Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

  • Do not report breaches of privacy, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • To report a threat of violence, suicide, etc., click here.
  • If you're just plain confused, ask at the Teahouse.
  • To report persistent vandalism or spamming, click here.
  • To challenge deletion click here.
  • To request page protection, click here.
  • To report edit warring, click here.
  • To report suspected sockpuppetry, click here.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user here:
  • Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster responses.
  • If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, click here.

Closed discussions should not usually be archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

WP:NOTHERE editor using an article's talk page as WP:FORUM[edit]

Hi, this user is using Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis like a WP:FORUM. first i answered him with sources but he does not get the point and keep feeding the talk page with his sole POV. Then i removed the discussions per WP:FORUM, WP:TROLL and WP:DONTFEED, but now, he's edit warring in order to reinstate his irrelevant edits and says that this is his "freedom of speech" or WP:BATTLEGROUND comments like "you could not stop me" on his talk page : [1]. IMO, it's a clear case of WP:NOTHERE troll. Admins attention is required. Thanks very much.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Obvious WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:SOAP case. Looking at their comments shows the reported user thinks WP is a forum and articles should be rewritten based on their nationalistic fantasies. --Wario-Man (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I wrote a few sentences in "talk page" and share my concern about the article, at first Wikaviani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) deleted my writings and called me troll and diversionist ( while I did not change the main page). Then I undo my section (in talk page) and described my reason, after that again Wikaviani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) delete my writings, threated me to block and accused me of using the talk page as the forum (while I just respond to his concern), so now somebody else, Wario-Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) delete my writing, threated me to block, and call me a nationalist who wants to write my nationalistic fantasies, who is Wario-Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ? is he an administrator with such pre-judgemental mind? How could I write a few sentences and share my concern in talk page?Fariborz26 (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Content dispute? Background: Iranian Azerbaijanis is about Azerbaijanis living in Iran. Not surprisingly, whether they are Iranian or not Iranian is a topic of discussion. Before Aug 2018, the Origin section of the article began by discussing a 2013 Russian DNA study that concluded not Iranian (or more Georgian than Iranian). In August, Wikaviani added content sourced to two Iranian studies that concluded Iranian. [2] [3] On 4 Jan, Fariborz26 posted on the article's talk page and a discussion ensued about the Origin section and the studies cited. [4] On 15 Jan, Wikaviani deleted the talk page discussion, [5] Fariborz26 undid [6] and added more comments, [7] [8] Wikaviani reverted [9] and posted a warning, [10] Fariborz26 undid, [11] Wario-Man reverted [12] and posted a final warning, [13] about the same time this ANI was posted. Fariborz26 posted an additional article talk page comment. [14] Seems to me the objections are centered on WP:NPOV, WP:DUE and whether the entire DNA/origin issue should even be in the article at all. I express no opinion on that but if this is a content dispute about the studies, perhaps third opinion or dispute resolution is the proper forum. Also I'm curious about reverting a bot's edit with the edit summary "removed an unreliable source" when the source is an MIT Press book. [15] Levivich? ! 05:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
No, this is not a content dispute and what you have posted is irrelevant to this ANI case. User:Wikaviani's edits are another story and if any editor thinks they're wrong, they should discuss on article talk page. This report is about the behavior and comments of reported user on talk page. It seems you're not familiar with this topic and that's the reason why you think his comments are content dispute stuff (as if they're caused by Wikaviani's edits). Even his last comment does not make any sense at all.[16]; e.g. he said: "You could not find the Origin section in the rest of the ethnic groups' pages." Really?! Almost all articles about ethnic groups have a section named "Origins" and many others have "Genetics" too. Don't you think posting such comments on talk pages is some kind of trolling or inappropriate behavior? He wants to remove some content from the article only because of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Per his comments, he also likes to insert his ethnocentrist POV and nationalistic rants instead of sourced content. And finally his behavior fits in WP:FORUM and WP:BATTLEGROUND. That's all. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Levivich: This has nothing to do with a content dispute, this is about a WP:NOTHERE ethno-nationalist troll who wants to rewrite the Iranian Azerbaijanis article in the way he likes. My mistake was that i began discussing with him on the article's talk page instead of simply ignoring him or, better, removing his WP:FORUM-like unsourced comments. Also, the "third opinion" was Wario-Man. As to your remark about my removal of a source, please take a look at who Brenda Schaffer is and you'll understand why i removed her.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 10:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I looked into her. Brenda Shaffer is a professor at Georgetown University [17] and the University of Haifa, former research director for Caspian Studies at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government [18], a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council [19], published by MIT Press, University of Pennsylvania Press and others, testified before the US Congress, quoted in the media, and generally appears to me to be a recognized scholar in the area. I'm guessing this is about the accusations in Huffington Post [20], The New Republic [21], and OCCRP [22]. I call it a content dispute because the dispute appears to be about what content should be in the article or not be in the article, or what source should be cited or not be cited. Levivich? ! 15:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Clearly, you're off-topic, this is not the place for such a discussion, i will gladly discuss about Schaffer with you on the article's talk page. But to make it short, yeah, it's about those articles you linked above and others.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 16:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Levivich: Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. I like your both suggestions; please tell me what I should do for the next step. Also, I believe for such a sensitive subject, we have to use the most reliable, international and impartial studies with high impact factors, which unfortunately the 1 and 2 content sources which added by Wikaviani do not meet these qualifications.Fariborz26 (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Fariborz26: My first suggestion for "next step" is to wait and do nothing (at least for a few more days), to give other editors a chance to comment here, and see what others think. I only speak for myself and not for anyone else, and others may have a different point of view on this issue. If there is no progress here or on the article talk page after a few days, you might want to ask for help on the dispute resolution noticeboard. If you do post to DRN, keep the issue as narrow and simple as possible (don't complain about mistreatment of entire groups of people generally, but rather ask for opinons about this edit or that section of a specific article). I hope this help! Levivich? ! 17:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── As per the above diffs, comments, and the reported user's WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT comments (like "I believe for such a sensitive subject, we have to use the most reliable, international and impartial studies with high impact factors, which unfortunately the 1 and 2 content sources which added by Wikaviani do not meet these qualifications") who sounds like having some serious WP:CIR issues (one more example here where he believes to have provided a reliable source with high impact factors with a random company article full of mistakes and poorly written ...), i make the below proposal :

