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

Malleus Maleficarum disruption by Vami IV

I'd like to advocate for topic ban for Vami IV (at least)(actually, I was worried about disruption to this particular article only).

In context of this article, Vami IV is best known for complaining about bias in Malleus Maleficarum that was, in his opinion, evident because lead section said that this book is misogynistic and in his opinion apparently this book wasn't misogynistic. This word had 6 citations at the time, citations with quotes. (before talk page section there was 1 citation with quote by Broedel and rich descriptions in article body[1], significant time before his NPOV noticeboard post there were 6 citations with quotes)

He raised this issue on articles' talk page [2], brought this issue to NPOV noticeboard [3], [4] (he later expanded it by affecting his original post after multiple replies have been made, which led to block of my account due to my reverts, block of my account was almost immediately overturned by another admin). Vami IV was also reprimanded here for WP:NPA [5] and instructed here [6] (please also note how Vami changed his signature to "Non multa,sed Vicipaedia" partially obscuring his username in this thread).

The turning point for posting this to ANI is this edit by Vami IV: [7]. He changed his mind completely, now he made, to give some examples, the following changes to the lead section:

1. "that is misogynistic" into "that is today considered to be extremely misogynistic"
2. he modified multiple quotations from Pavlac, Guiley, Burns, Britannica by modifying them, for example "for Kramer's misogyny" into "supposed extreme mistrust of women". He also added unwarranted tag "citation needed" to suggest that the preceding statement is unsourced with the following citation. which can be interpreted in many ways with various levels of sophistication.

I will stop short of speculating what are his intentions. Please take into consideration that this is a highly controversial article and very challenging to develop even without this kind of disruption. This article is also listed as high importance in two wiki projects and of importance in other wikiprojects.

PS. I kindly ask some admin to revert his edit completely (I am following 1RR). --Asterixf2 (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• On a personal note, I really did not want to see this here, or at least not yet. I was hoping that someone besides one of the two sources of the current conflict at the article would have brought up Vami IV's behavior (assuming Vami IV doesn't just leave the article alone). Some of the stuff brought up by OP (who is not in the best position to be making this report) is iffy. Yes, Vami IV has changed his signature, but that's not really an issue. He does a lot of other good wikignome work such as tagging talk pages. However, Vami IV (who admits to being a Gamergater) has shown some concerning behavior when it comes to this article, such as:

• complaining about the word "misogyny" being used (with the support of several sources) in an article about a book that says that women are mentally weaker than men, naturally inclined to do the work of Satan, and so should be persecuted
• calling the editor who used the word "misogyny" in said article a cretin
• making a bad faith assumption that said editor was part of the Feminism WikiProject (as if the Feminism WikiProject was out to destroy the site)
• falsely claiming to have cited sources, even though his only edits to the article consist of unsourced editorializing and the aforementioned [quote altering; while his only edits to the talk page consisted of complaining about the word "misogyny" without citing sources and not really addressing the issue nor citing sources.

As most of his edits consist of tagging articles as BLPs, it's hard to sort through his other article edits. Based on what I've seen here, though, I'm having a very hard time trusting him with gender related topics.

Please do not let this get bogged down in other issues about the article. For those who are unaware, both Asterixf2 and Ryn78 (who will no doubt be here soon enough) are arguing over which version is the best, and both of their versions have their merits. If they'd quit fighting like schoolkids, there'd be a damn fine article. That could and should be resolved peaceably with no admin action. However, Vami IV has buttered up Ryn78 with empty "me-too"-isms, never addressing any concern Ryn78 has raised while only targeting the word "misogynistic" -- a word that Ryn78 has previously left in and had no issue with until I advised him to not seek an ally in Vami IV. Vami IV's behavior's only connection to the Ryn78/Asterixf2 conflict is that he has exacerbated it for his own ends (ends which are illustrated above). Ian.thomson (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

If it would end this entire debate, I will submit to whatever disciplinary action you decide to take against me.

P.S. You probably won't believe me, but at the time I didn't realize that changing my sig would erase my name from signed posts. I was simply trying to make a really cool sig - colored text, links to my user and talk pages, the whole nine yards. If it helps, I'll sign like this: --Non multa,sed Vicipaedia 17:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC) (Vami)

P.P.S. When I wrote "I too have cited sources," I was talking about my NPOV violation claim and the 4 or so sources I used there. --Non multa,sed Vicipaedia 17:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC) (Vami)

The signature is not an issue, and your "sources" were talk page posts. Just because you put something in ref tags does not make it a source. This isn't about punishment, this is to prevent you from disrupting the article further. If you will agree to quit exacerbating the conflict between Ryn78 and Asterixf2 by leaving the article alone (so that it can be resolved by neutral editors), that'd be all that's necessary. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm the other editor Ian Thomson referred to (the other one "fighting like schoolkids" as he describes it). This issue is being grossly exaggerated here. Vami changed a few phrases, including restoring one that I had deleted because it was a point of contention. I reverted all of his new changes today, so they aren't even an issue any longer. While I would prefer that Vami had left this stuff out while we discussed it, nonetheless Asterix himself has continuously added or deleted entire paragraphs while we were supposed to be discussing them (up until he was placed under a 1RR restriction by an admin because of his edit-warring). But now he's demanding that Vami be banned for changing a few phrases? That's ridiculous, unless you're also going to ban Asterix himself for far worse offenses on an ongoing basis.

Ian Thomson isn't helping things much by making caustic accusations of his own. Vami objected to the word "misogyny" because (as he explained on my talk page) he feels that Wikipedia shouldn't present value judgments about historical issues, not because he hates women. There's no evidence of the latter. He also doesn't seem to realize what the Malleus actually says about women, in which case he's proceeding from a lack of knowledge rather than from the malice that Ian Thomson keeps alleging. I also tried to explain to Thomson that many historians, including women, have also taken issue with the way that feminists have tried to politicize the Malleus, which is similar to Vami's arguments. I hadn't previously really taken a position on this dispute between Vami and Asterix/Ian Thompson, but I think the best thing would be to 1) state what the Malleus actually says rather than putting a label on it (e.g. its claims that women are likely to be atheists and likely to dabble in the occult; its recommendation that female prisoners' pubic hair should be shaved and then tortured, etc). 2) The disputed phrases could easily be written in a neutral manner that both sides can agree to. But that isn't going to happen unless the heated rhetoric is brought to an end, and likewise Asterix's constant attempt to report and punish people for even the slightest disagreement. He has made frivolous "reports" against me as well, while spreading this debate into several other pages. When is this finally going to end? Ryn78 (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, your civil pov pushing focused on a fixed collection of aspects since 2013 is by far worse. [8] Ian.thomson is helping a lot despite the challenging nature of this matter as I have emphasized in my comment on his talk page [9]. BTW fyi: Ryn78 has buried this vital section [10] ("Reception") in HTML comment so that it does not appear as removal of a lot of valuable content (here is a diff: [11]. I have used there a source on which he insisted (Jolly). I comment on this section in article's talk page. Ryn78 has not raised any substantial arguments regarding this section. Ryn78 hides various pieces of text in many ways. a) pushing them to notes b) to ref block c) to html comment block. He was also caught on removal of citations (without removal of sentences). Against hiding text he was warned by another user previously (he is doing it repetitively) here I raise all of this here. It doesn't show up as removal of a lot of text. Not to mention his failure to recognize excellent sources and at the same time pushing questionable sources into the article and into lead section in particular. Corresponding RS noticeboard threads are here and here. All of which and more I raise also on talk page. --Asterixf2 (talk) 07:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

For crying out loud. Now you're repeating the same stuff over here that you've been repeating on the article's talk page. I've already addressed all those points many times over there. Finally respond (over there, not here). Insisting that you can keep adding more of your own material without consensus is pretty much the definition of a refusal to ever reach consensus. That's why I commented out the last section you added: you can't just keep piling on more stuff before we've reached any agreement on the older material. That violates the entire point of discussion. Ryn78 (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

There were some statements we didn't agree on. Instead of deleting your pov, I kind of moved on to develop section Reception. This is a vital section for an article about a book (see example of article structure). You could have improved on my work but instead you once more have shown that you apparently have a different approach. I prefer to let the sources speak. In my opinion, you have repeatedly, and perhaps permanently, failed to work cooperatively and constructively on this article. --Asterixf2 (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

PS. Section Reception was today restored by another user. However, inappropriate edits lead to this kind of confusion (Removal of It was a bestseller, second only to Bible in terms of sales for almost 200 years statement). --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I already explained why I commented out the Reception section: discussion becomes meaningless if one side is allowed to keep adding more material promoting their own POV before any agreement has been worked out on their previous material promoting their own POV. This is basic stuff. Ryn78 (talk) 02:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

You have hidden it again with ridiculous edit summary [12]. Good-faith content of this section is clearly within the scope of this article and it is properly sourced. You violate content policy, WP:PRESERVE and WP:IMPERFECT. This section does not violate WP:NPOV and even if it were, you could have developed it.
(2) With 2 sources that were challenged you are in violation of WP:Verifiability. a) Behringer source violates WP:ABOUTSELF because there IS reasonable doubt as to its authenticity as shown in the RS noticeboard discussion. Also it is allegedly self-published. b) Jenny Gibbons is effectively self-published and you use it for exceptional claims. Both of your sources satisfy WP:REDFLAG. You ignore WP:NOTTRUTH completely and try to argue with me instead of talking about sources that are used in the article. Please consider replying in article's talk page only. Please avoid plausible misinformation. You may want to have a look at Denialism, conspiracy theory, Semmelweis reflex and backfire effect. --Asterixf2 (talk) 09:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I have copied article to my sandbox, updated lead to mention both authors (Ryn78 insists on one), restored content hidden by him and highlighted his additions, which are mostly not only npov and undue but also violate WP:RS what was already discussed in RS noticeboard (there is also new section in article's talk page about best sources). I am planning to add more citations and fourth paragraph to the lead that will mention controversy related to the second author. However, I cannot use 2 proposed by him sources because they are totally unreliable. --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Since you asked that I reply on the article's talk page, I've addressed the one relevant point over there. The rest is just your usual scatter-shot method of finger-pointing (no, I didn't violate any rules by commenting out a new POV section while we're still discussing other POV sections you had added; and no, I'm not a "denialist" or "conspiracy theorist" or the other stuff you're accusing me of). Ryn78 (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

What kind of POV? Why it is a POV section? I don't understand. Please explain. --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Your POV that Mackay is right and the historians I've cited are wrong. That's your opinion (and Mackay's opinion), it's not the undisputed truth. Ryn78 (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Please write precisely what makes it POV, because I have not used Mackay as a reference in this section. here is a link to the section (I could, he is an excellent source, best in the article. I used him in one note in this section but all text is supported by other references and this is just an additional note; for this section my primary source was Broedel - second best modern secondary source in the article out of such 2 :) ) --Asterixf2 (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

"POV" means a specific point of view rather than covering both sides or presenting a neutral version. You keep pushing Mackay's view as absolute truth. Ryn78 (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

It would be inappropriate for me to distort any of the 2 best secondary sources to accommodate your "approach". It would be also highly scandalous to disregard them. --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I recently suggested that Asterixf2 and Ryn78 need to go straight to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and thrash their differences out, and I agree with Ian's comment that there's a featured article to be got out of this if only the two of you could get along. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I have not done that because I was afraid that it will only distract me from expanding this article. I am planning to continue adding new content. I perceive more detailed descriptions of controversial aspects as the best way to reach consensus. Also adding more content before going to DRN will probably make it more plausible that more informed decisions will be made so to some extent I can live with Ryn78's very difficult conduct if necessary. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Clarification I'd like to make clear what is going on to avoid misunderstanding (partially, because there is more nonsense going on like Jenny Gibbons as a source). Not only Ryn78 has hidden section Reception but he is also civil pov pushing since 2013 (now Adamfinmo who thanked him for hiding this section joined him, Adamfinmo repeatedly removes (reverts) my comments in article's talk page. Last time he reverted imprecisely, I commented on the partially left content and he later removed this portion what makes a thread look messy and nonsensical, my new comment with suggestion about article was stricken-through by him, I'm following 1RR there) Ryn78 argues that Sprenger isn't the co-author. However: (1) ALL secondary sources in the article disagree with him and say Sprenger is co-author (Broedel, Mackay, Summers), Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't even mention that Sprenger could not be an author. (article's bibliography) (2) His claim that Sprenger is not a co-author is supported by citations from 7-page PDF from nowhere, not dated and which looks like a draft and also was discussed in RS noticeboard here. Btw, he floods article with out-of-context cherry-pick statements from this source giving them undue weight. (3) Here is a version with fixed lead section (also with inappropriate content by Ryn78 highlighted, it may be discussed but with WP:DUE and other sources). (4)I have provided 6 citations in this version for joint authorship including ALL secondary sources (Broedel, Mackay, Summers). This is the same version as in point 3 above. I have included in the lead section the statement about authorship controversy as sympathetic towards his perspective as I could. (4) Ritchie333, do you think WP:DRN is going to help in this case? I have doubts about priorities and WP:AGF is very difficult in this case. CC: @TParis and Softlavender:

--Asterixf2 (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's be clear here I'm not on RYN78's team or anything or the sort, I'm simply trying to get you to participate in a collaborative process. Instead you continue to push your version without gaining consensus. That's why you are on a 1RR right. As for deleting your comments, article talk space is not for discussing editors or simply posting links with out comment. Off topic posts and personal attacks can be summarily removed from talk pages. I did make an imperfect deletion, that you left when you reinserted your off topic link post. It is all fixed now. Can we proceed with building a good article on the talk page? --Adam in MO Talk 19:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Asterixf2: You're repeating a whole slew of misrepresentations that I've already debunked. Just to make this brief since this isn't the place for this type of content dispute: No, "all secondary sources" in the article do not support your view that Sprenger was a co-author. No, there's nothing wrong with the Gibbons article (from an academic journal). The fact that you submitted that source and the Behringer article to Wikipedia:Realiable Sources doesn't mean you gained consensus that these are invalid, in fact you met with a lot of opposition on both points. The other points have also been covered ad nauseam on the article talk page, which is where this type of thing needs to be handled. Ryn78 (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• Proposal What if Vami V were on a 1RR to match Asterixf2's?--v/r - TP 17:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Request for closure

This thread keeps popping up on my watchlist, mainly because the OP has made 68+ edits [13] to it and to the ANI thread he opened three days previously about the same article:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive936#Disruptive_and_tendentious_editing_Malleus_Maleficarum.

I agree with admin Ritchie333 that this is a content dispute however one looks at it (and that is also clear from the discussion on this thread), and that Dispute Resolution needs to be applied. Could we please staunch the time-waste and close this (as I said, there have been two ANI threads on this article within three days)? First of all, ANI is not the place for content disputes, and second of all, we don't want to encourage the OP to keep filing on ANI every time he has a content dispute with someone about this article, where he is an SPA. So could someone please close this as a content dispute, unsuitable for ANI? If so, thank you. Softlavender (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

First, I'd like to point out that this request for closure was made by an involved editor. he has a content dispute with someone about this article, where he is an SPA I am not an SPA. To call me an SPA because I am currently developing this article and focusing on it is abusive and discrediting. 99% of new content in this article was added by me. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC); edited --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC); edited --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

More than 80% of your article-space and article-talk edits have been to Malleus Maleficarum and its talk page. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I have intensified my efforts last month and developed this article (what can be seen on month counts). Previously, I have just tagged various statements in this article. Activity on talk page is due to civil pov pushing by Ryn78. As I understand, I am supposed to discuss with him the points on which we disagree. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Update: And he's still arguing points of content (this time with a gigantic image): [14]. Will someone please explain to Asterixf2 how the various options of WP:DR actually work? And explain to him that ANI is not the place to bring or resolve content issues? And/or simply close this thread so the issues can go to their proper venue? Asterixf2 is a new user, has been on Wikipedia only 3 months, has made only 1,500 edits, and more than 80% of his article-space and article-talk edits have been to Malleus Maleficarum: [15]. Someone needs to shut this endless fruitless ANI thread down so that DR can be implemented. Softlavender (talk) 10:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC); edited 11:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I am here much longer than 3 months, you would need to multiply it. Please avoid misleading information. Of course there was a significant number of edits to Malleus because I got interested in this topic but to some extent this number is due to the dispute. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

To address a point above, DRN is better than ANI because much of the quarrelling has been over content and sources. Over here, we look at conduct and behaviour, while over there it's focused on the merits of your work on MM. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to highlight the difficulties, but as nothing can be done I generally agree with you and support the closure. However, I would keep it at least for a few days more so that everybody has a chance to make last comments and be fully aware of the issues discussed here without misunderstandings. --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC); edited Asterixf2 (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:DRN is not the only form of WP:DR. It is one of many. Any of them may be applied to this content dispute, and exactly none of them have been utilized on the article. ANI is not the venue for matters of content. Softlavender (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a behavioral issue

This topic was split off from #Request for closure, above. --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, again, this is not true. For example, RS noticeboard has been used two times [16], [17] but the user is WP:NOTGETTINGIT as far as substantial arguments are concerned. Furthermore, hiding section Reception in html comments is especially nasty and it is absolutely unsubstantiated (see whatpov above and clarification above) that is why I think this is a behavioral issue. Because of this and other aspects, in my opinion this is a behavioral issue. This is disruptive editing due to persistent failure or refusal to "get the point". Please see WP:RUNAWAY, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. PS. In the most recent book Mackay explains authorship in an excellent way. Here is my proposed content about it: [18] (theories to the contrary should be described but with proper sources and due weight) --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a behavioral issue at the page and it is you, Asterixf2. How many people have to tell you to try and resolve this dispute before you realize that you are the problem. There have been, at least, five editors who have tried to engage you collaboratively. I'd suggest you drop the stick, before consensus moves toward further topic restriction for you. --Adam in MO Talk 19:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I do try (this proposal was made before your comment) and will accept reasonable behavior and respond to substantial arguments. I won't give any weight to other arguments even if 4 to 1. --Asterixf2 (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

