Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. 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

Writings from blocked range

See User talk:72.64.9.241. The user is writing stuff on their talk page apparently because their range is blocked due to previous attacks on administrator accounts. The block is set to expire in less then a month, and it looks like the blocking administrator is no longer here. Not sure what, if any, attention this should receive, so I figured I'd bring it here. Not notifying the user of this discussion. Home Lander (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Unless there is good reason to think that the problem that prompted the block will return again after three years, it's probably best to let the block expire. Three years is a long time to block a moderately wide IP range for an ISP (FairPoint Communications). I suspect there is quite a bit of collateral damage (and the talk page comment linked above is just a harmless reflection of that). -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Elockid's block summary seems to be a fairly compelling rationale for why this range should remain blocked, and for the record it's been blocked continuously for five years as of next week and seems to have been intended to be indefinite. JamesBWatson might have some insight into this as well, and since this was a checkuser block from ages ago, let's dial up Bbb23 too. As for the user on the IP currently, they should be advised to create an account if they wish to edit. It's inconvenient unfortunately, but not compared to having compromised admin accounts running amok. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand what Elockid meant by compromising admin accounts. The only thing I can think of is the resetting of passwords, which happens often enough but is completely ineffective. This range used to belong to a well-known sockmaster, but I don't know if they still use it. In any event, the block affects only IPs, not named accounts. All in all, I favor letting the block expire.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Admin accounts with weak passwords, e.g. those used on other sites which have been compromised in one of the many, many, many, many, many successful attacks could easily be compromised. If this happened 5 years ago, I think it may have been before we had 2FA on wikimedia, and did we even have the strong policy requirement? Either way, while the admins may be at fault, this doesn't give a free pass to anyone who compromised those accounts with malicious purposes. (Anyone who compromised them to show that there is a problem, even if they intentionally did harm, is perhaps a legitimate point, or is that WP:POINT) of debate.) Of course, even if the wikipedia password is secure, if the email password is not and someone is able to guess the email address tied to the account, than resetting passwords is more than just an annoyance. Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• This relates to a banned editor, whose first account was called Bigshowandkane64, which has been blocked since 2013. He has been evading blocks using at least 60 sockpuppet accounts (maybe many more) and goodness knows how many IP addresses. The block evasion was continuing at least as recently as March of this year, and I doubt that he has suddenly given up in the last couple of months. He was using the IP range involved in this case (72.64.0.0/20) from 2013 until at least as late as June 2016. There is no doubt whatever of that: editing includes various unmistakable hallmarks, such as childish attacks on the same editors that the accounts have attacked. Since June 2016 there have been fewer edits, almost all of them unblock requests, and none of them has shown any clear signs of being made by Bigshowandkane64, though of course they could have been. As for collateral damage, it is clear that for several years all the editing was from one person, so it is likely that the range has not been available to a large number of users, as otherwise we might have had unblock requests from other editors scattered over the years. The range may have more recently switched to someone else, so that there may now be collateral damage. However, being subject to collateral damage from an IP-only block is just a small inconvenience: I once suffered from exactly that, and my way of dealing with it was to create this account, which I have now been using without problems for almost 12 years. A mild inconvenience, but no more. I agree with Bbb23 that the best thing is to just let the block expire.
• On the subject of "compromising admin accounts", the editor tried to reset my password back in 2013, and I guess further attempts to do that are what Elockid referred to. If so, Bbb23 is totally right in saying that such attempts are completely ineffective: all that happens is that the owner of the account gets an email about it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• One more thought. Although, as I have said above, I agree with Bbb23 that most probably "compromising admin accounts" means resetting the account passwords, it could be that the person has been trying to hack into accounts by trying to log in with possible passwords. If that is so then it could potentially be more serious, as that has been known to succeed a number of times. I also evidence as to a possible identification of the real life identity of Bigshowandkane64, and if it is correct then he is likely to have sufficient technical knowledge to have a reasonable chance of being able to do it. However, the evidence is weak and far from conclusive. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

  I had assumed from the block notice that the user was attacking admin accounts in a more sophisticated manner, like a brute-force attack or using a leaked list, and was at least somewhat successful. If they were just spamming reset notices, a method known to be completely ineffective, I doubt the dire block log entries would have been warranted, nor resetting the block every few years when it was close to expiry. But as Elockid seems to have retired since the last block extension, I guess all there is to do is let the block expire. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

[Non-admin]Just an FYI a quick Google search for "Bigshowandkane64" reveals that the user is [1] still active on Wikipediocracy as of April 2018. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 11:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Pinging involved admins who may have missed the above comment: Edgar181, JamesBWatson, Ivanvector, Bbb23. Sorry if I missed anyone. Home Lander (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I try very hard never to look at Wikipediocracy, but when someone provides a link, I cave. I do wish they'd get the number of b's in my username right. Maybe they don't like another user? I'm going to go clean up my act now.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I too never look at Wikipediocracy unless someone provides a link which looks as though it might be worth checking, but unlike Bbb23 I don't have to try hard not to look: I'm not even tempted to. However, this time I did look, and found that I am a "shitbird" and an "evil patroller" and that I am "cut from ... filthy cloth". What I find more puzzling, though, is that apparently I don't care about Wikipedia. I wonder in that case why I have bothered to dedicate so much of my time to it over these years. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Shoot... first time I've ever looked, and I can't find anyone's ever mentioned me. Bummer. Home Lander (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

My nick gets some hits, but apparently I need to try harder to reach "shitbird" status. Not sure though, their search tool is throttled at one search per "few minutes", and I'm not giving that site that much of my time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

User:LaserLegs at WP:ITN

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

---

User:LaserLegs is an editor is very active at WP:ITN, notably WP:ITN/C. Indeed, pretty much every single one of their recent edits have been to the Candidates page, other sub-pages, and related pages - some 250 edits stretching back over a month. In their total editing career, including their previous accounts User:CosmicAdventure and User:IP98, they have made 1,759 edits to ITN/C, but just 237 to articlespace in its entirety (and indeed some of those edits related to issues at ITN). Recently, they have been arguing forcefully that ITN is biased against posting US-related stories, and biased towards posting stories from other countries. Now, that's a perfectly valid opinion to have, but they are now starting to cross the line from "disagreement" to "disruption". Some examples;

• "If you want to amend WP:ITN#Purpose to include fighting bias or diversity or an international world view or whatever other lame fucking excuse you want to use to denigrate the USA go ahead and open an RFC so it can go down in flames. I'm digging out my laptop to close this trash." (I reverted this close).
• "It's a worthless bullshit objection which serves no purpose other than to push an anti American agenda" (edit summary - "STFU")
• Compares a hot-dog eating contest to be as equally newsworthy as the World Cup
• Edit summary - "unless someone didn't die anywhere other than America then omfg post"
• Another "STFU" as edit summary
• Another rant
• "Would you kindly move along, you're adding no value"

All of these are just from the last 50 edits, along with various snark of the "Oh this won't get posted it's in the US / Oh this will get posted because it's not in the USA" type in numerous other comments at ITN. I'm not looking for LL to be blocked, just for someone to come along and tell him to knock it off. It's getting very boring, and I'm sure there are plenty of articles that need improving instead. Black Kite (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

As someone else fairly involved in the situation, and who also believes that the striving to end systemic bias has turned into too much of a shunning of U.S.-centric news at ITN/C, I can chime in to say that I agree that the tone LaserLegs is using is not helpful. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

[Comment from a non-admin]. I looked over their postings and I suggest that the user is prohibited from posting at ITN/C for a short period of time - and that when they return they must engage in civil discourse with civil edit summaries - basing their comments upon the merits of the article only.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm on vacation so you can either ban me till July 9, or hold this over till July 9. Can someone open an AN/I for WaltCip ignoring NOTFORUM and using the talk page for needless America bashing? And maybe investigate the obvious IP sock puppets that came to oppose that Baltimore shooting? Or Walt picking at @The Rambling Man: about Russians at ITN/C? Or any number of Walt's other unhelpful edits? Anyway I'll keep reading articles wether I can comment on them or not, which is more than most of the POV warriors there are doing. Back on the 9th. Take a look at Walt's edit history, also almost entirely itn. Pot - kettle? Also if this is an npa vio let me know. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

How is this [2] US bashing? As Waltcip posted later [3] the comment wasn't meant to be taken that way, and was meant to be praise. There's far too many editors at ITN that are not assuming good faith in how people !vote or discuss the situation. --Masem (t) 01:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the guidelines: It sounds to me like the issue is WP:UNCIVIL, which includes WP:ESDOS, and can result in Blocking for incivility, depending upon the extent of the issue. Can you see yourself, LaserLegs, responding on ITN/C based only on the merits of each article? And, follow WP:ESDOS, so that the edit summaries are civil?–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Have you seen ITN/C? Most of BlackKites "evidence" above is from a discussion where people were congratulating themselves for suppressing US-centric stories and ignoring the merits. Come on. I support posting articles which are "in the news" and have advocated for removing the silly "notability" guidelines. PS: Whats disruptive about comparing Klausses goals with Chestnuts hotdogs? At least Nathans isn't objectively corrupt. Hold this over till the 9th please so I can properly defend myself against these accusations. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course I did. I went and searched for your comments myself. I am sensing from your response that 1) you don't see anything wrong with your comments or edit summaries and 2) you don't think you need to make a change.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

See below, I concede that swearing at WaltCip was too far, inflamed by an unnecessary WP:NOTFORUM at WT:ITN congratulating themselves for suppressing US-centric stories. I won't concede that it's wrong to compare hotdog eating to soccer ... because it isn't. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

As someone feeling a bit put-off by LaserLegs' abusive language right now, I think the sentence in that comment saying "Whats disruptive about comparing Klausses goals with Chestnuts hotdogs?" is very telling. I for one do not want hot dog eating contests on the front page of Wikipedia. If LaserLegs really does, we have a perspective problem. HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok then wander on over to WT:ITN and propose a change to WP:ITN#Purpose because right now it doesn't say anything about a soccer ticker or banning hotdogs. It has some pretty clear guidelines. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

That response is just as telling. It is aggressive. And still shows a very different perspective from what I see as reasonable for a quality encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Whats aggressive about it? You consider my comparison of Klausses arbitrary soccer goal record to a hot dog eating contest "very telling" (whatever that means) and went on to insist "I for one do not want hot dog eating contests on the front page of Wikipedia.". The thing is, that doesn't at all align with the WP:ITN#Purpose of ITN, so I suggested you head over to WT:ITN and propose a change, like I successfully did to fix the dumpster fire that was WP:ITN/DC. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I mean, if you want to T-ban me for swearing at WaltCip and comparing arbitrary goal records at a corrupt FIFA event to hotdog eating, without even a warning, that's your prerogative as an admin. I'll even concede that swearing is not acceptable and apologize. If you want to tell me that noms at ITN/C can ONLY be considered on their "merits" and not consider the fake !rules of ITN, then I'll need to drag the bulk of the regulars through AN/I so you can T-ban every one of them. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I really wish LaserLegs would convey his views in a collegial manner. He has some valid points about the exclusion of US-centric stories, and he's not the only who is tired of the America bashing at ITN, but he's only hurting his own cause with his abrasive attitude. Lepricavark (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your wish. I am concerned about this claim of America bashing. Can condemning the hot dog proposal really be described as America bashing? If that's the kind of American nomination we get, it is going to be bashed, but that's not the same as bashing America. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm speaking of other instances when I've seen editors thumb their noses at the US in one way or another. In the case of the hot dog contest, that was not an item that should have been posted. Lepricavark (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I was ok with the hotdog contest but the articles weren't up to scratch. The vitriol poured on the Miami Bridge Collapse, the SCOTUS noms, and that Baltimore shooting are whats "telling" here. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I think the term 'vitriol' is too strong. In fact, your use of words that are too strong is part of the problem. You've been trying to fight fire with fire and that's not going to work. Lepricavark (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems that the key issue is civility... and diving back into a specific issue could take this conversation sideways. I agree with the points above about perspective, attitude, abrasiveness... and I'd add a failure to "get it", but I am afraid that getting into specific issues gives little chance of resolving this well. Just my two cents, for what little it may be worth.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok well what actions do you want from me? I've already offered to refrain from swearing and apologize to WaltCip for it. I've also pointed on that only considering nominations on their "merits" is something I largely do, and MANY other contributors at ITN just ignore (including the ITN discussion that kicked this off) so I won't be held to a standard that others aren't held to. Let me know what I need to do to make this go away. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

What actions? Please stop telling me where to go....

"...wander on over to WT:ITN and propose a change..."

"...head over to WT:ITN and propose a change"

Neither of those seems likely to make things more collegial. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

HiLo, I'm just pointing out where the policies around ITN are, and how to amend them. --LaserLegs (talk) 04:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I mean, look at the Scott Pruitt nomination down in flames in hours because of "systemic bias" (whatever that means). Quite a few people there failed to consider the "merits" of that article, maybe they need to get dragged in to AN/I too? --LaserLegs (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Only one editor out of seven who opposed it mentioned systemic bias. Others gave a wide range of other reasons. You are misrepresenting the situation. That is never helpful. And it certainly wasn't America bashing. HiLo48 (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Your comments obviously are seen as inflammatory and a bit overwhelming. I saw your comments and I agree that you "largely" evaluate the nominations based upon their merits. You can only control your behavior, so perhaps instead of "largely" it could be "only" discuss the merits of the case without editorial comments and follow WP:ESDOS for edit summaries. Dialing it back a bit could help a LOT.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Right, but am I facing a T-ban because I compare nominations which were/were not posted at ITN like the majority of the other contributors there, am I facing a T-ban for pointing out the obvious double standard when us-centric noms are closed in hours and EU-centric noms for legislation that wasn't passed are STILL open, or am I facing a t-ban for swearing at WaltCip? If it's the last one, I'll gladly apologize and even endeavor to dial it back. If it's the other two, I don't know what to tell you. --LaserLegs (talk) 04:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I was going by Black Kite's comment: "I'm not looking for LL to be blocked, just for someone to come along and tell him to knock it off..." and that related to the manner of communication, which included the comments in edit summaries, including swearing. Black Kite didn't even recommend a topic ban for a short period of time, that was my suggestion. I don't think I really have anything new to add or say at this point. This conversation is getting long.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

But, I am very interested in your response... and that of others that may weigh in.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was quite a simple request, really. Simply knock off the incivility and "STFU"s, knock off the snark, and stop making ridiculous comparisons between things (you know that a hot-dog eating contest and the biggest sporting event in the world aren't comparable, so that's just WP:POINT). Quite apart from anything else, you make your own arguments look weaker, and you get to the point where people start to thing "Oh, it's only LaserLegs with his usual stuff" and start to ignore you. At other times you often make good points - can we just stick to doing that? Black Kite (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Well you could have left a comment on my talk page about that, AN/I is a heavy handed tool. Edit summaries? Sure, no problem. Snark? I'm not sure but ok. Lots of "snark" at ITN/C. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

There was absolutely no difference, none whatsoever, between a record number of hot dogs eaten and a record number of goals kicked in a silly FIFA soccer pageant. None. Absolutely none. Know why? They were both "in the news" which happens to be he topic of that main page feature. The only difference there is you've convinced yourself on the significance of FIFAs corrupt officiating, arbitrary extra time and fake injuries, AND have convinced yourself of the triviality of that hot dog contest. Is that why I'm here? Is that the last straw? That I compared the sacred cow of ITN sports "association soccer" to hot dogs? --LaserLegs (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't stand soccer, but I know it's more important than hot dogs. HiLo48 (talk) 10:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

All I care about, HiLo, is if a story is "In The News" and if the article has a quality update. That's it. "Importance", "global coverage", "most popular sport", whatever, all of those fake requirements are simply used by ITN regulars to push a POV agenda, which culminates occasionally in a discussion at WT:ITN where people actually congratulate themselves on suppressing US-centric stories. I was curious, so I looked, way back in 2012 I was comparing walking across Niagara Falls on a tightrope to soccer -- you opposed that nom too, actually. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Fine. If you're deliberately going to go down the road of not seeing what you're doing wrong, feel free to choose it. I wouldn't advise it, but it's your choice. Black Kite (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I have noticed above that LaserLegs is naming me as a party to this ANI, saying one should be opened up about me for my edits, and has neither notified me nor posted anything on my talk page about this. I would have appreciated the heads-up.--WaltCip (talk) 11:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry @WaltCip:, you're right. I was on mobile when this came up and didn't loop back around to tag your talk page. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, regarding a comment you made above - "Can someone open an AN/I for WaltCip ignoring NOTFORUM and using the talk page for needless America bashing? And maybe investigate the obvious IP sock puppets that came to oppose that Baltimore shooting?" Are you suggesting that I use sockpuppets? Please clarify.--WaltCip (talk) 11:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Nope, separate incidents, the IP socks, I'm not suggesting they are you. I stand by the NOTFORUM comment, there was no reason for you to head over to WT:ITN and celebrate suppressing US-centric stories without a clear call to action. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it's this inverted logic which is why you're here LaserLegs. I saw the thread as a celebration of the fact that in spite of systemic bias, the ITN section was as diverse as it's ever been. It felt to me that you and a few other pro-US users leapt all over it and utterly derailed its original meaning to suit your position. And once complete, everyone screamed about it being more heat than light. And now you're here. Personally, I find all the pointy bollocks to be mildly amusing, sometimes interwoven with some reasonable notes, but that's just because I have that sort of a sense of humour and you've usually been pointy but fair to me. I think others struggle with these kinds of communication to be honest. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflicted with TRM) Your assertion that I am attempting to suppress US-centric stories from ITN is troubling. As you probably know, the highest plurality of editors on the English Wikipedia comes from the United States. Inevitably as a result of this, there will be a systemic bias. My post on the ITN talk page was not intended for, as you say, "America bashing" or celebrating American items not being posted on ITN. It was intended to celebrate the internationally diverse selection of stories that we have on there despite the systemic bias that exists. I have not been in favor of deliberately suppressing US items from ITN in order to achieve this, but I am in favor of posting items that are of significance and newsworthiness. That a large number of items that get turned down that do not meet that newsworthiness standard happen to be from the US is just an artifact of the process, I think. Anyway, I apologize if you construed my comment as being "anti-American" in any way; I assure you that was not its intent.--WaltCip (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to rehash the arguments which correctly refuted your thesis in that now closed WP:NOTFORUM WP:SOAP discussion, I'll just remind you that WP:ITN#Purpose doesn't say anything about fighting bias, or "international coverage" or any such thing, and if you want to propose a change, that is the correct use of WT:ITN and I'd evaluate the merits of such a proposal and comment accordingly. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Please stop casting aspersions. This has nothing to do with discrimination merely for the sake of international coverage, or "America-bashing" as you call it. This has everything to do with applying significance standards consistently so that we don't have an over-representation of stories from a single country. What about this do you not understand?--WaltCip (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a made up requirement Walt, there is nothing in WP:ITN or in any main page feature about "an over-representation of stories from a single country". That's the whole point here, and that's what you do not understand. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

LaserLegs After all of this discussion, I hope it's clear that when you make comparisons, talk about the ratio of US stories, and are uncivil to others — you are being disruptive. So, I'll ask my question again, can you operate on the ITN/C in such a way that you:

• just talk about the merits of the candidates
• don't make snarky comments about whether or not it's a US story
• don't make comparisons
• be civil in your comments to others and in your edit summaries?

If not, I go back to my original suggestion for a short-term ban of the ITN, with the comment that when you return you must be more civil and not disruptive.–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I absolutely will not be held to a different standard at ITN/C where many contributors compare noms to previous noms, including the perennial objection to us-centric stories "we'd not post this from another country". If you want to impose a fundamental change to the discourse at ITN/C, I'm all for it, but it needs to be universal, not as a punitive tool against me. Regarding civility, I'll refrain from "snarky" edit summaries like "hate" and "hateful" and anything else objectionable, and if I fall off the wagon, I'd appreciate a note on my talk page that isn't an AN/I notice. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

My personal guidelines are simple: support stories which are in the news and have quality updates. There is a whole culture there of editorializing and content filtering based upon policies which do not exist. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't (think I) comment on other editors comments unless there is some inaccuracy that needs to be corrected, and I certainly don't accuse other editors of "hating" "evil Russians". I just READ the articles first and support as many as I can. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Is this so "chronic, intractable" that it needed to come to AN/I? Reading the comments at IT/C, I'll concede that I have crossed the WP:CIVIL line, but I'm certainly not alone there. It seems I'm here because because I compared association fake injuries to hotdog eating, a point dragged up over and over in this long running thread. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The others aren't here, you are. You downplay your behavior. Did you read your comments above from Black Kite's original post?