===Topic ban proposal=== An indef topic ban on all topics related to the Azerbaijanis and Iran broadly construed.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose, for three reasons:
  1. I don't see what the editor did that violated any policy; raising objections about an article's content on its talk page is exactly what we're supposed to do. This still seems like a content dispute, not a conduct dispute, to me.
  2. There appear to be good-faith reasons to have concerns about the two studies (1 and 2 in Wikaviani's comment above the proposal). Both studies suggest that Iranian Azeris are Iranian; both are from Iranian universities; neither is highly cited; and both are published in what may be low- or no-impact or non-notable journals: International Journal of Modern Anthropology (can't find on RG or SJR, 6 cites on WP), and International Journal of Immunogenetics (Ovid IF 1, SJR H-Index 43, 21 WP cites). Fariborz26's objection to the two seems to be a good-faith one to me.
  3. Wikaviani's third link, in the sentence "one more example here", is to Fariborz's post on the article talk page, in which Fariborz linked to National Geographic Society's Genographic Project 2.0's article about reference populations, which Wikaviani characterizes as "a random company article full of mistakes and poorly written". But if you read the talk page post, Fariborz isn't arguing for including the Geno 2.0 article as a source, he's arguing for removing the Origin section altogether based on, as I understand it, genetic diversity and the challenges that arise in using DNA studies to categorize people into definite groups, and he was using the Geno 2.0 study as evidence of the broader point about classification of ethnic or nationality groups by DNA. To quote Fariborz: People in one country or region have different roots from different parts of the world so we should not use the term of the Origin anymore, it is the concept of the 19th century not 21st.
I don't know if Fariborz is right or not right about removal of the studies or the Origin section of the article, but I don't see how his bringing it up in any way merits any kind of sanction whatsoever. Levivich? ! 00:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  1. Well, as far as i can see, using an article's talk page to give his opinion about the article with no source is prohibited. Making battleground comments is prohibited. Edit warring, is prohibited. Need more ? what about this this section title ? I would be curious to know why Fariborz finds offensive for Azerbaijanis to be described as having Iranian origins. Clearly ethno linguistic nationalism.
  2. So, according to you, since the sources i cited in the article are Iranians and support an Iranian origin of Azerbaijanis, then they may be dubious ?! So let's remove all non notable (BTW this is yet to be demonstrated and the links you provided do not discredit these sources, they have few cites because Iranian sources are, often, less famous than westerners) English sources for UK-related topics, non notable American sources for US-related topics, non notable French sources for France-related topics, etc ...
  3. If this Nat Geo society source is not to be included, then why quoting it on the talk page ? You're quite wrong when you say Fariborz isn't arguing for including the Geno 2.0 article as a source, and this shows, as Wario-Man said above, that you're not familiar with this issue yet. Fariborz claimed to have "tons of references" for his claims and he posts that poor one thinking that it's a high quality source. Did you take a look at it ? i forgot the number of spelling mistakes it contains. Also, it is strongly controversial. Fariborz made his first edit on january 4, 2019 then 16 other edits have been made and not a single of them is actually improving the project, instead, we have WP:FORUM and WP:BATTLEGROUND contributions. Seriously ?! Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 01:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
The articles Iranian peoples and Azerbaijanis have sections on origins and genetics, but those are articles about ethnic groups. Iranian Azerbaijanis is an article about a particular ethnic group (Azeris) in a country (Iran). In similar articles, Kurds in Iran, Iranian Georgians, Iranian Assyrians, Iranian Armenians, Iranian Turkmen...none have a section about origin, DNA, or whether the ethnic group is "Iranian" or "Kurdish", "Georgian", "Assyrian", etc. Iranian Kazakhs has a section on Origin but it doesn't mention DNA or whether they are "Iranian" or "Kazakh". The suggestion that an Iranian Azeri is Iranian and not Azeri, or Azeri and not Iranian, is surely a controversial one. Seems to me like exactly the kind of thing that should be discussed by editors on a talk page. As for the editor not editing more, my assumption is the editor isn't editing because the first time they posted something on a talk page, it resulted in them being brought to ANI. But it doesn't matter; even an IP editor should be able to post this on a talk page without getting dragged to ANI over it. Levivich? ! 02:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
IPs can post what they want (just like any other user), but on one condition (just like any other user too), it should be sourced and verifiable, per WP:EQUAL. Also, your remarks about other articles not having an origin section does not justify to remove sourced content from the Iranian Azerbaijanis article per WP:OTHER. And, with all due respect, you're a 2 months old account and the more i discuss with you, the more i realise that you're not familiar with many Wiki guidelines and policies. Now, i would suggest to let other contributors give their opinion. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 02:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong: Fariborz did not remove anything. Fariborz posted to the article talk page, and you removed those posts, and then posted here. Are you suggesting WP:RS is required for talk page posts? I do agree it will be helpful to hear from other editors about this. Levivich? ! 03:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Just take a look at my above diffs, you continue to misrepresent what happened.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 08:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I am not misrepresenting what happened. The editor has never removed content from an article. The editor has never even edited an article. All the editor has done is post on talk pages. Anyone can see this by looking at their contribs. Levivich? ! 17:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but it seems that you fail to understand that articles’ talk pages are not for posting WP:FORUM, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:SOAP or WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT messages. The editor did not provide a single source, he just came up and said « offensive title » with his POV, refused to engage in a constructive discussion since all he did was refuting what the sources say while providing only his POV, made battleground comments on his talk page, edit warred against me and Wario-Man, etc... this is not exactly what i would call « All the editor has done is post on talk pages. », so yes, according to me, you’re actually misrepresenting what he did. But as i said below, since both of you guys oppose a topic ban, then no problem, i’ll drop the stick, but trust me when i say that if Fariborz keeps editing this place, then sooner or later someone else will report him again, just because this guy is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, per Levivich. Honestly, back when I first started using Wikipedia, I had no clue what a talk page even was for. Fariborz26 while they are first starting out used it correctly here. User:Fariborz26 deserved a much better welcome than what they received. They clearly are trying their best here (even if their English could use some improvements admittedly). As User:Levivich stated, this is clearly a content issue and not a conduct issue. I find Wikaviani's dismissive attitude towards New Editors to be the most concerning conduct displayed here. User:Wikaviani would be best served by reviewing WP:BITE and avoid such mistakes in the future. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 05:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I reported Fariborz here because of his behaviour, not because he's a newby (also, FYI, i consider myself quite a newby too). I'm aware of WP:EQUAL and for your information, i engaged in a discussion with him and provided him some sources showing he was wrong (not really WP:BITE attitude IMO), but while i was providing sources, he was just posting WP:FORUM-like messages, this is why i removed the thread. It looks like a duck to me that Fariborz is a WP:NOTHERE user, but admins are free to sanction me if they think that i'm breaking Wiki rules with this report. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 07:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Wikaviani, you are not breaking any rules that I am aware of. However, it was not in good spirit to delete Fariborz26's contributions to the article's talk page as this violates WP:TPO. As Levivich correctly noted, the material was on topic and should not have been deleted as a result. The secondary example I would include of WP:BITE behavior would be when you wrote this to Levivich: And, with all due respect, you're a 2 months old account and the more i discuss with you, the more i realise that you're not familiar with many Wiki guidelines and policies. Now, i would suggest to let other contributors give their opinion. This is what I mean when I say dismissive behavior. I have seen no indication that Levivich is unfamiliar with WP:GUIDELINES in any respect. If I were to feel this is the case, I would point to the specific guideline that needs review (as I did for you and WP:BITE).
Concerning Fariborz26, we have {{subst:First article}} for a reason. This message or another welcome message would have been much more appropriate for a response to a new user's first set of contributions. This is why I recommended rereading WP:BITE. We all make mistakes, so that is why it is best to assume WP:GOODFAITH. Finally, you are not a new user; you are a rollbacker. Per WP:RBReq, Rollback is not for very new users. If you feel you are not ready for Rollbacker rights, you are free to request an admin disable them for you. I, myself, think you are really doing just fine, but you gotta just go easy on people sometimes. Kindest Regards, ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 19:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, i am a rollbacker, i never said that i'm not ready for it, but i only use this tool to revert clear cases of vandalism, nothing else, therefore, i did not use the rollback tool in this case. what i meant, when i said that i am quite a new user, is that i have many things to learn here, on Wikipedia, not like veteran editors. I cannot agree with you, when you say that Levivich is correct when he says that Fariborz did not break any Wiki rule. As Wario-Man (a veteran editor) said above, Fariborz has battleground mentality, proposes to rewrite some articles he does not like according to his fantasies, posted messages to an article's talk page just to expose his POV, with no source, said that a section of that article is "offensive" just because it describes a reality that he does not like, i hate to say this, but all these are breaches in WP:GUIDELINES (WP:FORUM, WP:SOAP, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:TENDENTIOUS, etc ...). As i said above, it looks like a duck to me that Fariborz is a WP:NOTHERE editor and Wario-Man seems to share my concerns, but if you guys oppose a topic ban, then no problem, i'll drop the stick. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
By the way, if an indef topic ban sounds not good, admins are, of course, free to choose the relevant sanction (for Fariborz, or, again, for me, if they think that i deserve it). Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Spamming Youtube-links in edit summaries[edit]

