response: I also don't think you should be calling for unjustified bans given your reputation on Wikipedia. You've been blocked times. I still believe this information is irrelevant as that discussion was about Miss HollyJ violating WP:3RR and should be considered irrelevant here as well.
    • My overall point: Computer40 made a point to Miss HollyJ who took offense to the point and made a response back to Computer40 which took offense. Don't shoot yourself in the foot
    What should happen now?: This report should be closed without prejudice to both sides pending discussion on the article's talk page. If Miss HollyJ edit wars again prior to a consensus being formed they can be reported to an administrator and blocked as they've been warned by multiple editors. Computer40 should be advised that if they make such accusations either with or without evidence that the editor Computer40 accused is likely to come back with a strong response and that Computer40 shouldn't come down like a ton of bricks.
    In short: We should all drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass on any of the ANI/ANEW reports so far and if Miss HollyJ edit wars again or if Computer40 and/or Miss HollyJ supposedly attack each other again new reports can be filed without prejudice to the recent ANI/ANEW reports. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging people who might wish to comment @Alucard 16 and OfficerAPC:. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Attack wise, I don't think saying that someone has a "grudge" is on the same level as telling someone they have "no credibility" and that they made "lies", but I assume the consensus is nominator close. Computer40 «»(talk) 07:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked back over the comment i posted and seem to have included your name by mistake since it was only Computer40 that made that statement. I've struck your name from my original comment.

    Thanks for pointing that out AryaTargaryen (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)AryaTargaryen[reply]

    @AryaTargaryen: Thank you just wanted to clarify. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the second time we had to call out Miss HollyJ for edit warring without discussing. Therefore it's strike two and one more, she'll be "out". As a rule of thumb, in the event of a dispute, discuss it on the talk page. OfficerAPC (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment from the peanut gallery. You people are horrible at indenting. Trying to read this entire section and figure out who is replying to what is an exercise in futility. Please don't make another horribly formatted report like this again if you want something to actually be accomplished. --Tarage (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Oceanside hate vandal needs rangeblock

    2600:1700:A3E1:D00:0:0:0:0/64 now blocked for another three months. (non-admin closure) -★- PlyrStar93 →Message me. ← 17:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    After seeing one instance of hateful vandalism from Special:Contributions/2600:1700:A3E1:D00:B500:9323:6DC5:6C96, I found that the entire /64 range of this IP from Oceanside, California, is filled with similar vandalism. Can we stop this guy? Binksternet (talk) 06:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Range blocked for three months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Greatly appreciated. Binksternet (talk) 08:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Raghu Acharya vandalism needs rangeblock

    A childish vandal has been disrupting various articles, often inserting the name "Raghu Vir Acharya"[56] or "R. Acharya"[57] into the text. The disruption has been going on for more than three years.[58] A couple of times the person has used Saint Paul [Minnesota] Public Library IP 156.99.40.14,[59][60] but far more often the IPs are 174.255.0.0/20. Can we get one or more rangeblocks without too much collateral damage? Recently active IPs are listed below. Binksternet (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Continuous removal of content in My Korean Jagiya article.