The others ARE here, comically enough. HiLo48 literally reopened a closed discussion just to comment on me. Can I refer that to AN/I without it being considered pointy? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Black Kite reopened the conversation before HiLo48 made that comment. Lepricavark (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

This could be an opportunity for you to be an example for others of how to move conversations forward and not get bogged down in comparisons and finger-pointing. You can either recognize that you are part of the problem and try to fix it, or move on. That's my personal opinion.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Strike out sentence, we posted about the same time.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I've never once, since I retired IP98, opposed an article because of comparisons. I oppose for quality or because it simply isn't in the news. Sometimes I point out the discrepancy in !votes between soccer and any other sport, or Europe and any other region of the world. I'm not going to pretend the pro-Europe pro-soccer pro-disaster bias at ITN doesn't exist. If that's a problem, maybe an RFC at WT:ITN about the discourse and support/oppose rationales is needed. Yes, I realize I was being snarky in my edit summaries and I can see how some (who are themselves snarky in their edit summaries) would be offended, and since it adds no value, I'll work harder to not do it. The heat has finally broken here in Niagara, I'm missing vacation time. I was keeping an eye on ITN, and if T-banning someone who actually READS articles, checks the refs and adheres to the actual published guidelines at WP:ITN is what's best for the project, so be it. I'm out. Thanks CaroleHenson for a cool head. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I truly believe what you say about your intention and the approach you take when evaluating candidates.

The problem is that you let what seems to be long-standing anger cloud your communication. And you are not getting it. That is clear by the diff you posted above, which in my opinion doesn't shine a lovely light on you. You are saying you're out. I go back to a suggestion for a short time-out. Get through your vacation, have a lovely breather. Come back in a week or so with a fresh mind-set. You may see things differently and choose to be a model of civil and constructive discourse. In other words, I vote for a one week ITN ban to hit the reset button.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

A bit heavy handed, when I get back I'll be sure to refer others who behave the same way to AN/I, but you're an admin, just do it. I won't go screaming to ARBCOM or anything because you're involved. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not an admin. I posted my first comment saying [non-admin comment]. But, I am someone who has been around for awhile and have a sense of how to be productive and effective (but like everyone I have had my moments where I haven't been the proudest of myself, too).–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't call sending people you disagree with to ANI/N right off the bat as a model of constructive discourse. Others tried to talk to you about the issue before coming here, and others would deserve the same courtesy from you. For instance, you blind-sided WaltCip (and yes, I know you apologized for that, just saying not the best approach to ready, shoot, aim).

We'll have to see how an admin chooses to close this out. My guess is that it wouldn't be for a week.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I've occasionally popped into ITN but not regularly, if you want an admin experienced in that area I would recommend 331dot (though I see you've crossed swords with him already). Anyway, LaserLegs, I think the point is you are starting to sound like a broken record; everyone is fully aware you think ITN is biased, but as Black Kite says above, the more you keep saying it (with sarcastic and snarky comments), the more people are going to look at what you say, think "aww jeez here goes LaserLegs again with his systemic bias rehtoric" and ignore you. (I personally find some of your comments amusing, but my sense of humour is not shared by too many people around here). That means you aren't going to get the results you want. I'm not looking at bans or blocks, but yeah, just, you know dial it back a bit and work on something else. If you want to try something different, put WP:ERRORS on your watchlist and go and help take care of ITN problems that are on the main page right now instead of just whining about bias on the nomination pages. Or, to not too fine a point on it, you've made one mainspace edit in the past month. The more you contribute to actual articles, the more respect you will get. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I feel that it would be inappropriate for me to close this as we have had extensive conversations with each other, but I would encourage LaserLegs to take at least some of the advice in this discussion, especially that of Ritchie above. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

ITN is about to post a crappy article about a draft EU directive that was delayed two months. There is consensus to do so. I'm not going to pretend there is not a pro-Europe, anti-US bias at itn, but I'll try not to be such a dick about it (even in the face of such aggressive anti-US dickishness). That'll have to be good enough I'm afraid. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

As for mainspace, I check refs and tag them if they're garbage, and remove content that can't be saved. If there is some WP:MINIMUMPARTICIPATION I'm missing please let me know. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You know how The Rambling Man can get away with posting screeds about "crap" on ITN/C and ERRORS and call you "Mr Pointy Bollocks" and you can't? It's because he does a lot of mainspace writing. You're not obliged to do any, I'm simply saying the more you do, the more people will see you around, remember the good work you do, and if you get dragged up to the WP:Slough of Despond, there ought to be sufficient people who will recognise this and cut you some slack. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Great! Pointy bollocks – how am I going to get THAT image out of my head? EEng 19:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You never will EEng. That's the .... point.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm receiving corrective treatment for pointy bollocks syndrome. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

To me, as someone who is an irregular participant at ITN/C, the consensus in this thread is clear: LaserLegs' behaviour is clearly disruptive, whatever its intentions - indeed everybody who has commented above, whether they agree or disagree with the points attempting to be made, seems to agree with this. There is no strong desire for a topic ban, at this point, just an end to the disruption, however if LaserLegs does not change their behaviour then I think one will be right around the corner.<br Accordingly I propose to close this thread as: LaserLegs is warned that their behaviour is disruptive and that unless it improves significantly they will be topic banned.. I recognise that LL is on holiday until the 9th, and do not suggest closing the thread before they return, but equally I don't see the need to keep it open without resolution indefinitely. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Thryduulf:, I'm back. I've stated I'll work hard to be less dickish, but will not ignore the anti-US, pro-Europe bias at ITN. If that's not good enough, I guess someone will have to move forward with a ban. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Iñaki LL

The user Iñaki LL filed a complaint against me in the ANI, asking me to be blocked, which was rejected and he was warned: "Inaki, please keep it on the talk page, quit making personal attacks, address specific points of contention or do not revert at all, and employ dispute resolution measures if and when they are needed. Getting your opponent blocked is not an option.",

Despite this, he has continued with his behavior, questioning my edits and commenting on me in the articles talk pages [4] [5] [6] [7] [8].

EDITED Notice how the first thing he did after after the closing of the incident in the ANI on 22:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC) by Swarm and the rejection of his blocking request on me was to question the decision of the administrators, returning to accuse me on my talk page on 11:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC) of clear "POV overtones" and saying "Where is going the EN WP? Who knows. WP:BUREAUCRACY Very sad really" .BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 15:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

He accused me several times without proof of "You removed verified information 'in your information re-arrangement", "removing 'unpleasant' information" in a talk page [9], [10], in his talk page [11] and in my talk page [12]. I replied in his talk page [13], asking him to provide evidence of his accusations, or if not, that he apologizes or strikes his accusations [14]. He has not done it, he has circumvent the answer and he has erased my messages from his talk page [15] [16], claiming that I have not right to answer there [17], even though I explained that the policies do allow it [18] [19]. See the full discussions here [20] [21].

I think if Iñaki LL did not want me to respond, he should have thought before writing me (notice the tone and content of his message, with which he started the discussion [22]). I am posting this here because he has erased my messages and I'm still waiting for him to provide specific evidence to corroborate his accusations.

IMHO this seems Wikipedia:WikiBullying. I feel harassed, despite my attempts to dialogue with him showing my good faith [23] [24].

I want him to stop once and for all his attitude towards me and just discuss how to improve the content of the pages from a neutral point of view, calmly, politely and respecting the Wikipedia policies. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 00:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

This dispute originated in Catalan independence referendum, 2017, where Iñaki LL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) attempted to clarify some of the details of the events but was reverted in a series of edits by BallenaBlanca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), for example BB removed "A man was hit in the eye by a rubber ball during a police charge, severely injuring him." (properly cited to the The Independent) and glossed over it by re-writing an earlier sentence to "four people were hospitalised by the emergency health service and of those, two were in serious condition, one due to impact from a rubber ball in the eye in the protests". This is typical of the grip that BB has on the article, as a glance at the page history and the article talk page, where he has wikilawyered away many edits from multiple other editors, will show. This particular complaint from BB is nothing more than an attempt to remove a dissenting editor from the article. BB's conduct is classic: Inaki complains on BB's talk page about BB's behaviour, so BB immediately takes that post over to Inaki's talk page and makes an entire wall of text blaming Inaki for his response to BB's behaviour. When Inaki objected to BB moving the thread to Inaki's talk page and removed it, BB re-added the wall of text twice more, [25], [26] in complete contravention of WP:TPG, and tantamount to harassment. This only ceased when another editor MPS1992 reminded BB of WP:OWNTALK. That is enough to attract sanctions on BB.

What adds to this however, is that BB then went back to a previous dispute with Inaki from May, on around 10 articles about people who are or were well known as Basques where BB had added a "Spanish" qualifier, for example, BB changed "a ska punk band from the Basque Country" to "a Spanish ska punk band from the Basque Autonomous Community". Inaki had restored the original wording in each case, which had remained stable since then, until BB reverted again in retaliation for this dispute. He has since edit warred the same information back twice more, and against another editor, Theklan who agreed with the original wording.

BallenaBlanca has an obvious anti-Basque and anti-Catalan agenda and comes here with unclean hands. i strongly suggest that there is a case to apply WP:BOOMERANG. --RexxS (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: You are not providing diffs from the page nor from the discussion on it in the talk page for your claimings on the injured in the eye, nor the rest of the information about that edit of mine, so you are only giving a partial view of the situation, distorting it. This is explained here in detail [27] "Iñaki, with this new edit you repeated information already present, causing confusion in the information. There was only one injured by a rubber ball and with what you wrote, it seems that there were two. Notice: ... (I do not quote everything, so as not to overload this discussion). And the page already contained detailed information about the injured in the eye just below for months. Let's see for example this version of 11 January 2018: "Of those injured, most were minor, but four people were hospitalised by the emergency health service and of those two were in serious condition, one due to impact from a rubber ball in the protests, the other for unrelated causes.[193] The man injured by a rubber ball lost the vision of an eye and he sued 3 members of the Spanish National Police.[215]". And a picture and a footage.

Theklan and other editors are trying to apply the RfC of Carles Puigdemont in many articles on Spaniards from the autonomous communities of Catalonia and the Basque Country to eliminate the Spanish nationality, ignoring the policies Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context, but have been warned by their incorrect behavior in several talk pages by an administrator, as for example here: [28] "This RFC does not set a precedent for other articles.". The administrator himself had to make several reversions for this reason [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42] ...

RexxS, you said "BallenaBlanca has an obvious anti-Basque and anti-Catalan agenda" You are violating WP:AGF. I do not have any political positioning, I just want to improve the encyclopedia and I look for neutrality. On the other hand, both Iñaki and Theklan openly declare their POV. See:

• Theklan Wikilari honek Euskal Herriaren independentzia aldarrikatzen du (This wikipedian proclaims the independence of the Basque Country)
• Iñaki LL This user opposes the policies and views of Mariano Rajoy.

--BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 16:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

All three are Spanish users with strong views on a subject many Spaniards have strong views on. RexxS mischaracterises the dispute by asserting only Ballena Blanca has strong politiical opinions on the matter, as Iñaki LL and Theklan have equally strong views that oppose those of Ballena Blanca. Is this general Spanish political issue a case for arbcom? Which would of course require dispute mediation first. There are no simple ANI solutions, IMO. I don't think there are any excuses for edit-warring across multiple articles but it is clearly coming from both camps. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not Spanish. -Theklan (talk) 09:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

So how come you have Spanish and Basque as your native languages? Basque isn't a nationality. You can self-identify as you want of course but your statement anyway indicates you aren't neutral in this topic. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• Only the first of TWO threads on the board RIGHT NOW related to Catalan separatism. Jesus. EEng 17:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Because they are my native languages. If you claim I can't say I'm Basque but not Spanish (something quite usual, even on your narrow minded system) then I understand why you have a problem with calling Basque people Basque. -Theklan (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I do not see this as a matter of strong view from my part but to comply with Wikipedia policies and neutrality.

What worries me is that Wikipedia's policies are violated by writing freely without adjusting to the sources and distorting the information.

For example, claiming that "rubber ball" does not exist in English [43] [44], insisting on using a news title “A reasonable title in a reliable source is good enough” when the actual content of the news and several other sources contradict it and so I had explained it [45], etc.

I would like you to read this complete thread [46], motivated by numerous edits that a user has made in the last month and that included various irregularities. I would like you to see the discussion, how I have been arguing in detail, listening to other users, trying to dialogue with Iñaki and reach consensus, thanking his signs of goodwill [47], accepting his proposals [48], proposing solutions and seeking consensus [49] [50], recognizing my mistakes [51] ... But I feel that as much as I try, it seems that he does not see my good faith.

A suggestive fact: Iñaki LL expanded the information about the injured in the eye and added statements of four witnesses about the pacifism of the demonstrators, but when I included the other version, with sources that include footages that contradict those statements and that pacifism of at least part of them (including the man injured himself), Iñaki LL was outraged and protested [52]. Is this a matter of a view opposed to Iñaki's? I do not think so, I think it's a matter of WP:NPOV, which I complied with.

In that same message [53] we see how he tries to impose rules on me on where I can edit and how the length of the discussions on the talk page should be, violating WP:No-edit orders.--BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 20:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: I have some advice for you, but it may not help you very much. First, if you feel that someone who is not an administrator, is trying to impose rules on you, then feel free to ignore them. They cannot force you to do anything. But, you might like to think about their advice anyway. And one thing they can insist on, is that you do not keep repeatedly posting the same thing on their talk page. Especially if what you are adding is a dissertation. And also, I am guessing that both you and the person you are reporting both write English as a second language -- this if fine, but, in English we do not say that a police officer shot someone in the eye "with a rubber ball". That's not English. MPS1992 (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@MPS1992: Thank you very much for your advice, off course is a help! Thanks for taking the effort to post here, you're very kind.

I especially appreciate your intervention on the Iñaki LL's talk page, to prevent me from continuing to be wrong. I thought that in this case we had to apply WP:TPO, especially due to the fact that he deleted, moved and copied my messages directly in another place, without quoted them (as for example using the Template:Talk quote inline#Usage) and therefore, he also misrepresented my signature, which is personal and non-transferable. The problem is not with reporting words, but that with copying another editors signature unfortunately it gives the impression that the editor posted in a place where they did not. There is a behavioral guideline for this WP:SIGEDITORIMPERSONATE. I do not think for a moment that Iñaki LL intended to impersonate me, but the consequence of copying an editor's entire post from one place to another inadvertently creates a false impression of what was posted where. Anyway, I apologize if I made a mistake.

Regarding the term "rubber ball", it is used in numerous verifiable sources in English "A rubber ball police fired at protesters", "A guy received a rubber ball impact on the eye", including Amnesty International "the use of rubber balls" and the manufacturers / providers themselves, such as this one from the UK (South Wales) Site Search: rubber ball (see for example one of the several images of the search result Bolt Action Rifle Rubber Ball Grip --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 09:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem with strongly Spanish nationalists like BallenaBlanca is that they don't see they are trying to impose their POV. They think they are trying to work with neutrality when impossing their world view. I WP:AGF, but they do the same thing again and again and again. And I don't have as much time as he has to follow on with the discussion. If having time is the way to imposse a narrow spanish-ultranationalist POV, then he will win and Wikipedia will lose. You can follow on with the discussion, I will try to give 5 minutes a day to see where it goes.-Theklan (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Theklan, please, do not make personal attacks. Do not label me as "strongly Spanish nationalists", you do not know anything about me, speak only in your name, you do have a expressly declared POV [54] "Theklan Wikilari honek Euskal Herriaren independentzia aldarrikatzen du (This wikipedian proclaims the independence of the Basque Country)"

In addition, your opinion here has a clear COI, since you were blocked by edit warring and I was the one who reported you [55], and then as revenge you pushed for me to be blocked, such as here [56] --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 10:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm also Darwinist. Please, look after all my articles in every language about evolution, maybe I have a POV than can't be tolerated by the police of rectitude. -Theklan (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Theklan, the same can and must be said of those with an anti-Spanish bias, typically supporters of Basque and Catalan independence. You haven't been assuming good faith, eg accusations of gaming and labelling those you disagree with as the enemies of wikipedia and accusing other users of being unable to read. You justify your own edit warring and here, attacking me, attacks trans people (particularly vile, IMO), and attacks editors while blocked. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 10:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

What I see above is a lot of noise. Basics, I am not taking accusatory walls in my talk page, repeatedly posted after I removed them, clear harassment.

The editor in question has shown a clear tendency to compulsive editing and litigation during the whole article Catalan independence referendum, 2017.

BB is in virtually all the discussions and reverts in the article from the very beginning. Is he the guardian of it? I attempted advise to him on behavioural issues, to improve editing towards smooth, fluent cooperation in this article. Instead he has adopted a reactive attitude, e.g. just after repeatedly posting a wall in my talkpage he went on to do serial, controversial reverts in articles related to Basque cultural matters I had edited roughly a month ago (see diffs provided above by Rexxs), adding "Spanish", removing Basque, with a clear purpose of eliciting a response from me, and Basque editors. At the same time, he ignited this Incident, at a moment when he knew I would be less available for Wikipedia purposes (see my comment here at the bottom [57].

His ad hominem approach aimed at discrediting does not surprise me, despite knowing; there are no NPOV editors, but POV edits. BB's ideology is clear to all the editors contributing to the above articles, but that is not my concern, his attitude in the article is. Check this edit full of self-entitlement [58]("you do have your own POV, as you declare on your user page. Not me, I'm editing for neutrality"), clear WP:TEND. Iñaki LL (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Iñaki LL: I remind you again that it was you who initiated the discussion, not me 13:47, 1 July 2018. I answered asking you to prove your accusations 23:03, 3 July 2018 and I am still waiting.

You are again replying with accusations violating WP: AGF (and without providing any diff): "a clear tendency to compulsive editing", "a lot of noise", "a reactive attitude", "controversial reverts in articles related to Basque cultural matters", "a clear purpose of eliciting a response from me, and Basque editors", "ad hominem approach aimed at discrediting", "BB's ideology is clear to all the editors", "clear WP:TEND" ...

Regarding this: “controversial reverts in articles related to Basque cultural matters”, I will not repeat the whole explanation, you can read it again here: “Theklan and other editors are trying to apply the RfC of Carles Puigdemont in many articles… have been warned by their incorrect behavior in several talk pages by an administrator …”

You have a problem when you speak without verifying what you are saying and without providing evidence to prove it, which unjustifiably discredits other editors, me in this case. You say “BB is in virtually all the discussions and reverts in the article from the very beginning. Is he the guardian of it?” Is 11% "all"? Also, there is not much difference between you and me. Let's see:

Found 131 edits by BallenaBlanca on Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (11.2% of the total edits made to the page)	Found 215 edits by BallenaBlanca on Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (11.23% of the total edits made to the page)
Found 114 edits by Iñaki LL on Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (9.74% of the total edits made to the page)	Found 67 edits by Iñaki LL on Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (3.5% of the total edits made to the page)

And finally, you said that you did not have time to answer the specific information I was asking you to prove your accusations, but you did have time to delete my messages, copy them in another place and leave a message, and to delete them again. As I said on your TP "I would not have opened this incident if you had not deleted my messages from your talk page"

You are also violating WP:AGF by saying "he ignited this Incident, at a moment when he knew I would be less available for Wikipedia purposes", especially if we consider that your complaint about time is permanent "Sorry, I have no time to read all the explanations", "I am not going to dwell on this because I do not have time for noise", "no time now", "I do not have time for your long, never-ending investigations", "I have not got time now to waste", "I do not have more time" ... even reproaching me that I do have time "I do not have as much time as you do", "You seem to have a lot of time, right?", "First of all, the editor seems to have a lot of time, which I do not.", "he does have a lot of time", "The editor in question, (...) besides having plenty of time" ... So, how can we know what is the right moment for you? Wikipedia can not be stopped because you do not have time. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 19:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Very funny RichardWeiss. Specially the part when you say I attack trans people, when I defending them in front of BallenaBlanca, who says that Wikipedia can't reflect what people think about THEIR OWN IDENTITY. So if you want to expose someone, start looking at the spanish ultranationalist you are defending here and there.-Theklan (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Theklan I've removed the trans example. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Why are you removing content, RichardWeiss?