That "proposal" is rather hilarious, if Asterixf2 is serious about it. Either way that "proposal" along with their admission that they aren't here to collaborate with other editors shows that they are clearly a spa and they are not here to build an encyclopedia. I propose that Asterixf2 be indefinitely topic banned from this article across all name spaces.--Adam in MO Talk 20:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

What you don't like about it so that you apparently ridicule it? In my comment above, I was referring to Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. PS. Your comment doesn't look very impartial here (or consensus building). --Asterixf2 (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC); edited --Asterixf2 (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I pointed out that you have not explained to me what it is that you perceive to be wrong so that I can learn sth perhaps. Also, instead of replying to my comment in the way you did, you could have let me know how to change a proposal so that it suits your taste better on my talk page. Unless you didn't want me to change it. --Asterixf2 (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I did tell you how to change it. Put your proposed lead on the talk page, with sources and we will discuss it.--Adam in MO Talk 22:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

But I have 2 proposals, if he doesn't agree to those conditions than I prefer the version without the 'most likely' words. If he agrees to those conditions I prefer to insert 'most likely'. Overall result is important. --Asterixf2 (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

How many times would you like me to repeat it? Copy and paste your proposed changes to the talk page, with sources, and we will discuss it. That is how consensus is reached.--Adam in MO Talk 23:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I will be happy to do it later, because I need to do sth offline now. --Asterixf2 (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Adamfinmo (Adam in MO) I have made twice a meta-comment that you are an involved editor in this article. Please do not repeatedly remove it like here, here and don't format my comments like here. --Asterixf2 (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Asterixf2, for heavens sakes stop labeling people's comments here as "involved". That is entirely inappropriate. I've removed your attempted disparagement of this "Request for closure" thread with the same sort of tag (I have made exactly three substantive edits to the Malleus Maleficarum article, and all three were maintenance edits: removal of a clearly non-substantiating [and irrelevant to what it was appended to] footnote [19], removal of an empty section [20], and a grammar correction [21]). If you continue to repost these labels on any editor here, I will request a boomerang on you for opening this content-dispute thread (your second ANI filing about this article in three days) and endlessly maintaining it despite repeated guidance to use WP:DR instead of wasting time on ANI. Softlavender (talk) 10:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

  

  In my opinion your edits weren't pure maintenance. You restored and removed content in the article and discussed those changes on the talk page. You modified article structure by adding and removing sections. But nonetheless, I don't understand why would you insist on removing this meta-comment that you are an involved editor (you were not protesting before to remove, just now after another editor that is involved removed his.) Furthermore, you were providing misleading and incorrect information in this discussion repeatedly. Asterixf2 23:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

For additional consideration Joan of Arc vandal

Durova in this thread wrote This article [Malleus Maleficarum] has been targeted in recent weeks by CC80, a sockpuppet of the Joan of Arc vandal. This and similar articles may be targeted again by other sockpuppets of the same person. [...] Please be alert for suspicious activity. Due to the complexity of this unusual case, the best place to report additional suspicious activity is probably to my user talk page because I was the primary investigating administrator. (Durova is inactive) Ryn78 constantly edits Joan of Arc and related articles. His contributions. One of the first Ryn78's edits are to Joan of Arc article. He edits this article regularly since then that is since 6 years. --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

If you want to initiate a sockpuppet investigation, the appropriate venue is WP:SPI, not here. Softlavender (talk) 12:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

You are an involved editor. I have put it here for additional consideration. --Asterixf2 (talk) 12:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Just want to point out that making sockpuppet allegations against another editor without concrete evidence is considered a personal attack. I've said it before, either put up evidence of your allegations or shut up. And no, your hand wavey, nebulous so-called "evidence" is not sufficient. Blackmane (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Boomerang proposal

Asterixf2 has refused to listen to the suggestions of multiple experienced editors, including admins, to take his issues regarding Malleus Maleficarum to one of the WP:DR processes rather than to continue to argue points of content here on ANI. He has never even attempted to utilize WP:DR, and has failed to gain a consensus that the issues on the article are solely behavioral (every content issue involves behavior until it is properly addressed via WP:DR) or that it cannot be resolved by WP:DR. There is no consensus on this thread that Vami IV or Ryn78 is in the wrong, and this thread is therefore an extensive echo chamber of Asterixf2 arguing points of content, usually with Ryn78. Moreover, Asterixf2 started another ANI thread on Malleus Maleficarum three days before he opened this one [22] (which did not turn out well, but he did not learn his lesson). He has made 130+ edits on the subject of Malleus Maleficarum on ANI [23]. More than 60% of his entire edit history involves Malleus Maleficarum, and more than 80% of his article-space and article-talk edits have been to Malleus Maleficarum and its talk page. Moreover, he repeatedly utilizes giant colored images and giant colored type to draw attention to his points and to attempt to incriminate others (devices he also utilizes on Talk:Malleus Maleficarum).

Therefore, I propose one or more of the following to put at least a temporary stop the the time-waste and WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDHT behavior:

• A temporary topic ban on Malleus Maleficarum, broadly construed, to last at least three to six months.
• Closure of this thread and a topic ban on posting on ANI or AN about Malleus Maleficarum.
• A WP:0RR restriction on Malleus Maleficarum (he is apparently already under a 1RR restriction).
• A restriction to three replies per thread on Talk:Malleus Maleficarum, unless it is a WP:DR thread.
• A ban on the utilization of images, colors, type-sizes, edit-lines, and other such enhancements, in discussions (this would also include tagging of others' posts or labeling them as "involved", etc).
• A ban on further replies to this thread.
• Any other solution (block?) that others wish to propose.

-- Softlavender (talk) 12:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• First, Softlavender is an involved edtior. Second, I'd like to point out that user Softlavender has a record of repeatedly providing incorrect and misleading information in this discussion. In my opinion, her new threads here obfuscate substantial discussion and derail this whole thread. She has already created a Request for closure and this is another one.
  
  Also, in the subsection #Request for closure that she previously started I have answered to the arguments she repeats here. In particular, she is again providing blatantly false information that WP:DR was not used despite being warned previously that this is an incorrect statement. She said previously (above) WP:DRN is not the only form of WP:DR. It is one of many. Any of them may be applied to this content dispute, and exactly none of them have been utilized on the article. ANI is not the venue for matters of content. Softlavender and to this statement I have replied in subsection #This is a behavioral issue --Asterixf2 (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support I concurred with all of SL's proposal. I have attempted to engage Asterixf2 multiple times, only to run into the same idht attitude. They routinely edit their posts ex post facto without re-time stamping or otherwise declaring so. They also have a tendency to misuse talk pages to pontificate on other editors. This editor has already stated that they will not abide by the opinions of other editors. Enough is enough. --Adam in MO Talk 13:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

  First, Adamfinmo (Adam in MO) is an involved edtior. Second, he was using vulgar slang in discussion with me and repeatedly modified and removed my comments (he knows I follow 1RR) Including such unnecessary edits like this one. For example, in article's talk page I have pointed out that I had suggested changes but they were reverted by Adamfinmo (Adam in MO) and he responded by removing my comment.
  Furthermore, immediately after Adamfinmo posted this "support" comment, IP user has blatantly modified critical information (as I see it) in my comments in this post to ANI. The same IP user also fixed formatting for Adamfinmo's "support" comment above here. --Asterixf2 (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

  First, this is about you and not me. You should address your critics. Second, I shouldn't have reverted that comment. I was wrong and it should be restored. Third, that is my IP for my work computer. I have declared so on the talk page. Forth, no shit, I'm involved. I have declared it several times. So how about you take this declaration that I'm definitely involved and stop tagging my comments? The whole world knows I'm involved. This fact does not invalidate anything I have said this far. --Adam in MO Talk 15:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

  Please disengage, in my opinion you are adding fuel to the fire and you have not demonstrated to be impartial. --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

  First rule of holes; when you find yourself in one Stop digging! You're obnoxious tagging of involved editors posts as "... is an involved editor" is unnecessary. Yes we're all aware, involved parties tend to be the most interested. Could you also stop with the images, random highlighting of words, use of random bold and underlining for emphasis. It just makes it that much harder to read. Register my vote below. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• Close; Just close the thread with no action and a note that Asterix either take this to the article talk page or WP:DRN before they get hit with PBAN or other. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Support This thread is almost completely illegible, and it's pretty obvious whose fault that is. I don't think closing with no action would be a good idea -- whatever Asterix thinks he's doing with this bizarre comment style, it doesn't look like he's willing to stop. It also seems like WP:CIR is a serious issue with this user -- see for instance how he refers to both Softlavender and Adamfinmo as "involved users" despite the former not having touched either the Malleus Maleficarum article or its talk page until after this thread opened, and the latter having made only one (obviously good) revert on the talk page before the thread opened. I'm guessing now he will call me an involved user because I edited the page once in 2005? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter if she got involved before or after this thread was opened. The nature of edits matter. As far as stopping is concerned, obviously I won't edit this thread if will be closed. --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support all or any of my proposals, as nominator. As Adam and Hijiri state above, there's clearly an IDHT and CIR issue with this editor, and removing him from the battlefield would probably cause him to learn how to properly edit, collaborate, discuss, and reach consensus and/or dispute resolution. (Cue him yet again tagging me a so-called "involved editor" even though I have only made three maintenance edits to the article, and those only after seeing the endless discussions of the article here on ANI.) Softlavender (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  • This will teach me nothing and your proposal contains blatantly false information that I have not utilized WP:DR. You have not corrected this information. Was this proposal made in bad faith or are you going to correct it? --Asterixf2 (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Please click WP:DR, WP:DRR, and WP:DRN. Posts on WP:RSN are not going to resolve, and clearly haven't resolved, the various content disputes on the article (and frankly, even though that and some other specialized noticeboards are listed at WP:DR, they are not considered content-dispute resolution). You need to engage in actual dispute resolution together with the other party(ies) involved, on the talk-page of the article or on the dispute/mediation noticeboard, and that will necessarily consist of either WP:DRN, WP:RFC, WP:3O, or WP:RFM. Ritchie has repeatedly suggested WP:DRN for this article, and since he has looked into the matter I would probably take his suggestion, but any of those four options could work. Softlavender (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Note For the sake of context it is important to note that Softlavender is apparently replying to Asterixf2's comment as it existed before they changed it ex post facto.--Adam in MO Talk 18:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

From what I see she replied 20 minutes after I have corrected "WP:RS" into "WP:DR" [24]. I had changed it before anybody have replied. Thank you for your very, very useful note. PS. policy says that noticeboards are dispute resolution. Her post still contains incorrect information. --Asterixf2 (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Adamfinmo: No, I replied after Asterixf2 had made the change. I replied to the form of the post as it exists now, not to the previous version. To reiterate my point, which apparently he still doesn't get, even though RSN (which filings he has linked to far above) and some other specialized noticeboards are listed at WP:DR, they are not considered content-dispute resolution. He needs to engage in actual dispute resolution together with the other party(ies) involved, on the talk-page of the article or on the dispute/mediation noticeboard, and that will necessarily consist of either WP:DRN, WP:RFC, WP:3O, or WP:RFM. Softlavender (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Thank you for your suggestions. Nonetheless, given long discussions on talk page with Ryn78 and his refusal to split issues into dedicated threads, I find your comment unreasonable. Also I don't agree with your opinion about specialized noticeboards because it contradicts policy. I don't say that you are wrong with your suggestions of other DR measures. --Asterixf2 (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Moved to User talk:Softlavender#Dispute resolution (permalink)

 – discussion about what is and what is not DR was moved. --Asterixf2 (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I have stricken the above because the discussion has not been moved. Discussions cannot be moved without the consent of the editors involved, particularly not ANI discussions, particularly not to user talk pages. And Asterixf2 still does not know what WP:DR means. Softlavender (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment summary of my position so far is in the first comment of This is a behavioral issue subsection (including clarification and whatpov). Also I have made a note in #For additional consideration Joan of Arc vandal above. Hidden section Reception is here. Lead section with 6 citations for coauthorship from my proposal is here: Lead section. This lead section contains citations with quotes for authorship from ALL secondary sources in the article (Broedel, Mackay, Summers). His two highly questionable sources are discussed here and here (both with fierce opposition from user GBRV and without attention from Ryn78) PS. There are going to be further developments in this crisis. I suggest to leave this thread open. --Asterixf2 (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC); edited --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I gotta give it to you. You are consistent. You said you would ignore consensus "even if it is 4 on1". You are true to your word. I implore you, please back down and, at least try to participate in discussion on the talk page.--Adam in MO Talk 20:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about ignoring consensus but about weight of arguments. Here is the diff. I am going to participate in the discussion on talk page as I did so far. I will insert there the lead section as you asked previously. --Asterixf2 (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Adamfinmo I have copied lead section to the talk page as you asked me to previously - permalink. I have doubts if this is an appropriate approach because proposals should be made in the article probably. Nonetheless, as you asked. --Asterixf2 (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: please remember that with your last revert you discarded my 6,000-long addition. This is just a remainder, not a complaint. --Asterixf2 (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Note2: Mackay, Summers and Broedel say there are 2 authors. For example, Broedel consistently uses the phrase of the kind "Institoris and Sprenger do xyz in their book". I am not going to distort those sources. Mackay's position and his explanation is here. In fact, I am on the edge of withdrawing from the idea that "and most likely" should be used in this section. ALL secondary sources adopt a view that HE IS a coauthor. --Asterixf2 (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Note3: Also, if he acknowledged that his sources are inappropriate we could constructively think about some other sources to represent Behringer's views. --Asterixf2 (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Part of the reason you are up for an article ban is that you don't seem to understand that content discussions belong on article talk pages, not here.--Adam in MO Talk 23:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Malleus Maleficarum § Notes from ANI

 – partial move related to 3 notes above in response to a comment by Adamfinmo. Asterixf2 (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

However, I guess discussions of gross and obvious violations of content policies are appropriate here WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. I am open to your suggestions on my talk page if you would like to clarify this aspect. --Asterixf2 (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

There was an enormous amount of stuff here today. Since the admins replying here are voting to close this thread, I'm just going to say that I agree; and any other issues should be handled on the article's talk page. Ryn78 (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

There were no votes by admins in this boomerang. Please avoid constant plausible misinformation. I don't have a conclusive opinion about closing or not but only because I don't think I have enough knowledge about conduct to have strong opinions in this case. --Asterixf2 (talk) 08:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

While you're correct that no admins have voted on this proposal, this; please avoid constant plausible misinformation was unnecessary. There appears to be no intent in Ryn78's comment to spread misinformation. Many non-regulars who come to the administrator's noticeboards assume that administrator's are the ones commenting on them - barring of course the involved parties themselves - for likely obvious reasons. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Please note that this statement doesn't say anything about intentions. I simply point out that I consider what he says to constitute misinformation that in my view may appear to be plausible to some observers. I have not used it initially but now I consider the case related to the article Malleus Maleficarum to be severe. I feel the need to use it in some circumstances. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion-related topic ban for User:Light2021

In April of 2016, User:Light2021 was blocked for making promotional/COI edits and abusing multiple accounts relating to Exioms (which was deleted here). In June, I unblocked his account based on what seemed to be a reasonable request. (The blocking administrator, Boing! said Zebedee accepted an apology from Light2021 and did not object to a possible unblock). Since then, Light2021 embarked upon a campaign redolent of sour grapes to attempt to have scores of articles deleted. Several other users (User:Davey2010, User:Ronhjones, User:Northamerica1000, User:Wikidemon) have expressed concerns with Light2021 's misapplication of deletion policy and procedure as noted in his talk page history. To be fair, Light2021 has appropriately identified a few articles about companies that were deleted with a solid consensus to do so. Given the indiscriminate approach to nominating articles, this isn't surprising, per the stopped clock principle. On the other hand, here is a small sampling of issues that Light2021 has been warned/cautioned on:

1. many, perhaps half, of the nominations clearly lack WP:BEFORE
2. sending an article back to Afd less than a month after it had survived AfD with a "no consensus" !vote
3. attempting to speedy an article that had survived one of his AfD nominations
4. blatant misuse of the WP:HOAX template ([25], [26], [27]), and
5. the user's limited command of English leads to word-salad nominations that appear to be copy-paste fragments of miscellaneous deletion policies, with very little variation between the nomination content.