The edit summaries have been redacted and the editor has stopped. This is not the place for Intellectual Property 101. GoldenRing (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Youwikitubepedia (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

The editor has so far made 137 edits here, edits that, at first look at least, seem constructive, but all have a Youtubelink in the edit summary, added after a normal edit summary (like these: "minor corrections: http://you tu.be/XSBqDhYHntI" and "reverting vandalism: http://you tu.be/M-SrZPwWyXY"; note the space in each link, added to evade edit filters), with a different link in each edit summary. Which seems like a sophisticated way of spamming without technically violating any rule that I know of here. So what do we do about it? - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

In the absence of a good explanation, I'd be inclined to block tbh. GiantSnowman 16:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Let's ASSUME GOOD FAITH. If you actually watch the video as provided in each link, it's a short video of the edit being made. Fish+Karate 16:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
That's still spam. GiantSnowman 16:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Youtube still pays you for every view, right? Or have they done what I have long predicted and stopped paying for many/all views? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I think that whether they are getting paid for it is rather beside the point. It serves no useful purpose, and is irritating to say the least to be presented with a link which looks like it might be an explanation for the edit, only to find it isn't. Given that the added space can only be a deliberate attempt to bypass the spam filter, I'd suggest that Youwikitubepedia be blocked unless and until they can give a satisfactory explanation as to why they consider such links compatible with the stated objectives of Wikipedia. There may not be explicit rules against such links, but one really isn't needed, per WP:NOTHERE. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC) 86.147.97.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Matthew hk (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
To get monetization on Youtube you need 4000 watch hours and 1000 subscribers I think. At the moment they have 31 subscribers so I do not think they are getting paid for the videos. PackMecEng (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Seems rather odd but I am not sure if it breaks any policy. It might break WP:SPAM but it could be argued that since the videos are of them making the edit and some I saw talk about why they made the edit it might be okay. I would like to hear their explanation. PackMecEng (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd consider it a violation of SPAM, SOAP, and COI; and would have brought it to RSPAM if I'd run across it. --Ronz (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I ran out of time, someone else fixed the rest. All done now. Guy (Help!) 21:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • N.B. - I had responded to this user being reported to AIV for spamming and issued a block. Upon noticing this discussion, seeing that it is ongoing, and looking more deeply, I unblocked the user and left them a note to please comment here. I had also revdel'd some of their older edits summaries with the links as spam (similarly as JzG did). I did not follow any of the links until seeing Fish and karate's comment as I was concerned they could be malicious/booby trapped. While the videos are technically promotional, they are fairly benign promotion and I agree that it does not look like the YouTube account has monetization enabled (due to a lack of subscribers at the very least). Upon reflection, I could see an argument that as the changes are productive and the videos are of the edits being made that they could be allowed as illustrative and instructional. Best, Mifter (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
There’s no point, too late, they’ve all been revdelled and the account blocked. For no valid reason at all. Someone providing videos of their edits while explaining them could have been a really educational way to encourage new users and spread awareness of how easy it is to edit Wikipedia. But that ship has sailed. Fish+Karate 22:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
May be the new user edited wikipedia as an ip user, before creating "Youtube+wikipedia" account. However, if he is not , then it violate sock , as in Wikipedia:Sock puppetry: "Alternative accounts should always be identified as such on their user pages, except where doing so would defeat the point of the account. Templates such as {{User alternative account}} or one of a selection of user boxes may be used for this purpose. ". Unable to determine the purpose of creating a brand new account and teach people how to edit as an experience user, or is it within the scope of "would defeat the point of the account" when disclosing the master account is? Matthew hk (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 3-6 month Youtube linking topicban - Personally I would say it's spamming and as such I support the revdelling, There's no specific policy that says "You cannot post Youtube videos in edit summaries" however it's still spamming,
Instead of supporting a reblock I instead support a ban on them inserting any Youtube link anywhere on this project - This would include articles, talkpages and yes edit summaries too,
Judging by their edits they're clearly HERE to improve the project so I don't see a point in reblocking however I feel monitoring them for a few months or so may be a good idea. –Davey2010Talk 23:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Having given this some more thought and having read the below comments I have to agree in that they should be warned and if it continues then indef them, A topic ban seems rather excessive considering they don't appear to have been warned for the disruption, I still think indeffing now is more punitive than preventative. –Davey2010Talk 13:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Regardless of their motivations, they can't include Youtube videos in their edit summaries. As long as they don't do that going forward, there's no need for any punishment. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support indef block. (Non-administrator comment) from the guy who report the user to WP:AIV. The edits (e.g. Special:Diff/874823736) were not so necessary piping change and the ture purpose is spamming stuff in edit summary, for all edits. Matthew hk (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Also, consider the username is a word play of "wikipedia + youtube" and 100+ edits on inserting link as spam. Matthew hk (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I understand what this looks like, but I think it's harmless and potentially educational. It would be better if they had provided an explanation up front. I notice there wasn't any attempt to discuss with them before this thread was opened and consequences were applied. I suggest waiting for a response before taking any more action; as it is we don't know if they're trying to be helpful or promotional. If there's none in a sufficient time frame, then maybe do something. On the other hand, changing link targets to not be redirects is indeed useless. ekips39 (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm with F&K. I don't understand how a YouTube video showing a Wikipedia edit being made is "spam", or why anyone would be opposed to such a thing. YouTube videos are how people teach other people to do things. Why wouldn't we want YouTube videos showing how to make edits? Why wouldn't we want to link to those videos in the edits and vice versa? Levivich? ! 02:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
You think that people who don't know how to edit Wikipedia will be looking at broken YouTube links in random edit summaries in order to find out how to do it? 86.147.97.26 (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC) 86.147.97.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Matthew hk (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah, Wikipedia. Where anyone can edit. But do so using an IP rather than registering, and someone will immediately assume you are using a sockpuppet account, even when there is no remotely logical reason why you should need one. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 04:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
It seem odd that an ip that without any edit outside ANI, made he/she first edit in ANI and so far all edits are in ANI. Matthew hk (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Do you understand what a dynamic IP address is? 86.147.97.26 (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Anyone can edit, but god help you if you try something inventive to help others edit, it seems. Fish+Karate 14:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • A WP:NOTHERE indef block would obviously be the correct outcome (AGF does not apply to actions indistinguishable from trolling). However, since this is Wikipedia no action is currently required other than the warning is at the user's talk. If they do anything like this again, they should be indeffed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
    How in the name of all that is holy can someone making instructional videos of making edits that improve Wikipedia be construed as being "not here to improve Wikipedia"? I am at a loss, I really am. Fish+Karate 14:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
    • The issue isn't making instructional videos. The issue is placing broken (deliberately, to get around Wikipedia blacklisting software) and entirely unexplained links to such videos in edit summaries. As a tool for providing instruction to people who want to edit Wikipedia but don't understand how, they are almost useless, since the chances of anyone in such a position finding them and then following them are remote. In all other circumstances, they are a distraction at best, and a potentially serious liability at worst. If this contributor is to continue to create them, logically others would be permitted to do the same. Which would leave Wikipedia as a host to links to multiple unchecked YouTube videos, any one of which could violate Wikipedia policies in multiple ways. There are multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines in place which regulate the appropriate use of edit summaries, and none of them have exceptions which justify such malformed and off-topic links. If it were ever to be decided that linking to an instructional video in an edit summary was appropriate, simple logic would suggest that a way to make an unbroken link was found, and that such links be confined to a limited number of videos which could be verified as actually appropriate. Frankly though, I can't for the life of me see why anyone would ever consider such a proposal though, since it would be far simpler and less confusing to add such a link elsewhere on the editing interface, and leave the edit summary for its intended purpose. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Just for my own reference could you link to the polices that support your position? PackMecEng (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
        • The most obvious policy is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. No, it doesn't explicitly state that Wikipedia edit summaries are not a repository for broken links to YouTube. It does however state that Wikipedia is not a repository for external links. Which I would assume would include deliberately broken ones placed in edit summaries. This policy likewise states that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Which such links clearly are, since they don't in any meaningful way contain the information one would expect an edit summary to. Beyond WP:NOT one should probably consider the WMF's statement in the Terms of Use that their websites should not be used for spam. Which these links clearly are, given the fact that the contributor has not only attempted (by breaking the links) to get around blocking software, but has entirely failed (despite there being room in the edit summary) to inform any readers what exactly the links link to. As for guidelines, start with Wikipedia:External links, which explicitly states that a contributor should "avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked". I'm quite sure that other guidelines will apply too, but I'd have thought that I've provided quite enough already. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
          • Okay none of those directly or even indirectly cover this situation. WP:NOT clearly is not intended for this as it is not a repository of external links. It is a history and explanation of edits. Same reasoning for indiscriminate. I do not really see WP:ADV as an issue either. They are not promoting their product or service. They are also not actually benefiting at all personally for doing this. I am really starting to struggle to see the actual harm caused here and you have not provided any rational for your position that is not based on bad faith or misunderstanding policy. PackMecEng (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait for an explanation (because we are all curious) and cessation of comment spamming; then block if both are not forthcoming or adequate. I am pretty sure this is some sort of conceptual art or advanced programing project. If each video really does represent the actual edit it is connected to, it's an impressive piece of coding (screen recording, uploading to Utube, getting the link and passing it back to WP...) You can almost picture him/her presenting it to their Advanced Scripting for Web class. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @ThatMontrealIP: Either you're easily impressed, or you didn't watch the YouTube video before posting a comment calling for a block. Here is the edit, and here is the video (www.you tube.com/watch?v=XSBqDhYHntI) showing that edit being performed. It's the user's most-recent edit. If you watch the video until the end, you'll see they never hit "publish" in the video, they just typed in the descriptive part of their edit summary ("minor corrections"). We can infer the user stopped the video there, then posted it to YouTube, then finished the edit summary by inserting the YouTube link and hitting "publish", thereby accomplishing linking an edit summary to a YouTube video showing that edit being performed. I really do see the value in this as an educational tool. At the very least, I see the good faith. Levivich? ! 04:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh relax. He/she is obviously using WP to promote their Youtube channel, rather than being here to improve WP. If it's an educational tool, it can stay on YT. If they don't stop that, they clearly need to be blocked.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Why "obviously"? Fish+Karate 14:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
May be wikipedia need a new video tutorial guide, but not doing so by a new user without informing any wikiproject or admin, and spamming all video links in edit summary. Even new video tutorial are created, those link should listed in the namespace wikipedia, but not in edit summary. Those edit plus edit summary, definitely promoting the YT channel as an unofficial tutorial of the wikipedia. But it still spam and promotion. Matthew hk (talk) 05:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree it should be discussed, but I don't see it as spam (or promotion, unless all YT content is considered as promotion under the logic that it's all on somebody's channel), or a reason for sanctions. I am relaxed :-) and I'm saying: relax on this editor, and let's assume good faith. Levivich? ! 05:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned how anyone can think this isn't spam, so I added "Avoid external links" to Help:Edit summary [23]. We can discuss on it's talk page if needed.--Ronz (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Aaannnd reverted.[24] PackMecEng (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I believe putting external links in edit summaries is in some cases encouraged if not required, and there have been cases of editors being warned/reverted/blocked for not putting an external link in an edit summary. (Rightly or wrongly, I don't know.) Levivich? ! 19:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Let's discuss at Help_talk:Edit_summary#External_links_in_edit_summaries --Ronz (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
People put url in edit summary to indicate the discovery of copyvio, as the rev would be hidden but the edit summary did not. Also , when i am too lazy to put citation in the article, i put it in edit summary as the evidence of my edit. Or sometimes, the citation and url are already inside the article , but posting the url again in edit summary to justify my edits were based on the url as citation. Matthew hk (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned how anyone could think this was spam. WP:SPAM - "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed". No product or website was being promoted. I imagine we have lost an editor here who was making constructive edits and was trying an interesting new way to spread awareness of how to edit Wikipedia, because the immediate assumption was negative and mistrustful. A real shame. Fish+Karate 10:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
"No product or website was being promoted" is technically incorrect: Wikipedia was the website being promoted, logo and all. You gotta admire folks who are so anti-promo as to also be anti-WP-promo. Someday this project will die when Wikipedia editors decide that Wikipedia editors are COI'd from Wikipedia. Levivich? ! 15:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