Theklan, I am asking you to stop labeling me and attacking me, you have done it again, now labeling me as an “ultranationalist” and also without any proof.

"trans people, when I defending them in front of BallenaBlanca" (???!!!!!!) Oh, my God, Theklan, what a way to distort the words, misrepresent the facts and take things out of context!!!

Why do not you provide diffs? You were referring here to these messages of mine, based on the policies Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is_not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context:

• [59] If we allow Wikipedia to take into account the wishes of the person and how they want to be described at their whim, and not the realities, it would be a wreck for Wikipedia that would shake all its foundations. This violates all the Wikipedia policies and all common sense. (…) We can not allow people to use Wikipedia as a platform for their own objectives, in the case of this RfC of a political nature. (…) No one is denying that he is Catalan, the real situation is put in the right context: he is a Spanish from Catalonia.
• [60] His country is Spain, his nationality is Spanish. We have to establish the correct context per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Context, and in the body of the article, he can be called Catalan as many times as needed. It is explained and re-explained in this thread ... The nationality and not the ethnicities, is what has to appear in the first place. Ethnicity is added, in addition to nationality, if is relevant for the person in question, and for that reason we support adding "from Catalonia".

--BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 15:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Another wall of text from BallenaBlanca. ANI isn't the place to make content arguments, but as you've introduced it, you're completely wrong about how Wikipedia treats a person's self-identification. The principle here is that we do indeed give considerable weight to how a person describes themselves. It is essential in matters of gender, religion and ethnicity that we defer to an individual's wishes. In the case of regional identity, an individual from the Basque Country may choose to identify as Spanish or as Basque, just as I may choose to identify as English, or British, or as European. You have no right to contradict both reliable sources or an individual's self-identification to impose your view that they are uniformly "Spanish". What is more relevant to this discussion is that you have no right to edit-war your preferred nationalistic view that people from Spain can only be identified as Spanish into an article such as Kortatu who clearly identify as Basque ("{in their last record all the songs were sung in Basque)". Nor may you repeatedly re-post the same screed onto a user's talk page as you did at User talk:Iñaki LL. --RexxS (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: No, this is not the place to talk about this, in this you are right. I just replyed a specific message from Theklan, nothing more. But in the rest you are not right, what applies is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context, except in exceptional cases and after RfC. This is being discussed at Talk:Carles_Puigdemont#Controversial_use_of_above_RfC, I invite you to give your opinion there. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 19:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

And yet you continue to make content arguments. As you wish. You are completely wrong about MOS:LEAD. Or at least lack understanding of the full guidance: "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." A band that comes from the Basque region and sings in Basque – and is known for that – like Kortatu will quite sensibly be described as "a Basque band", not "a Spanish band from the Basque Autonomous Community", which is blatantly a nationalist formulation. The same goes for Jorge_Oteiza, a famous Basque artist, where you changed a Basque Spanish sculptor to a Spanish sculptor more than once. I could give the diffs of a dozen more examples of you removing "Basque" or changing it to "Spanish". So don't try and tell me you're not pushing an anti-Basque/anti-Catalan agenda, because the evidence is there for everybody to see from your edits. It's about time admins dealt with this. --RexxS (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

It is clear that you have not read the full disucussions, otherwise you would not be saying this and you would not be reaching those erroneous conclusions by saying I am "POV pushing", discrediting me without reason when I am fulfilling what has been talked there. Is the administrator Yunshui also pushing their POV [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74] ... ? In fact, you have not participated in the talk page until a few minutes ago [75], your first and only post till the date [76]. There is where you should continue discussing this topic, not here. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 20:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You're unable to justify your edit-warring and poor behaviour at the user's talk page, so you try to discredit me. Pathetic. You have no idea what I've read and your assertion that I "would not be saying this" is completely without any substance or foundation. When you come to this notice board with unclean hands asking for admin action, you're going to have to justify your own actions in the dispute. You've edit-warred against multiple other editors and violated WP:TPG, and now you've made a complaint here in an attempt to remove one of your opponents from a dispute. You want to imply that everybody has a POV except you, but uninvolved editors need only examine the history of an article such as Catalan independence referendum to see the tactics you use to keep your preferred POV in place. This discussion here is about your behaviour, not the tangent you started about content. Now address the issues of your conduct and see if you can justify the edits of yours that I'm complaining about. It's pretty clear to any neutral observer that you can't. --RexxS (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: Please, stop your accusations, I am feeling harasssed by you, you are not fulfilling WP:AGF “with unclean hands”, “an attempt to remove one of your opponents from a dispute” “to see the tactics you use to keep your preferred POV in place”, “see if you can justify the edits of yours that I'm complaining about. It's pretty clear to any neutral observer that you can't” and I do not understand your reactions, especially considering that you had never edited in that page nor in its talk page.

“You're unable to justify your edit-warring and poor behaviour at the user's talk page,” Sorry, but I have explained it in detail here, with links to the policies that I thought should be applied, although I apologized nonetheless if I made a mistake.

“the tangent you started about content” Excuse me, it was not me, it was Theklan who started that. How can I defend myself against the accusations if I can not answer? --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 01:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: If you don't want to have your actions examined and criticised, don't start ANI threads with unclean hands. AGF is not a suicide pact. You're in no position to try to play the "victim card", as you've been pushing your own POV no less than the other editors involved, and you've continually failed to answer the complaints I've made about your behaviour. It is not harassment to point out at ANI: (1) your poor conduct in edit-warring; or (2) your repeatedly making the same argumentative posts on another editor's talk page; or (3) your returning to an old dispute and making 10 reversions in retaliation against an opponent. All of those are sanctionable, and you need to start revising your position, apologising here for your poor behaviour, and trying to convince uninvolved administrators that you won't do the same in the future. Otherwise I'll start compiling the diffs of your editing to make the case for you to be topic-banned from Spain-Basque-Catalan topics. --RexxS (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I do not care if my actions are examined and criticized. The problem is the tone and the attitude, that I feel as aggressive and assuming bad faith, and the misinterpretations.

For example, you are now saying that I did "10 reversions in retaliation against an opponent." Those reversions (btw not 10 but 9) had no relationship with Iñaki LL, they were motivated by 8 disruptive edits by Theklan and 1 by an ip. I just explained this here in detail, in response to your other message where you asked me for explanations about them. I think it's a very serious accusation and you should apologize.

I also do not understand why do you continue insisting on the edits on Iñaki LL's talk page, since I have already explained it here and apologized for my mistake on two occasions [77] and [78]. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 21:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: I just saw that an administrator had already warned you that you were harassing me and attacking me, but you are insisting on the same behavior, with the aggravating circumstance that you are making mistakes that are harming me even more, as explained above. Details here. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 22:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: on the contrary, you do care very much if you are criticised, and reply to it with walls of text, all of which fail to address the issues raised. Smoke and mirrors and I've seen it a hundred times before from POV-pushers. You don't mind dishing out the complaints but think that you should be immune to criticism. Well, you're not. This is ANI and you come here asking for administrative action, but don't like it when your actions are exposed as being even worse than those you are complaining about. WP:BOOMERANG would be a good page to read.

I object very strongly to your tone and attitude as well. You treat your opponents in debate with a patronising air, and refuse to accept that your own behaviour (edit-warring, violation of TPG, retaliatory reverts) is something that can be criticised. You constantly misrepresent my examination of your conduct as "harassment", and you should be aware that false charges of harassment leave an editor open to sanction as well.

Stop writing in boldface - other editors can read your walls of text without any need to shove it down our throats.

Learn what it means to apologise - there's a good essay at WP:APOLOGY. A qualified apology is no apology at all. "I apologise if I made a mistake" is insincere and avoids making a genuine apology. Do you take us all for idiots? --RexxS (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: I'm sorry to say that I feel your statements above have some patronising gale... You seem to imply that @BallenaBlanca: covers himself behind walls of text. I must say that while the answers he provides are lengthy, I find them also relevant. I don't see them as some kind of grinding technique. Moreover, I don't see you as open and neutral as you state you are. You have a well defined opinion on the mather and I fail to see comments from you where you try to understand the behaviour from other editor with different opinions. I see you refer many times to wp policies when defending your views (reading them also takes a long time). And I see you tend to bring your opinions as "common sense". Claims like "Do you take us all for idiots?" don't help. Probably "Do you take me all for an idiot?" would come closer to what you mean. In any case, I want to bring to the discussion my experience with @Iñaki LL:. I was intervening on the discussion of Puigdamont's BIO. Then some aggressive user tried to discredit me for having given my opinion on the mather some 4 years ago (I forgot about it). I must say that Iñaki LL promptly chered those accusations. The user in question was a fraud account. I did not find Iñaki very friendly. And I see the same discrediting attitude being applied on a much larger scale to BB. Arcillaroja (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Arcillaroja: calling me "patronising" is a personal attack. Retract it, please. I understand you are an inexperienced editor and don't appreciate our customs here, but you need to learn to comment on the edit, not the editor. How would you feel if I called you a "POV-warrior" because of your many edits to remove "Catalan", e.g. from Anna Gabriel i Sabaté, from Alexandre Deulofeu, from Antoni Gaudí, and from Carles Puigdemont? That's just looking at a few of your contributions. How many more of those have you done? Isn't your account just a single-purpose account devoted to removing the word "Catalan" from the encyclopedia? Of course you find BallenaBlanca's edits relevant; he shares your POV and mission. Of course you don't see me as open and neutral as I actually am, because a neutral POV like mine doesn't fit your aim of deleting the "Catalan" description from biographies of people who were or are notable for being Catalan. I don't need lectures from you on common sense. It is not common sense to say that Carles Puigdemont is not a Catalan politician, and yet that's exactly what you did. I'm sorry you had a bad experience with a "fraud account", but you shouldn't be judging other editors by whether you find them friendly or not. Judge Inaki on his edits, just as folks will judge you on yours. --RexxS (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: I write "I'm sorry to say that I feel your statements above have some patronising gale". I did not say anything about you as a person. I clearly mentioned I was talking about your statements. Didn't you write "You treat your opponents in debate with a patronising air"?, Didn't you write "Do you take us all for idiots?" I would find that a personal attack. I just copy and paste your sentences. If you don't like the tone, you should not use it with others.

My account is very old. If you try to present me as single-purpose account go ahead. I have several interests and from time to time I'm interested in a sole topic for a long period. I have a long experience with nationalistic motivated editors. The first thing they do is to accuse you of being a nationalistic zealot yourself. Like you did exactly now. Nothing new.

Let me be clear: I don't know anything about you as a person. I only know that you can use some WP tools better than I do. Likewise, you know nothing about me. If you read my opinions you will see that I have a more nuanced viewed than what you described. And yes, I do revert edits when someone changes an article exactly when the topic is on tv.

When you start your sentences with "Of Course bla bla bla" you are assuming things regarding my motivations or me as a person. You don't know them so please don't. I did not lecture you on what common sense is. And just as a side note: I am aware of all that wp terminology, I just don't use it as much because I think that the comments can be more readable for people joining the conversations. The account was a clear case of WP:SOCK Arcillaroja (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Arcillaroja: please read and take note of WP:LISTGAP, thanks. I look at your contributions before I make any judgement about you being an SPA. They certainly give that appearance, but naturally I could be mistaken. Perhaps you'd like to prove it to me? I am, of course, aware that you previously edited with a different account but do not disclose that. Still, that's up to you. The difference between you calling me a "nationalistic zealot" and me calling you the same, is that I edit on the topic of scuba diving, where I have written featured content, and have never edited on Spain/Basque/etc. topics. Whereas you seem to have spent quite some time changing "Basque" and "Catalan" into "Spanish" in a number of articles of notable Basques and Catalans. So how much credibility does that leave you with? --RexxS (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS:Thanks for the advice on WP:LISTGAP. I'll try to follow it correctly. Could you please be more specific regarding another account? I only use my own account. I've been editing for about 10 years but I don't remember having another account. I'm not an active member as yourself, as I have said before and I'm not aware of all the rules and policies as you do. But you should stop discrediting me. Why do you think I have or had another account and for what would I do that? How is that relevant for this discussion? Please be specific. "I have a long experience with nationalistic motivated editors. The first thing they do is to accuse you of being a nationalistic zealot yourself. Like you did exactly now." It was not you who I had in mind on my previous comment. I point out that you acted like those "nationalistic zealot", NOT that you are one. I frankly don not care what you write about on WP. I don't spend much time on wp because unfortunately I'm not retired and I have a normal job, family and other obligations. But if you want to go on with SPA accusations, please be specific and prove it. "In all So how much credibility does that leave you with?" Are you trying to discredit me? Do you think I have to prove anything to you? are you planning on attacking me rather than my opinions? Go ahead, but perhaps it would be more wise to relax a bit and try to be less grumpy with other editors and be the way you want them to be with you. BTTW, please allow me some days to answer to your comments. Thank you. Arcillaroja (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Rexxs for your contribution to this discussion, also to MPS1992 for the removal of repeated unhelpful, overbearing walls in my talkpage by BallenaBlanca.

For what is worth, the last time BallenaBlanca intervened in my talkpage reverting my removal of his walls (which he attempted to justify with WP guidelines and policies, I should remind [79]), I saw 20 notifications at a time in my alerts, at least 17 of them directly serial reverts made by BB in Basque articles that were quiet at the moment of erupting this dispute. Iñaki LL (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Please, Iñaki, why do not you give all the information and once again you are limiting yourself to expose only one part, distorting the facts, and also again without providing any diff? (By the way, what does this have to do with what we are talking about?). As it is happening to me many times with you in the articles and their talk pages, when I deepen in your edits / claimings and contrast the data, the real facts and adjusted vision of the reality come to light. And then you take refuge in arguments such as "I do not have time for your long, never-ending investigations", "Sorry, I have no time to read all the explanations", "I am not going to dwell on this because I do not have time for noise", "I have not got time now to waste in another discussion on WP policies", "I do not have as much time as you do", etc.

Let's see in this case:

I made edits in those pages about a month and a half ago, which you reverted with edit summaries that are considered personal attacks, misleading, inappropriate, and uncivil per WP: SUMMARYNO:

1. (Undid revision 842927897 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv campaigner)
2. (Undid revision 842923344 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv POV editor)
3. (Undid revision 842918300 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv contentious, one-purpose editing)
4. (Undid revision 843078112 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv systematic controversial editing)
5. (Undid revision 842925973 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv campaigner)
6. (Undid revision 842918401 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv campaigner)
7. (Undid revision 842926502 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv contentious, one-purpose editing)
8. (Undid revision 842927233 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv verified info by campaignerr)
9. (Undid revision 842931726 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv one-purpose editing)
10. (Undid revision 842931555 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv campaigner)
11. (Undid revision 842930922 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv one-purpose, contentious editing)
12. (Undid revision 842926603 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv contentious POV editor)
13. (Undid revision 842931881 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv campaigner)

I had patience despite these multiple attacks. I respected your reversions so far because I was waiting calmly to see how the open discussion in Talk Puigdemont was resolved, as I explained to you in detail here. I did not want to do any edit until I knew exactly what the correct attitude was.

It has been now when it has been clear and that's why I have recovered the previous versions, following the advice of the administrator Yunshui Revision as of 11:42, 4 July 2018 Yunshui "This RFC does not set a precedent for other articles." and his own reversions (I will not go back to paste all the links here, you have them a little above [80]), which seems you are ignoring despite the numerous explanations here, in other talk pages and edit summaries. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 02:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

You are now claiming that your excuse for the retaliatory reverts is that you were waiting for the outcome of the RfC before making your reversions? The Talk:Carles Puigdemont #RFC on nationality concluded that "There is a clear consensus amongst the participating editors that Carles Puigdemont should be described as a Catalan politician" on 15 June. So, please explain how that justified you consecutively removing "Basque" and "Catalan" descriptions from 10 articles on 6 July. --RexxS (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you really intepreting as something negative the fact that I have waited more time, until I have a certainty? This is very unfair, since it is the opposite: I have been very cautious and I have waited until I had clear ideas, that is, until I knew with certainty if the RfC about Carles Puigdemont was applicable to more articles or not. This has not been clearly discussed until July 4, motivated by the edits in which a user "sistematically changed the supposed nationality on the bio articles of a number of political personalities from the independentists spectrum" (see Talk:Carles_Puigdemont#Controversial_use_of_above_RfC). The administrator Yunshui pronounced about it: Revision as of 11:42, 4 July 2018 Yunshui (→‎Controversial use of above RfC) "This RFC does not set a precedent for other articles. It covers the one case of how Wikipedia should describe Carles Puigdemont. Nowhere in the RFC is it stated that this decision should affect all articles dealing with nationality - for that, you would need a site-wide RFC debated in a central location. Using the above RFC to justify sweeping changes to other articles is verging on disruptive."

These edits from 6 July that you are naming have no relationship with Iñaki LL. There are not 10 articles, but 9 (8 Basque, 1 Catalan). The 8 Basque are reversions of edits that the user Theklan made unilaterally, contrary to what was discussed and is being discussed in Talk:Carles_Puigdemont#Controversial_use_of_above_RfC, in which he is participating. As you can see above, as explained by Yunshui, it is a disruptive behavior and therefore, my reversions are adjusted to policies.

In addition, I have not "removed" Basque and Catalan, it is a misinterpretation of my edits. What I did was apply Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context, which specifies that the country and not the ethnicity is what should appear in the first place of the lead. I have already explained in this same thread here and here.

I will explain the reversions one by one, so that you have no doubt. I collapse it, so as not to overload the reading. Please, then do not protest and tell me they are "walls of text", you are asking me for details and I give them to you. I give the links to the diffs of my reversions, with the edit summaries and a small excerpts from the lead, so that you can see how I have not "removed" the allusions to Basque or Catalonia (and there are many more in the rest of the articles), but I have adjusted the nationality following the MOS. NOTE: the Basque country, despite its name, is not a country, it is an autonomous community of Spain, and Catalonia too.

--BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 19:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Please, BallenaBlanca, stop citing me, stop the harassment against me. Note to Swarm: I have been cited three more times here today... what should I do? -Theklan (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Theklan, I was just defending myself against an accusation and I had to give specific information. I thought it's more honest to ping someone to let them know that someone is talking about them. I will not ping you again. I apologize.

By the way, I just read your talk page, in which you've been talking about me and I would have liked if you pinged me, but you did not. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 21:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I pinged you twice, in two different messages, not three times. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 22:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that there is anyone uninvolved still commenting in this thread. The wise thing for those who are involved, would be to back away from this noticeboard and back away -- as far as you are able -- on the battleground articles. MPS1992 (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: I just see that you have been talking about me in another place (without pinging me) and that the administrator Swarm warned you that you are committing "harassment" and "personal attacks" and that "Your own behavior in the thread was poor and counterproductive and I would ask you to refrain from escalating drama at AN / I like that in the future." "What you did in the AN/I thread was harassment. I'm sorry if you were pinged by someone there, but you made the choice to involve yourself, as well as the choice to use that as an opportunity to harass BellenaBlanca, for no other reason than that your personal beliefs differ and you have a personal issue about it."

These message are from 21:06, 7 July 2018 and 21:27, 7 July 2018 and your recent messages accusing me of "unclean hands", "pushing your own POV", " 10 reversions in retaliation against an opponent", "retaliatory reverts" have been after that warning (on 15:59, 8 July 2018 and on 16:14, 8 July 2018). --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 22:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: I am under no obligation whatsoever to ping you when I mention your behaviour elsewhere. period. As for Swarm's request to me, I've taken it up with him directly. If you think that I'm wrong to characterise you as coming to ANi with unclean hands, then you'd better start explaining how I was able to quote chapter and verse of your own poor behaviour in the very disputes you came to complain about. That is the very definition of wikt:unclean hands. If you're claiming that multiple reverts which changed "Basque" or "Catalan" to "Spanish" was not pushing your POV, then please justify how you can claim that the reciprocal edits were pushing the opposite POV. Is it a case of one of those irregular verbs: "I have a legitimate position; You are pushing a POV"? And are you seriously asking a neutral observer to believe that your 9 reverts on 6 July were simply the result of waiting for an RfC that closed on 15 June? --RexxS (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: Yes, I do really hope that the neutral observers can interpret my explanations. Actually, I would like everyone to interpret them correctly.