I'm proposing that Light2021 be topic-banned from deletion-related actions and discussions (speedy, prod, or AfD) for at least a year until they've demonstrated a better understanding of policy and make an effort to follow suggestions given by other editors. While it may seem harsh to include participation in deletion discussion, Light2021 's contributions to such discussions are nearly always cut-and-paste jumbled word salads, and as such are not helpful to the discussion. I've notified Light2021 of this discussion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

They've been warned plenty of times so this is well beyond an editor needing a pointer on deletion policy. A topic ban would certainly make my life easier, as I edit in this subject area, venture-funded startup companies, and part of this user's MO seems to be a disdain that the entire business sector is just hype, and giving it encyclopedic treatment it is the same as COI promotion. After their mind-numbing nominations of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delivery Hero and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yo (app) hit my radar a couple weeks ago, I left them a stern warning to stop nominating articles for deletion without understanding notability policy — and was soundly rebuked by a couple admins for being too hasty and blunt. I was right, apparently. After many warnings, cautions, and attempts to engage, they do not even acknowledge that there may be a valid issue regarding their nominations (see their answer below, if you can wade through all the verbiage). Instead they lash out and make accusations. We can go through the process here and warn them again, we can impose a topic ban, or perhaps somebody can break through and can get them to listen or find another outlet for their Wikipedia editing efforts. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Support editing restriction - Given the editor's stated willingness to cooperate (see below), followed quickly by yet another semi-coherent screed[28] suggesting that even when their editing privileges are in doubt they are unwilling to face the fact that they have been making bad nominations and don't understand Wikipedia's notability policy: "These companies seriously provide no value to Encyclopedia…if you leave those 2 apart any Admin would agree with my assessment…Promotions being created by company." I don't see how the community can do anything other than accept the offer for mentoring. without a topic ban, but Hopefully with some help, and a clear understanding that this pattern should not repeat. I know the !votes are in favor of a ban right now., but I think that should be the last step, not this step. Either a ban is in order, or a restriction that a mentor must approve any deletion nomination, until and unless they understand and are willing to work within the notability guidelines..- Wikidemon (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC) (updated 17:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC))

[out of sequence]…but cautiously oppose topic ban. After a couple days of venting Light2021 has promised again to try to be more careful, heed advice, and get along with other editors. I'm convinced that the locus of the problem is not so much what they nominate for deletion but how they have dealt with the deletion discussion. As long as they try, and we all keep a positive spirit, that's fixable. I do believe every editor deserves a second chance, third chance, and hundredth chance, as long as they are trying, listening, and not disrupting things. I do think there needs to be some process involving mentorship, probations, escalating blocks, a warning, I'm not sure how that would be implemented. That's why you all are admins and I'm not :) - Wikidemon (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

You are continuously trying to force your opinion where it is not even required. On the mistake you made with Speedy Keep suggestions, and your comment there : "Okay, then, SNOW keep, and speedy close if there is any more drama from the nominator" proves how desperately want to close that matter without even giving substantial proof why it is an encyclopedia material by any means. you are continuously demeaning me and harassing me with your Written tone. It is definitely not in Good faith . Even the way you are commenting as Majority vote is done and things like that? I think Admins have wit and judgement power to decide what to do. You are definitely not an admin, as you have very biased attitude toward the judgement. on the other note for this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DealDash verdict will be out soon. As your whole argument is based on my few AfD which has been kept. Some of them I agree and some not. As I am human, can not give you 100% accuracy where other human opinion in required. You have neglected my efforts to Zero where I have contribution and helping delete over 200 articles in sort span of time. In the process I must have made few mistake, as other admins are suggesting and giving advises. i will be more careful and will ask Expert (only Admins) for my selections or doubt. I am doing my best to make Wikipedia Spam free. And for DealDash and UrbanClap I have no other thoughts than a 1000% promotions. Have patience! Thank you. Light2021 (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

You must listen to me and other non-administrators too. If you are not topic banned, or if you want a topic ban removed, you should think through whatever caused you to lash out just now with accusations and claims that you are being victimized, and try not to do that again. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Boss! (that you are definitely not). I listen to everyone perspective unbiased and in unbossy manner. Your tone is bossy, seems like I work for you, but FYI I do not! Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you going to listen to non-administrative editors here or not? It seems like you are saying that you will not. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Their nominations appear to me good-faith and they've been remarkably good IMO at finding highly deletion-worthy articles - David Gerard (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Be that as it may, there are nominations like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DealDash, which consist mainly of throwing a bunch of policies, guidelines, and essays around without explaining how they apply. Light2021 should be strongly encouraged to keep their nominations concise with a clear explanation of why an article should be deleted according to the deletion policy while keeping their personal feelings out of it. clpo13_(talk) 17:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The issue is not good faith, it is WP:COMPETENCE and WP:TEND. If I randomly nominated 100 new articles for deletion, I would be right about 95% of the time because 95% of new articles are not viable. Repeatedly nominating the other 5% that are clearly notable using nonsense rationales, and vigorously supporting those nominations with unintelligible prose, wastes countless hours of editors' time, regardless of how many other nominations confirm a stuck clock theory. FWIW, this editor's accuracy rate is well below 95%. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• And this logic of % can be applied in reversal as well. How the consensus and amateur close are made. It will cross over 90%. I think it should be good assessment from ends. Not as being accused by "Random" without diligence or using my intelligence or mere copy-paste job. I am confident I have not wasted my or contributors time discussing on AfD. That should be considered with neutrality non being on Personal commenting. Other are pending close. It should cross higher % close with delete. On the other hand 1000 of article are created with lack of this process. i am merely helping keeping only what really matters with Guidelines not by random means. Light2021 (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• My Version/Story Wikipedia clearly is not driven by sole Reference based article creation or promotions that is happening on large degree of quantity here. Only few mention in popular media and creation of Wikipedia article is used to build high degree of online promotions. Such as the case with many articles I have nominated.
• I have nominated Afd and Speedy deletions and contributing tirelessly making Wikipedia Spam Free. due to this effort, more than 200 articles got deleted in such a sort span of time. Please Check my AfD counter and %. More than 80% Success closer with Delete. Over 99% Delete vote support.
• As I have raised many time the issue of Vote count is given priority and all the contributions being ignored by citing GNC or other guidelines forgetting One Paramount fact: "Why such article makes an Encyclopedia Material". Such as this discussion is going on Because controversial AfD of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UrbanClap (4th nomination). If you read the article, there is nothing to write except investment release and brief company profile. As this same issue is grave concern, where no one knows such company and blatant promotions are made. It has compromised the integrity of Wikipedia as World's most Trusted source of knowledge. Where anyone is able to write an article about their startup or themselves by citing GNC and few media references.
• Other such as this being protected by same measure and misuse of Wikipedia. There are nothing to write about them. only interest is to lure their customer, Employee or shareholders. The way they are being covered by media is highly questionable in nature. Influenced by company PR and nothing else. : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grofers or Forever (website). There are no reference and Worldwide notability of the subject. Read these article and anyone with little Common-sense can say this is definitely not an Encyclopedia material by any measure possible. Either they come to the category of TooSoon or others as mentioned below.

• Few Important Wikipedia Links I Would like to mention apart from GNC, when and how I do my selections:
• Wikipedia:Ghostwriting
• User:Brianhe/What's wrong with undisclosed paid editing
• Wikipedia:Notability means impact
• User:Jimbo Wales/Paid Advocacy FAQ
• Wikipedia:Paid operatives
• Wikipedia:Too soon
• Wikipedia:There is no deadline
• Wikipedia:Bombardment
• Wikipedia:Every snowflake is unique
• Wikipedia:No one really cares
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-ed
• Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)
• Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause
• Wikipedia:Every snowflake is unique
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper
• Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

• • If community think that such Admin warning are justified. Please Go ahead and block me. We are already compromised and even failing in the creations of World's most notable Encyclopedia ever created. Warning has been given to me several time by admins or editors because some Admin/Editors are unhappy with my style or Language. Where the matter is Thousands of spam is being created on Wikipedia. Light2021 (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• • • Article that got saved by Consensus or Votes are these few among the others As % is mentioned by Admin above. These article have nothing to write but 1 Paragraph about their company profile or themselves. How does it make anything Encyclopedia notable. It is grave concern that such blatant proportionals articles are being kept with such Vote numbers discussions. As Wikidemon keep going on his time Value. I think he is forgetting I am spending enough time not nominating random articles. If require I am ready to give justification on each and every article if he can mention. I have not done anything without using my intelligence or even common-sense. cases are like need only COMMON SENSE to judge how such article are even created. not forget the check Vote count and who actually contributed. COI or possible Paid PR editors. They do not Value anything close to Encyclopedia.

• Payoneer
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cymbal (app)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PepperTap

Or I can give many such others with No-Consensus or Vote close if it helps. Moreover it is questioning on My Intelligence and this is a Humiliations made by OhNoitsJamie & Wikidemon for making comments such as stopped clock principle & WP:COMPETENCE and WP:TEND. Where Wikidemon is forgotten how desperately he made an non-admin close of highly promoted COI disputed article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DealDash . These admins are making humiliations and mockery of an indidual as if they created this Platform and they know evertything. Where on several they are Wrong and not knowing the exact things. This is shame of Such admins who gives lecture on someone's Intelligence. (Sorry for 'Shame' word, but it is my bitter opinion about them). Light2021 (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I hope we can find a solution which allows this user to continue to make productive edits, which he does, but also protects the encyclopedia from disruptive behaviors, which he also exhibits (an intermediate step could be limiting his number of AFD nominations). As for the disruptive behaviors, this user needs to stop making WP:SOAP edits like this to the talk pages of articles that he's nominated and which have survived AFD. He's been counseled numerous times to use WP:DRV when he disagrees with a deletion decision, but instead has resorted to posting long protest screeds on the talk pages of articles which he unsuccessfully nominated for deletion. See here and here as well. User also needs to stop adding speedy deletion tags to articles which he's nominated for AFD and which have survived the process. See here. The extreme tag-bombing needs to stop too. He's been routinely adding up to twenty top-level tags to articles, including erroneously using the hoax tag. See here, here, here and here. This is disruptive. This biggest issue isn't the disruptive editing, though--that can be addressed if a user is willing to WP:LISTEN. But this user doesn't appear to be. For example, when an admin asked him to stop erroneously adding hoax tags to numerous articles, his response wasn't exactly constructive. There is a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality displayed here. At a minimum, the user needs to 1) stop PRODding articles which have survived AFD 2) stop posting WP:SOAP essays on the talk pages of articles which have survived AFD 3) stop tag-bombing and 4) refrain from renominating failed AFDs only two weeks after they've been closed, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UrbanClap (4th nomination). He should use WP:DRV instead. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support - This user has been repeatedly warned about their disruptive AFDs, tag-bombing, talkpage rants etc etc and yet the disruption still continues, The lack of English & walls of food salad don't help (We should accept everyone here however the English needs to be of readable standard which it isn't (Some bits are understandable but most aren't)), The editor is unfortunately disrupting the project despite the help of many editors and admins, IMHO the editor should be topic banned from everything that relates to deletion (AFD, CSD, RFD, CSD) although this wouldn't need to be indef. –Davey2010^Talk 18:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts are coming from an individual Davey2010^Talk who is contributor on Promotional articles. And Closes Non-Admin on many controversial AfD. Where even discussion is needed. Easy way to get rid of me saying Lack of English. This is ridiculous.Light2021 (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Eh what "promotional" articles have I worked on ? ... I have no COI if that's what you're referring too?, Wrong no one wants to get rid of you ... If we wanted to get rid of you you would've been blocked many moons ago. –Davey2010^Talk 19:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support (Davey's broad version), after looking at a couple of AfDs. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you cite those "Couple of AfD" and what about others? and My Point of view? Just coming here making Support Davey without giving deeper thoughts. Can you be specific and neutral. Give both perspective. Do not go by the Vote. Light2021 (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Seek Advise and neutral opinion on this matter Thanks. DMacks , Brianhe , Peridon, DGG, SwisterTwister, K.e.coffman , Lemongirl942 Light2021 (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support and it's not just AFD, there are MFD's as well. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support: I wasn't sure I would support this proposal (see my comments above), but seeing that the user has responded to this report not with introspection and collaboration but by making a series of ad hominem attacks on other editors and attempting to canvas other users here, it seems there is no other choice if the disruptive behavior is to be stopped. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I was leaning towards Clpo13 comment about trying to guide Light2021, but I now see this has been tried and the user has refused the help, TB is the next option IMO. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose tban for now - per my comments on the user's talkpage, as little coercion as possible should be applied. I think the editor may be amenable to the solutions 1-4 proposed by Safehaven86. - Brianhe (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment, for now at least. I noticed this discussion linked on the editor's talk page, after I'd come to give them some advice on what G11 and A7 mean after having to decline a whole bunch of their requests while reviewing the spam queue. A couple of requests were valid, but most were not. And I'm not exactly well known for being lenient on spam, promotion, and CVs, so if I think your G11 requests are out of order, there's probably a problem. I would hope this problem could be solved by giving some advice, but the reactions to previous attempts at doing that don't give me much hope. So, let's make it clear, Light2021: Would you be willing to, first, slowing way down on your deletion nominations, and maybe getting a second opinion from someone experienced in the area before putting a nomination forth? Maybe that would help you get your feet under you and learn what should be deleted and what shouldn't. But while it's not expected that everything you nominate will wind up deleted (we all can miss something, or sometimes new information comes to light), continuous nominations with tenuous justifications at best are a waste of the community's time. Your accuracy doesn't need to be perfect, but it does need to be reasonable; you can't just throw nominations at the wall to see if they stick. If you're not willing to change course here, I see a topic ban as probably the only realistic outcome. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Your advise is sound. And I will do my due diligence if in doubt with other admins, like what actions should be best - AfD, Speedy or Proposed delete. I always admire and would love adhere to your suggestions. Still being realistic I am not perfect being, will make few mistakes in the process but will try my best to keep it bare minimum possible. I will do my best to nominate with more care and if in doubt will ask the expert advise as well. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• conditional support I'd like to see the attempts made by others (Safehaven86, Seraphiblade) tried first, but with a very short rope. I'll be pleased, but honestly surprised, if they do work given the pretty high level of belligerence I've seen. I'm saying "conditional support" because I'd like to have a consensus established here that there is community support for a topic ban so that if there are continued problems the ban can be enacted without delay. Hobit (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• AFD comment - Just a heads up but I was asked by an admin to reopen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DealDash which I have (I'm only posting this as the AFD was mentioned above, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 02:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose -- Given the rampant promotionalism on Wikipedia, such a ban would not be productive. I find myself agreeing with the nominator in most cases. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DealDash showed the typical problems with such promotional articles. Opinions on what constitute promotion vary, but penalising an editor because they happen to be less inclusive than others is not the appropriate course of action, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree that the user could do with a little help and guidance, and might benefit from slightly less zeal, but the nomination record speaks for itself: a large number of these articles are blatantly promotional and should not be here. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. This appears to be a case where mentorship would be beneficial given that in general their deletion requests appear to be reasonable, if not always following the process required. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support I do think Light2021 is trying to operate in good faith, and as noted above they have identified many articles that deserve deletion. But the competence required for the process is just not there. The nomination mentioned above by Davey, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DealDash, shows the problem. Regardless of whether the article is kept or not, the AfD nomination consists of an incoherent rant about paid advertising and a dozen links to unrelated or semi-related essays. That's not an acceptable nomination. Add to that the history of trying to speedy-delete articles that have already been through AfD, and it shows a basic misunderstanding of our processes. IMO Light2021 should be banned from direct participation in the nomination process. If someone is willing to mentor them, as suggested above, Light2021 could identify articles they think should be deleted and let the mentor nominate them. Or let Light2021 propose articles for tagging or nomination, but get the nominations approved and improved by the mentor before submitting them. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, On the Current ongoing AfD I have made some comments of AfD. You can decide yourself Whether my assessment is wrong or right. These companies seriously provide no value to Encyclopedia Material. Do not go by my opinion. Need to check for yourself. If you leave those 2 apart any Admin would agree with my assessment that these are highest degree of Promotions being created by company to promote themselves using Wikipedia as platform. They have nothing to write except brief profile about themselves. On the other I have accepted suggestions by other admins. I will do talk first to other admins before nominating if I have even 1% of doubt, if that is considered as my learning from this one. Thanks. I have request, Please Go through article and discussions as well. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DealDash & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UrbanClap (4th nomination) Light2021 (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – A serious issue is that Light2021 has demonstrated an ongoing pattern of assuming bad faith, casting WP:ASPERSIONS, and ranting in a battleground manner against users on multiple article talk pages and user talk pages, inre various matters, including deletion, other users' !voting, user intentions, etc. See User talk:Safehaven86 § SPAM OR WIKIPEDIA CHOICE for an example, and be sure to view content via the links provided by Safehaven86 on their user page there, which demonstrates these ongoing problems exhibited by Light2021. There is also the problem of drive-by overtagging and incorrectly adding the {{hoax}} template to articles. In addition to those listed above in this discussion, the following are additional incidences of incorrect use of the hoax template: diff, diff, diff. As denoted above in this discussion, when I asked the user to stop (diff), they didn't recognize or address the problem at all, and instead chose to rant about various other matters (diff, diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I might disagree with your opinions and your ways of dealing things. It does not mean you are wrong or in a similar fashion it does not mean I do not listen to anyone or I am doing things the way I want. I am working in a community, and listen to their perspective. But forced opinion based on biased or simply not liking me for any sort of reason. As done in either Bossy manner (from some editor) or few others. Definitely not you and others as I admire and ready to listen and understand. I present my opinion. I will keep control and will try to put my point in a very precise manner if not so direct (blunt). As I think my writing tone is an issue here, not what I am doing. I think the best for this platform, and definitely not in bad faith as accused by few (not you). Otherwise i would not be here wasting my time. I love this platform and want to contribute my part. Thank you. Light2021 (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Given your own recent history of wikihounding on AFDs, you are in no position to accuse others - David Gerard (talk) 00:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Bringing up legitimate concerns over an editor isn't wikihounding, Might I suggest you re-read WP:AGF - If you have an issue with NA1K then start a new thread and stop derailing this one. –Davey2010^Talk 02:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Davey2010^Talk you need to look what and how you say things. Questioning Admins as if you are the one who knows everything, where your misjudgment and biased is clearly written here. Whole thing is done because of your (including few) personal opinion and disliking of something/Someone. As you can go to any extend by doing anything, such as closing Keep with selective bias where your opinions lacks the neutrality. I can quote where you have closed AfD so early without getting to en end, on the other hand other clear Delete judgement are being Missed by you accidentally? closing DealDash with no reasoning. and many others. Even this Whole ANI is biased and being ignoring efforts of others, and counting only selective things to build and arguments. and Even try to forcing opinion like the other one is doing above in a bossy manner. No doubt you both are "Non-Admins" for such biased and selective opinions. As far as I know, David has clean history being an admin. I doubt yours. Light2021 (talk) 05:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• Might I suggest you stop blaming others and look in the mirror - The only person at fault here is you!, I have far more productive things to do on here than to get into a mud-slinging match with you. –Davey2010^Talk 11:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Sadly previous attempts by the community to work with this editor have not been productive. The battleground behavior and casting of aspersions by this user is not a one-off occurance, it is a continuing pattern of disruption that merits a 1 year Time Out in deletion areas, widely construed. There are lots of other non-deletion areas of this site to constructively work on. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