It might possibly be worth taking note that the YouTube channel that User:Youwikitubepedia has been promoting, under the name 'wikipedia edits' (see [25]) is predominantly displaying a trademarked Wikipedia/Wikimedia logo on each linked page, in direct contravention of Wikipedia:Copyrights policy. Nowhere on that channel is any indication whatsoever given that it is not an official Wikipedia project. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 10:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia logos are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. As attribution is clear, this is not an issue. Fish+Karate 10:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
No, the logos are absolutely not under any such license. See Wikipedia:Copyrights which clearly states that such trademarks "are not freely usable without permission", and see also the Wikimedia Terms of Use [26]. Or if you prefer, contact the WMF and ask them. As for 'attribution', I can't see any, though I can see what looks to me like an attempt to pass off a random YouTube channel as an official Wikipedia project. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I read [27] and the boilerplate of File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svg. "You have the right to use marks to Truthfully describe a Wikimedia site, Accurately report news, Create artistic, literary, and political works, or Link to Wikimedia sites". Unless you really do think this is trying to claim to be an official Wikipedia project, which is crazy, and in which case I don't see any point in trying to continue a discussion, there's no copyright issue. Fish+Karate 11:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
From the trademark policy you have just linked: 'When reasonable, please include this notice when you use a mark outside the Wikimedia sites: "[Wikimedia Wordmark / name of logo as listed here] is a trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation and is used with the permission of the Wikimedia Foundation. We are not endorsed by or affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation... Regardless of whether you use a notice or a trademark symbol to identify your use of Wikimedia marks, please make sure that your use does not suggest endorsement by or affiliation with the Wikimedia Foundation.' AS for whether you consider there any point in continuing the discussion, feel free not to. Meanwhile, I will continue to use this thread to bring to the notice of Wikipedia admins an apparent attempt to portray a YouTube channel as an official Wikipedia project. I may also contact the WMF directly to do the same thing. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Note: I have now emailed the WMF regarding the copyright issue, and await their response. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Will you accept the answer when they tell you that you don't understand how copyrights, trademarks. and the the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license work? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
So far they have told me no such thing. Which leaves the clear and unequivocal statement on the Wikimedia Trademark policy ([28]) that use of their trademarks is conditional on compliance with specific terms as the only thing I have to go on. A policy which incidentally, I have just noticed, also states that "You need a trademark license to use the Wikipedia logo in a movie, TV show episode, or online production." Whether a YouTube channel is an 'online production' or not may be open to debate, but I think it might be wise to let the WMF decide for themselves, considering that the policy also states that "This policy is approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees to apply to all Wikimedia projects. It may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by local policies". Or in plain English, whether the usage of the trademarks is compliant with WMF policy or not is beyond the scope of WP:ANI. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You have zero understanding of what trademark is and what constitutes trademark infringement, and I strongly suspect that you are both willfully ignorant and ineducable on the issue. If the alleged infringer is using the mark to identify the mark owner (which he is in this case) then the use of the trademark falls under fair use. You may not build and sell cars with the distinctive Ford trademark on the grill, but you certainly can take a picture of a Ford that contains the logo. This editor is clearly not claiming to be Wikipedia. He is simply identifying Wikipedia as the website he is editing. That's allowed under trademark law. He isn't doing anything illegal. If he was, then every Youtube unboxing video would be illegal as well. (Whether we allow him to link to the Youtube video in an edit summary is another issue.) Go ahead and pester the WMF if you want. You will soon discover that when people make silly claims the WMF legal team ignores them. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Copyrights and trademarks are two entirely different things. A copyright is a perceptible, fixed embodiment of a creative work; a trademark (or service mark) is an indicator of source—a "HELLO! I Emanate From _____" badge, if you will. I view this as a huge trademark problem and a copyright nonissue. Somebody has this conceptual art project going (or whatever) in which they created a YouTube channel showing videos of Wikipedia edits being made, and the Wikipedia edit summaries link to the videos. Nobody's copyrights are being infringed (or, if they are, the infringement is de minimis, of largely unprotectable material like the visual depiction of the Wikipedia GUI, and probably protected by the fair-use doctrine). The Wikipedia marks are the bigger issue, and query whether that is the community's responsibilitiy to police or the WMF's.
Legal issues aside, though, as a philosophical issue, this is WP:COI self-aggrandizement, in my view, and not appropriate; it's like spamming links to taxi companies in Mallorca or QuickBooks help-desk (800) numbers into edit summaries. Not okay. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Ooh! Ooh! a modified version of a Wikipedia Tradmark!! Alert the WMF!!!
I note that the YouTube channel discussed (see [29]) is now using a modified form of the Wikipedia logo, with the word 'EDITS' superimposed. Whether this is a result of seeing this ANI thread, or the result of a communication from the WMF, I have no idea. Likewise, whether this is acceptable to the WMF (which clearly states in its Trademark Policy that "The logos should not be modified without separate permission from the Wikimedia Foundation"), I have no idea. I would suggest however that the lack of on-Wikipedia response might be seen as evidence against claims of good faith. If Youwikitubepedia is aware of the issues, why not reply here? 86.147.97.26 (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Still willfully ignorant about US trademark law, I see. Superposing text in a way that is a clear addition is not the same as modifying a trademark. There are websites where you can learn what the actual rules for trademarks are, you know. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes but what website can we send you to to teach you to play nice with others. Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 03:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
"Superposing text in a way that is a clear addition is not the same as modifying a trademark" says Guy Macon. "There are websites where you can learn what the actual rules for trademarks are, you know." says Guy Macon. Indeed there are: "The United States Patent and Trademark Office defines a trademark as a design, word, phrase or symbol that distinguishes the goods and service of one company from another. This applies to logos, which can be either words or images. The practice of altering a logo is known as material alteration. The Law Office of Bambi Faivre Walters, PC, notes that U.S. Trademark Rule 2.72, 37 C.F.R §2.72 establishes the basis for what constitutes material alteration. This rule was established in the 1983 case of Visa International Service Association v. Life-Code Systems, Inc. If the modified mark contains the "essence" of the original mark, material alteration has occurred. The basic change that occurs is small enough that it creates the same commercial impression. Alteration in this manner is copyright infringement." [30] Given that Guy Macon appears not to understand the law he proclaims his expertise in, I suggest we leave it to the WMF to decide what the law is. Though judging by their Trademark Policy, as I have already quoted, they already know the law well enough, and don't need it explained here. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Is it time to close this thread? The edit summaries in question have already been redacted and the editor hasn't edited in five days. Levivich? ! 05:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