On the subject of nationality, you have begun to comment on the talk page for the first time on July 7. You are repeating the same thing that has already been said and explained many times, as @Crystallizedcarbon: has told you "RexxS: You can review the RfC as many of these issues have been covered above". You are in your right, of course, and I do not question it, but IMHO you still have to go a long way to understand the whole situation and assimilate everything that has been talking about the issue for about two months [81] [82] [83]. Then you will understand why you are wrong when you interpret that I am "removing Basque and Catalan".

As you can see in the discussion, I am in favor of having a wide RfC [84] [85] to be able to definitely set a pattern for all the articles or the exceptions that should be made, to avoid more disputes. And as I have accepted the result of the previous one, I will accept this one. Meanwhile, what applies is the MOS. You can not reproach me for fulfilling it. It is very unfair. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 09:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: One of the problems that you are facing is that you don't recognise a neutral observer when one appears. I have no interest in arguing about nationality or citizenship, and I have no "dog in the fight" between Spanish and Basque/Catalan proponents. I am English and don't edit on the topics you are so heavily invested in. That does not, however, give you the right to dismiss my opinion simply because it disagrees with yours. You are attempting - just as on talk pages - to swamp a discussion until you wear out those who disagree with you. You have now made 19 posts to this thread, while I have made 8. Iñaki LL has made just 2. You have added well over four times the amount of text that I have posted. I have made no posts to this thread other than as a response to yours, and those were made because I do not believe that you are the innocent party and Iñaki is the villain. If administrative action should be the outcome here, I intend to make sure that neutral admins understand that Iñaki LL ought not to be singled out because he cannot find the time to respond to your constant walls of text. That is a tactic I can see you use regularly - a typical example would be Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 where you have added more text in your 21 posts than all the other editors to that talk page combined. I am not wrong when I tell everyone that you are removing "Basque" and "Catalan" from articles, and I find it astonishing that would blatantly claim not to be doing so when anyone can look at these diffs from the last few days and see that you are not speaking the truth:

• Nestor Basterretxea] - you changed "Basque artist" to "Spanish artist"
• Arnaldo Otegi - you changed "Basque politician" to "Spanish politician"
• Joseba Sarrionandia - you changed "Basque writer" to "Spanish writer"
• Negu Gorriak - you changed "Basque group" to "Spanish group"
• Jorge Oteiza - you changed "Basque sculptor" to "Spanish sculptor"

There are multiple other edits of yours where you changed |nationality=Basque to |nationality=Spanish and Catalan gets similar treatment. I'm not interested in debating with you whether you think you can justify those edits or not. That's a content debate and this board is for dealing with behaviour. Your behaviour is to remove"Catalan"/"Basque" and replace it with "Spanish" and your denial in the face of clear evidence does not do much for your credibility. I understand completely that other editors involved are making the reverse edits to yours, but that does not make their behaviour wrong and yours right. You are simply interpreting MOS very narrowly to suit your own POV. Others are entitled to interpret it more broadly: some will state that the Basque people constitute a nation, with their own language, culture, traditions and self-government. That would satisfy the New Oxford American Dictionary's definition of a "country", although it is clear that the sovereignty of the Basque region belongs to Spain. You do not have a monopoly on the ability to interpret MOS, as the RfC on Carles_Puigdemont (a "Catalan politician" by consensus) demonstrates.

What would be fair is for you to accept that the other side in this dispute has a POV that is equally as valid as yours; to accept that you can't force your POV on articles by edit warring; to accept that you should not fill article talk pages with so much text that nobody else has the strength to keep up with you; to accept that you should be striving to find consensus and common ground with those whose opinion differs from yours. Editing Wikipedia does not have to be a win-lose endeavour. --RexxS (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: Again, you continue to misinterpret and distort my words.

I no longer know how to explain that I have done what was talked on the talk page "This RFC does not set a precedent for other articles", that is, to use the ethnicity in the first place of the lead only in the case of Puigdemont ("Catalan politician"), in the rest of articles, to use the country ("Spanish x"). Is not it right? Do you want to reform the guidelines or discuss another interpretation of it? For that, an RfC will be opened and I will respect it as I am respecting that of Puigdemont. I did the same as the administrator did, it was not "my" opinion" nor "my" interpretation nor "retaliatory reverts", my behavior was not incorrect. Look at his edits, all with this edit summary "Precedent is not set by a single-article RFC" (Catalan, Basque... can be used anywhere else on the page, we have not removed them from there):

• Ibon Areso - Yunshui changed "Basque politician and architect" to "Spanish politician and architect"
• José Antonio Ardanza - Yunshui "Basque politician" to "Spanish politician"
• Sabino Arana - Yunshui changed "Basque writer" to "Spanish writer"
• José Antonio Aguirre - Yunshui changed "Basque politician and activist" to "Spanish politician and activist"
• Bakartxo Tejeria - Yunshui changed "Basque politician" to "Spanish politician"
• etc... (14 in total on July 4)

--BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 00:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: What nonsense. I have neither misinterpreted nor distorted your words. That's a personal attack and you know it. You're not only attacking every editor that disagrees with you, but you are wilfully avoiding addressing the issues with your behaviour that I have pointed out to you. Your refuge is to go off on a tangent again about content, and never to address the problems your behaviour causes. Yunshui has expressed his opinion about the result of an RfC not setting a precedent, but that's just his opinion. That carries no more weight than my opinion, which is that editors are free to observe precedent and base their arguments upon it. Is that clear enough for you? In the rest of the articles, editors should use whatever description is most appropriate to the subject's notability (location or nationality per MOS:OPENPARABIO). Is that clear enough for you? You're not the only person who can interpret MOS, and your POV leads you to a selective interpretation. Other people have a POV, just as valid as yours, and you have no right to insist that your interpretation is the only correct one. Editors have taken the time to express their opinions in an RFC that lead to Puigdemont being described as "a Catalan politician". That doesn't suit your POV so now you're trying to pretend that the arguments there don't apply anywhere else. Of course they do. You've lost the argument, so you now just want to wear everybody down by requiring more RfCs to re-hash the same arguments. No thank you. Yunshui is an editor just like you or me, and when it comes to content matters, it matters not one job that he's an administrator. You are mistaken to think that an involved admin's opinion on content carries any more weight than anybody else's. It doesn't. Would you like me to go through those articles and revert Yunshui's edits? I am entitled to by WPBRD, if I disagree with the changes, but I have held off from editing the disputed articles because I believe that it's better to discuss than to edit-war. I wish you were as restrained. When you make an edit, it is "your opinion", "my interpretation", and "your reverts", nobody else's. You are responsible for your own contributions, and it is no defence to say "I was just copying another editor". Your behiour is that of an editor determined to remove "Catalan" and "Basque" descriptions from people who are notable for being Catalan or Basque. That is not in accordance with our editing principles. You are imposing your POV on many articles, and have expressed no interest in seeking any compromise with the editors who disagreed with you. Rather, you have attempted in this ANI report to remove an editor whom you disagree with from editing the articles that you are controlling. I'll start compiling the diffs needed to seek a topic ban for you from those articles. --RexxS (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it would be nice if people could stop using the "Yunshui did it, and he's an admin, so sucks to be you," argument. As it happens I'm personally in favour of the Catalan/Basque/whatever-the-subject-identifies-as side of the debate, but I'm also in favour of Wikipedia not being disrupted by people applying the result of a precisely-worded (leastways I did the best I could to make it article specific) RFA unilaterally across all articles. I have not used my admin tools in relation to this issue that I'm aware of, so I'd appreciate the retraction of that "involved" jab, but most of all, I'd appreciate it if folk could dispose of the idea that my admin trousers automatically make my edits the "right" version of the article. I am an editor here, nothing more. Yunshui ^雲_水 18:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

All right, Yunshui. No problem. For my part, I admit my mistake: I believed that since you were the mediator on the talk page, we had to follow your dictations. I apologize. Btw, I do know clearly that you have intervened as an uninvolved administrator.

Reply to @RexxS::

"so you now just want to wear everybody down by requiring more RfCs to re-hash the same arguments" I said specifically "an RfC will be opened" but it is not "me" who is asking for a new RfC, I did not start that proposal but @RichardWeiss: [86] and several other editors have seconded it Talk:Carles Puigdemont#Controversial use of above RfC, me among them, because I think it is better to mark a clear guide to follow, regardless of what is approved, one way or the other, and I will comply it.

"you have attempted in this ANI report to remove an editor whom you disagree" This is not what I am saying and repeating. I just want to collaborate with him focusing on the contents and without him attacking me. I said this in the first message of this thread [87] and I repeated it yesterday [88]. Or are you calling me a liar?

How do I have to feel when you accuse me unfounded? It is not me who is attacking.

How can not I say that you are misunderstanding me and distorting what I say? I do not understand your aggressive attitude towards me.

Please, remember WP:AGF and check WP:POV railroad. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 18:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Yunshui: I do apologise (and sorry for pinging you once more). I did not express myself well and I've struck the 'involved' wording. To be clear: the general principle is that once you have made a series of edits to an article (such as BB's diffs), you are an involved editor and obviously cannot act as an uninvolved administrator. I hope you agree with my understanding.

@BallenaBlanca: You've now made 23 edits to this thread which is almost as many as all the other editor's comments put together. The volume of text you have added certainly exceeds the total of that from all other editors. The content dispute will not be settled here. It will be settled by a single RfC at a central location. I can see that you have made no effort to help construct an RfC, and one can only assume that you know any further RfCs will not support the positions you have been taking, just as the RfC at Talk:Carles_Puigdemont did not. It is typical of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality to see legitimate criticism as "accusations". Each and every one of the criticisms I have made about your conduct (edit-warring, pushing a particular POV, and wearing down any disagreement by sheer volume of text) have been illustrated by ample examples. You are not the victim here, and I strongly reject your ad hominem characterisation of my justified complaints as "misunderstanding" and "distorting". I understand you perfectly well, and I've seen enough examples to recognise your editing pattern. You will not wear me down by reposting the same walls of text repeatedly, so you can either carry on this fruitless debate or you can start looking for compromises at the articles where you have so far displayed a singular lack of enthusiasm for seeking solutions acceptable to both parties to this dispute. --RexxS (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

"I can see that you have made no effort to help construct an RfC, and one can only assume that you know any further RfCs will not support the positions you have been taking, just as the RfC at Talk:Carles_Puigdemont". I am amazed, I can not believe what I am reading! @RexxS: Of all what you said, possibly this is the most offensive comment and with which you have definitely crossed the line of respect.

Besides, you're reproaching me for answering.

Therefore, excuse me, you can continue to slander me imagining the darkest intentions on my part as long as you want. I will not reply to any of your messages as long as you do not apologize and you respect WP:AGF. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 23:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Well that's a relief. Haven't you noticed that there is an RfC already started, no thanks to you. We'll see from your contributions there just how interested you are in finding a compromise and how interested you are in merely defending your fixed position. How dare you demand an apology from me for stating the truth? You're the only who owes the community an apology for starting this waste of time and for your 25 subsequent posts to this same worthless thread. --RexxS (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment I confess I passed on reading all of the above but I get the sense that there is not only one NPA breach there. Let me say this. Back in the fall, when the Catalan protests were raging, I worked on the page with Ballena, Inyaki and also some others (Carbon, Impru20, etc), and often what I ended up doing was mediating conflicts between one side that could basically be called Spanish sovereigntist and the other that is at least regionalist (see Basque nationalism, Catalan nationalism -- much of the acrimony is due to hangover of events from the Francisco Franco era, which is why this is a more volatile area than say English-Scottish topics). The sense I got was that despite hte accusations of "being nationalist" hurled back and forth above, neither Ballena nor Inyaki are the sort of the tattooed soccer hooligans you might imagine -- they're actually both very productive editors in their respective domains. My feeling is that both are "defensive" on the rather emotive issue -- for example, Ballena would react very negatively to portrayals of Spanish police as abusive and present sources (which to be fair were from RS) portraying Catalan protestors as violent, which would cause Inyaki to become defensive and present more sources (also RS) either mitigating these or reinserting ttext about police abuse, and the "defense" cycle would continue. There was never an independent POV push by either party that wasn't in reaction to something. I noticed WP:NOTHERE POV warriors on both sides, neither of these two was among them.

Well many months have passed since I stopped editing in the topic area but I believe the same trajectory probably continued. The central issue was a mutual inability to WP:AGF plus the gradually worsening personality conflict (both sides consider the other to be Spanish/Basque nationalists and loyal only to that, rather than also loyal to our collaborative project of an online encyclopedia -- which I actually believe both to be). I'd recommend to both to stay out of their area of conflict for a month or so -- you'll notice how much nicer life is without constant Wiki wars. They're really a waste of time and even when you actually are a POV pusher, they're kind of futile.--Calthinus (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Calthinus: Thank you very much for your feedback, you are very kind. I really appreciate your opinions, I consider that you are a neutral and very valid editor. You are right in many of your observations, but I would like you to see how the situation is now (see for example this and this) and how I am trying by all means to reason calmly with Iñaki LL, but he usually reacts with little tranquility, as he himself says "Admittedly, at times I got bit on my nerves."

I just want him to calm down and he answer calmly, objectively and without personal attacks. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 10:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, you definitely do deserve credit for trying to work it out as collaborators on his talk page BallenaBlanca. Iñaki LL did make a mistake not to engage you there (though I don't think that deserves a block). Looking further at this it seems a lot of the worsening of the dispute came as a result of the dispute about Carles Puigdemont's identity -- honestly, that is just a waste of time for all parties, you expended 10K or so of talk page argument text over a couple words which don't really even matter to readers, and both sides managed to alienate each other (for what its worth, it is true that Wiki policy prefers mentioning citizenship in the lede versus ethnicity -- but personally I think this should be amended for the special case of those who have strong separatist identities).

A lot of the "extra" commenters here seem to have made this thread itself a lot worse. I see one was blocked. "Unclean hands" is something I wouldn't say to even someone I wanted permabanned. Another two went into an argument about whether someone identifying as "Basque" and not Spanish was legitimate or not -- an argument that is frankly ridiculous to have (who gave either of you the right to say whose identity is valid or not?), especially on an ANI thread. This thing has gotten so long partially due to that, it's not really fair to expect mods to put the time into reading it all.--Calthinus (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight for those who don't have English as a first language, the phrase "unclean hands" is a legal term-of-art with a precise meaning. It is an equitable defence which argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to an equitable remedy because of their own behaviour prior to the complaint. My point in this case is that I mean BallenaBlanca's editing was just as much a contributory factor to the dispute as Inaki's. --RexxS (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is. It was also tactless to say, especially for those who aren't native speakers of English let alone English legalese (BB is in the biomedical field I believe). Actually the use of legalese when it is not relevant to the topic (i.e. a law article) for content conflicts is... not civil, in my opinion (it is by its very nature a confrontational form of discourse). We all make mistakes, it's okay, it just shouldn't have happened. --Calthinus (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I object to your criticism. The term "unclean hands" is used regularly on these noticeboards, and I am not going to be held responsible for your failure to understand what is common usage here. A quick search shows 195 instances of the phrase's use on ANI, on ArbCom, and in the behavioural guideline Wikipedia:Gaming the system as well as the essay Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot - each of which are recommended reading before filing at ANI. Please be kind enough to do your homework before pontificating in future. --RexxS (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on calming this RexxS and Calthinus. I would have two small points on your last edit, Calthinus, that are on my opinion the two main factors here. I think Iñaki LL (and also me), assume that we have a POV on some subjects, but BallenaBlanca doesn't think his reverts or editwarring if also reflecting his own POV. It would be a clear case of WP:TEND (as I see it). BallenaBlanca thinks (WP:AGF) that he is only defending the right interpretation of the MoS, but this was pretty clear not to be the case in Talk:Carles Puigdemont. For me, it would be enough to read him saying he has, indeed (and obviously, by the way) a POV in the subject.

I would also like to note that identifying someone as "Basque" or "Spanish" is not ridiculous, as identifying someone as male or women (or whatever) is not ridiculous for some people. If we all understand that, this discussion, the editwarring and the AN/Is would be over.

Once again thanks for your patience and help on de-escalating this. -Theklan (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Should clarify -- what is "ridiculous" to me is for multiple users to have an argument (on an ANI not about that user!) over whether another user has a right to identify as Basque and not Spanish "because Basque is not a nationality". That's their right alone. The ethnicity/nationality of subjects of wiki articles are another (largely futile, see also Nikola Tesla...) issue, but obviously challenging someone's identity to their face is considered by most people to be offensive. While I don't think challenging the identity of another user is technically a WP:PA, it's pretty obviously not socially acceptable.--Calthinus (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I may not get all the details above, as I said to BB at the moment prior to igniting this incident, I am not stationary now and adds difficulty for me to gather or answer to all relevant details. Calthinus, your work to calm down the atmosphere is appreciated and your contribution of great value, it is no doubt well meant, still let me disagree.

The issue is that there is an editor who takes it as a self-assigned duty to go to articles where he has no thorough understanding and has actually contributed nothing, to impose a contended vision of his in which according to him "Spanish" is tantamount to NPOV and "Basque" is marked and second rank or irrelevant or not worth appearing in the lede, removing key identity information. Or he may claim "per MOS" just like this [89] in which the "per MOS" in the edit summary might as well be "per WP Principles", or "per NPOV", or whatever comes to BB's mind really, when it is just "Expanded", paraphrasing it, "I am adding a new piece of information and referencing it", which is the accurate and helpful edit summary for other contributors to have a clue.

Furthermore, after forcing repeatedly a wall into another editor's personal page (me), citing WP:TALKNO [90], he decides that he will open an Incident... against me (!). He goes on to do up to circa 15 reverts removing "Basque" and adding "Spanish" instead in articles where I had edited not long ago (I guess that is also per NPOV!), and I receive up to 17 alerts (notifications) all of a sudden, which has never happened to me so far.

Note also that in the edit summaries where BallenaBlanca adds Basque → Spanish, he cites "See Talk:Carles Puigdemont#Controversial use of above RfC"[91]. Well, it is/was an ongoing debate, nothing is conclusive, and hence it cannot provide support to neither option.

BB keeps adding walls that knocks out editors out of tediousness. Well that very hint ("be concise, Ok?" ) and request of clarity was exactly what I added to his talk page, [92] to which he responded with an unhelpful wall in my talk page [93]. Sorry if I have been too lengthy above, I had to collect all the ideas that I think are relevant to the circumstances in which this Incident started. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

You have just written a wall of text ... You have done it to explain yourself, sometimes it is not possible to be brief.

About the reversions, you're not right. Also, you're taking them as an attack when it's not like that (it's the problem of not assuming good faith). See this explanation: [94]

I have started this incident because I have grown tired of you misunderstanding and unreasonably attacking me. It is very easy to accuse as you have done and not provide evidence. I'm still waiting for you to prove what I asked for.

I remain willing to collaborate with you. See [95]. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 01:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

It's ok Iñaki LL, you're not the only one who posts walls here. Well I have been slightly idiotic in this thread myself. I'll be more clear: I really doubt that admins will hand out bans to anyone in this thread. However, if you guys -- and all the others in the topic area that I have noticed when I edited the area -- continue down your current path, the long term result is going to likely be that Catalonia affairs (possibly also Basque) will be covered by discretionary sanctions like India-Pakistan, the Balkans, Israel-Palestine and Armenia, etc. When and if that happens, mods are not going to want to go through the history of this all (believe me there is a lot)-- instead they will simply start handing out sanctions and/or topic bans like candy until the headache dies down (remember, I edit the Balkans, I've seen it). Personally, I don't want that to happen (though I confess it may become necessary), as we lose capable editors from the area, and it will also chase away some new editors from the area. Truth is you both have your own personal POVs (so do I) and emotions about the issue, both of you do also authentically care about the quality of encyclopedic coverage there. You will never "win" against the other, instead you will boht "lose" (definitely a lot of time and sanity, possibly editing privileges). If you want to "win", stay away from wars over nothing (if X-Basque/Catalan/Galician accomplished person is describes as or becomes just "Basque/etc" or just "Spanish" or Martian, reverting this will not help you even if you were solely trying to convince the reader becuase this doesn't convince the reader of anything). Each others' editing habits also aren't as important as your ability to get along in the long run. Attempts to ban the other side will get either both of you banned or neither in the most likely scenario -- admins are humans and tend to prefer the "safest" scenario. It's good that there are both sides there to balance each other out, in the end the articles affected are better in the long run because of it (better source checking, etc...) -- if we ignore the temporary issues of disruptive edit warring and the POINTy COATRACK sections that occasionally appear. You don't have to like each other, you just have to pretend to in public enough so that you don't end up liking each other even less.