No Surprise! This is coming from the person whose argument and discuss failed to keep many articles on AfD that I nominated. I understand your disappointments clearly. There are many I disappointed because I have to be not much likable If I am into Speedy Deletions/ AfD business on Wikipedia. There are few others if they come here and want to desperately block me. So for some time peacefully people like you can support filthy amount of Spam that is going on to ruin the whole credibility of Wikipedia. this is what you call "battleground". Please judge me by my actions and efforts I put on this wikipedia. Not by mere opinion by few people. Reality and Opinion will come out by wisdom. Please note those Supporters of Block me are no admins in most of cases. They have their opinions and sheer disappointment with me with definite reasons I understand. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• support TBAN from deletion activity give some WP:ROPE in light of this post Light2021's goals in identifying "articles" that are actually advertisements and trying to get rid of them are great, but the way they are going about it is disruptive. Their behavior sucks time away from people who would otherwise be building and maintaining content or even working to clean up promotion other than what Light2021 has identified. So I support restricting them from their main topic of disruption. Light2021's pattern of not allowing community processes to take their time, not respecting consensus decisions (e.g. with the renominations) and not listening to what others say, shows a lack of understanding of WP:CONSENSUS, the foundation of this whole place. So I am not hopeful they will stop being disruptive. Light2021 you need to take the fact that the work here is done in a community, much more seriously. Jytdog (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC))

Sorry, but few people have corrupted and even gone so far misusing this platform. by such things Wikipedia has become a place for such articles. Because many people have come here and degraded its value for their own benefit or making money out of it. If that is consensus made by such people. I might even Go away from here. As this has become corrupt with such practices. Tell me how many articles were not worthy of deletion as per Wikipedia quality. if it even cross 5% I will leave right now. Else you have your mind to judge me. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 06:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hate to say it but there's a language barrier here severe enough to take us into WP:CIR territory. EEng 06:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing behavior

Can we go ahead and apply a topic ban already, or else a short-term block while we sort it out? In the past few hours, even as this discussion progresses, they're taunting, accusing, and haranguing other editors on the DealDash page and likely elsewhere, with paranoid rants on deletion pages[29] and article talk pages[30] about how editors are out to get them.[31] Also, a bad speedy nomination about an article used as a source for DealDash.[32] Frankly, it looks like a Wikipedia meltdown. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring the article page too.[33][34][35] The meltdown is particularly obvious if you look at the current version of their talk page.[36] It seems they've melted down before if you look at the block log.[37] - Wikidemon (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

This is what i get " So stop fucking pinging me for fucksake, If you ave an issue with me then drag me to ANI otherwise sod off and leave me be" from Davey and people like Wikidemon. they have harassed me to the depth of their Bad and even pathetic behavior. Reverted all my contribution. They need a Block from Wikipedia. They have blatantly misused this platform and their rights. They are removing my tags. How can I raise a request to Block them. Help. Light2021 (talk) 05:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support block if only for the ridiculous templates on Davey2010's talk page moments ago. [38] [39] EvergreenFir (talk) 06:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

have you even gone through what BEFORE Davey has done? Light2021 (talk) 06:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Davey has questionable taste in userbox choices but has a history of constructive editing. So please demonstrate Davey's disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• In view of the ongoing harassment on User talk:Davey2010 by Light2021- mass-templating [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]- I agree that a block would be immediately preventative. _Muffled ^Pocketed 06:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support Block - This is unacceptable behavior and disruptive. -- Dane2007 ^talk 06:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid you have been mislead by Selective Links given by users. Because of this you are able to see only Selective opinion putting in your mind none other than but few users who even started this Biased ANI in a first place. Light2021 (talk) 07:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support block per WP:DNR. Exhibiting the same escalating disruptive pattern that resulted in blocks for this user earlier this year. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support block - The mass warning templates on my talkpage is disruptive and IMO is enough for a block, The user has also been posting attacks etc on the DealDash talkpage as well as their talkpage too, Anyway I'll be honest - like anyone on this project If I mass-templated someone with 7 warnings in the space of 5 minutes (when that editor hasn't been on) I too would expect a long block - There's no excuse for it - It's disruptive editing on all forms, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support block Glad to see someone beat me to the punch here. That Light2021 would continue to disruptive AFDs (see the DealDash afd) and disparage anyone who disagrees with him with bizarre (albeit mostly incoherent) allegations makes it poignantly clear that a block (and topic ban) is called for. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support block topic ban This is a case where, if the block topic ban was iffy at the start of this thread, it isn't any more. I think WP:ROPE is now in play. User:EEng's observation about language and WP:CIR are apt, as well. David in DC (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment – I believe in allowing users some time to both acknowledge community concerns and to demonstrate a will to be civil, but this just keeps continuing. As I stated in my comment above, the user has demonstrated an ongoing pattern of assuming bad faith, casting WP:ASPERSIONS, and ranting in a battleground manner against users. Just at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DealDash alone, there are multiple insults and statements against users in negative, inappropriate manners, such as referring to users as "the manipulators", "the biased one", "intellectually incapable", "good Luck with your wiki-judgement skills", "any idiot can write here and few idiots can keep" (diff), "your intend are clear as water" (diff), "your intends are clear! Why on earth you are even here." (diff). The aspersions and continuance of bad faith statements against others needs to stop. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Final comments / story from my ends Thanks for reading what I have to say. The foremost concern for all this ANI is My AfD was objected and even questioned my Accuracy. Spam and bad Article is everyone's concern on Wikipedia. That is why we are even here in the first place. We all want to do our best to make this platform. From the time I have been here in ANI. My past AfD are getting stronger results with Delete (Even non Consensus). They are coming up with over 99% accuracy. On the other hand if you go for No Consensus here. it should be clear I clearly did not make so much bad AfD, as being accused or being tagged with. I think as far as I have gone through AfD people here. My accuracy is good for all. But I understand My behaviour was not the just to explain myself or putting my point in Light to others. I take responsibility that my point of view and writing was not as expected and created by wikipedia. I have taken note by DGG and Brianhe on my Talk page. and Will read and keep their sound and very authentic, and neutral suggestions to implement. As they have denoted what need to be corrected from my ends. But to all of the community, My intentioans are not in anyone Bad Faith. I want to do as good as other intend to be. I am improving my accuracy day by day. Soon I will achieve 100% accuracy. Right now it is getting to 99%. Thank you for all your advises and reading my final story and version here. Light2021 (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support I think it is pretty clear from this thread, and the links in it, this user lacks, the basic English language competence, and the temperament to engage in this topic space. They should be insta-blocked if they continue to harassing other editors. That behavior is outrageous. --Adam in MO Talk 00:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support block - I am one of the "manipulators" as accused by LIght2021. I was going to let this ANI run its course but based on their suggestion -

"CNMall41" you can keep anything. Checking last deletions of articles and your judgement. Where you are the only one with Keep vote and 6-8 delete votes. Good Luck with your wiki-judgement skills. Please read those articles I suggested earlier. FYI there is ANI, go there and Vote your block as well to support such people who are ready to ruin this platform for sake of their personal Vendetta." [47]

I am here to voice my opinion for what it's worth. User has made some good recommendations during their editing, many of which I have voted to !delete inline with their suggestions. However, there has also been a large level of disruption, assuming bad faith, and lack of competency which has taken up too much of people's time. I think I am more confused as to why user was not blocked for the attacks on other editors and then let to appeal to an admin if they feel their conduct did not justify the block. I have seen too many people get blocked for less conduct (and rightfully so), while this conduct still takes place by Light2021. I hate to see people blocked, but it is evident from user failing to take advice from experienced editors and administrators on their talk page, here at ANI, the previous block, and continued disruptive conduct, that editor needs to back away fro Wikipedia long enough to understand that the community works on consensus and cannot be subject to a bull run free in a china shop.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• comment - User:Light2021 is continuing their personal attacks, this time on User:DGG's talk page (User talk:DGG#Biocom being kept) where they specifically cast aspersions against User:Cunard's good faith participation at AFD.[48][49]. This needs to stop. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I am not going to oppose a block. CIR would be the nearest reason, though it seems to be also stubbornness. If we did a topic ban, it would have to be not just deletion process, but discussions about deletion. A block would be simpler to enforce. DGG ( talk ) 19:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• As advised by admins and other contributors DGG, Jytdog, Brianhe, David Gerard and others as well.

• 1) I understand that the problem is that I have not respected the community and other members of the community
• 2) I will stop discussing other contributors
• 3) I will stop bludgeoning deletion discussions
• 4) I will respect consensus decisions.

Above points are my acceptance that I must have deflected from my path on putting my points as expected by WP community. I will follow as advised by people here with pure heart. Even after that if I fail to my commitment and assurance made here. I will never ask for forgiveness. and I must leave my contribution on WP without wasting community time on discussions about me. Community time is more important than me. As I understand It would be better for me to learn more first than contribute here. As community is very humble taking my point of view into considerations.

Thanking you all.

Light2021 (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not an admin but this was the advice I gave. the post above is a bit rote, but on that basis and this comment they made on their talk page, i think per WP:ROPE we can table this and revisit if Light2021 does not actually change their behavior. Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

POV pushing IP on Jimmy Page

I recently full-protected Jimmy Page's article after an edit war broke out over some unpleasant and potentially BLP-violating content. The conversation on the talk page hasn't really got anywhere except to point out that the main antagonist in the debate, a hopping IPv6 editor, is too trustworthy on using Richard Cole as a source and taking disagreement quite personally. Going forward, I think the article should be long-term pending changes protected when the full-protection expires tonight, but I've stuck my 2c worth on the talk page enough now to think I would be too WP:INVOLVED to take action myself, and would rather another admin did it. (Since the IP changes multiple times a day, I have not notified them on any previous talk page as I don't think it would be read). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ritchie. For what it is worth, I did not find your contributions too WP:INVOLVED. This controversy has been going on since 2013. From the exchange on the Talk page it is clear that the IP is pushing his own point of view and not here to try and find consensus. Let's ask @Drmies: to glance over it. Karst (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• Me? Why? Because I come from the land of ice and snow? Indefinite semi-protection applied, for reasons (briefly) laid out on talk page. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think the indef semi-protection is warranted (God kills a kitten every time that happens). A minute of web search found decent sourcing for the disputed incident. I left some comments on the talk page, and made an attempt to ask 2605:* (the ipv6 editor) to reach a compromise. There was relatively little difference between the consensus version of July 2016 and the extra words that 2605 wanted to add at the time. The main issue was that 2605 wanted to SYNTHesize that the Page-Mattix relationship was "illegal" when the sources used then didn't use that word. But other sources do use it so it seems simplest to just cite one (with in-text attribution). Pamela Des Barres is probably the best-known groupie historian and she uses the word illegal in her book (mentioned on article's talk page). Drmies and/or other admins, could you look in on the page over the next few days and unprotect if the problem settles down? Typing "Lori Mattix" into youtube search finds tons of additional material that I'm not masochistic enough to watch. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 07:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Des Barres is not a neutral source - she is a jilted ex-lover of Page. YouTube is not considered a reliable source. 172.10.43.16 (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
      • Well, I'd dispute that characterization of Des Barres (she stayed friendly with Page after they split) but that's a content matter, that shouldn't be locked up by protecting the article. Similarly with the stuff shown in the VH1 documentary. Youtube has nothing to do with it, it's just a place where you can view the documentary if you want to. The main thing is to treat the facts neutrally. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 04:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
• Basically over a period of time various IPs have edit-warred to exaggerate claims of illegality despite the source used not making such claims. Its also an event that the subject has neither been charged with, investigated for, questioned or in fact had any legal outcome at all. So over-emphasising the 'illegal' aspects is a clear violation of UNDUE when not impacting on the BLP aspects. A relatively stable consensus has been achieved over the years to mention the incident, but to not go into tabloid-level salacious detail and use neutral wording. I didnt think it was likely indef semi-prot would be granted so I have not applied for it in the past, but it is an ongoing problem. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• Concur with indef semi-protection. There are serious BLP problems with insinuating that someone's conduct was illegal or a crime when they have never been charged, let alone convicted of any wrongdoing. We don't get to make that call. The IP should also be warned for accusing people of COI without evidence. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• I saw this thread yesterday and left a comment on the article's talk page and now have been falsely accused of being a sockpuppet. It's a crying shame editor's are allowed to do this without any evidence or repercussions.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• The edit war of July 2016 that I looked at (links on talk page) didn't want to insert a lot of unverified material other than inserting the word "illegal" (the other phrasing changes weren't extensive and seemed resolvable by discussion). I agree that the people trying to put in these changes seemed to be axe-grinding. But the illegality of the affair and the participants' concern about it at the time are well-documented, e.g. Pamela Des Barres, Let's Spend the Night Together (2007), p. 182:

Lori says Jimmy called her every day when he got back to England, and in 1975 when Zeppelin played Madison Square Garden, he flew her to New York to stay with him at the Drake Hotel. "That was when their gig money got stolen and the FBI was investigating. Everybody was paranoid about me being around because I was underage. Zeppelin's manager was flipping out. He said, `You've gotta send her home. She can't be at the hotel with the FBI sniffing around.' ... "

This is in contrast with the vast quantities of drugs that rock musicians and concertgoers used in those days, whose illegality nobody has ever cared about and which are discussed today without any sense of controversy or shame. So I think that the underage issue is notable and should be mentioned (neutrally, with citations) in the article's description of the affair if the affair is included at all. And I think Mattix should be listed under "partners" since according to Des Barres (p. 181), the relationship went on for more than two years. The protection seems like using technical tools to win a content dispute, not nice. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 07:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Page has never been charged (and I doubt he would be). Trial by innuendo is not acceptable on Wikipedia. 172.10.43.16 (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

No one is insinuating that he was ever charged. What is well documented is that he was once in a situation that was seen as legally hazardous enough to cause a stir within his organization at the time, though in the end, nothing happened to him over it. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

And that really is too vague. The issue here was that the anon IP was POV pushing and not willing to compromise. And that this issue had been going on since 2013. Hence my request for a permanent protection. Karst (talk) 12:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Self-report of this account (GhostTownsMapper) and NorwayHS4 as circumvention socks

At first glance you probably believe I am a hacker or something, since things like this probably rarely happen, though I assure you not.

I only just remembered I had these two accounts just now, because I had stopped editing Wikipedia because I was worrying about if my edits would be reverted if I was found, etc. However, today I did remember these accounts (I knew I had two, but I did not remember the usernames), and decided to admit because eventually they'd be found anyway, and it was wrong of me to sock in the first place.

I would like to issue an apology to everyone I have lied and attacked wrongly, including but not limited to Jéské Couriano:, PhilKnight:, Origamite:, Huon:, and Kinu:. They were simply doing their jobs and quite obviously I made their job harder by socking and disrupting. It's easy to do things online you wouldn't normally do in real life because you feel more anonymous and that your face can't be matched with your actions.

Why I would have decided to vandalize Wikipedia and violate a myriad of policies I honestly do not think I myself will know. At the time I was a normal user who had edited since 2012 and had no blocks or bans, though I did have some issues understanding the notability policies. I was working on a project for school in relation to the book Chasing Lincoln's Killer and that was why I was on the Ford's Theatre page. I was getting annoyed, bored and was having problems with MS Word, so I purposefully began overlinking. At the time, I found it to have been a funny joke, and I ignored at the time that Wikipedia is not a place for page jokes.

And, so then, when people connected the dots, I panicked and tried to cover the whole thing up. No lies worked and in the end I gave up for a while after my talk access was revoked.

Later, I created another account and began editing, I suppose one could say it was some sort of Wiki-withdrawal or something. Of course, later I was found again and blocked.

And I did the same thing again, and each time pretty much panicked over it. I worried if people would find out and dislike me for it or something, and that's why I kept socking. It spiraled out of control, but then I began to panic over if I would never be allowed to return to Wikipedia without socking. I began to stop editing, and eventually, stopped completely.

I am guessing someone will bring up the whole Tym_Avi incident of this account, and it is the whole truth that that was not me. I was at school and the person who wrote that was someone I knew there, who asked for syntax help and such. (Since then, that person has gone to another school.) I did find the article quite dubious but gave the benefit of the doubt, which in the end resulted in an IP block, after which I panicked and that's why I submitted unblock requests instead of just letting them stand and waiting until school ended.

I only hope that eventually I may be able to come back to Wikipedia, but instead by the proper way of submitting an unblock request. Circumventing the block only stressed me out worrying about if I would be discovered.

If anyone has questions about this I will answer them. If anyone needs some sort of proof of identity, well, I don't know if I can entirely give that but my IP address should help back my case a bit.