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

WP:NOTHERE editing by User:Shahanshah5[edit]

Shahanshah5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I issued him a WP:AA2 warning a few weeks ago, to no avail. Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that this editor is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment : The reported user seems to have a pro Azerbaijani agenda here, on the English Wikipedia, and also, with all due respect, some WP:CIR issues because of his inability to read and comprehend English properly : [44], [45], etc ... sounds like a typical case of WP:NOTHERE.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 00:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
A problem with this editor was also reported on my talk page in December: see User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 46#Another concern. If WP:CIR is the verdict then a conventional block might be considered. On the other hand, if it turns out that POV-pushing is the greater problem, a topic ban from WP:AA2 can be an option. The user was notified of this discussion on 6 January and gave a point-by-point response. Unfortunately all his statements were removed by another editor who didn't like the interlinear edits. I'll leave a further note for Shahanshah5. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
(The "another concern" thread has been archived to User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_46#Another_concern.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: IMO, and with all due respect for the reported user, i think he has WP:CIR issues and is a POV-pusher. Saying, like he did in his point-by-point answer, that he has tried to add "Azerbaijani" to some articles because he was not experienced enough does not sound like a good faith answer. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
This comment shows, one more time, his inability to speak English and his battleground mentality.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 11:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@EdJohnston:, as admin would you tell me that which of my edits can be reason to make me blocked? Shahanshah5 (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
@Wikaviani:, I already introduced my online English certificate on my talk page, but for you I can add it also to here [1]. Shahanshah5 (talk) 08:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Honestly, I think Shahanshah5 views WP like a fighting video game. e.g. some users revert and reject his edits but he believes he must win. So he decides to continue his problematic edits or targets some specific topics. Even if we consider his edits as good faith ones, there are some serious issues that can't be ignored: Weak command of English, ignoring WP guidelines and other editors' comments, lack of interest in collaboration, and Obvious nationalistic/irredentist/anachronistic POV. So do you think giving him the second chance would solve those issues? Everything about him proves this case is WP:NOTHERE. But if he promises to change his behavior, then I support a final warning or 6-month block. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Also it seems he does not care about his account. Dropped an inappropriate reply on 2019-01-06[46] and didn't try to rewrite it again or write a proper reply. Seriously what is this?![47] --Wario-Man (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Query If he made a point-by-point rebuttal it might be helpful to see it. Is there a link that I missed? Can it be copied here?19:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Here is the link you asked for.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 07:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@Wario-Man:, I'm interested in the collaboration with every Wiki user (who make edits on historical topics )since I often try to discuss some edits and future edits on talk pages, here is some examples: [1] 2, [2], [3]. I want also add that you should concretize which my edits you mean by saying nationalistic/irredentist.

Section 27[edit]

  • The link which was inserted in the Iranian identity which was nonsense, but if it wasn't nonsense User talk:LouisAragon could restore the link. But he didn't it, probably, to use it against me one day :) What about that reference, as I already wrote in my edit summary[1], the source that I deleted doesn't mention about Iranian identity, so I deleted it. If my these edits weren't in Wiki policy, it must be proved me by my pro-Iranian colleagues who wish to see me blocked :(
  • I never accused anyone on Bahmanyar talk page, but I noticed Azerbaijanophobia to colleague's message where modern Azerbaijani irrendist political ideology is using as an argument on historical person's talkin page. @LouisAragon:, Let's have a some flashbacks from it:

"Non-RS nonsense. These are the same "historians" who claim that Iran and Armenia are "ancient Turkic lands", and that anything from Derbent to Urmia, Zanjan, to Kars etc is part of "Bütöv Azərbaycan" that used to exist "since times immemorial". No self respecting Western historian takes these "books" serious. Azerbaijani (SSR and post 1991) and Tsarist/Soviet Russian sources are mostly packed with agenda-loaded propaganda, refuted/debunked by leading scholars in the West. Here's an example.[3] The same thing goes for many Armenian and Georgian sources of the Soviet era. They should all be avoided."

I gave him an answer on the same way, which now I think wasn't needed to me and to the encyclopedia. But I think it's ok, because at that time I wasn't experienced.