Well speaking of walls, that's it from me. I'm not perfect myself. Perhaps I haven't actually be helpful here. I hope I have, but fear I haven't. We'll see I guess.--Calthinus (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Calthinus, you are always very valuable and you help a lot.

I'm not looking for a ban for Iñaki LL. I just want him to stop attacking me, to focus on the content and not comment on me in the article's talk pages, as he was warned [96].

Notice how on that same page of the Catalan referendum I'm talking to another editor, we both have disagreements sometimes but we both argue civilly, calmly and focusing in the content and the sources, without accusing each other or being continually wielding a POV pushing (in fact, none of us says this) and recognizing our mistakes or when the other is right [97] [98]. And we managed to reach agreements and edit productively allowing the encyclopedia to move forward avoiding eternal disputes. Why can not Iñaki LL do the same ...? --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 01:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

BallenaBlanca, please do not project on others what is your own fault. The fact that Aljullu shows such a patience, does not detract from your overbearing attitude and continuous hurdles you put to smooth editing in this article. However, since you cited him, he may want to testify to his experience.

As I have said, I find your editing and attitude as extremely problematic. Not only have you shown a much contested attitude and editing in Catalan independence referendum, 2017 where you have edited from the very beginning, but you have expanded your battle to articles where you know are going to elicit a response, where you have never edited but I have (articles of the serial diffs added by you above).

Picking holes in just about every formal aspect, like the mines you claim above in response to your serial substitution attempt from Basque to Spanish does not do you favour, it rather brings attention to your activity, more so when it clearly alienates the Basque community and it is clearly questionable from a knowledge (you are trying to remove it) and diversity point of view. This is an issue at a par with gender or religion and should not be taken lightly. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

"you have expanded your battle to articles where you know are going to elicit a response", "attitude as extremely problematic", "a much contested attitude" ... Do you see what I mean? You continue assuming bad faith and without being able to answer without attacking me.

Please Iñaki, do you want to solve this? I continue to offer you my willingness to collaborate with you, you just have to respond calmly and without personal attacks.

On the Spanish regionalism topic, you continue without understanding me no matter how much I explain that it's just a matter of Wikipedia policies in a very specific place of the lead section, nothing more. Everything else are your own interpretations of my supposed "intentions", as saying "a knowledge (you are trying to remove" (?!). An RfC has already been opened, where you can give your opinion [99].

P.S.: Since you mentioned it, learn from the patience of other editors, we all need it. Anyway, what you call "patience" is not just "patience", but the correct procedure in Wikipedia: editing with respect, discussing the different points of view focusing on the content and not on the editor, politely and calmly. There are longer conversations and shorter conversations, it depends on the subject in question.--BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 23:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

User:72bikers

Over at AR-15 style rifle There is an ongoing dispute over the use of the word lethal [100] (well lethality, but much the same thing).

User:72bikers has added this a couple of time and been reverted, however their latest attempt was this [[101]], adding (more or less) the same material as this edit [[102]] [[103]](with some additions) and marked this as a minor edit.

Now I did not see this as a minor edit, and in fact see it as POV pushing by a back door rout to try and circumvent consensus (which they have not achieved.

Their response to my undoing their edit (as not minor and against consensus was this) [[104]].

I believe this was an attempt to POV push by a back door route. I do think calling it a minor edit was a massive misrepresentation, as well as a breach of the spirit(and maybe the letter, after all he must have known this material was contested already) of wp:minor.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Editor Slatersteven from his AR-15 talk page statements only issue with this word, has stated [105] that the inclusion of this should only be allowed if in turn "wound characteristics" which consensus rejected, be allowed into the article. He has made statement like this [106] "It does not matter if one side are "experts" and one side are not", which appears to not follow policy. He has made repeated statement misinterpreting the use of this word "lethality". This statement, Gun experts told ABC News it has nothing to do with the AR-15's lethality, but rather simple familiarity. Clearly the statement neither states the weapons is lethal nor that it lacks lethality. They are merely stating the gun choice is not based on any form of lethality. They go on to state they believe they are copying what others have used "copycat" and explaining why. He for some reason believes this states the weapon lacks lethality [107], [108], [109]. The content in the article currently after Slatersteven started tampering with it, then Admin Drmies left this [110] Gun expert Dean Hazen and mass murder researcher Pete Blair think that mass shooters' gun choices have less to do with the AR-15's specific merits but rather with familiarity and a copycat effect.[59][60][61]

The recognized experts

Dr. Pete Blair a Professor of Criminal Justice at Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center(ALERRT) "which studies mass murder". They train law enforcement personnel in how to respond to active shooter incidents, the FBI started a partnership with ALERRT in 2013. Dean Hazen a cop for 25 years as Field Training Officer, SWAT Team Munitions Specialist, Glock Armorer and SWAT Team Operator.

But I digress, that all is the context of the issue here. There has not been no repeated attempts to include content and he is taking things out of context. If you look at the talk page it was all supported and altered for that support. Editor Slatersteven would seem to be the only editor who is hung up on the word and its inclusion only if the non consensus wound content is included. I would like to not cast aspersions, but I belive he removed the quotes because he saw the word lethality. But not only did he remove the quotes from that citation but also 2 other citations as well. He removed quotes from the citations ([59][60][61]) and claims "NOt minor and no consensus, ad you know both of these things)", I believe adding the quotes to the citations was minor. I also do not believe policy states there needs to be consensus for adding quotes to citation already in the article. I believe the quotes taken directly from the references help the reader with context. As allowed by policy and like other (not left by me but bundled by me to help the reader) citations in the article . So he reverted my edit and came here to have me sanctioned, which is fine by me as I think this needs to be flushed out.

I believe his behavior is verging on disruptive and seems to follow a patern. He appears to have no interest in the AR-15 article other than reverting editors, all this is his reverts of me and other editors at this one article [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123]. -72bikers (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Well you can see this discussion [124], and this one [125]. Thus we have in fact about three places where various iterations of this material are discussed, and two where multiple users have objected to its inclusion. Thus the reference above to only me objecting only related to this [126]. Now I cannot guess why no one has commented again, as there are going to be many reason, but I think it is a stretch to assume it is because they now accept the edit (and even this is not true [[127]]). Which was followed by the edit where he just included the text as an in cite quotation.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Lets stay on topic, you assert I violated policy for adding quotes taken directly from the sources to the citations already in the article. I believe you have no policy support for removing them, from three citations, simply because you saw the word lethality in one. Your behavior at the article is verging on disruptive as shown above. I have not been the only one to notice this as others have shown him his hasty reverts of me were not correct [128]. -72bikers (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

As to this editor claiming violation for the quotes to the existing citations marked as minor. He himself, on the rare occasion he edits anything other than a noticeboard or a talk page [129], has made substantial edits on volatile content and not left any edit summeries at all, such as here [130], [131] found from just a quick look. -72bikers (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

References

• Speedy close: This is a unneeded ANI for a non-issue. 72bikers added quotes to some citations. This was not a repeat of a previous edit and the edit neither changed the text of the article nor it's sourcing. I do get that citation quotes can be a form of POV push and Slatersteven could have that concern here. That said, when Slatersteven reverted the change 72bikers didn't restore it and that was that. It was not an unreasonable change. It was reverted and that should have been the end of it. Springee (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Being that this was brought here there should be a decision made. Did I violate policy, how is what I did any different from the many other citations in the article? If not the quotes should be restored. Has Slatersteven been disruptive? If so should he not be told to change this behavior? I am not looking to get anyone blocked or sanctioned. I just want a more conducive environment to improving articles.-72bikers (talk) 11:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

This is the gist of this, it is not that he was done this before (not this exact action), it is whether or not his opinion that I did breach policy and should get a block [[132]] is correct, or was this in fact an attempt (as even Springee appears to be admit is can look that way) to get text added (and yes he did try to add the same point) that had already been rejected by a back door route using some "eccentric" wikilaywering "well it was not in the body" ect. It does (in that respect (and if I am right)) represent a pattern, a tendency to try and wikilaywer about very unique views of policy as well as the fact they are still leaving (and asking for warnings to be left) warnings on article talk pages (as well as disusing other editors actions there). Also they have made it clear they will still add this material again [[133]]. So before they even think to do this it must be clear whether or not quotes within citations are considered part of the article (and thus covered by the same polices as body edits). As I have said, if, this was not a case of a user who consistently argues from the POV of their interpretation of policy (including issuing frivolous warnings, something they have demanded others do not do to them, in inappropriate venues) this would not be major issue. They do thus I think it is, they really do need to be told that they need to really read and understand polices before they start to bandy about threats of bans that disrupt article talk pages. Either that or they are correct and In should be told this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

As to the posting warnings on article talk pages, they have been warned about this by other users [[134]] I also seem to recall this very issue has been discussed here before, but cannot find it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

This is not the first time User:72bikers has attempted a "stealth" edit of that article: here they removed the word "many" from "many mass shootings" - a clearly controversial change - while adding some unrelated, less controversial text. The removal of "many" was not mentioned in the edit summary. Waleswatcher (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Your bad faith assumptions [135] as shown [136], and casting of aspersions are not proof of anything other than incivility. With all the eyes on that article, there is no way of deceptively editing it. You can see from my contributions, I often use the minor edit, and the edit was minor and self-explanatory. Article restrictions Civility restriction: Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.

The same as SS he has made large edits with no summary at all [137], [138], [139] in the past. He also is in the same boat With SS as to inclusion in exchange of more content on the weapons lethality [140], [141], [142]. -72bikers (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

"With all the eyes on that article, there is no way of deceptively editing it." And yet there is the actual diff in question, which is obviously deceptive, containing two unrelated changes and a detailed description in the edit summary that only mentions the less-contentious of them. Odd, that. --128.164.177.55 (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher: attempting to frame the lack of mention of removal of a single word in an edit summary as remotely problematic - let alone characterizing it as a "stealth edit" - does nothing but cost you your credibility. Can someone please close this and give Slatersteven a hearty eye roll? VQuakr (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Disruption to Aszure Barton

• 2600:1700:C850:9CB0:8596:75D4:2D36:EEE1 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) &ndash
• 2600:1700:C850:9CB0:CDDA:B28D:EFEA:4C62 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) &ndash

This article has been heavily edited the last few days by similar IPs to include promotional material. The IPs involved are listed above. The material added seems to be poorly sourced. The revisions are also very badly written. The edits are clearly made to promote the subject in question. Funplussmart (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

There's another user that came along and posted a tag to nominate the article for deletion, but didn't complete the steps to actually get it underway - no Afd page and no notification of the original article creator. So, I posted a message at Talk:Aszure Barton#Nominate for deletion and pinged the user, since the user only has two contributions at this moment.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not possible for the person to execute all the steps, as to do so requires creating the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aszure Barton, and IPs cannot create pages. Also, I'm pretty sure pinging IPs is not possible either. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, the AfD template was removed and someone posted a message on the IP user's page that they need to create a user account to perform all the steps necessary to nominate an article for deletion. My guess is that it's related to these other two IPs and they are unhappy that the article has been cleaned up of promotional language, uncited content, etc.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC) I don't know if the other IP is related, but here it is User:2600:1700:C850:9CB0:6427:5C21:EAE:4F5D.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

There is now another user, a single-purpose account, adding problematic content to the article Dancenews, including removing adding a long list of accolades in the reference section and uncited content. This appears to be a situation that includes COI and WP:Sockpuppets.

Here are all the single-purpose accounts that have made edits that had to be RevDel'd for copyright violations:

• Dancenews (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1700:c850:9cb0:ec6b:655:6278:7de6 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Aszblue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1700:c850:9cb0:cdda:b28d:efea:4c62 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2600:1700:c850:9cb0:8596:75d4:2d36:eee1 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2600:1700:c850:9cb0:6cf1:5a04:6378:25ea (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - not sure if it was copyright issues, but it was similar to other previous edits and uncited

–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Could one of two things happen: 1) investigate for sockpuppets or 2) require users to request edits?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Added another single-purpose IP user to the list. Just wondering, are more examples needed to see that there is a problem?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Or, do separate tickets need to be opened up for page protection and a sockpuppet investigation... and see how that goes?–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

In the meantime I think we should protect Aszure Barton to prevent the promotional editing. Funplussmart (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Funplussmart, I posted a request here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2600:1700:c850:9cb0:8596:75d4:2d36:eee1, but I don't know if I did it right. There was something about filling in parameters from a template, but I don't know what they are talking about. So, I went to another open SPI and copied over some formatting. Would someone please check it for me?–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The investigation page looks very good, CaroleHenson. I did add a comment relating to the location of the IPs and the IP that tagged the article for deletion. Funplussmart (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you, Funplussmart!–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The IP that added the deletion tag to the article also added a link to Barton's website in another article. Therefore I added the IP to the list. Funplussmart (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I think this one can probably be closed as the article page has been protected and the SPI request has been created.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Duc4Wikmedia

Duc4Wikmedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user is a vandal troll who has annoyed users on other non-related Wiki sites like the WikiFoundry ran CLG Wiki (as Duc4WikiFoundry) and on various Wikia ran Wikis (as Duc4Wikia). forcing users to make pages for him and really annoying them. I am a pretty easy target for him as he won't stop nagging me to make pages (through various sock IP addresses). No matter what I tell him (or anybody), he still continues. Could you find a way to block his account and all his IP addresses please? (One of them got blocked just now) Luigitehplumber (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

LTPofficial - Is there any evidence of on-wiki harassment, behavioral issues, or disruption by this user here? Unfortunately, there isn't much that can be done regarding his threats and harassment towards other editors that don't involve Wikipedia (i.e. occurring on a completely different and non-WMF website). I need to see evidence of continued and repeated violations of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines before I'd even begin to tell you what direction we should take this in...... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia wise, he annoys me a lot (mainly using IP addresses, maybe annoys others) and forces me to make pages, otherwise his main target was the CLG Wiki on WikiFoundry. Here is a forum post about him (It is however mainly about the CLG Wiki though). http://www.closinglogos.com/thread/5347326/;jsessionid=55FEE235CF74A6717569DE308F28141B?offset=0&maxResults=50 Luigitehplumber (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I can see how the IP user postings on your page would have been annoying. One of those users is blocked now. Since you're really complaining about IP users, and so far I just see it as annoying to have the requests, do you want your page protected against IP users? Do you want to just remove annoying posts as soon as you get them and they'll get the hint?

It looks like the activity that began June 4 is tailing off.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll go with my Talk Page being protected to IP users. Still the IP users who keep annoying me might possibly be Duc4Wikmedia and so he might message using his main account, but if so i'll just delete his messages. Luigitehplumber (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I am not an admin. I was just trying to get to what you wanted in that the issue is IP users posting on your talk page. (i.e., just because I suggested it, doesn't mean that's how an admin will resolve it). Sorry, I should have been clearer.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Luigitehplumber (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Luigitehplumber, I think that the administrators are really busy elsewhere lately. But I've noticed that there haven't been any more postings to your talk page from IP users or Duc4Wikmedia. Perhaps just having the posting here was enough to stop the postings to your talk page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay then. Let's end it here. Luigitehplumber (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Citation spam?

82.81.56.9 (talk · contribs) seems to be editing mainly to insert " Mahieu (Between Rome and Jerusalem, OLA 208, Leuven: Peeters, 2012" into articles. Doug Weller talk 12:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the works of this scholar are even notable? References may be fine, if they cover it and the author is of recognised notability in this area, but the random bibliography cites just smells of advertising spam. Canterbury Tail talk 13:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is a summary of the author's credentials: [143], but I'll leave it to topic experts to assess them. On first glance, this looks like a possible case of undue WP:SELFCITE bordering on WP:CITESPAM. GermanJoe (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, doesn't seem that credentialed. And in fact when they wrote the book that's mainly being spammed they had just a diploma and it wasn't until later they were assisting professors. That suggests to me this isn't a well peer reviewed and respected author or academic work. Canterbury Tail talk 12:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

He teaches at an online Dominican university.[144] This is his latest edit, which is a bit of a mess.[145] I'm reverting it not just because its spam but because it's also WP:UNDUE. Doug Weller talk 13:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:SELFCITE maybe a issue but I would like to see if there is any self admission by the editor being related to the author. Accesscrawl (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I find this set of edits worrysome. Basically they're modifying existing references to provide a critique and contradiction inside the actual reference. I've reverted those. Canterbury Tail talk 01:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Ronald McDonald shenanigans

An IP-hopping editor is insistent on keeping information about a guy who's pretended be a Ronald McDonald portrayer into this article, even though multiple PC reviewers, including moi, have determined it should be removed. A bio article on the guy has also been deleted at least twice. (There are also BLP issues about publicizing, directly or indirectly, the criminal record of a non-notable person). The IP-hopper has now announced they're going to keep adding the information no matter how many times it's removed, and has certainly violated 3RR. Checking back through the contribution histories, this editor concentrates on a relatively small number of articles, mostly dealing with minor performers and voice actors, as well as dhowing a minor fascination with dash issues, and enough overlap in targets with a certain long-term abuser. Perhaps someone more familiar than me with the LTA could take a look at this; I can't tell whether this is a returning vandal or just a run-of-the-mill clown. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I've put in a request for semi-protection at RPP; this looks fit for it. Home Lander (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

It's this user, who admits they are doing it here, as well as how awful they think Wikipedia is. And yet they continue to edit here. *sigh* --Ebyabe (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Pinging admins from above "Writings from blocked range" section: Edgar181, JamesBWatson, Ivanvector, Bbb23. Guess who? Home Lander (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Another extended confirmed cheater?