    Inclusion/exclusion of content is a matter for the article talk page, or further dispute resolution processes, not ANI. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 09:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Spacecowboy420 keeps removing content from the cast section,which makes it very incomplete. He claims that not every character should be mentioned when I already argued that the cast list is already incomplete. He has not seen the show to claim who's not notable enough in the said show. He also claimed that "its a minor show" yet its a primetime show in a major broadcast network in the Philippines. Then he tagged the article for being a "fan site" and the article not being neutral - which in my opinion are both false. The article is so small and tone is neutral. I've already brought this up to Edit Warring and Third Opinion and got no response in resolving this. The first time the editor edited the said article, he removed all the supporting characters and guest cast (including the only 1 cast photo) without explanation. This user has a history of threatening me in my talk page, and I find his edits in the article very suspicious. Could anyone please step in to resolve this?Hotwiki (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hotwiki: (Non-administrator comment) This is a content dispute and it's not what this noticeboard is intended for. You could try the dispute resolution noticeboard which is intended for stuff like this. Kleuske (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already brought it up there, asking for a third opinion and no one commented except for the said editor who keeps removing content. I'm bringing this up here,since the said editor once again have removed content from the article.Hotwiki (talk) 08:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Gonna have to agree that the cast list is too verbose. You are being awfully hostile as well. --Tarage (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried really hard to reach a compromise on that article. Every attempt to discuss this has been met with words to the effect of "NO, the article is fine - DON'T CHANGE ANYTHING!" and comments such as "you clearly didn't watch the show " " you are clearly wrong" "try researching first" "You clearly have an agenda here" "See in you content dispute page" " You have an agenda here, and given the track record of your edit history and block history, I'm not surprised. You'll be reported for this." - so I decided to attempt a compromise without the other editor's cooperation. Sorry, but I'm finding it very hard to deal with this editor and their less than friendly/cooperative attitude. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Every time I made a point about the article, your reaction is always "you are making this personal". I do think you have an agenda here, as you threatened me before regarding my edit summaries when I had zero interaction with you at the time. Also, a lot of actors/characters listed are backed up by a reference, and the entire supporting cast are official billed by the show/network. Why remove that?. If the others (guest cast) are unreferenced (which isn't even your issue), it could be resolved by citing for references instead of just deleting them. You question the characters for their notability yet you Havent even seen the show. Hotwiki (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps if people are saying your comments are too personal, then you should modify your tone and stop insulting people? It doesn't matter if they are backed up by a reference, it doesn't mean they are notable. More than anything, this is ANI - not the place for a content dispute. Just the same as the 3RR wasn't the place for a content dispute either. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you talk about my tone in the article's talk page, and yet you do the same thing in your talk page. Your edit summaries aren't exactly polite. Also there was no attack, an opinion isnt an attack. And you have not made it clear if you are really aware of the show or not.Hotwiki (talk) 09:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    help needed

    Taken care of by DoRD--Ymblanter (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, JBW blocked the range before I redundantly semi'd the page. —DoRD (talk)​ 14:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Could an admin block the IPs that are harassing User talk:Tyw7 (and maybe protect the page)? L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems to be settled for now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WP:NOTHERE

    Page deleted, salted for two years; user blocked. (non-admin closure) -★- PlyrStar93 →Message me. ← 17:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Papahawwy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Not a single edit that's not promoting "Papahawwy". Prank or manic selfpromotion, either way they're not here to help build the encyclopedia. Kleuske (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    POV pushing IP at Ben Swann

    There's an IP who's been on a crusade to whitewash a notable conspiracy theorist for the past few weeks. Despite encountering significant pushback with very little support for their position, they've kept it, up, bludgeoning the talk page with wikilawyering and repeated claims that we're using sources that make false claims about the subject without evidence. This has been going on for too long, and needs to stop. There's no consensus for any changes to the article at best, and a consensus not to change for the majority of the IP's proposals. The IP has been made aware of DS, has been warned numerous times, and has even been blocked once already. The IP has since gained some support on one point, and as a result, redoubled their efforts. Can an admin please put a stop to this?