  • I'm curious that why @LouisAragon: says that I labelled Brill as non-reliable while I said that it's not high reliable source[1]. In addition, I gave there two publisher rankings which proves my words about Brill's source.
  • My edits on Bahmanyar and Iskander Beg Munshi pages were one of my first edits which weren't experienced.
  • Baku Khanate ethnically is an Azerbaijani khanate which house was Bakhikanovs of, but unfortunately I forgot saying it to Louis Aragon when we had a discussion on my talk page.
  • The states on this page are groupped by a geographical criteria. So Shirvanshahs as the state which was on modern Azerbaijani territories, should be in the Eastern Europe section, so I added it to list of Eastern European states.
  • My edits on Antioch and Quba Khanate pages weren't carefully, I understand it. Shahanshah5 (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
First, this complaint is very hard to follow. Second, this looks like a content dispute. 2600:100F:B104:1606:FC9F:90E:6DC4:B70E (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
I think its a response to the ANI section WP:NOTHERE editing by User:Shahanshah5. Possibly should be moved there? Curdle (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Moved. Qualitist (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank. Shahanshah5 (talk) 08:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

1)What Shahanshah5 links to is a Ranking system by SENSE. Nowhere on this page does it state Brill is an unreliable, less reliable or even that "it's not high reliable source". Yet again, Shahanshah5 has shown their inability to read and comprehend what is written in English. Here is the SENSE documentation and organization page. "Where it states:Please note that the WASS-SENSE ranking list of publishers has been set up for the WASS and SENSE Dutch Graduate Schools only. The list is based on the publishing houses used by our researchers. It should not be used by other institutes."
This attempt to blacken a quality academic publishing house was in response to Brill publishing a review that highlighted the Azerbaijani government's involvement in rewriting Azerbaijani history. This is POV pushing at its finest.
2)Shahanshah5 has on numerous occasions added information that is poorly written[48] and/or makes no sense. Clear case of Wikipedia:CIR.
3)Shahanshah5 has made battleground comments. Accusation of racism, labeling editors that do not agree with his illegible, nonsensical edits as "pro-Iranian colleagues"
4)Refusal to get the point.[49] Shahanshah5 was in such a hurry to push their POV, they either didn't or couldn't comprehend that the book they were using for a source, also supported the information they were deleting!! And when told this, they still ignored what I said and then blamed me for their lack of compentence in English!
I see no reason to allow this to continue. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

(1), SENSE documentatation [1] where it writes that A: Refereed book publications published by the world top of publishers'B: Refereed book publications published by the world’s semi-top of publishers'? Doesn't the A rated means the being high rated source? And how B rated source the Brill can be as high rated? Oh, and checked Brill also on this Wiki page where were the lists of the top publishers but I didn't notice notice there the name of Brill. And what about it "This attempt to blacken a quality academic publishing house was in response to Brill publishing a review that highlighted the Azerbaijani government's involvement in rewriting Azerbaijani history", why don't you give at least two publisher rankings that Brill is the A rated?
(3)I think you're a little bit late with the Bahmanyar talk page, so I already answered to it on ANI. What about the second accusing, hm, I had thought users here can be honest since @Wikaviani: and @Wario-Man: labelled my edits as the pro-Azerbaijani and nationalistic/irredentist. So I had thought I also should be honest and said about the POV of some my colleagues.
(4)I already answered about Quba Khanate here. What about the second deal of "blamed me for their lack of compentence in English", it's not so succesfull manipulating over meaning of my sentence were I citated "I think you didn't fix these sentence on those articles to get another evidence against me :)" You didn't revert my edit and at least didn't fix my sentences(which was on high RS source) until your reporting of me to the admin. But after reporting the admin, when you done your work you reverted my edits [1], [2]. Shahanshah5 (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@LouisAragon:, aren't you going to answer my demand about your accusing me on this my edit? Shahanshah5 (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal[edit]

Based on the evidence and the discussion above, I propose a 6-month topic ban on all topics related to the Middle East, the Caucasus region and the Iranian/Turkic world for Shahanshah5. - LouisAragon (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Support per my above comment and evidences provided by involved users. 6-month topic ban will show us if he's WP:HTBAE or not. Also posting a final warning on his talk page is necessary in my opinion. --Wario-Man (talk) 09:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per the above evidences and comments.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 10:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The evidence above shows that Shahanshah5 is not capable of working collaboratively or obeying Wikipedia's policies on NPOV and reliable sources when writing about these topics. --Jayron32 17:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Frankly, I think the above shows grounds for a CIR block, but let's start gently and see if things improve. Blocks are cheap and easy, gaining editors less so. GoldenRing (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I kinda agree with Goldenring, but yes, start with a topic ban- possibly if the editor avoids an area they seem to have strong views on, they can slow down and learn a bit more about collaboration, NPOV, AGF and reliable sources. Curdle (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Agree with Goldenring there are grounds for a CIR block. A 6-month topic ban will negate the disruption, not sure how this will fix CIR issues or as Jayron notes, reliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per GoldenRing. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll support a 6-month topic ban since that is what's on the table, but actually I don't much believe in them. It's too easy to wait out a time-limited ban without editing, learn nothing, and then come back with all the old problems intact. I'd much prefer an indefinite topic ban, to be appealed no sooner than in 6 months, where the appeal will only be received favorably if it's believable and the editing on other subjects (and on sister projects!) shows progress. (I'm good with a CIR block too.) Bishonen | talk 22:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC).
  • I could also certainly support an indefinite ban, but would like to see them given at least some chance before we indef them. GoldenRing (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support for reasons given above --AndInFirstPlace 03:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Note to closer: The above editor has been here for 5 days, and already has been blocked twice. He doesn't know sh*t from Shinola about Wikipedia, and shows it in their every edit (eg. they thought admins were assigned to articles, and filed an RfA so they could become the admin for an article they were editing, and was in multiple disputes about; see #User:AndInFirstPlace below for more). Their !vote here should be disregarded. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I also have my doubts about fixed-term topic bans, as it is an editor's problematic approach to controversial subjects that needs to change and not their age, but I'll support this as it's what's being proposed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Elaboration on Topic ban proposal[edit]

I was a bit ambivalent about the efficacy of 6 month topic ban, but reluctant to support a straight out CIR indef for a relatively new user. I would be more than happy to support something along the lines of what Bishonen suggested; ie topic ban appealable in 6 months, but only if accompanied by evidence that Shahanshah5 has genuinely learned, understood and put into practice Wikipedia policy in regards to collaboration, NPOV, and reliable sources. Curdle (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The Love Suicides at Amijima[edit]

I stumbled upon this article, and upon running the copyvio checker, it appears to be largely a copy of [50]. I can't get this link to load, however, so I'm not sure if it could be a copy paste from the article. Requesting evaluation and revdel if necessary. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it needs an AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, that PDF you linked looks like it's based on Wikipedia page to me. So I don't think the article is a copyright violation. The text on page 11: E.g. "Milwaukee, WI-based Dale Gutzman (book, lyrics) and Todd Wellman (score) debuted the musical adaption AmijimA in 2007. Listen to the WUWM interview with the creative team." sounds like it is supposed to have a link in it, which the PDF doesn't (just states that as prose). Also the "See also Sonezaki Shinjū, a 1978 film based on the same story." (p. 2, again with no links, and referencing something that's not discussed in that PDF). So I'd say it was copied out of Wikipedia probably, rather than the other way around. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|they/their|😹|T/C|☮️|John 15:12|🍂 19:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
So is it the chicken or the Egg?Slatersteven (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Truncated by BBB23 and template:copyvio placed till matter resolved. I think the article is the chicken.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'd say a Wikipedian chicken laid an egg legally, then it hatched into an unattributed copy at the above link. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|they/their|😹|T/C|☮️|John 15:12|🍂 19:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
The Love Suicides at Sonezaki looks the same. I'm assuming all four are. Nil Einne (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
It maybe an idea to use a copyright checker on the text of the articel, just in case.Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Our article was created in 2005, but that PDF was created in 2013 (click on "properties"). The evidence strongly points to the PDF being the copy, rather than our article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I can read the file just fine and it is titled "FOUR MAJOR PLAYS OF CHIKAMATSU" and contains the sections The Love Suicides at Sonezaki, The Battles of Coxinga, The Uprooted Pine and The Love Suicides at Amijima and closely follow the structure and content of the linked articles. --Auric talk 16:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I did a little bit of investigating. Some of the text from the very first version of the article can be found in the .pdf. The original article was created by User:Kamezuki, who hasn't been active since 2006. A large plot synopsis was later added by User:Marudubshinki (later renamed to User:Gwern). Both text from the original article and the addition of the plot synopsis are found in the .pdf. Pinging @Gwern: (who's still active) in case they have any comment on the matter. Seth Kellerman (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I wrote the plot summary myself. I certainly didn't copy any 2013 PDF from half a decade later (and why would a native Japanese speaker writing up the play be citing Keene for basic info like currencies anyway?). --Gwern (contribs) 15:46 22 January 2019 (GMT)