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

---

Zoomyzoomzoomz (talk · contribs) created two drafts, one of which is a hoax, and one of which is a broken redirect they've edited over and over and over, adding no useful content. I've tagged both pages for deletion, but I'm getting the vibe they are WP:NOTHERE, and are probably trying to gain extended confirmed status improperly. Home Lander (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Concur with OP, User:Home Lander as to questionable intent. Concur with an indef. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

 Erledigt. Indeffed. Deor (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Julian Williams from Lake Charles

Someone using IPs primarily from Lake Charles, Louisiana, has been inserting the name "Julian Williams", "Julian A. Williams", "Julian 'Jay' Alphonso Williams", or "Alphonse Williams" as a co-songwriter or co-performer in various song articles.[146][147][148][149][150] The disruption has been occurring since at least April 2013[151] with the total number of edits in the hundreds. The involved IPs include Special:Contributions/74.193.202.54, Special:Contributions/74.193.173.57, Special:Contributions/74.193.171.93, Special:Contributions/74.193.181.12 Special:Contributions/173.209.212.0/24, Special:Contributions/173.57.65.159, Special:Contributions/74.193.189.81, Special:Contributions/173.57.65.201, Special:Contributions/97.32.128.152, Special:Contributions/47.209.67.171, Special:Contributions/74.193.170.154, Special:Contributions/74.196.197.76, Special:Contributions/2605:6001:EA8E:9400:0:0:0:0/64, Special:Contributions/74.196.192.238, Special:Contributions/107.77.164.79, Special:Contributions/71.123.232.112, Special:Contributions/70.119.82.196, Special:Contributions/174.255.151.118 and, most recently, Special:Contributions/74.196.208.213. Most of the IPs are from the same location but sometimes the person uses another location's IPs, for instance Special:Contributions/107.77.164.95 (California) and Special:Contributions/107.77.168.23 (Texas). At least one registered account has performed this same nonsense: Jwdeandre 48. Is an edit filter appropriate for this disruption? Or do we simply block every new user that does this stuff? Binksternet (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems deliberate long-term abuse from multiple IPs and at least one account. In my view, an immediate block followed up by edit filter support is required here. Lourdes 00:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

You should probably request an edit filter at WP:EFR. I can't range block Louisiana. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Abused by Administrator Yann after I request him to listen a user in distress

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

---

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

---

I posted in User:Nagauldesign a polite request for Yann (talk · contribs) to please review the origin of a disputed file, and if proven right, to replace the file and lift the ban to its creator User:Nagualdesign. Within seconds, User Yann bans me permanently without a reason. [152]. He also seemed blanked nagualdesigns Talk page and its history [153], so I have no diff of my original message/request. Although I don't use Commons often, I have been editing Wikipedia for twelve years, created over 180 science articles, and I have never been subjected to such extreme abuse by anybody. This is very irregular, so I kindly request other Administrators look into User Yann's seemingly "road rage" actions, and how many users he has done this in the past without a valid reason. Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a Commons issue as you were told above. We can't help you here. Home Lander (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)\

@Home Lander: I was sure I was posting this to Commons after the message above. Again: I am unable to post anything on any board/Talk page in Commons and those links bring me here. Is't this supposed to be the place for Wikipedia's Admin help? User Yann banned me from posting even in my own Talk page (for politely requesting he helps a user in distress). That is very irregular, and he is evidently also preventing me from contacting an Admin. Will you please help? Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

How about you try this link to add an unblock request to your discussion page on commons.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Yann also disabled RF's talk page access. clpo13_(talk) 01:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha. I just saw that from your posting on commons. I could post the unblock template on their behalf saying that they don't understand why they were blocked... or wait to see if they respond to Clpo13's posting there.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I posted a message at commons AN. I don't think the admin that performed the block is around right now.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all. I don't use Commons often, but I am most concerned of having a rouge Administrator running loose. I am very, very grateful someone cares for the system, and for facilitating the most basic communication channel. Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 02:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

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

• I actually think there's substantial educational value for Wikipedia editors to take a look at what's happening over there at Commons [154]. Admins here at WP can only dream of getting away with the shit that Commons admins apparently do. EEng 02:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• ...The fuck is wrong with that guy? --Tarage (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • They have a much lower tolerance for people deleting comments with the edit summary "fuck off" than we do here. Fish+Karate 12:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

How page protection
Much block user
Very WP:CSD
------------------------------------------------------
Supplemental comment: OMG-OMG-OMG! ♥♥♥♥!! Snow ^{let's rap}

• • • And apparently administrative review and oversight is considered "bureaucratic nonsense."--WaltCip (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
      • And now we have a vote for a de-sysop. The drama boards are contagious!--WaltCip (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• That discussion is turning disturbing. Again, I highly recommend following the link in my OP just below the close. EEng 14:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Boy, if I had known things are the way they are at Commons, I probably would have been more receptive to a complaint at this board. Home Lander (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    • That discussion has passed disturbing, gone out the other side, and entered "Well, there goes any will to get within a hundred meters of editing commons" territory. Icarosaurvus (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
      • The only time I cross over is when we have cross-project spam or vandalism. Home Lander (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• The discussion at commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#What_appears_to_be_an_inappropriate_indef_block_of_User:Rowan_Forest has advanced to a desysop vote. I encourage all who care about our sister project to take the time to read the discussion so far and lend their thoughts. EEng 19:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• On a separate note, I wonder if the OP intentionally wanted to invoke the Rouge admin cabal. ;) -- œ^™ 04:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Me, I identify as a "Doge Admin"--Shirt58 (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• In a display of irony bordering on intentional self-parody, it is now being suggested that I be blocked on Commons because (and I am not making this up) my statement above that

  The discussion at commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#What_appears_to_be_an_inappropriate_indef_block_of_User:Rowan_Forest has advanced to a desysop vote. I encourage all who care about our sister project to take the time to read the discussion so far and lend their thoughts.

is "canvassing", apparently because enwp editors are a "partisan audience" – see commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#EEng_and_canvassing. EEng 06:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• EEng: Actually, not all that surprising. There are those on Commons who cordially (and sometimes not so cordially) hate en.wiki, or are jealous of it, just as there are those on en.wiki who stay away from Commons because of the severe problems they perceive over there.
  Personally, I see Commons as a means to an end, a place to upload images that I want to use on articles here, or want to make available for use on articles wik-wide or in the outside world -- as a repository, that is -- and I usually only get involved with the politics there when they affect me personally (which is only occasionally) or when an egregious problem is brought to my attention.
  Commons is meant to be used by all WMF projects, so what goes on there can affect everyone who uses those projects, in a way that what happens on, for instance js.wiki, doesn't usually have much effect on de.wiki. Because of that, Commons really can't afford to hunker down and make policy rulings that shut out editors from elsewhere - it needs to keep itself open to input from its customers, who are editors across all WMF projects. Those editors need to be able to weigh in on Commons policies and problems, whether or not Commons-centric editors like it or not. The same is true of Wikidata.
  I wish that the WMF had more foresight when it created these projects, and made it clear to them that, because they are centralized repositories, they cannot have the same degree of autonomy that other individual projects have. They must be responsive to the people they serve. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Eh, I avoid commons like the plague. On the rare occasion I help someone with an upload, I do it locally, and that's what I mostly recommend to people. Because f*** that noise. Too many commons admins and users just seem to have incredibly strong tendencies to assume bad faith. I mean, personally I generally assume that everyone is simply incompetent when it comes to copyright issues until proven otherwise, but over there the baseline assumption often seems to be one of actual malice. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The moment you said that, I remembered that I ended this [155] outstandingly Kafkaesque discussion over there by saying much the same thing: I'll just upload locally to WP when there's anything more complicated than a OLD-PD license or permission involved. To my astonishment (and I swear I had no recollection of that until just now) on reviewing that thread I see that this same Commons admin was one of those spouting circular nonsense. EEng 06:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• ANI is not (or at least should not be) a peanut gallery for drama happening at other projects. If there's nothing here that directly involves the English Wikipedia, I think this thread should be closed. Mz7 (talk) 09:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Ohooh7

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

---

• Ohooh7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Their user page and inability to communicate with other editors may suggest a WP:NOTHERE attitude. The latest answer to my recent note was "'tl;dr lol". Their edits were also of a POV pushing nature and when reverted no attempt was made to form consensus (the contributions history is short enough that I will not provide direct diffs). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 07:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Specific diffs would still help, although the user page is pretty suspect. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 20:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised to had to waste time digging these, but here goes:

• "Communication" on their talk page: [156] [157] [158]
• Example of whitewashing referenced content (and reverting reverts multiple times but I will not repeat instances or list all articles): [159] [160] Quote from edit summary: "consensus doesn't matter"
• Misrepresenting sources with personal POV: [161] [162]
• At scientific racism: [163] [164]

—PaleoNeonate – 15:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I find this hilariously ironic, I'm accused of "Misrepresenting sources with personal POV" personal POVs are the only thing I ever really correct. I see loaded language used everywhere on Wikipedia and I make small changes, and yet somehow you people find a way to pretend I'm the bad guy here. It's laughable. I also really like that this PaleoNeonate guy *told* on me on this page. My god. Are you an adult man or a 9 year old girl?

You guys really are doing a bad job of countering what I put on my User page. Bad people, plain and simple. Go ahead and drop your ban hammer or whatever, I can always just make another account.

-Ohooh7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohooh7 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I just realized something else that's hilarious. This admin genuinely didn't care AT ALL about your complain, PaleoNeonate. Lmao. He asked you to give him info about me because he didn't care to dig it up, and then you spent 10 minutes of your free time doing so. Then 2 days went by and he did nothing. You're a hall monitor for an authority that doesn't care. I bet 12 year old you is so proud. -this epic comment added with PERFECT Wikipedian formatting by Ohooh7

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

Blind reverts

Repeated blind reverts at Wonder Woman 1984 – 186.167.251.225, 186.167.243.187, 186.167.245.171, 186.167.248.216, 186.167.242.81, 186.167.244.238. Use dynamic IPs, all from Municipio Libertador, Caracas, Venezuela. No explanation in edit summaries, nor is IP willing to discuss it.

Edits in chronological order :

July 4: [165], IP

July 5: [166], IP, [167]

July 7: IP, [168]

July 8: [169], [170], IP, [171], IP, [172], talk, IP

--Let There Be Sunshine 09:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I see that there has been no action here. If this activity continues, there are two possible recourses that you can initiate: 1) Post a request for page protection with an explanation more than its an edit war and/or 2) Post a sockpuppet investigation request. I would first use WP:WHOIS tools to see if they are coming from the same area and what evidence you have that these are the same people. This could include: 1) single-user accounts that only edit Wonder Women, 2) they make the same edits, 3) are from the same city (per WHOIS), 4) use the same language, etc. But they must be applicable to the situation.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Stuv3

{{uw-delete4im}} warning given here but deletion of content continued here and here and here. wumbolo ^^^ 16:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism -Natureium (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

They were directed to ANI from AIV actually by TonyBalloni RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. Might as well delete the header at the top of the page. Natureium (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Wumbolo: This is not AIV where the evidence presented is short and sweet as you've done above. Here, you need to present far more evidence about Stuv3's misconduct and explain what sanctions you're seeking. AIV is rarely used for long-term editors, which is no doubt why TonyBallioni referred you here.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, also on a quick review I saw use of the talk page, nothing new after recent user talk discussion, and what appears more like a dispute rather than vandalism. There could be disruption, but better sorted out at ANI. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• The editor has a long history of receiving uw-delete warnings:

  level 3 warning on 2017-10-11

  (blocked on 2017-10-30 and 2018-03-10 and 2018-03-13)

  level 2 warning on 2018-04-11

  level 4 warning on 2018-04-15

  level 3 warning on 2018-04-24

  level 4 warning on 2018-04-24

  level 4im warning on 2018-05-26

  level 1 warning on 2018-07-04

  and now they do this

  and this.

wumbolo ^^^ 17:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment editing is not vandalism; this is best suited for ANI and not AIV. There are certainly a lot of warnings, but it's less clear what the problematic edits are. The Lauren Southern dispute is an American Politics Canadian politics-related dispute, deleting content (or BLP issues) are secondary. The removal at Nicki Minaj is one that I endorse. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

Spydakev, who I opened a sock puppet investigation about a few weeks ago at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kev519 has continued his disruptive editing while this has been sitting open for the past couple weeks. This user doesn't answer any comments left on their talk page, and never leaves an edit summary. His IP address was banned for disruptive editing, which is when he started using this account. Today he is now just adding empty tables to various articles [173] or like here [174] removing valid tables without explanation. You will see in their contributions about a dozen or so empty tables added today just like the master sock did previously. Can we please either get some administrative action against this user if the SPI cannot be moved forward? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Another example of disruptive editing, this user just copied and pasted the same table to about a dozen articles, here are a few examples [175] [176] [177] - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I have given the editor a one week block. Please let me know if the disruptive editing resumes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

New editor imposing own preferred version, refuses to use article talk page

Mike Galvin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly changed the wording in the infobox of Ernest Shackleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Owing to the previous long-winded and occaisionally heated discussion about Shackleton's nationality already on the talk page I reverted his initial change, and noted the need to seek concensus first (in my edit summary). Mike Galvin has repeatedly changed to his version, despite repeated advice to go to the talk page. I think I've gone over 3RR in this, and am rapidly losing my cool, so it would be far better for admins to take a look at this and for me to step back. DuncanHill (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I reverted to this version and also warned Mike Galvin, as he far exceeded 3RR. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 20:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

DuncanHill also filed this at WP:RFPP where I provided this answer. Both sides have been edit warring, but the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles favors simply 'Ireland' as the country of birth for people born in the north before 1921. The MOS says that if the word is linked it should only be to Ireland. The area should not be described as Northern Ireland. For people born after 1922 you can start using the term 'Northern Ireland'. Striking my previous statement. As DuncanHill observes, Shackleton wasn't born in the area now part of Northern Ireland so the MOS has nothing to say. EdJohnston (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Shackleton was not born in the North, but you'd have to have looked at the article to know that, and you'd have to have looked at the edits to know that nobody was claiming he was. Turn down the request by all means, that's your prerogative, but try to get your facts at least half-right when you do. DuncanHill (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Is This Okay?

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

---

(Anita Sarkeesian:Talk Section: "Date of Birth") "Wait, what? "Please, Sangdeboeuf, explain how one goes about "weaponizing" a DoB. Take your time, I'll wait..." - that's not being smarmy? It's totally being smarmy. It's also wrong. So being smarmy about your own ignorance. If you think that's an insult, you dumb motherfuckers have never been insulted.--Jorm (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)" Is this appropriate conduct in a talk page? -- Sleyece (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The more interesting question is, why did that conversation extend past the very first response? As far as I can see, nothing whatsoever of value was added after that point. --2601:142:3:F83A:530:D291:C75F:BC34 (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if that is a more interesting question or not. I do know it did not answer my question in any way. -- Sleyece (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Your question was answered with the very first response. That you didn't want to hear the answer isn't Wikipedia's problem: that you persisted with your WP:IDHT behavior was, and that you want to continue that behavior is. --Calton | Talk 04:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Once again, that's not an answer to my question, but I can see where this is going. I'm sorry to bother ANI with this -- Sleyece (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

And for the second time, the basic question you asked on the talk was answered. Repeatedly. You wasted people's time with your own inappropriate conduct, and that's the the answer to the question you asked here. --Calton | Talk 13:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

As a non-admin outsider, the question I see raised here by Sleyece is "is this conduct I cited acceptable", not "explain to me this content issue again", and that question was indeed not answered here. That said, the way the original post here at ANI is formatted is somewhat confusing (not helped by the fact that the text cited by Sleyece includes a citation itself). In regards to said conduct question: my gut feeling says "it's not particularly nice nor exactly helpful, no, but neither is it ANI-level actionable" but I'm not an admin so take my words with a pinch of salt. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not entirely nice, but given the extraordinary obtuseness of the OP in the referenced thread, it's an entirely predictable outcome that is a product of understandable frustration. There's nothing actionable here. Grandpallama (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Yup, pretty much my line of thought, albeit a bit better worded by you. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not quite true that there's nothing actionable here. But the only action that should be taken (giving the OP a heads-up that this topic is covered by discretionary sanctions) has already been done. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Erescholar potential heavy bias in editing Eritrea related pages

I noticed some articles related to Eritrea have sections that are noticeably not neutral, or conflict with the tone of the article. After checking the logs, I discovered User:Erescholar has made many contributions on these pages, and from his edit descriptions and the edits themselves, may be editing these pages from a biased viewpoint.

Special:Contributions/Erescholar

Here are some quotes from his contribution log, and some details on specific revisions:

• ""struggle" changed to "The Struggle". It is more appropriate to identify is as such because when Eritreans say he joined GEDLI, every body knows he joined that particular STRUGGLE."

• "Replaced "war for Independence" with "armed struggle for Independence" because it is the appropriate description"

• "Just clarified that Isaias and others sent to China for training were not technically "soldiers" but liberation fighters, who were called Tegadelti in the Eritrean Tigrinya language"

• "Simply removed the nonsensical grades of "2.6 to 4". First, nobody with a low 2.6 GPA can be admitted to the College of Engineering. Next, who cares of his GPA?"

• "Just semantic refinements. This is important for those who wish study the history of the Eritrean people. The STRUGGLE, or "Gedli" in Tigrinya, changed the thinking of the Eritrean people forever."

• "Isaias joined an Eritrean Liberation Front that was engaged in an Armed Struggle for Independence. He did not join an "Eritrean War of Independence". There was no "war" at the time he joined."

• "He don't join a war. Isiais Afwerki joined an Eritrean Liberation front, or the Eritrean Armed Struggle for Independence"

• "There was never a "war" for independence"

• "Removed the mention of Isaias' mother as "a descender of immigrants from Tigray province". I smell evil political agenda in this uncorroborated statement. Suffice it to say that "she was born in Enderta". Did Isiaias father meet her in Enderta?"

• * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isaias_Afwerki&diff=prev&oldid=798248487 <--Altered sourced text and called it "evil political agenda"

• "The "Eritrean War of Independence" is a gross misnomer to the genuine Eritrean people's Armed Struggle for Independence. There was never a "war" per se between the Eritrean liberation fighters and the occupying Army of Ethiopia. It was an Armed Struggle."

• "Amnesty International is a corrupt organization that is paid to disseminate false information for some spy agencies of countries. To allege that 10,000 Eritreans are imprisoned in the small country Eritrea is a FABRICATION that belies logic."

• "Removed the statement alleging that a UN panel accused Isayas Afwerki of running a reign of terror. This is a LIE. This never occurred"

• * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isaias_Afwerki&diff=prev&oldid=787778368 <-- In fact, it did occur, according to the cited source, that a UN panel said that. Full report: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/CoIEritrea/Pages/ReportCoIEritrea.aspx

• "Removed the quote attributed to Amensty Inernational that alleges that over 10,000 Eritreans are imprisoned. This is a pure fabrication."

• * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isaias_Afwerki&diff=prev&oldid=787777924 <--This is a sourced statement from a reputable organization he removed

• "No evidence of Isayas failing an exams at College of Engineering and no evidence as this was cause for joining the ELF"

• * According to http://www.newsweek.com/who-isaias-afwerki-eritreas-enigmatic-dictator-515761 an extract from "Understanding Eritrea: Inside Africa's Most Repressive State by Martin Plaut": "Isaias’s studies did not progress well and he failed his June 1966 exams and had to repeat his year. Without funding for food or lodging it was not a tempting prospect. Isaias decided to leave to join the liberation movement then fighting for Eritrean independence from Ethiopia." Book source on Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=LVAjDgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT5&pg=PT76#v=onepage&q&f=false

• "To call the 30-year-old armed liberation struggle as "civil strife" is misleading and WRONG. "Civil strife" is what occurred between the ELF and EPLF in the 1970's

• "Removed uncorrobarated information of his parents birthplaces and innuendoes about Afwerki's relationship to TPLF and Meles"

• * The information he removed about the father's birthplace was re-added at some point and is in the current article.

• * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isaias_Afwerki&diff=prev&oldid=610334760 Removed some cited information, and information that wasn't cited but could have had a "citation needed" tag added. Lots of information removed in this edit.'

• "Basically removed inuendoes, lies and hearsays. Only facts should reside in Wikipedia. People with an agenda should use other mediums"

• * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isaias_Afwerki&diff=prev&oldid=594048201 <-- Extreme "whitewashing" of article, removed lots of information (including cited information)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isaias_Afwerki&diff=prev&oldid=579062574 <--- Rewrote article adding unsourced information while clainimg "Just rearranged to make it more readable"

• "54% to 45% ratio is the most logical, realistic and defensible number. To say that Christians are twice as many as Muslims (or vice versa) is a very damaging misinformation. And it has to stop"

• * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eritrea&diff=prev&oldid=542101963 <-- Basically just made up some new numbers

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eritrea&diff=prev&oldid=542099872 <-- Rewrote section to present a non-neutral point of view without giving any citations

• "Removed an unnecessary inuendo totally outside the life of the subject in question"

• * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isaias_Afwerki&diff=prev&oldid=538761994 <-- What was actually removed was a cited paragraph containing legitimate information

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_relations_of_Eritrea&diff=prev&oldid=464789021 <-- Added uncited text

• "Improved english; removed lie about "10" of 11 of the G-15 being dead; removed info about Isaias' mother parents because this is unverified and has some evil intent"

All in all, this user has been editing these related pages for quite a few years now, removing useful information and inserting information that makes Eritrea and related subjects appear in a positive manner. 69.145.67.34 (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I see that there have been some issues with the contributions by this user, who has their own slant on things. But, I don't see any attempt to try to talk to this user. Instead, you came straight to ANI.

In addition, it would be helpful to be familiar with {{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}} for those discussions. For instance, the information about the mother is from a cited source, so it is verifiable. If the user is trying to remove content because he/she believes it not to be true, then there should be a discussion about this on the article talk page... with the user providing sources to support their opinion. Basically, it seems that the user is making edits based upon their own personal opinion, or original research - versus using cited sources. Reliable secondary sources are the foundation for edits made to Wikipedia.

Can you try talking about these issues with the user? Also, where the user is making changes that are in disagreement with the cited sources, they can be warned on their user talk page of disruptive editing using a template, like {{Uw-disruptive1}} (it starts with #1 and goes up from there if the user continues to make disruptive edits).

So far, though, they have not been told that their edits are disruptive and my guess is that this would be a surprise to them, because they have a different slant on things. But, focusing on the need for reliable sources for edits should be the starting point. And, that they shouldn't remove cited information unless they can show with sources why it should be removed. How does that sound?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I posted a message here to get you started.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not the Wikipedia police. I have notified the administrators of a user that is editing wrongly, and it's up to the admins if they want to do something about it. 69.145.67.34 (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I will say the changes you have made recently have greatly improved the content. 69.145.67.34 (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, regarding the line-by-line review and edits to Isaias Afwerki.