--GhostTownsMapper (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Verifying for people that this is me and I am not dragging an innocent account down or something sinister like that. --NorwayHS4 Message box Contributions 02:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• OK I have a few questions. Sparing everyone from digging around, what is your first (sock master) account? Are you currently blocked or banned? If so for what reason and when were the sanctions applied? Thank you for your honesty. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Ad Orientem:(Of all things to skip saying, I skip saying what my original account was... wow) I was User:TZLNCTV, and am currently indeffed for socking and that was done Feb. 12, 2015.

• Thank you. I do appreciate the honesty here but this is still a serious breach of the community's rules and trust. I am not going to make any immediate recommendations for the moment. I would like to to think about this maybe overnight and get some input from others before proposing or supporting any additional sanctions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Looks like it's been a while since any of the accounts you've mentioned have been active. Close enough to the 6 months of WP:Standard offer for my satisfaction, unless you've done any deliberately bad editing since April. Have you? 50.0.136.56 (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• @50.0.136.56: No, I have not done any editing at all since these accounts were last used for editing, until editing this page. I had, in simple terms, quit Wikipedia. --GhostTownsMapper (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

To me, this seems like a very sincere post from an editor who wants to return and be productive. The initial conduct that lead to the indef was obnoxious, but not particularly destructive. I think that if the user agrees to a restriction of operating only one account (no secondary accounts for any reason), then they should be unblocked. agtx 04:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Since Mike V has wandered in and blocked these two accounts, thus ensuring nobody will ever bother to come forward again for fear of the same, let's have a poll to see if we should unblock them:

• Support unblock of GhostTownsMapper as a de facto standard offer Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support unblock Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support unblock - as they appear sincere in their attempt to reconcile with the Wikipedia community I would be happy to give them a second (umpteenth in a sense due to the multiple sock abuse blocks) chance. I can't really criticize Mike V for their block, though, a message to the editor telling them they're blocked until a community decision is made as to whether they should be allowed back in may have been helpful to them. That is assuming that a consensus to unblock here will be accepted. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

While Mike V's block was technically correct and in accordance with policy, a part of me wonders if it was truly necessary. Sure, if GhostTownsMapper suddenly goes on a vandalism spree, block away, but I don't think it's likely. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I feel much the same, I wouldn't personally have called for a block but understand the procedural reasons for doing so. Ah well, I just hope Ghost sticks around and let's bureaucracy take its slow course for a few days or more as necessary. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support Standard Offer for TZLNCTV, the original account. I thought about this overnight and I agree with several of the above posters. Enough time has elapse and there is clear evidence of regret over previous actions and a desire to return as a productive member of the community. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support unblock - Give em a chance if he wants to join us and help the project. In a way, he reminds me of me going 10 years back. Look at my very first contributions... I got into vandal fighting simply because I was so amazed that users who weren't administrators could revert and warn users - been doing it ever since. Best case scenario? He becomes a good editor and this only holds him back for a short time. Worst case scenario? The stripes are revealed and we just block again. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support unblock for either GhostTownsMapper or TZLNCTV. This is exactly the approach I'd like to see blocked users take to regain their editing privileges. Huon (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• Point of order: Since the original block of TZLNCTV was a {{checkuserblock}}, I'm concerned any lowly admin that wanders by and sees this might unblock based on a consensus to unblock, without realizing that policy apparently requires the OK of a checkuser first. So I suggest a CU be consulted. I assume their role would be to confirm no socking has been going on in the last 5-6 months. I'm just letting you know about the policy, not defending it. -Floquenbeam (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support unblock per Huon, Ritchie333, Oshwah and others above, on condition checkuser comes out clean for recent activity. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support unblock based on all of the above. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• Small trout to Mike V for the blocks, since the person was in dialogue with us and not disrupting anything as far as anyone could tell (blocks are supposed to be preventive). Would have been better to leave one unblocked so discussion could continue here instead of through user talk relay (plus per Ritchie333's comment). Re the longer term block, standard offer looks ok to me, conditional on CU. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

*Neutral: Per Floquenbeam and per WP:CUBL. Although whoever mentioned WP:STRIPES is onto something. MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 21:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support unblock per the comments above. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 01:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support Standard Offer as well for the original account, TZLNCTV. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Checkuser needed per Floquenbeam's comment above. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• CheckUser is stale for the master. GhostTownsMapper and NorwayHS4 are  Confirmed to each other. I see no sleepers in that range for the last 90 days. Katie^talk 22:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support unblock. One thing I'm sure a lot of others appreciate and that is honesty. This is a clear good faith attempt to come clean. Blocking was process for the sake of process and a bit of IAR would have been a better use of time. Blackmane (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support unblock It seems a rare enough occurrence these days that we are asked for a SO and the bargain has been upheld with no socking. The conditions would seem to be fulfilled, and the request humble and in good faith. Also agree Mike V should dine mightily off fresh trout tonight :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Supporting Unblock : Vote above struck out and side picked now that we have WP:CUBL satisfying data from a CU. MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 17:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Wesco482

Since 2014, Wesco482 has been making edits that go against MOS and has received several warnings not to do so, but has continued to ignore them. As far back as July 2014, I've warned the user to not add unsourced claims, which the user continues to do so. On May 2015, Wesco was uploading extra images of an album and singles without a proper rationale and was warned not to do so here, here, and here, and here. But the user continued to upload those images anyway despite receiving a block. Last month, 88marcus told the user to stop using 45worlds.com as a source because it is a website that allows anyone to submit, but has ignored that and I gave the user a reminder to not use that website. Then the user was unnecessarily capitalizing section headings (link), and told to stop after doing so repeatedly. The final straw was Wesco482 re-creating song articles about Gloria Estefan that does not meet WP:NSONGS. The user twice reverted my edit (here and here). On top of that, re-rectead Lejos de Ti with another article with different capitalization (as seen here). On that same revision, you can see that the user uploaded extra images of the single cover, showing that user has learned nothing from the last block. As you can see, the user has shown over and over to be refusing to get the point and it needs to stop. Erick (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Indef block: Wesco482 has little promises to keep, and of what Erick is saying all comes to true, then the time is right to give the disruptive editor some more time to think it over before any further damage occurs. SportsLair (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with Block. Needs some sort of block to stop his endless disruptive behavior. To get unblocked he needs to demonstrate understanding of what he's doing wrong and agree not to do it anymore. Does he do anything constructive? If not, might as well be an indefinite block (which is just as easy to request unblock as a finite block). Softlavender (talk) 09:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• Just an update, the user has uploaded more non-free images to Out of Nowhere (Gloria Estefan song), the very same page the user was told to stop last year. Erick (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support Block : I'm already in agreement with blocking this user citing WP:COMPETENCE , but remember how blocks are supposed to prevent? Well, look at MagicianDude (Erick)'s update just above, I like to think there's proof that a block will 'prevent' further trouble. MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 21:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support Block as the user has definitely demonstrated a lack of understanding in regards to contributing here. Competence is required. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support some sort of block but not Indef (yet). I'm not convinced that this is a case of NOTHERE but I do agree that we need to put some kind of Stop Sign in front of this editor that will get their attention and hopefully encourage a course correction. Maybe a week long time out? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Considering that the user has already been blocked before but is still doing the same thing, I am doubtful that a temporary block will suffice. Erick (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Can we get an admin to weigh in on this three day old thread? TimothyJosephWood 22:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by formerly blocked ip

118.92.205.124 is once again making disruptive edits to Rainbow's End (theme park), Sylvia Park, Southmall Manurewa, ANZ Bank New Zealand and many others. His habit is to list street addresses and dates of startups. Inexplicably, he sometimes changes the startup date format which he entered on a previous edit to birth year. He is editing the exact same articles, with the exact same edits, that were edited by 27.252.153.1, 27.252.142.124, 27.252.151.194, at least one of which was previously blocked, so he has a history of using multiple ip's. At Onehunga Branch, he persists multiple times in removing the Onehunga Line template, despite being told that Onehunga Branch is part of that line. I had hoped that reverts by User:Ajf773 and myself would not go unnoticed and he would be blocked by an admin, but unfortunately this has not happened and I must now formally request an indefinite block. Akld guy (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried explaining the issues on a talk page, either an article's or the IP's, preferably without threatening blocks at the same time? IPs are people, too, and I'm somewhat concerned if one editor refers to another as a "pest", particularly when this is basically a content dispute. (As an aside, I don't think the date of 1835 you re-introduced is correct, but that should be discussed on the article's talk page.) It's also rather difficult to argue that adding addresses is automatically disruptive when the template offers a parameter for that purpose. For comparison, Disneyland, the British Museum and the White House all give addresses, too. Even if the IP's edits were found to be disruptive, we do not block IPs indefinitely, particularly not dynamic ones. Huon (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Some of the IP's edits are worthwhile, and I have tried to retain those that are. The IP does not respond to advice/warnings on his Talk page, and his usual response to a revert which includes an edit summary explaining his mistake is a revert of the revert. Take a look at the history of Onehunga Branch where you will see that for several months, under one Ip address or another, he has removed the same content (the list of railway stations on the Onehunga Line) despite edit summaries that point out that the Branch is a segment of the Line. I'm sorry but my tolerance, and I think that of User:Ajf773 has run out with this pest. As to the wrong date (1835), presumably for ANZ Bank New Zealand, the IP may have replaced it with another date and I restored it in a revert. This is a problem when this IP makes quick changes in succession, some of them good and some of them bad. The good ones become collateral damage. That's my mistake. But, overall, this IP's edits are disruptive, and User:Ajf773 feels the same. This Ip has cottoned onto a winning formula: make some good edits, but overall be disruptive, making it hard to decide what to do with him. And I see that your response seems to be to shoot the messenger. No more advice to try to interact with this pest please, it hasn't worked. A block of one of the IP's that I listed above didn't work. He was back again soon, making exactly the same edits. Akld guy (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Listing physical addresses and postcodes for businesses have been reverted under WP:NOTWHITE. While the rationale might be okay for other geographic features WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason for inclusion in other articles. Ajf773 (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I fully back Akld guy's complaint as I have been actively reverting edits from this user who continues to edit under multiple IPs, most of which have been blocked in the past for similar disruptive editing. Approximately 90% of the content has been deemed unsuitable for Wikipedia which myself and Akld guy have cited under various points under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and despite continued warnings on Talk sections they continue to disrupt the articles mentioned (as well as several others). Efforts to communicate with this editor have been futile. Until this editor finally gets the message we have no other choice other than to continue serving blocks. Ajf773 (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

It's disappointing to see that the only response is that this is a content dispute, when clearly the IP has been adding and removing the same content repeatedly over a period of several months. This is really edit warring by the IP against WP policy and consensus. The only solution for me seems to be to stalk the IP and revert everything he does on sight until he leaves Wikipedia for good. This means that his (few) worthwhile edits will be undone. I have no doubt that he will not complain (he never responds to attempts to engage, and hasn't bothered replying here despite being advised on his Talk page of action here). The good thing is that this revert on sight policy will boost my edit count. Akld guy (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Please don't do that. AIRcorn (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• I looked at Fonterra, because that was the first article they edited. I am not seeing the problem with this edit. The edit summaries in the reversions by Akld guy and Ajf773 are not terribly informative either. I also find no discussion on the articles talk page or the IPs. For an IP to make an edit to a template in their first edit probably indicates that they have edited before. However, I went through the articles history (going bak to the start of the year) and found no more similar edits. Similarly, looking at the articles linked by Akld guy above I see no evidence of vandalism and what I saw wasn't even really disruptive.[50] There are claims that the editor has been blocked before, but I can't find any evidence of that either. There is definitely edit warring, which may be grounds for a block, but contrary to whats said above I can find no evidence of discussion[51] with the IP. In fact the three notices on their talk page consist of a generic welcome template, a final warning and the a note that they are being brought here. AIRcorn (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay found Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive935#Prolific disruptor is back,Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive935#Persistent disruptive editing at Onehunga Branch and User talk:27.252.145.37, so there may be a case to answer here. AIRcorn (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• (EDIT CONFLICT) First of all, Aircorn has had his differences with me at the very contentious article Bain family murders, where he severely criticized me for challenging the disruptive editor User:Turtletop. As a result of my challenges, Turtletop was proved to be a sock of indefinitely blocked User:Offender9000 and was also indefinitely blocked. So it's not surprising that Aircorn is critical of me here since he didn't seem inclined to eat humble pie and apologize to me. Aircorn is not an unbiased commenter here, and has made a superficial investigation. Please, as asked, look at the history of Onehunga Branch, where the IP has edit warred by deleting the list of stations on the Onehunga Line. This is the same persistent edit warring that was carried out by IP's 27.252.142.124 and 27.252.145.37. It's also the same pattern as the edit warring at Downtown Shopping Centre by him and the same IP's. There's no doubt but that it's the same fellow using different IP's. The pattern is the same, the same articles are targeted, and the content added or deleted is the same. As to no edit summaries by me, well, it became tiresome typing edit summaries repeatedly and it's pointless when the IP takes no notice whatsoever. He hasn't even come here to defend himself. Since it seems no action will be taken here, the only remedy is to revert on sight until he loses interest. Akld guy (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I sometimes scan ANI and will comment on topics that interest me. It is what lead me to the Bain article in the first place. You have options beyond reverting every edit on sight. If they are edit warring report them at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring or if you think they are socks of banned users go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. If you had provided links to previous blocks and reports, plus actual diffs of the disruptive editing and attempted discussion, admins would probably be more willing to take action here. FWIW I do think there is merit in blocking the IP[52] and semi protecting Onehunga Branch if issues persist. AIRcorn (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I went straight to a Level 4 (Final Warning) vandalism template on 118.92.205.124 due to previous warnings at different levels on other IPs as User:Akld guy has specified a few times already. The editor knows what they are doing and continue making disruptive and non-constructive edits under the guise of a different IP where their previous contributions history is not immediately available (the problem of allowing non registered users to make edits). Between the two of us, we have been reverting content where either of us see it being necessary (which is most of the time) and it's beyond me why they desire to continually disrupt these articles with such futility. Ajf773 (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks like nothing will get done here. Look at all the reverts the IP has caused, and then ask yourselves "When Wikipedia sends out its annual request for donations to pay for its servers, do you really want to make a donation that pays for the bandwidth caused by all those reverts and edit summaries and futile ANI complaints?" Akld guy (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Update: the IP was blocked for 31 hours at 15:09 on 8 November by an admin who apparently wasn't aware of the appeal here. Someone had some sense. Akld guy (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Why put me in spam

Hello! why you put my name in spam. i know i along minutes later to make minor formatting changes. i check that now. but i did't know these ips are spamming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Ayesha Hussain (talk • contribs) 08:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Ayesha Hussain: There may be a very valid explanation why you are editing after the IPs, but please explain that here, or at the bottom of that thread. The IPs certainly appear to be spamming. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Beetstra: i just fixing the page. like removing brackets of pages that not exist, fixing dead link and date issues. i never thought about these ips — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Ayesha Hussain (talk • contribs) 09:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• I think what we need here are some bons mots from EEng. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't work well under pressure. EEng 15:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• This relates to WT:WikiProject Spam#Spam ring and a claim of spam activity concerning Dr. Ayesha Hussain (talk · contribs). Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

For this discussion to progress, we would need to know what edits to which article caused KH-1 (talk · contribs) to associate this user with the spam ring. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Why :@KH-1: not responding on my issues. im still waiting. Dr. Ayesha Hussain (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Based on an inspection of the pattern of the edits of Dr. Ayesha Hussain, I recommend she be indeffed immediately as WP:NOTHERE. She consistenty turns up within 3 minutes of spam links being inserted into articles to amend said spam in some way - the pattern clear at, for instance [53], [54], [55]. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support indef for NOTHERE. Softlavender (talk) 10:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support Block per that Spam looking User Page alone! I wonder, doesn't her User Page fall under something CSD G12 or something? MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 22:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Not sure that her user page is what G11 (or, more relevantly, U5) has in mind. Feel free to take it to Miscellany for deletion. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive IP socking

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

---

This ordeal started when I was making some clean-up edits to Knower (band), because I felt that there was some clutter on the infobox at the top, and in the categories on the bottom. [56] [57] However, 47.147.39.254 has been disruptively reverting my cleanup efforts, claiming that I am a "conflict of interest." [58] When I traced the IP address, I have confirmed that this user is likely an IP sock of the indefinitely blocked user Boaxy and/or Phrasia (or one of his meat editors), which were previously blocked for abusing multiple accounts, making personal attacks against other users, and disruptive tendentious editing. I have confirmed that Boaxy was the most-recent sock of Phrasia, and was the one who created the article in question. It is very likely that this user has ownership issues with the article. I warned the user to cease this conduct and abide by the terms of their indefinite block, but they have thus far refused.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)Chris

Isn't this something for WP:Sockpuppet investigations to handle? Parsley Man (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Very well, then. I shall take the matter to there.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Chris

Sounds like this report is due a closing. Anyone? MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 18:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Felsic2