    A lot of this is in fact, hyperbolic. And much of it is inaccurate. I welcome anybody to check out the talk page and the edit history to see for themselves. The edit warring he highlights was among my very first edits when I was unfamiliar with a lot of the rules. I haven't repeated such behavior since then, however, I was able to clear up factually incorrect information from that exchange. All my edits have been from a NPOV and are consistent with the cited sources. I've tried to remove and modify poorly sourced contentious (and frankly false) claims about Ben because that is mandated by WP Policy. There are a few editors over there that seem hell-bent on discrediting Ben Swann and keep injecting their opinions and exaggerating what the soures say. despite many efforts (not just by me), the inflammatory claims and BLP violations continue and they have been actually getting worse since I first saw the page. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef PC added. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    SarekOfVulcan, I understand your imposition of PC but I think in this case full prot is more appropriate. The IP has been POV pushing against MjolnirPants and Jytdog, who I hate to say (since I agree with them 90% of the time) have been equally POV pushing, if not more. I have sided with some (but not all) of the IP's edits that actually appear to be enforcing BLP. In particular, we have a talk page dispute over whether it's verifiable that Swann has repeatedly spread fake news. This certainly appears to me to lack appropriate sourcing. By imposing PC you're inadvertently allowing the BLP violations to stand. I suggest full prot to the last stable version, which I believe is this. I'm also disappointed MjolnirPants didn't notify me of this AN report when I was already actively involved in the dispute. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    PS please don't take this as a request for a boomerang; MjolnirPants is an excellent editor who I believe has had a momentary lapse of reason. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's possible that full prot might have been a better choice, but I went with the option I believed would permit the most flexibility for all concerned. If another admin wants to up the protection level, that's fine -- but per WP:THEWRONGVERSION, I would oppose trying to choose a "stable version" at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought we always rollback to the last stable version when we impose full prot? The version I identified was last edited by Jytdog and I believe those edits have not been challenged. However if we wanted to rollback to an even older version that's fully stable, I suppose that would be this one. It would certainly be better than the existing BLP violations. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    While WP:PREFER does urge finding a stable, non-BLP-violating version, I don't see anything that particularly fits that description. It hasn't been stable for more than about a month at any point in the past 2 years that I can see.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The content about Swann spreading fake news was originally added to the lead (as far as I can tell) here, back in June. It has moved around some. I adjusted that yesterday. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh please. In that same comment I said there are still serious problems. I could make similar below-the-belt comments about your behavior, but I choose not to because I think you're a fine editor. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And those serious problems boil down to you taking issue with us not directly quoting the sources. So we should call Swann an "imbecile" and his work "boneheaded and irresponsible" because that would correct the BLP problems? Seriously? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for full prot