I don't know if you noticed, there were no administrators that jumped on this topic. Why, you may ask? I think it's because there was no effort to try and address the problem yourself before coming here - and then you dumped a long list of issues without trying to summarize them into short sentences with diffs. Please see "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." at the top of this page. It is your responsibility to try to resolve issues before posting a message on ANI.

See for instance WP:BRD. There aren't enough administrators to manage all the edit wars and user learning curves that take place here on Wikipedia.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Aggressive POV pusher

• Ajackson12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Essentially all edits by Ajackson12 (talk · contribs) are POV-pushing in areas of discretionary sanctions, either Israel & Palestine [178] or American politics [179][180] or both [181][182][183]. They've been warned plenty on their talk page; you can see their engagement in this edit. Basically, I defy anyone to find any signs that this editor is anything but a WP:NOTHERE POV-warrior. Some administrative attention (more serious than locking their preferred version into place) would be good. I will notify after posting this message. --2601:142:3:F83A:530:D291:C75F:BC34 (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The user Ajackson12 should obviously be kicked off Wikipedia. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. The decision to lock Ajackson12's version of an article was unfortunate, as the article currently features poorly supported smears in the lede. The smears are sourced to non-RS or misrepresent what RS say. This is content that Ajackson12 has tried to force into the article before, and it was pointed out to be the user and everyone reading the page that the sources were either non-RS or misrepresented. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I've warned them about the Arab-Israeli DS, and noted that they do not yet meet the 30-500 requirement. If Ajackson12 is unwilling to engage with the community and makes edits that have a clear POV to them, they are likely to be blocked in the very near future. They should certainly have a chance to respond before any admin takes action, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Courtesy ping Ajackson12. There have been allegations made of a pattern of unconstructive editing on your part. Please read the above and respond. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• The pattern of edits speak for themselves; there is no way to explain that behavior away. That is one continuous set of WP:SOAP edits. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

not a legitimate rollback pattern POV

Atricle Kumul Rebellion I installed the POV template. Since the article presents only pro-China pro-government point of view. Explicitly distorting historical facts about what I mentioned on the page of discussion. But the participant Jim1138 rolls back all my edits. And in all articles related to the Sheng Shicai government. The separatist government separated Xinjiang from China in 1933-1944. This is a very painful topic for the Chinese government and therefore do everything that would distort the history and show that it was allegedly the Russians seizing their lands. Not only in Wikipedia but also everywhere China's paid agents promote exclusively about the Chinese pro-government point of view. This is a gross violation of neutrality.109.239.219.49 (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I have been reported by the Chinese Government! For distorting history! Jim1138 (talk) 09:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, Comrade—and after this period of re-education from the Central Committee, you will return to the salt mines. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

This is the salt mine. Is there something worse? Jim1138 (talk) 10:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Heh  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I visited the salt mines once. It was gorgeous, I'd love to go back. --bonadea contributions talk 11:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

IP, your edits do not seem to be an improvement. And a lot of unsourced content.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• The IP in question has been blocked by User:Black Kite. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, it was actually by User:JzG. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

A WP:SPA user who became active again, using Wikipedia as host for his personal page

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

---

User:Saymatiq joined in May 2014, who became active again recently made no edits aside from creating personal page and autobiographies. He created user pages to write his personal page and autobiographies in different user pages, like User:Saymatiq/sandbox, User:Saymatiq, Saymatiq (recently speedied), and user talk page that has since been reverted. Possibly WP:NOTHERE for using Wikipedia solely for self-promotion. --Stylez995 (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. While I could see an argument that he wasn't properly warned, some of the content raises some concerns about his ability to have gotten the point or to have helped the site. As such, I've indeffed him but am open to unblocking if he expresses any interest in helping the encyclopedia and not writing about himself. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

endorse block. If they have any other interest in editing/building Wikipedia, they can request otherwise. We are not MySpace.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The user has an obvious sock / alternative account at User:Djsaymatiq that could use the same cleanup. GermanJoe (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I see that because of the same photo on alt. account/sock's user page and the username contains the string "Djsaymatiq", but the account is currently inactive. I don't think he's going to use that account again, but the account can be blocked if he does, and made such WP:NOTFACEBOOK edits again. --Stylez995 (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by ‎Stefka Bulgaria

• Stefka Bulgaria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• People's Mujahedin of Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user insists on pushing for his contested edits despite opposition of three other users. He's been warned to reach consensus before reverting his changes but he doesn't comply. In this edit I stated that this section must be integrated into other sections of the article because the article is chronologically ordered among other reasons. He soon restored the section by a fallacious reasoning along the line that it is not the subject history that gives the context to this section but rather it is this particular section that gives context to some half a century length of history! Taking it to the talk, I asked the opinion of another involved editor. Stefka however came back restoring the disputed content. Other involved users agreed that this section called "suppression ..." must be eliminated because it also represents a content fork. The section along with other disputed content is neutralized by the other involved editor, yet Stefka comes back restoring everything again including the section on suppression pretending that it was only the location of the section that was disputed not itself! By the time he is warned both in the edit description and in the talk not to do more revert wars against consensus but he comes back and reverts again against consensus by making a fallacious reference to my comment on talk! I must stress that this is only one segment of the article in which he has engaged in edit/revert wars with other users. He stubbornly defies demands on the talk to achieve consensus before pushing his contested edits. Such behavior has completely hampered our efforts to improve this article. To have testimony of other involved editors I also ping @Pahlevun and Mhhossein: --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

For WP:AIV, not really here. IWI (chat) 22:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: Thank you! Does that mean I should take this to WP:AIV myself? --Expectant of Light (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Expectant of Light: yes and they’ll probably block the person. IWI (chat) 10:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I think the user's problem is behavioral hence ANI is a suitable place for his misconducts. Among his disruptive edits and his ignoring the talk page discussions, just see this example: He removed a figure from the lead since he thought one of the sources was not reliable, while the material was cited to three sources! I think he's now hounding the nominator. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Rather, it is users Mhhossein and Expectant of Light who work as a duo to push POV in order to create "consensus" on certain pages, removing reliable sources per previous discussions at WP:RSN. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mhhossein Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I told you several times it is not about reliability of sources but context, weight and location of statements from a source. Moreover an otherwise reliable source may make certain claims that border on fringe. Not everything a reliable source says must be included in pages. Finally, this is your consistent disruptive editing which is the problem. You've been warned several times before this ANI but don't listen. --Expectant of Light (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

More revert wars and defiance of consensus-building. --Expectant of Light (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Two iranian users ganging up on a user who's posting negative things about Iran? Never seen that before! 74.70.146.1 (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for "posting negative things" about any country but building a neutral encyclopedia through collaboration. But Stefka has been defiantly pushing to make certain POVs stand out in the article against the long-standing version which had been qualified as B class. It is all welcome to improve articles, but not making your favored views somehow stand out through content fork. --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Jonghyun original wiki has been changed

Hi I many times have visited the ‘Jonghyun ‘ wiki. I noticed a week ago?

It has changed.

The overview is now Kim Hyun Joong and the songs are still jonghyuns

. Sadly it is not possible now to see all the info that was very informative there, filmography, tv series he starred in. It is very odd and further whoever did this has made it now look that Kim hyun joong died from carbon monoxide poisoning.

My suggestion is to get it changed ac I am dire Kim Hun joong wouldn’t like to think that he died!

I have no idea how to correct whatever had occurred. Suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjong90 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be a complaint about Kim Jong-hyun (singer). I can't tell exactly what you want done about the article, but it's already semi-protected. If there's some factual error in the article, you can discuss it on Talk:Kim Jong-hyun (singer). Use {{Edit semi-protected}} on that talk page to make edit requests. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you trying to say he's not dead? Because CNN says he's dead. Do you have information we don't? --Tarage (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

...Are you perhaps talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Jong-hyun? His article still exists. --Tarage (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay I've done some more research and I think you just aren't understanding that yes, the article shows Jonghyun, and yes, he is dead. He died last year. This is not a mistake. --Tarage (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• (ec) As far as I can tell Kim Jong-hyun was a South Korean K-pop star who went by the stage name "Jonghyun". [184] He committed suicide late last year. His article is at Kim Jong-hyun (singer). Another person, Kim Hyun-joong, is a South Korean actor, singer and songwriter who is still alive, and has his own article, which does not indicate that he used a stage name. The article Jong-hyun is a disambiguation list of the many people with similar names. A Google search on "Jonghyun" [185] brings up articles on the dead singer,
  So, which article is the problem? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

...Those two names, combined with the fact that they are both Kpop singers... can make for a very confusing situation. --Tarage (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

[Not admin] Glad I'm not the only one confused; they first brought this up on my talk page where I told them to ask on here. He is suggesting there is some kind of double article where the two people's articles have somehow been mixed. I have no idea and wouldn't mess with BLPs to this extent. I have no idea what exactly this editor is suggesting, does anyone know? IWI (chat) 22:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

This came up at the Teahouse a couple of days ago as well. If you look at Jong-hyun, you will see that there are at least four K-Pop singers and an actor who use this shortened name. I do not yet see evidence that any of those articles are messed up, but I could be wrong. What I do see is a lot of devoted fans trying to say that the most famous guy who died last December is still a member of the band, is an "angel" instead of being dead, that it is disrespectful to say that he is dead, and so on. All unacceptable for an encyclopedia, but fine for fan sites, I guess. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

[Not admin] I recall one of these a few years ago. So there is no mistake on the pages that you can see at all? Just a misunderstanding by the editor or something? IWI (chat) 23:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Let me be clear that I am no expert on K-Pop but I do not see the problem that Jjong90 is reporting. But there are a lot of articles that are related to these different entertainers called Jonghyun or variations of that. It would be helpful if Jjong90 could tell us precisely which article has (or had) the problem. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

B I think part of the issue that the user noted is that back in 2016, the article had a full-fledged Television section, which is now missing. I suppose it was removed because it's unsourced. I'm not sure what the issues regarding the singer's death are about, though. AlexEng^(TALK) 17:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I moved comment that had been added into it's own section: "Jonghyun Wikipedia is back to normal on Google":–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks I don’t know what happened, however, when you search Jonghyun now , his wiki with photos/ overview etc is now showing. you can also click on his link Brilliant as Kim Hyung Joong isn’t showing now.

I had a screenshot saved to show you the initial problem but couldn’t upload anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjong90 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Probably an issue with Google Knowledge Graph then? –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am starting to think that this is a Knowledge Graph issue. Jjong90, if you are referring to the information box that Google displays following some Google searches, please be aware that Google's bots display that information, and that they get much of it from various Wikipedia articles. However, Wikipedia has no control, power or responsibility for Google's Knowledge Graph. Only Google is responsible for its inaccuracies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Some IPs are writing the same bizarre edit summary over and over again, with potential harassment involved

While looking at the revision history of Battle of Tamsui, I noticed two IPs, 49.217.201.140 and 101.12.192.55, that had made edits with the exact same edit summary: "I can sure User-4488 can change IP at Noriel (rapper), so find her IPs is simple.I only need to target her IP, and she doesn't know who is targeted. So she chose to look for catharsis goals and continue to disrupt, and dozens of accounts he signed up were just used to disrupt." I looked at their user contributions, and almost all of their edits have that exact same edit summary. I do not know who "User-4488" is, but there is something very strange going on here. I'm not sure what to do, so I'm posting here to inform others of this problem. Here are the user contributions involved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/49.217.201.140 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/101.12.192.55 Diamond Blizzard (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Really not sure what the edit summary is about, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/101.12.192.55 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:67 seem to be reverting each other all over the place. I've semi-protected Battle of Tamsui, but I think more is needed here. There are several other IPs also active and reverting each other on bunch of seemingly unrelated articles, other than the same IPs are active on them. Monty₈₄₅ 00:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I noticed some unusual activity as well. Could the "User-4488" be 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:67? The edit summary did seem to suggest that the writer had something against another person, which is why I was worried that someone may be harassing someone else here. What a mystery! Diamond Blizzard (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

It probably has to do with this. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. I actually tried to search for User-4488 previously, but I accidentally did it as User:4488 because I didn't realize that "User" was actually part of this account's username.Diamond Blizzard (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have given those two IP addresses one week blocks, since the edit summaries are vindictive and intimidating. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have also semiprotected Noriel (rapper) since that article seems to be the nexus of the dispute among IPs. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Mass changes to maybe hundreds of articles without consensus or reason

CASSIOPEIA had made MANY edits to MMA biographies without any real reason of consensus, and there are far to many for me to reasonably revert. In his description, it links to an essay that has nothing to do with his changes whatsoever. Can something be done about this? Thanks. TBMNY (talk) 08:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

TBMNY The changes is as per WikiProject Mixed martial arts -Weight ranges - under WP:MMA/MOS - open the syntax boxes to view. - copy from WikiProject MMA guideline as below:

• In the weightclass field, try to include the name of the division and the ranges. Example:

syntax

|weightclass=[[Light heavyweight (MMA)|Light heavyweight]] (185–205 lb)

Light heavyweight (185–205 lb)

Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Your link doesn't point to the guidance.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Nigel Ish Hi Greetings. update the the link as above. see here - WikiProject Mixed martial arts -Weight ranges - under WP:MMA/MOS - open the syntax boxes to view. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

That infobox is from 2009, and was never added with consensus. It was just someone decided to add that. We had been doing it the same way forever. Why did you feel the need to add useless clutter? Oh yeah, also, all the numbers you put are wrong. For example, you put lightweight as 145-155 lbs but it's not. It's 146-155. Every single you edit you did is wrong TBMNY (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

TBMNY, If it is posted since 2009 which is about 8 + years ago and no one disagree/ change / debate about it (if it is not consensus in the first place - but I don know it is or not), but info is still there and I dont think I do anything harmful to the article as I just follow the guidelines as they are posted under WP:MMA/MOS of WikiProject Mixed martial arts and also different combat sport has different weight ranges even sometimes the name are the same. The example in the syntax section stated the number as (185–205 Ib) for MMA Light heavyweight class and not (186–205 Ib) which would translate to (145-155 Ib) for MMA lightweight class and not (146-155 Ib). I didnt invent all the above or go against anyone here as I said I just follow the guidelines. Lastly, when you questioned me, I replied to your talk page immediately and yet without discussion. reply nor see my explanation, you brought this to ANI as I thought communication is the key in Wikipedia to understand things better before jump in here in ANI. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Is there any reason why this discussion needs to be here rather than at the MMA Wikiproject? This seems to be a debate about the contents of the MMA MoS.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Nigel Ish May be TBMNY could answer the question as they brought this here. If the guidelines are there for 8+ years, yet no discussion to change/debate/disagree in MMA WikiProject and I mainly follow the guidelines, I dont understand why this is raised here nor what harm have I done to the articles. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry but if they've been there for eight years then they are established guidelines, by not addressing them the project accepted them. The fact that the data added is wrong is a different matter, but there shoud not be a case raised for following the guideline that has been there for 8 years.  MPJ-DK  01:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Project guidelines usually come from the agreement of the project members on project talk page and and final agreement content will then place in the guidelines sections. As TBMNY claimed someone just placed them there without consensus agreement, then they might have read through all the project talk page to know that and if so, pls provide link so we may learn from it. Even if the project talk page do not have such topic of discussion, and the guidelines existed there for 8+ years without any challenge/ debate/disagreement, and I mainly follow have written on the guidelines, of what faults have I committed here? I am one of the NPP and AFC reviewers, and often check notability guidelines for subjects of the articles, I dont go through all the Wikipedia notability talk page or history to check if the guidelines are consensus agreed 2 days ago or 10 years ago, if any reviewers have to do that, then I dont think we could do any reviewing at all. We take what is written in the Wikipedia guidelines pages as what they are. I have worked with TBMNY on a few occasions as both of us are MMA editors, where they provided the URL and I did the inline citations and we thanked each other on that occasions. TBMNY edited on MMA related page sometimes but contributed many images of the fighters. I am one of the half dozen active editors working on MMA articles especially UFC related events/ and fighters. I have created close to 40 MMA event articles and about 60 MMA fighters articles in Wikipedia. I have also heavily updated MMA articles' content and in List of current UFC fighters alone I have contributed over 1,800 edits, requested many MMA related pages for protection and reported/fighting vandalized edits in MMA pages. Any editors are welcome to check my claims above as all editors' edits are transparent to all in Wikipedia. What I am tried to illustrate here is that I have no intention of harming any articles in Wikipedia or work against consensus agreements nor I am here to have war with TBMNY, but would be nice to receive "assume good faith" approach from TBMNY as we both are MMA editors and have a civil discussion and check the guidelines in the first place instead of coming to ANI without read my explanation on their talk page. If TBMNY deems guidelines need to change/amend, then bring such discussion to the project talk page. I am happy to follow the consensus agreements. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that these edits are disrputive and I doubt you'll remove all of them because of how long it would take. Again, even if we were to assume that the weights should be listed (which I don't), the numbers are still completely wrong. So unless you're willing to remove every single one of them manually, I figured this would be the best place to get them removed en masse. TBMNY (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

TBMNY Hi and good day. If the guidelines stated as such with example, and I merely follow, there are no disruptive edits here. If you think the number should stated from one pound lower from current example on the lower weight limit range, then take it to the WikiProject MMA talk page. I understand your reasoning, some editors would agree with you but other will not and both side will present their reasons, but do note again, I didnt invent all this, it is in the guidelines and I merely follow what should be done. You might not like the way the guidelines layout or what should be included, then take it to the project but not to the editor who follow it. It is like saying only American English spelling should be used but Wikipedia stated any variances of English spelling are acceptable and follow the spelling as the content, yet editor would take the case to ANI stating the editor who performed the edit is disruptive instead of reading the guidelines and communicate with the editor first and bringing your suggestion to the talk page to gain mass consensus. Your target should be the talk page and not the editor who merely follow guidelines. Without read my message nor check the guidelines first and bringing this to ANI without assume good faith from an active editor as you might not agree/like the guidelines is not a spirit of an Wikipedian and for your to go against the guidelines to remove the edits that would be disruptive, an act to be cautioned to perform to avoid the implication it entails.

I do not know the initial reason of why the weight ranges were established in the MMA guidelines but do note fighters have competed not only in one specific combat sport but two or multiple disciplines such as Holly Holm, who have competed in Boxing and MMA, Mackenzie Dern and Fabrício Werdum in MMA and Jui-Jitsu or Mark Hunt and Alistair Overeem in MMA and kickboxing and etc. Sometimes, diff combat sport have diff weight classes and even the weight classes name are the same. And if a promoter would like to introduce their own weight classes, nothing prevents them from doing so as long as the fights are fought under the organisation and do not need to adhere to "association/federation/unification rules" of other country such as USA. To specify the weight range and sport specific weight range (if known) would be beneficial for record keeping and correctness of the article. If you look at professional boxing - see here Professional boxing, different weight classes added through since 1884 and with different weight classes name from different sanction bodies, for such, Wikipedia has defined the weight classes of it own to consolidate the confusion - see here - MOS:BOXING/WEIGHT. As for another example Wrestling here - amateur Wrestling weight classes vs Professional wrestling weight classes where different promoters in different countries have different weight classes. We could go on to see this type of weight classes differences in other combat sport, such as MMA, Jiu-jitsu, Karate, Sumbo, judo and etc. Since this is Wikipedia, we follow what Wikipedia WikiProject of that particular sport guidelines. For MMA we follow WP:MMA guidelines. Please note that some combat sports define weight classes by their upper limit; however in MMA WikiProject guidelines require the input of "weight ranges". Should you deem it is unnecessary then, bring it to WikiProject MMA to suggest the guidelines change and seek consensus agreement, just as many times editors suggest Bellator MMA to be included in teir one organisation instead of tier two especially after Rory MacDonald, Gegard Mousasi and Ryan Bader made the move to join Bellator from UFC with the result of no avail.