User:Felsic2 has just added a false reference to the Automatic rifle page.[59] He claims that the FG-42 is a "battle rifle" while the reference clearly refers to it as "(a full-power selective-fire rifle)". The full paragraph quote from pages 19 & 20 states..."While a sixteen- to eighteen-pound Browning Auto Rifle (BAR) could reasonably handle the recoil of its .30-06 chambering, when such a powerful cartridge was fired in a rifle of conventional weight (eight to ten pounds) things were very different. The Germans did field the FG-42 (a full-power selective-fire rifle) in very limited numbers, primarily to its airborne units. The success with such weapons was mixed, and the concept never caught on after the war. The conclusion to this matter is the FAL performed best in semi-auto, as do all battle rifles. While some nations adopted select-fire versions of the FAL, The British opted for the semi-auto only rifle when they chose the L1A1 as their standard service rifle". Felsic has been playing this little game (of manipulating the wording) for many months. See...Talk:AR-15, Talk:AR-15 variant, Talk:Colt AR-15, Talk:M16 rifle to name a few pages. I recommend an indefinite firearms topic ban.--RAF910 (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• See this recent thread about Felsic2 here on ANI for a long discussion about their tendentious editing on articles relating to firearms and US gun politics... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
• Considering that our article on the FG 42 does explicitly say it's a battle rifle, there doesn't seem to be much merit to this specific complaint, but Felsic2 in general has had a long history of bad behavior. ansh666 23:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have made necessary corrections and added appropriate references to the FG-42 page....As for the the reason we are here, I respectfully disagree, according to Wikipedia:Fictitious_references "The use of fictitious references is a form of gaming the system to circumvent Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It is a most serious offense because it compromises the integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia." Especially, by someone who has a history of gaming the system and making provocative edits to seemly annoy his fellow editors. See....Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms #Section move. I believe this shows a pattern of bad behavior.--RAF910 (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

1. It's not a false reference. Taking the whole chapter in context, it seems to me that the author of The Battle Rifle: Development and Use Since World War II is referring to the FG 42 as a battle rifle. The definition of a "battle rifle" is an automatic rifle firing a "full-power rifle cartridge", such as a 7.62×54mmR. The FG 42 is an automatic rifle that fires a 7.92×57mm Mauser cartridge.
2. If you don't like the citation I provided then there are many others availaible. For example: "This Kreighoff Waffenbabrik FG-42 was a select-fire battle rifle that was produced during WWII for German Paratroopers".
3. It is a bit odd that you're accusing me of a gross violation of Wikipedia policy for what may be a disputed citation since you yourself had to concede that you'd recently provided a series of citations which didn't support a claim in an article.[60][61] Incorrect citations are a problem that should be addressed wherever found, but getting something wrong isn't a crime.
4. As Ansh666 pointed out, the FG 42 article described that firearm as a "battle rifle", and had done so for many years until you just now changed it, ignoring the talk page discussion.[62][63][64]
5. When you found this supposed error, did you come apply a clean-up tag? No. Did you go to the talk page to raise your concern? No. Did you make any effort to resolve the dispute? No. Instead you came straight here to the admins board to demand that I be topic banned. This doesn't feel like a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia. Instead, it feels like an effort to get someone with opposing views banned. You have been coming after me for months.[65][66] It's beginning to feel like harassment.
6. I am a productive member of Wikipedia's editing community, including on the firearms topic. The Coordinator of Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms, @Mike Searson:, has repeatedly thanked me for my edits.[67][68]
7. Please don't cast aspersions, like accusations of "gaming the system". I edit in good faith. Please use article talk pages to resolve content disputes rather than just reverting or crying foul. Felsic2 (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

For reference, this is a better way to contest cited material: [69][70] Felsic2 (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Or this: [71][72] Felsic2 (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

As you can see, Felsic is a highly combative editor. He is also totally incompetent on the firearm subject matter. His most recent edit to the Wikipedia:Help desk states...

"Colt currently doesn't sell any products that it calls "AR-15". I'm not aware of any trademark enforcement activities. There are a couple of problems with being unable to write about the generic product. One of the biggest is that many, perhaps the majority, of sources simply refer to the "AR-15". Not the "Colt AR-15" or the "Armalite AR-15" or "AR-15 variant". For example, let's say a source says "The AR-15 is the most popular type of rifle in America." Where do we summarize that source's information? Felsic2 (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)"

Anyone, with even the most basic firearm knowledge know full well that Colt is still selling AR-15s. There is also this thing called the internet where this information can be easily found. Therefore, Felsic is clearly not interested in doing research. Only pushing his POV. I've now change my mind and I am calling for an indefinite block. --RAF910 (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I fixed my mistake after you pointed it out. Felsic2 (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Extra admin eyes

Can I get some admins to watch Draft:Andrew Turner (RAF officer)? The main editor's been ordered/hired to write this article using content plagiarised from the website given in the second decline notice there, and I have no doubt he or someone else will try to do so again as long as that order stands. At present the content (the career and education sections) should be removed. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 07:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The main editor is almsot certainly Andrew Turner himself: see the upload comments on the photograph. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

You'd think an Officer in the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire and member of the Upper Thames Rowing Club would have the sense not to embarrass himself this way. See WP:YOURSELF. EEng 16:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

He's now claiming not to be Andrew Turner despite the comments on the upload page. I also note that his username is an obvious abbreviation of "Air Officer Commanding No 22 Group" which is Andrew Turner's current post. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

In -en-help his words strongly implied that he was a subordinate of Andrew Turner, but not Andrew Turner himself. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Regardless of how this plays out here, it's our front yard so to speak. Anyone have an opinion on the matter? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• Setting aside for the moment the glaring deficiencies on the draft article, the subject almost certainly meets WP:BASIC. So we really should have an article on him. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • G'day, I've added it to my watchlist and completed the revdel. In its current form, though, it is not suitable for inclusion, IMO, and the references do not demonstrate significant coverage as yet. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm sorry if this the draft article did not meet the requirements of review. To clarify a few things, I am trying to add this article on behalf of AVM Turner who is aware that notable (in this case Air Rank) military officers are on Wikipedia and that it represents an interest article for those interested in the RAF. Indeed there is an article for No. 22 Group which cites him as the current commander and currently has a deadend link. I am, however, new to Wikipedia and acknowledge that the comments on the photo I uploaded confused matters somewhat. There is clearly a lot of rigour applied to review of each article, and in haste I have clearly not done everything correctly. I discussed the copyright issues with someone on the Help chat forum and the offending paragraph was removed. I will attempt to rewrite it, however I'm aware that paraphrasing is also not allowed and so I'm not sure how I will do this yet. I would greatly appreciate further advice and assistance to get this article online. I'm not sure what WP:BASIC is? But it seems user Ad Orientem agrees the article should exist. What do I need to do to help this happen? Many thanks in advance for any assistance you can offer.Aoc22gp (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

It has now been speedy deleted, so the discussion is moot. However I agree with Ad Orientem that Turner likely meets WP:BASIC, and it should be possible to create a workable article once some better sourcing has been worked out. Unless people object I would be happy to have a go at doing this, liaising with Aoc22gp where that's helpful for information. Not a top priority for me, but shouldn't take too long. But on a related note, could somebody advise whether Aoc22gp breaches WP:ORGNAME? It would be nice to have that sorted before starting work. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Can someone check these changes in project ratings?

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

---

2600:1002:B120:B553:3CE2:5ECD:263F:6572 (talk · contribs) has been doing nothing but change project ratings. I reverted one that seemed dubious and then noticed that was all the IP had been doing. Doug Weller talk 09:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I checked about a third of them and they seemed correct. What an odd hobby for an IP, though. Does anyone know or recognize this person, who geolocates to Wilmington, Delaware? Softlavender (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, Doug Weller: I now checked the rest of them. I think you caught one of the only two bad ones, [73]; I caught this other bad one [74]. The rest as of this writing are OK. You might want to template their TP about the two bad ones that have been reverted. I don't use twinkly things so I'm not good at that. Softlavender (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

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

SlitherioFan2016 breaching 1-month page ban by editing while logged out

• Motion picture rating system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• SlitherioFan2016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive936#SlitherioFan2016_Socking.2Fedit-warring.2Fusing_misleading_edit_summaries, editor SlitherioFan2016 entered into arrangement with administrator EdJohnston (see [75]) to not edit Motion picture rating system at all for 1 month on October 25, 2016. However, following page protection ending at the article today it appears that SlitherioFan2016 has continued his behavior of editing the article while logged out to reinstate his preferred version of the article:

• Version 1 by SlitherioFan2016 on October 24
• Version 2 by 101.174.152.240 on November 7
• This is the difference between the two versions: [76]

He avoided a block by making an explicit promise to not edit the article for 1 month and he has not honored this pledge. In fact he has carried out the edit logged out in order to evade detection. I appreciate it is not my place to recommend sanctions, but he has clearly abused the trust of an administrator and I think he should serve out the rest of the 1 month period with a block now he has proven he cannot be trusted. Betty Logan (talk) 09:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Betty, you are reporting an edit by an IP that you assume to be SlitherioFan2016. I am restoring the semiprotection on Motion picture rating system. Even if the IP 101.174.152.240 is a different person they should not be reverting while an RfC is in progress. If the RfC is complete, you could ask for it to be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston, you are, in this case, correct. The IP address 101.174.152.240 isn't me! Since I got a sock puppetry investigation last month I have been logged in at all times. SlitherioFan2016 (talk) 07:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Is it just me or did User:EdJohnston not actually say whether he believes the IP was you one way or the other? Unless more evidence surfaces, I think we just have to take your word for it because CU's aren't allowed tell us whether it was you. But that's just my opinion -- if the community, or any random sysop, determines that you were probably logging out to get around your ban, my opinion won't change that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I do have one comment about this situation, however, the IP has not altered the color scheme. The said RfC is concerning color contrasting issues, while the IP just added some notes to the end section of each country on the comparison table. How does that have to do with the color scheme? It does not seem to me that it is affecting the RfC at all. SlitherioFan2016 (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Ellomate

Whoever User:Ellomate is, he:

• Left an odd, insulting, and pointless message on retired editor SchuminWeb's talk page featuring an n-bomb
• When I remonstrated with him about this, he deleted the message and accused me of hating black people
• His user page consists entirely of the legend "smoke weed erryday", which... there's no rule against that, but taken all together, with the previous two bullet points... WP:NOTHERE I would hazard.

Thanking you in advance for your assistance, Herostratus (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• Well he has a little over 900 edits on a diverse range of articles so I doubt this is a case of NOTHERE. And while I am not a fan of the N word in any of its various iterations, its use among the younger generation as an informal way of greeting male friends is pretty well known. I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that absent some other evidence of nefarious activity, this may be a minor overreaction.-Ad Orientem (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that condemning Ellomate's overall record isn't justified by anything posted yet, the edits Herostratus points to are inappropriate. I invite Ellomate to explain himself, or better still, to promise to cut it out. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. A look at some of his edit summaries has also shown a tendency to use salty language. I'm not a prude but one should really reserve expletives for those moments in life when nothing else will quite do. Polite people understand this. But as of right now I'm not seeing anything that rises above questionable taste in expressing oneself. A word of caution about the use of language that some may find objectionable is probably in order. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

It sometimes goes beyond edit summaries. This edit request is pretty salty too. Then there is this self-described prank. It is almost as if two different people are editing. On the whole I would say the contributions are constructive, especially at AfD. Karst (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• • I changed the heading to something neutral. Jehochman ^Talk 22:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jenochman: I've never understood why people do that. It breaks the links in all edit summaries up to that point (which are unchangeable) and alters the context in which the OP meant his/her words to be read (essentially amounting to a violation of WP:TPO). Sure, in some cases there are grievously offensive section titles that should be changed for various reasons, but "Bad Editor of the Day" is not that, and is actually a pretty fair assessment of what this editor turned out to be, and thanks to your edit I didn't even know that that was what Herostratus was trying to call him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The way around that is the anchor template, which I've added. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for giving me this notice. Ellomate _{(questions? talk/consult my lawyer)} 23:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I like what Ad Orientem said. I also agree with what Brad said. Herostratus is wrong though. Overall I say continue the course. Ellomate _{(questions? talk/consult my lawyer)} 23:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't appreciate you doing that. It's not a neutral situation. This is a problem. Leaving aside that it is just incredibly nasty to leave a turd on the page of an editor who retired in 2012, you can't call people nigga here and you don't get a pass for that for X edits. Look, I'm used to getting abuse in the course of give-and-take here. This is different, accusing my own personal self of being a racist and hating black people. This is insupportable.

This is not mere vulgar abuse. This is not calling someone a moron in the course of a heated discussion. This is different. This is a deliberate attempt to hurt people's feelings and sow discord and hatred. This is bad mojo.

Maybe the person is having a bad day or whatever. Maybe he should just get a stern talking to and probation. I'll leave that your-all's professional judgement. He deleted my message, so I've fouled out here. Ball is in your court. I would say "Well, it's okay to throw around 'nigger' and whatever here so we don't need to do anything" is probably not a functional result, is not go for this project, and it won't stand. Herostratus (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I think we should take seriously the question of whether this user is behaving appropriately and should not at least be warned and told to clean up their act. I read through the above and the "over 900 edits" didn't quite square with posting a random message on the talk page of a user who hasn't edited in four years: it turns out Ellomate also has barely edited in that time, as most of his edits date from 2007. Only editing sporadically is not in itself a violation, but it's not like this user is a well-respected member of the community who has been contributing a significant amount of content to the point where the occasional slip in civility can be overlooked. Looking over just a few edit summaries brought up some interesting points:
  • [77] He vandalized an article (admitting that you are playing a "prank" in your edit summary does not negate the fact that pranks are inappropriate).
  • [78] He made an extreme and somewhat offensive theological claim that Roman Catholics aren't Christians.
  • Other than the above vandalism, ever single edit this user has made since reemerging this year (with some other minor exceptions like this bizarre edit) has been related to the Trump presidential campaignDonald Trump, the 2016 U.S. presidential race, or Republican politics.

Even if it could not necessarily be said back in December 2007 (the last time they were ectively editing on anything like a regular basis) that they were NOTHERE, perhaps we should question whether he is NOLONGERHERE. And as the "Catholics aren't Christians" point makes clear, it's not like he was free of blemish even back then.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

It's a minor side-note, but Ellomate's explicitly stating that he thinks Roman Catholics are not Christians is only a slightly more explicit version of something that's actually extremely common in English Wikipedia discussion of Christianity- and Bible-related topics. Using the word "Christians" to refer specifically to Christians who happen to hold a certain theological view that is a minority view in Christianity, such as biblical inerrancy, implicitly states that one believes those who don't hold this view are not Christians. This is one example that sticks in my mind, but this is essentially the same -- by no objective definition of "Christianity" were Marcionites not Christians. This phenomenon is something Wikipedians should be writing about (as I suggested here), but AFAIAC Wikipedians who actually engage in arguments about whether non-inerrantist Christians are "real Christians" on Wikipedia and edit the mainspace with this agenda should probably be TBANned at least. I bring this up here because I think Ellomate was expressing this view when he contrasted Roman Catholics with Christians. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Am surprised at the mild reactions to the edits listed in this thread. Ellomate, please stop causing disruption by a) using offensive language, b) calling other editors racist, and c) making prank edits. Continuing to do any of these will lead to your account being blocked from editing. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• I don't much care if this edit was reverted a few seconds later; if anyone sees Ellomate do anything like this again, let me know and I'll block the little shit indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Yikes. This seems to be a longer-term problem than the OP suggested. I'm now leaning in favor of indeffing, frankly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Pardon my ignorance, but I'm not getting it re that edit - what is its significance beyond being minor vandalism? -- Euryalus (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
      • Triple parentheses Acroterion (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
        • Well, that's particularly offensive. Whatever Ellomate was here for in previous years, on balance their current edits make clear they are not interested in building the encyclopedia. Blocked indefinitely, but will leave this thread open in case anyone disagrees or has other views. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) That is something I did not know. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I am now inclined to treat this much more seriously. There is no rule that says bigots can't edit here, but I will be dipped if they will be allowed to bring their gutter level opinions onto the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support Level 4 Warning against inappropriate editing broadly construed, with the understanding that any further nonsense of this sort will result in an indef block no matter how far in the future. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• There are too many problems/questions with this user. Ellomate needs to come here and answer some questions. Absent that, indef and move on. I'm seeing very little argument for not blocking at this point. And we need to find out the connection with STATicVapor. (See below.) I've dropped an ANI notice on their talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• Why is User talk:STATicVapor linked in Ellomate's signature? Pinguinn 🐧 00:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

This also is odd. I've never seen anything like that. It must signify an alternate account maybe? Which again, while not necessarily strictly forbidden, for this person is another bad sign... if it's not an alternate account, I'd have to wonder what the deal is... we'd have to ask User:STATicVapor I guess (we can't assume he knows about this), but STATicVapor hasn't edited since early 2015. Herostratus (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

By the way, this whole incident provides further support for my (apparently unpopular) theory that fascism and antisemitism are on a rise on English Wikipedia. A user is brought to ANI for disruptive grave-dancing and some other users come to his defense by taking AGF a bit too far, then shortly afterward it turns out he was inserting neo-Nazi dog-whistles into the mainspace. This is pretty much the exact same thing as happened with Zaostao and KAvin last month. I have some ideas as to why it's suddenly bubbling up right now, and while I don't want to elaborate the hints are there in Ellomate's recent edit history. I'm not sure what we can do to tackle it, but it seems increasingly clear that it's there, and will keep getting worse for at least the next day or so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support indef block - Judging by the evidence presented, I think it's clear this user is being intentionally disruptive and an indef block is definitely in order. Parsley Man (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support Block and removal of talk page access based on the current unblock request. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
• The user's page says "smoke weed erryday" [sic] which probably explains some things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

That would depend on whether he considered this edit to be pro- or anti-Trump. I personally think Ellomate holds to some form of Christian fundamentalism (see above), which, if he is American, means he probably votes Republican and supports Trump, which in turn means that the edit was almost certainly not meant to be taken as anti-Trump, and that means that Ellomate opposes recreational marijuana. That's a lot of "if"s, but I think it holds up. I think their userpage is just trolling, and was almost certainly just meant as a reference to the Dr. Dre single The Next Episode. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• Indef Block, based on the triple parenthes issue. No one who actually does that is *ever* going to use it as a joke. Its knowledge that is only known by three groups - racists, their targets, and on wikipedia the people who remove it. Since it is unlikely he is the second or third group (I like to think no real Jew would tag another Jew that way) it is clear it was done as a racist attack on Sanders. And I have zero tolerance for that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
• Note This disruptive edit also looks like Ellomate, given that his "appeal" on his talk page also complained about how he was blocked without warning, and the opening of a random AN thread and the language both look like more of the same trolling that has already pointed out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
• This edit looks typical of the ref desk neo-Nazi troll, a banned user. It targets the same admins who often revert and block that troll. Whether the guy behind that IP is technically the same guy that's behind Ellomate, at heart they're the same guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
• I was going to say that this was probably the account of some silly kid with too much weed and some unorthodox political views. But the triple parenthesis thing pushes the account from "good faith" into "trolling". Support the indef block. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC).