false claim[edit]

Resolved, no administrator action required. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Acroterion claimed I was autistic. I am not. What should we do? --AndInFirstPlace 01:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndInFirstPlace (talkcontribs)

AndInFirstPlace: I urge you to withdraw this request because I think it's going to be the tipping point for you being indef blocked.--Jorm (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Why is that? He claimed I am autistic. I am not. Is there nothing you can do? --AndInFirstPlace 01:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndInFirstPlace (talkcontribs)
He said that you mentioned it (in a deleted page I can't view). power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AndInFirstPlace says exactly what Acroterion said it does. GABgab 02:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I never wrote "Please note that I am autistic and kindly have an eye to clarity." It may have been from the template I copied, unless another user wrote it in. AndInFirstPlace 02:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm simply saying I did not post that i was autistic! AndInFirstPlace 02:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you guys are being truthful. Please provide screenshot AndInFirstPlace 02:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC) contribs)

... No. He says that you mentioned being autistic, and was trying to be kind to you by providing context for your actions. You are clearly way out of your depth here; I strongly urge you to withdraw this. You've been here less than a month and have opened a request for adminship (doomed to failure) and asked for rollback rights (also doomed to failure) while still not being to figure out how to sign your posts.--Jorm (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to sign my posts properly. I want to ask for help with that. But I promise I never mentioned being autistic. --AndInFirstPlace 02:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndInFirstPlace (talk)
You are aware that even "deleted" pages can be read by those with the proper rights – and that GAB apparently does, has, and confirms (above) that what you said in the RFA is what Acroterion said you said? Are you accusing them of lying? General Ization Talk 02:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • not per se, but I don't think that's correct
For admins, see the deleted RFA here: [51]. And yes, I was trying to be kind on behalf of someone who appears to be having trouble correctly interpreting how other editors are interacting with them. Acroterion (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Yup, that's definitely what the OP said. Canterbury Tail talk 02:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndInFirstPlace (talkcontribs) 02:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

AndIn, you clearly stated on the deleted page that you were autistic. That's fine: we don't discriminate. But it's a bad idea to lie about it. If someone says they're autistic, and someone else takes that person at their word, is that really cause for opening a discussion here? Antandrus (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

RFAs temporarily restored [52] [53]. Acroterion (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I think that was a copy-paste from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/De la Marck; not sure how/why that would be possible but it is an explanation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see what happened. Please withdraw my request for intervention. :) AndInFirstPlace 02:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I think we've got to the bottom of this one. Lets close it up. Oh AndInFirstPlace, your signature still doesn't have the ability to take people to your talk page, can you please fix that. Canterbury Tail talk 02:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you everybody, and I'll re-delete the RFAs to prevent another misunderstanding. Acroterion (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
So AndInFirstPlace, just be careful in the future. You are responsible for everything you post and edit, even if it's inadvertent. This seems like an innocent mistake and I'm glad we got to the bottom of it without any harm, but please be more careful in future. Canterbury Tail talk 02:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

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

User:AndInFirstPlace[edit]

Howdy hello! I was originally going to report this at Arbcom Enforcement but after trying to get to the root of the problem I think the problem warrants ANI. If you believe I should drop this and merely report this at AE, let me know.

Problem: AndInFirstPlace (talk · contribs) came to my attention after posting a rather strange series of messages on SunCrow's user page (to be honest I had forgotton I was following them, Twinkle just autofollowed the page after I gave them a warning once and I'd forgotten to unfollow). I checked out the page in question (2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries), and saw that they had made several reversions regarding a candidate ([54], [55] [56]). The page is under discretionary sanctions for post 1932 American politics (WP:1RR max) already.

AndInFirstPlace was then warned that they were about to break WP:3RR on their talk page. They then went on talk:2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries and called for a vote (contravening WP:VOTE). The two folks who voted quickly in favor were SkullKnight1189284 (talk · contribs) (who had already been warned about being a potential sock/meatpuppet of AndInFirstPlace) and . (who has a recently posted message on their talk page regarding how they "gotta fight on" from AndInFirstPlace). AndInFirstPlace then said that their version of the page was "non-negotiable" on the talk page for 2020 dems. Most recent edits show them trying vote harvest.

I'm not sure if this is the right place to bring up these issues, but I feel like something fishy is up, and am looking for some uninvolved folks to take a look. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 03:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I struck the "non-negotiable." That was a mistake. Do Checkuser me to confirm im not those other two accounts. AndInFirstPlace 03:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
And the person I was asking to vote was against my cause. AndInFirstPlace 03:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Something fishy is up; he was just on #wikipedia-en-help trying to... I wanna say provoke... us. Pretty much his entire schtick there past the first ten or so replies was to troll us about the vote, claim helpers had no clue what Wikipedia policies were about, and even go so far as to claim they didn't "need to" read Wikipedia policies (specifically WP:CRYSTAL) in spite of their obvious lack of knowledge as to how Wikipedia works. They even struck a comment made by another user who's also a regular helper in that channel and then self-reverted for no reason I can think of other than to play chicken. And while I do not suspect Metalreflectslime is him, I cannot say the same for SkullKnight. Right now he's been +q'd on -en-help specifically for the trolling; once it was clear we couldn't see anything he had to say, he showed his heels. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 03:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Right, but the chat is a separate deal. And you were taunting me. AndInFirstPlace 04:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
It's a seperate deal in the sense that it isn't onwiki; what happened on IRC will not be ignored. And no, we were not taunting you. Rather, you were taunting the helpers there, resulting in you being quieted in channel. Vermont (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • AndInFirstPlace just received a 36-hour block at WP:AE for Post-1932 American Politics Discretionary Sanctions 1RR violations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not AndInFirstPlace. Nothing to be paranoid about, we just happen to agree with each other. I'm not running away from any conversation, I'm just busy and finally got to this now. I've seen several valid points made about changing the ordering of the list of declared major candidates and I've also seen the suggestion we just say declared candidates. Let's stick to that discussion rather than suggesting I'm AndInFirstPlace SkullKnight1189284 (talk talk page) 05:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