I understand you merely to protect the Wikipedia articles just I am as a Wikipedia vandalism fighter and would arguable to say I am the most actively vandalism fighter in MMA content related pages in Wikipedia and you are the other mirror on fighter images copyright watcher, but this is not the way to do it, instead seek collaboration and understanding by civil communication as it is the right way to go especially we both do work and actively involve on the same WikiProject. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

No, there is nobody who would agree that the weight classes start where you put them. It's not up for debate. It's just a matter of fact. You know better than this. The pages you're linking to (Lightweight (MMA)), for example, even state the proper weight class (146-155), yet you put 145-155. There is not a single person who would argue that 145 is lightweight, and you know that. Just own up to your mistake. This is super cut and dry. There's no disputing this. TBMNY (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE/WP:CIR

Hackeraj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wrote one article RadioBaadal in very poor English. The rest of his activity is dedicated to writing an article on himself (Hackeraj, Talk:Hackeraj and Draft:Hackeraj). The latest edition which suggests the user in question is not here to help build the encyclopedia, but to promote his own activities as a 'hacker'. Kleuske (talk) 10:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) RadioBaadal has been nominated for deletion, and so far it's not looking good. The last attempt at an article about themself was deleted and there were posted messages about the problems about writing a biography about oneself at Wikipedia. I don't see any further editing right now. I am not sure what should be done at this point.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I just had a thought The Wikipedia Adventure tutorial, regular tutorial, or writing better articles might be helpful. I'll post a message on their user page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Use:Canadianji

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

---

Generally disruptive editor, moves between edit-warring, adding POV to various articles including the use of bogus sources, deletes sourced content without adequate reasons. Please note their talk page history which is includes a series of requests for a change in behaviour from other editors, requests to refrain from socking and a number of warnings. Heavy editing of the talk page makes it difficult to immediately see the extent of disruption. User is not here to contribute to the project. Flat Out (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The User:Flat Out is making false claims. The only issue is that instead if resolving the problem peacefully assisted by a civilized discussion on the talk page, he/she threatened me to be blocked, and hence making Wikipedia a battleground. Flat Out also tried to similarly influence other users like User:Highpeaks35 to threaten me and put false allegations of personal attack against me which he couldn't prove when I asked. I would like to apologise for my removal of a few comments on my talk page as I felt they were absolate. I had no intention to hide them as they are still visible it the edit history.Flat Out made false allegations against me and threatened me on the talk page related to the edits on page Politics, which was later edited by a random ip address not belonging to me. The edit wars in which I was involved were only because they were reverted without any explanation or hollow excuses in most of the cases.Canadianji (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

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

I think that the recent ANI discussion on Huggums537 should get a real close

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

---

I think that the ANI discussion on Huggums537 should get a real close

I commented briefly on this discussion which was to review that they are indef blocked. It's currently at [186] I checked back and there was sort of a non-close. There was a lot of discussion. Paraphrasing, near the end the comment is that there isn't much to do here because the user can't participate. Then there was a non-admin close which just said that the user is indef blocked and "feel free to re-open". I hadn't been watching that close but feel that a full close drawing from the discussion should be done. I'll notify on their talk page within a few minutes. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

It was nearly two months ago (25 May 2018). Enough time has passed. If there's anything to be discussed (unblocks, etc), then their own TP is now the place for those discussions, surely. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

There was a full discussion and a close is supposed to draw from that. That process did not occur. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Not every discussion needs a close. Huggums was disruptive and blocked. They can appeal on their own if they see fit. en.wiki also typically does not accept 3rd party unblock requests and I don't think we should in this case either. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not requesting any particular result (such as an unblock), just a close drawn from the ANI discussion. North8000 (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

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

User:CoolRichWiseGuy

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

This user is repeatedly changing names without references [187], sometimes apparently based on what common naming systems are [188] [189], after a 4im warning by Dr.K. for adding unsourced content. As they don't appear to have made any non-mainspace edits, I think a block is necessary to force them to engage with the community. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I am a little confused, I see just a final warning (no preceding warnings) on the user's talk page to stop adding content without sources, and no other conversations in their talk history or that of any of the articles. There's no mention of WP:COMMONNAME with the user and all of a sudden they are thrust into an ANI discussion.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Far too early to be dragging a newish user to ANI. You should know better. --Tarage (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

No reason for confusion if you follow their mass edits in many musicians' articles changing the middle name of many people without providing citations. They were so prolific performing these mass changes that to stop them I went directly to level 4 warning. Now they have resorted to socking. I will open an SPI soon. Please stay tuned. Dr. K. 01:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Please tune in to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CoolRichWiseGuy. Thank you. Dr. K. 01:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Dr.K., You had not thought of giving them a specific message about the nature of the problem? And, are you sure that when they are inserting middle names that they are not getting them from cited sources in the article? I am not say they are, but have you had a discussion to know that?

When did this become a sockpuppet issue, too?–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Before giving a level 4 I did the due diligence and checked the article and Google for the middle names, and I could not verify many of them. Please check other editors' similar reversions of the account. Surprisingly, the SPI just turned negative. Dr. K. 01:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

In the case of Manuel Rosenthal, I found an obituary in The Telegraph that confirms that his birth name was Emmanuel Rosenthal. Let's be cautious here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It is absolutely in at least one of the cited sources here, too, from the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

You still have had no conversation that I can see getting into the specifics that are here. I think this should be closed out until you do so. Why not give them an opportunity to get the details about what the problem is. In other words, you jumped to a relatively generic template, final warning no less, without the details.

It's mean to do this to a new user without giving them the opportunity to learn and mend their ways. –CaroleHenson (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Generally I agree. But like I said before, this editor was performing massive unsourced changes at a very fast pace. I feel that in such circumstances, a level 4 unsourced warning is fair. Despite the warning, the user reverted again in some articles, without providing any sources. Dr. K. 01:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It also looks like they are tag teaming with themselves with a deliberately obvious 2nd account (TheCRW) in a mini edit war at Pete Seeger. But it also looks like they did a lot of real editing... I'll bet that they are new and got going too fast without understanding things. Maybe a short block and force them to engage and slow down. North8000 (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, it would be nice if CoolRichWiseGuy and TheCRW would come here and discuss this rather than needing to be blocked. And, it would have been better if rather than posting an ANI, there had been some actual discussion with them. But, Dr.K. does not seem to want to hear that at all.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree. North8000 (talk) 03:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I added a message to both of their pages to please join this discussion -- especially before they make any more changes to names in articles.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

But, Dr.K. does not seem to want to hear that at all I would like to know what exactly I said that led you to that conclusion. As far as I can tell, I was replying to your concerns regarding my level 4 warning, versus your suggestion that I should have left them another type of message. I don't think that I said that I dismiss any further attempts at communicating with that person, especially now that the pace of the disruption has slowed down. I would appreciate if my comments were not distorted. Dr. K. 03:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

This comment, that starts out Generally I agree... seemed pretty dismissive to me. Your comments in this most recent paragraph, though, help to provide greater insight. Thanks for that. I hope that means that in the future you will try to communicate with users and not jump to a level 4 template. You may want to look at WP:BRD.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

My reply was not dismissive. I first noticed this user when they added the middle name "George" to Mikis Theodorakis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and there is no attestation of that middle name in any language, let alone Greek. The edit on the Greek composer was close to vandalism. I then checked several other edits of this user, and only a small percentage were found to be ok. This, and the sheer number and fast pace of the unsourced edits, led me to the conclusion to give him a level 4. If editors perform a massive number of controversial and unsourced edits, BRD is close to useless. Dr. K. 03:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I am finding sources for the middle name George. See this New York Times article. Please also see Cullen's comment above about Manuel Rosenthal.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a very rare use of the patronymic name in a single source. There is no attestation of such a middle name for Mikis in the vast majority of sources. As far as Cullen's comment, I have also commented that several of this user's edits were found by me to be ok. Dr. K. 04:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there aren't a ton, but how many do you need for a middle name? New York Times isn't good enough for you? There are some books that have his middle name, but I'm not spending any more time on this. And, no, it's often "Michael George" and they mention his Greek name Mikis. I am not seeing "Mikis George".–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Let me try this another way. Here's what I would have done. I would have posted a message on their page, something like:

"I see that you are editing a large number of articles and changing or adding to the names of the subjects of the articles. It appears, though, that you are making these edits without the addition of a citation. Before adding content, you should be adding citations of reliable secondary sources. In addition, in some cases you appear to be changing the name to someone's birth name, rather than their common name, which is also an issue. Please don't make any more changes to names of subjects of articles without complying with these guidelines. I would be happy to talk through what you are doing and how to do this without making what are called disruptive edits, meaning edits that need to be reverted because they do not meet guidelines."–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Your approach is perfectly fine and understandable. However, from my experience, editors who perform fast-paced unsourced edits of a similar type, don't normally respond to personalised messages. Dr. K. 04:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Apparently you have not seen TheCRW's talk page that you've been pinged to, then - after I posted a message there.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

And, I see that you deleted and did not respond to an attempt to contact you here with an apology. Seriously?–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I saw their comments. They also left the same message on my talk. I consider this to be trolling. I trust you saw the part where they ask me since I am a doctor what type of medicine I practice. Please see also Drmies's comment at the SPI. Dr. K. 04:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Amazing. You give someone a final warning and don't communicate with them, submit a sockpuppet investigation - which turns out not to be valid, pursue an ANI incident... and they apologize to you... and you call them a troll. Claim BRD doesn't usually work in these situations, so you're not even going to try. And, did you delete the message from them before you said If editors perform a massive number of controversial and unsourced edits, BRD is close to useless.? And, you claim that you cannot find the alternate names and middle names... but Cullen and I found the two we looked for very quickly. A m a z i n g. Seems close to a Boomerang scenario to me. Yes, by the way, I saw the conjecture about the users earlier.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What I find amazing is your lack of WP:CLUE. You seem bent on ignoring all the points I made, and you keep defending these disruptive accounts. You seem to not mind at all that a brand new account, namely TheCRW, with a username closely resembling the CoolRichWiseGuy, followed me around, reverted some of my reverts, and you think this is just a normal editing pattern despite what Drmies already said. I suggest you get some clue before you invoke boomerang. Dr. K. 05:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I never said it was a normal editing pattern. It is very clear that we would have handled this situation very differently. And, yes, I have had experience with massive, fast edits, too. I have deleted part of my comment above about boomerang. I apologize for not getting the scenario earlier, I thought something else was going on.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It's fine. I respect your opinion and I also don't dispute that the situation could have been handled differently. In any case, I have struck my comments about clue. Regards. Dr. K. 06:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

That's very nice of you, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

IMO especially given below the SPI was ultimately a good thing. We now know that any edits by TheCRW should not be associated with CoolRichWiseGuy. It's therefore not worth litigating Nil Einne (talk) 05:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I fully agree. I was just responding to allegations that I did not treat TheCRW fairly. Dr. K. 05:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since it doesn't seem to have been made clear, the CU for TheCRW did not find that they were linked. It's therefore easily possible they are a joe job. Regardless TheCRW has been blocked but no blame should be placed on CoolRichWiseGuy for any things that TheCRW did given the absence of sufficient evidence they are the same person. Nil Einne (talk) 05:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and I am wondering why Sro23 blocked the user's account automatically without discussing what is happening with them? They are not a true sockpuppet. What if they are part of an informal or formal Wiki editing group? Or, they just haven't been told that ganging up on articles is an issue? This is likely my ignorance on this specific kind of issue, but it sure seems unfair to not even discuss it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Sro23 explained it to me here. I get it, it was someone shadowing the user being investigated here to get him blocked.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

User:2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 and Kempner Function

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

---

I reverted his/her edit[190] to Kempner function because they were removing content and sources with no consensus. Since then, they have:

• Continually reverted my edit more then three times[191][192][193][194]
• Left incivil edit summaries [195][196][197]
• Got disallowed by the edit filter [198]
• Started to harass Snowycats[199][200]

Thank you for your time. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 21:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Aww jeez, do we have to do this? To cut a long story short, this disruption started with the reverting of this edit, which while slightly blunt and cocky looks like a good-faith removal of content by Florentin Smarandache that the editor believes is self-serving and unnecessary (and a quick perusal of the talk page shows that Smarandache has turned up on the talk page in the past to argue his point across). Yes, the IP was a bit blunt and cocky, but all you had to do is listen to what he had to say, and actually understand what you were reverting, and this would have been a non-issue. I have no opinion on whether the reference to Smarandache should stay or go - that's a matter for the talk page. If you think Smarandache is an important contributor to the field of mathematics and this nasty smear campaign is unacceptable, then great, state that view - however, I think you're just escalating this dispute because an IP had a bit of a go at you. A discussion has started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and I have asked David Eppstein to take a look at it. I don't think anything else needs to be done there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

(e/c) Oh goody. I would be happy to offer a detailed analysis if one is requested, but the short version is that RandNetter96 is hostile to the basic work of thoughtful editing, and deserves a talking-to. The discussion here is certainly worth reading for anyone interested in this. I particularly like the bit about NPOV and OR, but YMMV. --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

How about a racist edit summary? [201] RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 21:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow. I would like to escalate my comment above: this editor needs a serious talking-to. I don't really understand how that edit summary could be racist in any circumstance, but in case it needs to be said: two of my grandparents grew up in Yiddish-speaking households. --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have started a discussion about the actual content issue at Talk:Kempner function. There are merits to the positions of both sides, and fault for edit-warring on both sides (removal of sourced content by an IP is not always cause for alarm), but unless the edit-war starts up again and we need to temporarily protect the article I don't think there is any cause for administrative action. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not interested in being a part of this. Please do not include me in the future. Thanks, Snowycats (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I would like to direct admin attention to the fact that the filer here has repeatedly reverted my own edits to my talk page, despite multiple requests to stop (and in direct violation of our guidelines, which I have mentioned to them): [202] [203] [204] [205] . This behavior is deeply inappropriate. --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Something something socks, something something scrutiny. He is just trying to get away with logged out editing. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 22:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Um, right. I have a variable IP (is that the right phrase?), it will be different when I log on tomorrow. But that's the third or fourth completely baseless and unsupported allegation you've through around so far. Maybe you should call it a day? --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

How about you stop harassing people, as you did at יניב_הורון's talk page? RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 22:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It is beginning to look, RandNetter96, like you are throwing everything you can against the wall - in as many places as you can, and involving as many people as you can - to see what sticks. Had you thought about engaging in the conversation on the article talk page about the reason the IP user was looking to remove the content?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I am only policing his actions toward me, I am not a math expert. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 22:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

With less than 250 edits and an account that is only a few days old, you don't need to be policing anything. You seem pretty cocksure of your actions despite being a brand new editor. One may start to think your talk of socks may be a little too on the nose if you don't take the time to learn how Wikipedia works prior to smashing buttons.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

As the person that reported this to the WP:AN3RR, this should never have gotten to this situation. Both sides should have taken this to the talk page instead of a continued edit war. As for myself, I made a mistake by not reporting both 2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 and RandNetter96 for the war. — Mr X ^☎️ 22:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

See above. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 22:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@RandNetter96: It might be worth going to cool down for a bit, lest a WP:BOOMERANG finds its way toward you. You've now tried to issue me some vague, unconstructive warning, despite the fact that I was doing was putting back talk comments that you removed inappropriately for unsubstantiated claims of racism, and reinstating one of the IP's edits, because it was an obviously appropriate removal. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr. X and Deacon Vorbis. CaroleHenson, there has been for some time now an open discussion on the article talk page. Nevertheless, RandNetter is reverting edits of mine that have nothing to do with him on other users' talk pages: [206] [207] -- the out-of-controlness here is astounding. --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I am only policing his actions toward me, I am not a math expert. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 22:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@RandNetter96: "I am only policing his actions toward me, I am not a math expert." You don't say! I wholeheartedly recommend the following action. Log off Wikipedia, and go to the Numberphile YouTube Channel, where (personal opinion) you'll find some great fun introductions to math, with easy explanations. Take a look at Matt Parker's attempts to build a functional computer out of dominoes, or see how the sum of all positive integers is -1/12. If you find your keyboard is covered in drool after watching the videos of Dr Hannah Fry describing the mathematics of love, dating and relationships, don't say I didn't warn you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Funny, Ritchie333. One of the best de-escalation efforts I have ever seen. And, it made us (well, at least one of us) laugh, too. Great job!–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) RandNetter96, you look just as guilty in the edit warring, well moreso, because you aren't even aware of the topic... and your behavior since then is problematic. What is the world is your goal by trying to make unsubstantiated claims based on the flimsiest of information? If you don't know enough to engage in a conversation about the topic, you absolutely should not have reverted after reading the edit summary. You should have immediately posted something on the article talk page to get a conversation started. And, the fact that you ignored that David Eppstein started a discussion, saw that an edit war issue was opened, and still decided to open an ANI and ping a bunch of administrators is very disruptive.

Perhaps a time for a breather and a cup of tea?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have blanked his page and moved his warnings. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 22:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

How about you stop modifying the IP's (or anyone else's) comments altogether, stop blanking other people's talk pages, stop moving warnings, and stop making little lists. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

And this edit by RandNetter96 is abusive. Paul August ☎ 23:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have deleted Wikipedia:Disruption caused by anonymous IP addresses (created by RandNetter96) per WP:G10 - pull that shit again and I will block you indefinitely. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Can I change my report for the IP user and switch it? — Mr X ^☎️ 23:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

MrX, Perhaps you can hold off for a bit and see what happens here. And, later, perhaps ask for it to be closed out as both parties were at fault... and that the issue is being discussed with one of the parties, the IP user, on the article talk page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I think an admin needs to have a good look at the IP's talk page history. RandNetter96 has reinstated templates that the IP removed; then templated the IP for "Refactoring others' talk page comments" (with no sense of the irony); then re-reinstated their templates; then reverted the IP's talk page to a previous version; then re-added their warning template after being removed yet again; and finally blanked the IP's talk page. I make that six wilful breaches of TPG. Please just indeff RandNetter96 until they can convince you that they have read and understand WP:TPG. --RexxS (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Rand... you need to stop. Right now. Period. Full stop. --Tarage (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have created my own pages and will no longer edit his talk page. I will leave further discussion up to you. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 23:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

No. No you fucking won't. STOP DOING ANYTHING AND LISTEN. --Tarage (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen a user implode quite as fast as this. --Tarage (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked RandNetter96. I would have rather another admin did it, as I was pinged into this thread so there are WP:INVOLVED concerns but there doesn't seem to be anyone else on watch here, and several editors in good standing have called for it. I now have a sore head :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a fine block. He was driving at 90 miles an hour refusing to stop for the numerous people he'd run over. --Tarage (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I feel that the block is justified as the users actions called for it. Clearly there was a disregard to instruction that was provided to them by an admin along with the disregard of the suggestions by other editors to cease and desist. I feel bad to initiating this against the IP user as in hindsight they were just attempting to make a proper edit but with very controversial summaries to back the edits. — Mr X ^☎️ 23:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

At the very least they seem to have taken my advice and stopped editing for today. --Tarage (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

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

A.W. Peet

I would appreciate an administrator reverting the latest change of adding A.W. Peet's birth name to the article, this being the third time from the same IP account. Peet's birth name is not their current name, and being called "A.W." is part of their gender-neutral identity as discussed on the talk page, and it unnecessarily outs their past gender and disrespects the subject per WP:GENDERID and WP:NONBINARY.

Arbcom's discretionary sanctions apply, again this is clear on the talk page. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

User rolls back most of my edits

Hi can someone tel me if this user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EP111 is an admin, most of my edits have been rolled back when i am adding sythesizers to synts category which i believe is whre they belong can some please clarify this? I would interpret WP:SUBCAT) to populate the Synthesizer category but this user says i am wrong to do this. Here are some diff as expamples. Thanks [[208]] [[209]] [[210]] [[211]] [[212]] [[213]] [[214]] [[215]] [[216]] [[217]]. I did ask the person why this why happening amy mistake i asked the question on this own page rather than the talk page and was accused of vandalism also. I have traced these even back to the beginning oj June and feel as though as this guy has got it in for me rather than being polite comes across as slighly hostile to me and i do not know why this is. I have thanked him a lot in the past for futher reading links which he has added to a lot the pages i have produced.Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 08:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ijustwannabeawinner:, I understand that you are not quite familiar with ANI, but please note for the future that you are required to notify the user whose behavior you bring to ANI at their talk page. For this topic, I have done it for you. Note also that EP111, whereas clearly established and respected user, is not an administrator.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ymblanter, i think an admins view point on this vould be helpful because the electronic instruments categorys are very inconsistent and partially filled and it is difficult to naviate around the pages. Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)