• Their reasoning that an extension can cause the triple parenthesis isn't wrong. See this, however, it's an extra nail in the coffin because only those who know what it's for would deliberately use it. Blackmane (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

User:129.127.32.9

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

---

This IP's behavior needs review. They are adding controversial additions to articles, and reverting with uncollaborative edit summaries: [79] [80][81][82][83][84]

I think a longer term block is needed. I would do it myself, but I reverted one of the additions. --Rschen7754 07:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, they have started discussing, but I think further monitoring is needed since this is disruptive behavior across several subject areas. --Rschen7754 08:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Someone should definitely advise the IP on WP:AGF. Parsley Man (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Use of page curation by Tiven2240

Tiven2240 has recently been using the page curation tool to make a series of tags/reviews that I would characterize as not being a careful use of the tool. I see several incorrect BLPPRODs [85], [86],[87], [88] (last one the tag was removed by Tiven2240 after placement). Tiven has also placed other tags on several articles that don't fit the issue described [89], [90], and in the first case linked, unreviewed the article that I had PRODed. Other users have noted these issues on the user talk page, and while I think this is well intentioned, it is also a disruptive use of the curation tool that the recent changes to that permission were intended to prevent. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I left a request on their talk page asking them to voluntarily stop using the tool, gain some experience and then look for a mentor. I hope they'll take the advice but if they don't we can take measures.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is another example of Tiven2240's incorrect/careless use of Page Curation. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 14:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I was bringing it here because it seemed to me that they might have been grandfathered into the usergroup for reviewers before making these patrols, but what I find interesting is that from what I can tell, they aren't in the reviewer group so shouldn't be able to mark pages as patrolled/reviewed to begin with. This seems like a technical problem to me. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: & @Sphilbrick:: I'm on my phone so can't quickly check whether they've been 'grandfathered' - but as it stands (until Thursday if my memory serves me right - Xaosflux might be able to confirm?) any autoconfirmed user can still access Page Curation & mark pages as patrolled. Once the patch is deployed, they will no longer technically be able to do this without an application at WP:PERM/NPR if not already grandfathered in. Mike1901 (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Mike1901 Tiven2240 has not been added to the new group, so will currently loose this access along with everyone else once phase 2 of the patch is processed. The "grandfathering" process is still a mess, see WT:NPR for more discussion on that. Tiven2240 is not on current outstanding lists to be processed, so right now would be expected to apply at WP:PERM if desired. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I confess I wasn't sure whether anyone could use the tools or one had to have a certain status to use the tool, but part of my reason for making my request voluntary is that I think in many cases of suboptimal editing activity, the best first option is to request a voluntary change in approach while they get up to speed with the right protocol and only if that fails should we institute more coercive responses.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense. When the second phase of the patch roles out, it won't be an issue, and hopefully your warning will do the trick until then. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Tiven2240 has continued to use the Page Curation tool and has insisted that "after a long study of how to use the tool I have come to know how to use it properly". I've followed up with a sterner message, telling Tiven2240 to stop doing page curation or face a block (with an explanation of why they should stop). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

...and has, since Boing's warning, created a new page which is an obvious copyvio. I've posted a follow-up response on their Talk, encouraging them to take BsZ's advice on board. Mike1901 (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Graph database

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

---

• Tmobii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Graph database (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, there's an edit war at Graph database with User:Tmobii continually adding material into the article. This editor also uses a variety of IP Addresses such as 72.2.235.253, 172.56.7.186, 172.56.6.25, 12.125.215.110, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/172.250.202.176 172.250.202.176], etc. Before Tmobii set up a login account, I requested that the article is protected so that only registered users could edit. During that time, the article was stable, no edits were made, but neither was Tmobii interested in discussing on the Talk page. The heart of the dispute is a content distpute where Tmobii insists that a product that he is associated with is notable enough for inclusion in the list in the article, despite a number of editors disagreeing including User:Kgfleischmann, User:Michaelmalak and User:Mark viking. I'm not sure of the next step - a temporary block may not be very effective as this editor seems to travel a lot and can therefore edit from lots of IP addresses without logging in, as they have demonstrated already. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I've semiprotected Graph database. If User:Tmobii continues to make this addition without having consensus for it on the talk page you might report again. His arguments for notability don't seem to be based on Wikipedia policy. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I generally steer clear of AN/I, but agree with HighKing on all the points they made above. --Mark viking (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Jean-Michel and his team

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

---

Jean-Michel and his team is an article about "a controversial Evangelical-oriented new religious movement founded in 1975". User:Christof Bucherer has made a succession of edits including phrases in the article such as:-
"this is not a fair comparison, since we here in Switzerland are not in America, where everything is big, Hamburgers are big, people are big"[91]
"My main criticism here is, that.. " "Tell me which American person is interested to read these French authors!?"[92]
"Such an article about a person for his religeous beliefs in Switzerland is forbidden. (The Racism Penal Code Art. 261 bis StGB, against their 1. race, 2. ethnic belonging or 2. religion)" [93]
"You removed my viewpoint without discussion. It is on my server and in the internet in Google search engine and does not throw a good light on en.Wikipedia-org. Jean Michel is on facebook and you can query to him personally. He is informed by me and is happy relieved about my action! I will delete this article from the server, if you don't do yourselves. Since Jean Michel has not the time to draw you to Swiss court!"[94]

I do not know if this is seen as a legal threat? There are several such rants and, despite pointing out that comments and discussion take place on the Talk page, he has continued to paste his opinions on the talk article page. - Arjayay (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

References

You mean "he has continued to paste his opinions in the article itself". MPS1992 (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

After careful re-reading of the comments, my conclusion is that this is not a legal threat -- even though it reads very like one! Instead, the user is threatening to do something that they are unable to do, namely delete the Wikipedia article, in a bizarre belief that it is on "their" server.

We should call their bluff and invite them to go ahead with magically deleting an article without being an administrator. Is there some sort of protection we can put on the article that will allow others, but not them, to edit? Then they will have to go to the talk page.

At the same time we should also consider WP:DOLT, since Jean-Michel is apparently alive? Some BLP-relevant statements in the article look unsourced or weakly sourced. MPS1992 (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

This is ironical: "since Jean-Michel is apparently alive"! First of all, you have a problem with spelling right, his name is Jean Michel, secondly I did not state my opinion today, but delivered Jean Michels response in French (since he is not so good in English). I already earlier stated, that according to Swiss law it is an offence of what you are doing! According to Swiss law (where the movement took place), it is customary, that a contrary opinion of the mentioned person should be published, so, that everyone may judge by himself who is right. But what you are doing, is authoritarian and not democratic. I thought, you live in a democratic country, if I may assume, that you are from America. If I cite our Swiss laws, it means, that you should respect them. They are not a legal threat, since I don't have the time and the means to go to court with any author here. You mention, that I discussed issues on the article page. Yes, I did, but this mainly only in my second posting, because nobody seemed to take notice! I don't believe that the article is on my server, for this reason I have put it on mine and into Google! I can delete this page and in minutes you are going to reinstall the former version, if it is not your computer who does it! So, don't think I am stupid! But I say and keep on saying, that you have not one single link in English! Who of you only-English-speakers are going to understand what these pages or videos say! I was very amused about the old video you are presenting. But I doubt, that you are even aware of it that you do that! You don't understand, what is being said in the video and you presumably don't know enough French to even find it on that server! This makes me laugh! --Christof Bucherer (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• There are so many issues here I don't know where to begin. I suppose WP:CIR would cover a lot though. Clearly this editor does not understand what Wikipedia is or how we operate. Until that changes their editing, at least on this topic, is likely to continue to be disruptive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Ad Orientem here. There is a fundamental misunderstanding in Christof Bucherer in how things work. @Christof Buchere:, you need to have a solid read of WP:RS, that's first. Second, you need to read WP:CONSENSUS. What is legal or illegal according to Swiss law is completely inapplicable here because the Foundation servers, where Wikipedia is hosted, are housed in the US, therefore US law supersedes Swiss Law. If you are able to prove that there are Foundation servers in Switzerland, then your comment may apply, but that is not the case. The article is housed on the servers and not on anyone's hard drive, although editors are free to keep copies of their hard drive if they so wish. When an article is deleted, it is not completely removed from the servers, it is rendered invisible to regular editors but administrators are still able to view the deleted versions so they can undelete the article, i.e make visible, in the event a community discussion concludes that this should be done. English links and sources are perfectly valid sources to use, as long as they are reliable. As long as someone has checked that the content verifies the statement being entered into the article, then a non English source is valid.

In summary, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding on some of the applicable policies. Given how young your account here is, this is not surprising. It would be advisable to read up on a variety of the governing policies here. Some leeway is given to new accounts, but continuing to behave the way you are now is disruptive and you will find the administrators will be quick to act on that. Blackmane (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• I blocked Christof Bucherer due to serious NPOV issues but also because he flat out denies having written The Decisive Hour of Christian Missions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a spam article, but the logs show that he did indeed create it at 21:27 on October 16, 2016. This is a WP:CIR issue as well as NPOV and promotion. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

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

FactCheckkerr / FactCheckkerrr

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

---

The user FactCheckkerr (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) / FactCheckkerrr (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) is editing on Kathy Shelton in a way that makes clear that they are not here to contribute. The user (who I assume is not intentionally socking but rather has forgotten their password) is edit warring by repeatedly adding in material that is original research and (as least potentially) not relevant to the article ([95], [96], [97], [98]). Attempts to resolve the issue on the talk page have ... broken down. agtx 19:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• Both blocked. Please advise any further socks. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Apparent sourcing flaw in featured article ignored, possible retributive action instead

Pointed out a long-standing sourcing flaw at the top of a featured psychiatric article - no response whatsoever for weeks. Well except coincidentally within days a (misinformed) attack on an old contribution of mine on another psychiatric article.

What to do about that sort of thing? Details upon request. Eversync (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

When you edit the page, the edit notice clearly said "Also, please provide links and diffs here to involved pages and editors.". That's a request for details. This page is only for specific incidents, not for general enquiries about "that sort of thing". -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 22:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I know that really, but then where might I get any info or reassurance about how that sort of thing (likely involving multiple linked editors) might be dealt with, before risking getting mired in the details? Eversync (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

If you want to have a general chat, use the village pump. If you think this is a dispute, use dispute resolution (which also requires specifics). But really, if you have a disagreement with other users, you have to discuss that with them. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 23:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks I'll try the village pump first. It's not so much a disagreement as nothing's actually been explicitly disagreed with in the end. Eversync (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@EverSince: WP:SOFIXIT might be of use, too. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree but there comes a point where long-term lack of collaborative editing (due to systemic bias or failure to assume good faith) becomes the bigger sticking point for continued involvement in the encyclopedia. Eversync (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Mass additions of banners to flag articles

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

---

Trylie (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) is adding unhelpful banners to a great number of flag articles (such as [99] [100] [101]). The edit summaries are effectively meaningless and attempts to reach the user on their talk page have been ignored. agtx 23:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Agtx: I was unaware of your report when I reverted the addition of the 'new' template on the 'Flag of Ukraine' article. Would you like me to revert the outstanding additions before other editors add to the articles. At the rate the user is going, it will probably be too late for a mass rollback. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Probably not a bad idea. Since the user isn't responding, I feel ok calling it vandalism and starting to rollback. agtx 23:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Between us, it's done for the moment. It appears that the user has also created (or used?) at least one other account as Meatydog (talk · contribs) per this edit. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

There's something seriously WP:NOTHERE about the user. All notifications are being ignored and deleted from their talk page, and the editor is having strange interactions with him/herself here and here. Could it be a WP:COMPETENCE issue? Whatever the problem is, it's getting extremely disruptive and drawing in more and more editors + refactoring this thread on the noticeboard here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Meatydog, with Trylie as a sock puppet (since the oldest edit was by Meatydog on October 31). Shearonink (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Trylie's Flag Templates... I have no exact idea where to report the preceding "personalized" category, but seems like it should be reported somewhere. Shearonink (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Probably at WP:CFD. Blackmane (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Found a little sockfarm there. All blocked now, awaiting tags once the SPI clerking is done. Thanks all. Katie^talk 02:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Blackmane: Yeah, I had thought of that, but then it seemed to me that if the creator is a sock then their various creations might need a speedy rather than a discussion... Shearonink (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Looking through CFD and CSD, I can't really see how these categories would normally qualify, but, that being said, I don't see why they couldn't just be deleted on the rationale that an indef blocked sockmaster created them. Blackmane (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:G5 @Blackmane:? Correct me if mistaken, but Gs (G1, G2, G3 etc) can cover anything, be it, page, category or talk? MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 18:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

oh good find! There was a feeling in the back of my mind that there had to be a criterion for it. Blackmane (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Alexis Ivanov

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

---

About a month ago, I blocked Alexis Ivanov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for one month for personal attacks at Talk:Mohamed Elneny against Qed237. Ivanov's previous block for disruption in January was for two weeks, and based on his previous trips here to ANI (here, here, here, and here) I felt one month was a proper escalation, designed solely to stop continuing attacks and disruption to the encyclopedia. LouisAragon did ask me about it (rather than rehash those diffs of personal attacks here, I'll simply point to that section), and I was happy to explain. Ivanov did not appeal the block during its duration.

Now that the block has expired, however, he can't drop the stick. He started a section on my talk page asking about the block, which is fine, of course. I pointed him to my explanation to LouisAragon, said I have nothing to add to that, because I don't, and suggested he bring it here for review (as I did to LouisAragon shortly after I placed the block).

That's not good enough for Ivanov, apparently, because he's insisting I've 'wronged' him. He's leaving message after message on my talk saying basically the same thing over and over, and his tone is becoming louder and more shrill. I don't normally take issue with this kind of thing, but his style of address to me ("Miss Katie") is condescending and designed to intimidate, particularly given his comment that "you just don't know how angry you made me." The block has expired, he didn't appeal it while it was in place, and I'm not sure what solution he wants.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant, so rather than keep this all on my talk page, and since he will not bring it here as I have advised him to do, I'm doing it myself. Did I abuse my discretion as an administrator? Katie^talk 10:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

1 month is well within discretion for an escalating block for the same issues as previously. With the only real argument against it that their previous block was in January - so you could have chosen a lesser length and no one would have batted an eye either. As civility is an ongoing issue with the editor (as evidenced by the multiple ANI requests) you could probably have blocked longer and still justified it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Good block Katie - seen the messages on your talk, and frankly if a blunt stop it (after some tremendous patience!) doesn't get them to drop it, I'm not really sure what will. @Alexis Ivanov: what exactly is is you'd like to see happen here? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Good block. He definitely needs to drop the stick. `Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Yep, the block is sound. Now he just needs to be reblocked on the grounds of WP:BATTLEGROUND. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: Indeed Samtar it was a good block, there is no excuse for my action as you can see with the lack of appeal, I have issue that the other user was not blocked, I also have issue with the way Katie misrepresented my views as an instigator, and painted me as a common vandal and using the block log as some form of criminal report. I also have issue with the lack of warning and her inability to communicate with me after the block occurred. So you can understand why I'm furious. @Jauerback: I'm not carrying any stick, I'm in position of powers, looking for answers and having justice to be served after you have been wronged is not carrying a stick with all due respect to you. @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I don't know what to stay to that, you want me to get reblocked based on what? Should I keep my mouth shut to satisfy you? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Alexis Ivanov: (edit conflict × 2) I think it would be fair to say everyone can understand a level of frustration which would be caused by the situation - Katie has, however, explained her reasoning here. I believe the explanation can be boiled down to the fact that we do not use blocks as a form of punishment. Do you agree that blocking Qed would have just been punitive? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

1. Your block log is relevant when you have been blocked for the same issues. Its the basis of the escalating block system. It *is* a report of your misbehaviour and it is entirely justified to refer to it when you have been blocked previously for the same misbehaviour.

2. Blocks are preventative not punitive. Katie was entirely justified in blocking the party who was continuing the disruption, rather than one who had ceased.

3. You have had plenty of warnings previously. When you have been blocked for violating policy, it is not required to specifically warn you if you repeat the behaviour that led to the block.

4. Katie has accounted for her block per WP:ADMINACCT. She gave you a response both promptly and civilly.

5. Generally at this point yes, it would be best if you did keep your mouth shut *for your own good* as there is unlikely to be any pleasant outcome of this thread for you.