    The BLP problems were somewhat ameliorated by Jytdog's edit and not as blatant anymore. I still think that imposition of PC ended up tipping the balance of a content dispute where there has been POV pushing on both sides, and full prot is warranted, with a rollback to some last stable version, which I do believe can be identified. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Strike your repeated accusations of POV pushing or provide some fucking evidence. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I didn't want to do this, but here's some evidence of your POV pushing. Again, I'm not trying to get you in trouble, this is just presented to support my call for full prot.
    • Here's where you reinserted unsourced content connecting Swann to fake news and Russian disinformation.
    • Here's where you compared your campaign to add this content to disputes over pseudoscience.
    • Here's where you said your position was such common knowledge that no sourcing was necessary. (At least, you cited WP:SKYBLUE, and that's what it's about.)
    • Here's where you said erroneously that "demonstrably false claims of fact" were the "very definition of fake news."
    • Here's where you said you weren't going to waste your time arguing with me, and you told me to "fuck off."
    • Here's where you called efforts to enforce BLP "bullshit whitewashing."
    • Here's where you said you were trying to get me to "shut up" and alluded to me being "a fucking robot who can't engage in any thought whatsoever."
    • Here's where you bizarrely objected to my RfC on the basis that I hadn't previously obtained any consensus for my position. (What would be the point of starting an RfC if I had already obtained consensus?)
    --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, here we go:
    • Sourced in the body, as explained by at least three other editors at talk: [68], [69], [70] and me.
    • I did not add this content, I'm hardly on a "campaign" and so what if I compared it to pseudoscience? The notion that Swann is a legitimate reporter is clearly WP:FRINGE, according to the sources themselves.
    • That was not my assertion, and I explained it rather clearly in detail in that post. I clearly said that if a source defines what Swann says in the same way that fake news is defined, it's not OR to call it fake news. Just like if a source describes something as "that color between red and yellow" we can call it "orange". It would be nice if you would read comments (as you have been advised to do by multiple editors at that page) instead of simply responding to what you think they say.
    • That is not what I said, and you damn well know it. I even went back and bolded the very important point that you "conveniently" left out.
    • Are you suggesting me being unwilling to engage with dishonest editors is a sign of POV pushing?
    • "efforts to enforce BLP" is bullshit. It's efforts to WP:CRYBLP over widely reported claims about Swann's work, not himself personally.
    • That's where I point out that your argument only works if all we do is quote sources instead of summarizing them. Yeah, robots who can't engage in any thought whatsoever would have a problem with summation. It wasn't an accusation; it was a characterization of how weak your argument is.
    • That is not the reason I objected to your RfC (that I participated in, by the way), as is made explicitly clear in my comment. I quite plainly stated that I objected because you're dragging out a content dispute that has no basis in the RSes.
    I want to point out that I could at least four different, policy based arguments against your objections that you've completely ignored, in favor of continuing to assert in the face of contradictory evidence that the material is not supported by sources. You are lying about what the sources say, either having read them yourself, or by refusing to read them and pretending to know already. I'm fairly certain you're not POV pushing, but you're certainly dragging out a content dispute that has no policy basis, and should have been resolved weeks ago.
    Finally, as for your "case for full prot": I've edited the article exactly twice. Your "case for full prot" isn't stronger or weaker for anything I've done. I could be insisting that Swann is a child rapist and it wouldn't matter, because it's been the following list of editors opposing this change: Neutrality, Jytdog, Objective3000, NorthBySouthBaranof, Snooganssnoogans & Calton, far more than it has been I. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This will probably draw an objection, but this is my rough paraphrase of what you just wrote: "I didn't POV push! It's just that I'm so obviously right that any removal of my content is bullshit whitewashing and POV pushing, any BLP argument is CRYBLP, any disagreement over what the sources say is lying, and any extended discussion is worthy of me telling my fellow editors to shut up, fuck off, and call them thoughtless robots." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "I didn't POV push! It's just that I'm so obviously right this change has been opposed by the clear majority of editors for such well-defined reasons that any this removal of my existing content is bullshit whitewashing and POV pushing, any this particular BLP argument is CRYBLP, any disagreement over what the sources say is lying you're lying if you claim you've made even one single attempt to characterize what the sources are saying, instead of just blindly insisting that they're not saying what me and others have quoted them saying, and any extended discussion is worthy of me telling my fellow editors to shut up, fuck off, and call them thoughtless robots this discussion has been going on for weeks with no consensus to make the proposed changes, and it's growing disruptive."
    I made some corrections there, since you seem to be really bad at reading my comments, preferring to completely ignore them in favor of the kind of wild assertions I've never made on this site.
    P.S. Here's me using the same basic line of argument to defend remarks by Trump as being racially inclusive. Because consistently using the same logic even when it contradicts one's POV is the halmark of a POV pusher. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggestion @DrFleischman and MPants at work:. I am pretty good at doing line-by-line reviews of content to sources, paying particular attention to POV. I see that the article is tagged for {{synthesis}}. I would be happy to do a review and edit if that would be ok with both of you. It seems that there is aa lot of re-litigation of previous comments... and maybe having someone new come in and take a look at the content may help get to a "stable" version and one that you might both agree with (even if it wouldn't be your wording).–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd appreciate that! Thank you! FYI there's a pending RfC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war at St. Martinus University Faculty of Medicine

    Thar is a big edit war here, not quite sure what is is about, as I am not involved. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Update, the page has been protected. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war at Jason Spencer (politician)

    Mopped up by SarekOfVulcan. Natureium (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    There is an edit war at the listed page in the wake of the controversy concerning Jason Spencer. Germany7to1 is posting Swastika and Confederate flag as his picture in the infobox. I have repeatedly reverted the charges to no avail and warned the user at least once. Please have the page protected and deal with the user in the most appropriate manner. Christianster94 (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI, I just reverted him removing this post. Natureium (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)And we have some move-vandalism. [71] Natureium (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And blocked indef. 10-ish edits, then vandalism spree? Bye. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP:108.54.92.30

    IP blocked by Ymblanter for a year. (non-admin closure) SemiHypercube ✎ 22:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Can an admin block this for at least a year (previous blocks have been 1 month, 3 month etc) - almost all edits are vandalism or BLP violations. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

     Done, a year.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=851846008"