So to sum up, you were blocked, Katie explained why you were blocked. The lack of blocking on anyone else is irrelevant to *your* block, WP:DROPTHESTICK. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

1. Yes my block is relevant, but the time period was very harsh and cruel. It was too long, you have said it yourself, my last block was in January. And I have never been blocked since, even with the amount of ANIs that have proved nothing against me or else admins would have blocked me. I don't like how Katie is using my block log as way to block me, on top of that, when QED called her to block me, he called her for Vandalism. Apples and Oranges.

2. I had ceased already when Mr.Douts advised me to drop it, QED instigating me and came back to the talk page, I had to reply, yet I'm the bad guy in her picture. She posted three evidence, and I brought right back three other evidence to show that QED was the one instigating and continuing the drama. Totally unfair how she treated me.

3. I have never received any warning from her of an imminent block.

4. She never gave me a response, you can go back to my talk page, I didn't remove anything, even before I was thinking of appeal, I was thinking why hasn't the other party being blocked for the same thing I was blocked for. She didn't respond, so I had no faith in any appeal or any accountability. She can wield her power as much as she want with no accountability, that is what it seemed like. And if you are talking about a response to another user as she has stated before, that doesn't count, because I have my own questions I raised different than other users. She didn't respect me in that regard. A total slap in my face.

5. I would rather stand up and voiced my concern than shut up, it is blatant disregard to other users, if they can't acquire answers from the admins. And at the end of the day she is going to use my block log again to paint me a negative image so my case will not be furthered.

6. Why are you speaking in her behalf, her explanation were minuscule and lacked detail. The lack of blocking towards other party, is very much RELEVANT to my case, as it is clear Katie sided with one party when they called her up to block me without any warning. That is what happened, the other party went to the vandalism page and notified any admin to block me, and she just did, with no warning and no communication, so I hope you understand my frustration in that regard. I was personally attacked by the other party and they were never blocked, how is that not blatant double standard, even another user saw that double standard and questioned Katie's misguided conduct towards me.

7. I just don't understand how Wikipedia:DROPTHESTICK is relevant in this case. First of all where is the natural end? second how do you identify a winner or looser if a user wants answers from an admin. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll offer an opinion just on that last point. If people put their disputes behind them and everyone gets back to editing, Wikipedia is the winner. But if people carry on arguing way past the point of anything constructive, Wikipedia is the loser. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

*Note For information, the 'discussion' continues on Qed237's talk page. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion at my talkpage is currently civil without any attacks, despite our history, and is now more a discussion about an unrelated article. I would not at this point see it as a part of this discussion or that this discussion is continuing on my talkpage as the editor has not talked anything about his recent block. Qed237 (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Alexis Ivanov: Obviously I am involved and see this from my point of view, but I will offer my view to you and perhaps it may give you some answers. I am not interested in arguing with you so if that happens I will stop editing this discussion, but of course if you are respectful I can answer questions. Are you interested in my answers so I should take the time and write them down? Qed237 (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: You can do what you want, nobody is holding you back. Feel free to write. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay then, I just dont want to make the situation worse.

1. If you look at Wikipedia:Blocking policy and especially the Duration of blocks-section you can see that one of the things for admins to consider is whether the user has engaged in that behavior before, which is why the block log is used. Also it states incidents of disruptive behavior typically result in blocks of from a day to a few days, longer for persistent violations; (my bolding) and seeing that your most recent block was for two weeks, it is reasonable (and standard) that the next block is one month. Most likely if you would resort to personal attacks again, the standard (from what I have seen) is 3 months next time (depending on the severity of the attack). The block length are almost always escalated for repeated offense so you having 31hours followed by 1 weeks, 2 weeks and 1 month is normal.

2. User:Douts told us both to drop this now on 19:36, 3 October 2016. but at that time the report had already been filed for calling me incompetent and for "Quid" (diff) after a final warning for personal attacks (diff) and the fact that I had told you to not call me "Quid" (diff) The final warning was for incorrectly calling me a "teenager" with hormone issues (diff) (I am far from it) and there was no evidence that you had stopped, instead you continued (diff) even when you were at AIV. There was no indication of you stopping.

3. You dont have to be warned before being blocked, WP:BEFOREBLOCK, but as proven above you had been given a final warning as well as being blocked previously for it so you should have known a block was possible. The person activating the block has no responsibility to warn you first, given the history and previous warnings. It was evident that you have (or should have) an understanding not to do personal attacks.

4. She never responded to you at your talkpage so I understand that you asked here at her talkpage, but then she did answer you by likning to a discussion where she explained herself. That is more than enough.

5. When a discussion is not likely to improve it is best to drop the stick and move on, User:KrakatoaKatie made it clear she wont answer more and that you should go here, then do it instead of keep harrassing here at her talkpage. Your block length was reasonable (motivation above in 1.).

6. KrakatoaKatie made it very clear that she had already given an explanation (which you obviously are not happy with), so others are just trying to help by answering your questions. They dont have to, so be thankful that they take their time to do this.

7. It is relevant to be able to just let things go sometimes. There is always questions in life that never will get answered.

Finally, regarding the diffs you provided of me ([102], [103], [104]), the first one was a response to you saying "Good job son." (I am not your son) as well as the teenager comment (see above). The second one is an advice, seeing you keep on with personal attacks and with your history someday you will get blocked. The last diff I can not understand what was wrong with it. Qed237 (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Alexis Ivanov: There you go. Qed237 (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

1. My recent block before Katie's block was more than 8 months ago. So let me get this straight of this arbitrary rule, if I commit a mistake in the next decade I should for example be blocked 2 months?? How is that not harsh punishment? And you say "Most likely if you would resort to personal attacks again" and why would I do that, you have done the same thing you walked scot-free after making a deal with Katie, that is my main issue, and the secondary issue is the lack of warning, and no communication between the user and the admin.

2. "and there was no evidence that you had stopped" That is your first lie right there, with all due respect, at 1:30 I left the discussion and drama with no intention in coming back but less than 4 and half hours later you came back instigating me and I had to reply back to protect my image and honor. You had to put the oil in the fire because of a matter that occurred before 1:30 the time I left on third of October. In fact if Katie was wise and smart she would have blocked you. I made intention clear to douts. You are the one that revived it, regardless of if you put up warning or a report. So please I urge you not to lie. There was indeed a clear indication of me leaving the matter.

3. I wasn't given any warning of imminent block or any warning of an admin with the ability to block. Even hypothetically if that was true that Katie couldn't give me any warning, she could have at least acted like a decent human being and communicated back to me when I pinged her in my talk page to understand why you were not blocked yourself. I had to suffer through humiliation and anger because of her action. And now she says I should have appealed? Appeal to where, it would have fallen on deaf ears.

4. My inquiry in her talk-page was 30 days, it was my first action I believe after being blocked, she never responded to my question 30 days earlier in my talk page, a complete sign of disrespect. Her answer was weak and lacked detail as I have said before and she also misrepresented me, her incompetency was shown by another user, I was surprised seeing that, but I believe I have the ability to ask questions and recieve the answers by myself, and not only that I asked questions that was no raised in that discussion, dodging me yet again.

5. It is not being improved because the other party is hiding from me. And once I called them out for their mistake they will not re-appear and yell harassment at my ear. So let me get this, ask a question to an admin and if you receive no answer, just shut up and act like nothing happened. I can't do that.

6. I'm not thankful, I'm very angry how she treated me. She never answered anything instead she brought her lawyers and backers to back her up.

7. Yes it seems I have to let go, and accept the system is corrupt. Maybe in the future I will find way for Katie to pay for her crimes. (edit: by bringing it high-level admins to talk to her, some of you are insinuating dark thoughts.)

8. On the first diff, I was congratulating on updating the infobox and gave you props. Son was not a literal term. The second diff was because of your threat in the Elneny page and in my talk page. The third diff was because you called my edit disruptive, yet they stand tall now in the page now, thanks to me. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Dude, just drop it, before you actually get arrested...TJH2018talk 17:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Arrested by who? Drop what? Who are you to talk to me ? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Alexis Ivanov: Possibly this: 'I will find way for Katie to pay for her crimes'- What the F do you MEan by that??? _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It means get a higher level admin to talk to her, what do you think it means. As of now this ANI is waste of time and unproductive. Not only that she is not participating. She basically tricked me into hanging around here and talking to her backers. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

If you want to file an Arbcom case, that page is right here. You're continuing this nonsense on my talk page, saying I tricked you somehow into getting people to back me when I practically pleaded with you to start this process yourself. As I said before, you have good contributions to make here, but I'm becoming tired of these accusations and threats, the IDHT behavior, and your intransigence. Please stop before you get indefinitely blocked. Katie^talk 18:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I was in no rush to start an ANI, I was giving you a time to think about it. How can I make a contribution when I have a block log that says I was blocked for one month, and the other party was never blocked, I received a cruel and unusual punishment, while the other party walked freely. Yes you actually tricked me, I received no viable answers and wasted my time, while you abandoned ship. IDHT requires you to make a strong point, you failed to do that, how many Wikipedia guidelines are you going to get from your pocket ??? And now you are threatening me with an "indefinitely block" so I can be silent and suffer through humiliation once again. Ask the admin questions and you might get blocked, good precedence. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Note I've instructed Alexis Ivanov to stop pinging KrakatoaKatie, and stop leaving messages on her talk page. If it continues, I will block. I don't care if they continue posting to this thread seeking other people's opinion on the block (and the lack of a block on QED), but WP:ADMINACCT has been satisfied. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Yes thank you for the threat, I will make sure not to cross your line and follow your order diligently. When was "WP:ADMINACCT" satisfied ? I don't see no jury or judge ? I see her friends and backers, Katie can do no wrong right, is that correct sir? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

No, that is not correct, but I'll need you to ask specific, non-rhetorical questions if you want an actual answer to something. "Katie can do no wrong right, is that correct sir?" is something you "ask" when you're angry and want to vent, not if you're seeking information. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm seeking information, but when there are friends and backers protecting her, it seems from an outsider perspective that she can make no mistake. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

There are no such things as juries and judges here (well there's ArbCom, but this issue wont get to them). There are no "higher level admins" here, we're all the same, and sometimes we agree and sometimes we don't. Pretty much every admin would have blocked you in the situation; some might have blocked Qed237 as well, and some might not have. Katie didn't, another admin might have. If you'd submitted an unblock appeal at the time, some admins might have unblocked you, although I suspect most wouldn't. But now you are going to achieve nothing here - we clearly are not going to block Qed237 a month after the fact, Katie is not going to face any sanctions (because the block was reasonable, as you admit yourself), so I don't understand what admin action you are asking for. What I do see, though, is that you are getting more and more angry, and I worry that eventually you'll say something that leads an admin to look at your previous block log and think "do we need this?". That's not what I (or anyone else) wants, so I'll just say now - please drop it. Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It's good that Katie blocked me, I would have blocked myself if I was in her shoes, I just think the second party should have been blocked also, that is my main and primary concern. If QED will not be blocked since he is being protected by Katie and her friends, excellent, and if Katie is not going to face sanctions which is excellent too, we all love some corruption here and there, well at least remove the one month unjustified block that I had. Also before the thought of appealing I asked Katie a question and she ignored me, I suspect no sanction or punishment for her, she can utilize her power as she wants I guess. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Alexis Ivanov, blocks cannot be "removed". You've had your say, repeatedly; time to move on. Tiderolls 19:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Alexis Ivanov: As said above, you have had your say and many other editors have answered. It was not the answer you wanted and further discussion will not make it the answer you want. You now have three choices before you; 1) drop it, move on and forget about it 2) be angry, let it fester and become bitter about it, seek revenge or whatnot and ultimately get blocked forever 3) continue arguing here until your anger overflows and you get blocked. I strongly suggest you choose #1 and request this thread be closed. This is Wikipedia and nothing is important enough here to justify your ongoing bitterness. Jbh^Talk 19:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Polemic after block for personal attacks

Requesting a longer block for User:JuanRiley. His talk page edits since last block for personal attacks have consisted of a laundry list of complaints against the same editor the personal attacks were against. The point of all this is to prove that User:N0n3up was wikihounding JuanRiley, and therefore all the personal attacks were OK. This is a violation of WP:POLEMIC, and evidence that JuanRiley doesn't get why he was blocked, i.e. WP:NOTTHEM, WP:IDHT. Much of this content isn't even diffs that could be useed in a dispute; rather it's more taunts and name calling against N0n3up on JuanRiley's talk page, which is exactly what he was blocked for the first time. A longer block is necessary as a final warning to either help build an encyclopedia, or cease editing altogether. JuanRiley appears to be here to carry on personal grudges, not build an encyclopedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I do not say anywhere that N0n3ups's actions excuse my "personal atacks". I am merely listing on my talk page facts. Which no one has to read. Indeed I asked several admin's (I think) that were involved in my block whether this list was a personal attack.Juan Riley (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Your talkpage is for other editors to communicate with you. It is not for compiling lists of anything. See WP:UP. Further, at least regarding the last ANI you were involved in, the edits you characterized as personal attacks were in fact not personal attacks, yet you continue to characterize them as such. I'm not an admin, and do not even play one on TV, but that would be enough for me to block you if I were. Calling an edit by another editor a personal attack, after you have been told by numerous other editors that it is not, is in itself a personal attack. Do everyone, but mostly yourself, a favor and just delete that junk. It has no use in furthering your editing at Wikipedia. John from Idegon (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

With respect John, I do not understand. Where do I call an edit by another editor a personal attack? Juan Riley (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I see now that was the title of the ANI section you apparently copied? So I struck that. The rest stands. Talk pages are for communications, not compiling evidence or whatever it is you are doing. If that was an attempt at communicating with the editors linked in the intro, it failed. Pings do not work unless you sign your edit and that isn't signed. Best advice is to delete it. If you want to copy it onto your computer, that's your business...but keeping lists like that in a place where they can be easily seen (a talk page qualifies as that) is in violation of both the policy I cited above and the one Dennis cited. Just lose it and we all can go home. John from Idegon (talk) 05:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

This list is inappropriate and serves as nothing more than to agitate the user accused of the behavior. If the list is not removed, I suggest another block and an administrative removal of the list. -- Dane2007 ^talk 07:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• @JuanRiley: Regarding the "I asked several admin's" (sic), you mentioned a few of us but didn't send any pings, and I didn't get the message (it's possible I missed it). But now that I know, and as you want my opinion specifically, yes, your userpage accumulation of complaints about another editor is a clear violation of WP:POLEMIC (see "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed"). And even if you tried to word the list itself without attacks, your nasty heading is very much an attack. So remove it all, or it will be removed for you. And if you'll take some advice, drop your campaign of complaints against User:N0n3up and move on, as it will not turn out well for you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• I have just seen this edit made after that polemic section was posted, in which JuanRiley says "Also am seeing if I can parlay a week block into an indefinite one". So this has been deliberate provocation all along, and I have obliged with the indefinite block he seems to want. I will now remove the polemic. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that an editor's talkpage is his/her castle. As long as JuanRiley does not continue to ping others, then there's no need for an indef ban. IMHO, we're sometimes too quick to zap away editors. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism noticed

I have noticed repeated vandalism occurring on the page List of current heads of state and government Please restore it to its correct version. Thanks Edknol (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I see only one blatent diff of vandalism on November 9th for that article and it looks fine as it currently sits. -- Dane2007 ^talk 07:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Edknol: If a case is only with regards to Vandalism and nothing more, then in the future, you should consider taking the matter to WP:AIV per the rules stated there, as ANI is for more difficult situations. (If any experienced editor disagrees, please correct me.)

As for Vandalism on the article. I see a vandalism attack by User:Mattyhain on there of about 8 edits, and one vandalism edit by a 98.253 IP, so not exactly one to take to WP:RFPP yet. MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 20:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

User talk:98.167.185.72

98.167.185.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has made a series of disruptive edits over at Portal:Current events/2016 November 9, I have tried twice telling them to take the issue to the talk-page but they keep insisting on "media bias".

Warnings given:

1. [105]
2. [106]

This editor has already undid multiple editor's contribs. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

All you have shown is you have warned them. How about a diff to the actual disruption? John from Idegon (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

All you have to do is look at Portal:Current events/2016 November 9.

• 1. [107]
• 2. [108]
• 3. [109]
• 4. [110]

To name a few. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I actually came here to report them, myself, and found this. Looking at their contributions; it's roughly half reverts of the same material; material that was added by multiple contributors. They are going against consensus, and have ignored polite requests to take note of the three-reversion rule. Their editing is disruptive and continuous, and they are accusing all who disagree with them of 'sockpuppetry', which I believe is a breach of good faith.

Diffs: (From most recent, as of this post.)

[111]

[112]

[113]

[114]

[115]

[116]

[117]

[118]

[119]

[120]

I believe that is all of them. As is shown in the diffs, they've reverted the same or similar material ten times.

Icarosaurvus (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I just want to point out that an IP starting Wikipedia for the first time pointing out things like socks is suspicious. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It is suspicious, but it also is edit warring. Everything does not need to be at ANI. This should have been filed at WP:ANEW. It is pretty blatant, so perhaps a passing admin will dole out a block. It is suspicious, but without a clue as to who the master is, a SPI is pointless. John from Idegon (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment This user was just given a 48 hour block per this edit: [121] (Arb enforcement sanctions). I feel we can all move on now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment As of this edit [122], the article in question has semi-protected status for the period of one week. Further, an Active Arbitration Warning has been applied to the page, stating that the 1RR guideline for post-1932 American Politics s in effect. Hopefully, these things together will solve the issue definitively. Icarosaurvus (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The Great Meme War speedy deletion contested 50+ times

Earlier today, The Great Meme War was created and tagged for speedy deletion under CSD A11 and G3. It has since been contested over 50 times and is showing no signs of stopping. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)