You... do not sound very convincing.--Jorm (talk) 05:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@SkullKnight1189284: Why is your signature above in the middle of AndInFirstPlace's signaure? The text reads:
Let's stick to that discussion rather than suggesting I'm [[User:AndInFirstPlace|<b style="color:green">AndIn<span style="color:gold">First</span><span style="color:purple">Place</span></b>]] [[User:SkullKnight1189284|SkullKnight1189284]] ([[User talk:SkullKnight1189284|talk]] [[User_talk:AndInFirstPlace|talk page]]) 05:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
How did that happen? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken:AIFP has had trouble figuring out how to deal with their signature. Instead of signing they copy/paste it at the end of their statements. I suspect that SkullKinght is the same person and thus uses the same technique. —AdamF in MO (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that's sorta where I was heading. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Please note that I have banned this editor from post-1932 American politics for six months and blocked for 36 hours, both as arbitration enforcement actions following a report at AE. If the community feels a more substantial block is justified, take my consent to modify the AE sanction as read. GoldenRing (talk) 07:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I have to say, folks, having just had a read of AndInFirstPlace's contributions, this comment seriously looks like trolling. But if it's genuine, it's stunningly arrogant. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I concur with Boing! said Zebedee. From observing what has been said in the discussion just above this one and the comment at SunCrow's discussion page displays either gross arrogance or obvious trolling. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 11:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
At this point I'm unsure of which, but they're definitely not here to build meaningful content. I almost blocked them myself last night, but decided to go to bed instead. I'm finding nothing constructive and a lot of pure arrogance and insistence that their way is right. Additionally there is no collaboration here and if they spoke to people in real life the way they do on here, they'd likely not end up well (not a threat, just an observation of human behaviour.) Let's see what happens when they return, but I think the next block should just be an indef. Canterbury Tail talk 13:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I think that's a reasonable course of action, given the evidence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
And now blocked for 2 weeks and Talk page access revoked for that term by L235, I assume based on this interesting exchange on the editor's Talk page. General Ization Talk 21:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I feel that this user has earned a NOTHERE block.--Jorm (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I say we wait to see what the SPI says. I don't think there's a coincidence that SkullKnight is copy-pasting AIFP's "signature". —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 22:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Concerning sockpuppetry, I suppose I'm becoming somewhat known for seeing sockpuppets behind every bedpost, but let me say two things about this situation.
  • It seems highly unlikely that AndInFirstPlace is a sock of a previous editor. Some of their comments could be expert trolling, but their difficulty in getting their signature right appears to me to be quite real;
  • On the other hand, it seems probable that SkullKnight was created by AndInFirstPace to help create a false consensus, and then was used to edit while they were blocked.
Just how I see it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
SkullKnight was created first. My current theory is that AIFP created him first to use as a sleeper in the event AIFP was blocked. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 23:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
It's almost certainly meat in my view. Functionaries, email me for more information. I've indef'd AndInFirstPlace. Any admin is welcome to modify or remove any actions I've taken here (but not GoldenRing's original AE block). I suggest that this thread be closed. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
JoeAnglimSurvivor (talk · contribs) appears to be another sock, down to the random noticeboard comment on an issue they're not involved in. Mélencron (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Great work ya'll, on tracking down & dealing with a time wasting editor. GoodDay (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Homeostasis07 requesting interaction ban with Czar.[edit]

Apologies for the length of this. I tried to be as succinct as possible, but this ANI has been 18 months in the making. I've even omited several other incidents, but what I've written below should be sufficent in determining whether my request for a mutual interaction ban with Czar would be appropriate. If not, I can expand where necessary.

Background

This entire incident resolves around the nomination of Jill Valentine for Featured Article Candidate. After reading through the first and second FACs (which I nominally contributed to), as well as the subsequent peer review (which I did not contribute to, but Czar was a major participant in; it recast the article almost entirely, and was sufficiently hostile, badgering and argumentative for the original nominator to abandon the article), I spent several weeks in my sandbox and on main-space working on Jill Valentine, making good-faith attempts to address every criticism ever levelled against it by every previous commentator (especially any item relating to sexism). Believing all those issues resolved, I renominated the article at FAC in May 2018. An FAC image reviewer – who determined that one image had an issue with its FUR, but otherwise the images used were appropriate (i.e., had "contextual significance") – was the only person to comment before Czar appeared. Despite this, Czar then began edit-warring over the use of a separate image. That FAC was closed on the basis of Czar's opposition, with the suggestion that I "open dialog with previous reviewers before nominating the article again." I then spent the next 5 months contacting all 21 previous reviewers, 17 of who responded.

Over the course of those 5 months, an 8-week discussion with Czar was initiated on Jill's talk page. Long story short, that discussion ended up being a continuation of the openly hostile and aggressive tone of the peer review, linked to in 'Background'. Even when it was pointed out to him that he was "reviewing" an older ID of the article, he responded with "but the point similarly applies to instances like...", while going on to quantify his original complaint with completely unrelated points. Another one of his points, beginning "It's a jarring time warp to go from 1996 to 2014 and back again (1998)", actually only developed as a result of a request I'd received from one of those 17 editors—i.e., genuine consensus building. But when the sentence he was complaining about was moved to another section of the article, he complained that "This introduces other problems. This R&L ¶ now reads as a string of facts/claims rather than a cogent whole", which stinks of a user holding their own opinion above all others. Furthermore, Czar never accepted a single argument I put forward, and just seemed to dig his heels in even further; the most productive portion of his review consisted of me removing author names from prose, which I happily did, on all but one occasion: Lisa Foiles, because I argued she was a notable writer. It ended up being the only thing I thought I convinced him of during that entire 8-week discussion. Instead, he went on to redirect Foiles' article without consensus. I know there's a lot in this paragraph, and I apologise that there aren't as many diffs as I'd like, but Czar tends not to time-stamp his responses. Though I was involved in the discussion directly, even I can't find the continuation of the discussion he ended with "Yes, see below c".

With that talk page discussion at an impasse, I renominated the article at FAC. This latest FAC attracted the participation of several previous reviewers, who all supported, except Czar. Many of the points he raised there were simply continuations of the arguments I highlighted here in the previous paragraph. He was also dishonest about his role in the peer review. When it was pointed out by another user that the FAC template requires "significant contributors to [an] article" to indicate their involvement prior to commenting, he responded "Please. All I have to declare is my time spent as a reviewer and copy editor", which was fundamentally untrue. Entire swathes of the article were completely re-composed during the 2-month peer review. He additionally labelled my attempts at establishing consensus by contacting previous reviewers over that 5 month period as disingenuous, arguing that "Most of the editors contacted for feedback since the last FAC were simply exhausted", despite 17 of those 21 users responding. That FAC was closed/not promoted, primarily as a result of Czar claiming that "The interplay of the sources on her sexualization [in the Reception & Legacy section] is nonsensical."

With this in mind, I then contacted Czar via his talk page, requesting his assistance in sorting out any alleged organisational issues in R&L once and for all via a draft page I'd specifically created. Between the 8-week talk page discussion and him subsequently labelling my attempts to rectify his concerns "inadequate", I thought this was the way to go. Instead, he aggressively refused this request, posting another round of badgering, once again claiming that the moving of a single sentence to another paragraph introduced a multitude of other problems, while calling me "openly hostile".

My purpose in requesting an interaction ban is to allow me to non-combatively work on gaining consensus for Jill Valentine, with both old and new reviewers. My interactions with Czar on this article have gone beyond the point of a mere content dispute. This is never-ending, self-contradicting badgering from an uncollaborative editor, and a direct continuation of the hostility and aggression found in the previous peer review. He has genuinely been the most disruptive and downright insulting user I've ever come across on Wikipedia. Plus, his latest response to me doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that he has left his tendentious editing behaviour behind, with regards to Foiles' article. Many of his criticisms have been so intentionally vague that I believe no user could ever resolve them, regardless of the extent anyone attempts to; you fix one alleged problem only to be greeted by another, and then another, and then eventually you're told that something you did several weeks before was "inadequate". His criticisms all seem purposefully designed to convince me that Jill Valentine would never meet the FA criteria, which isn't an especially collaborative mindset to have adopted, but it's indicative of a user who only came to interact with Jill's FACs via this hostile discussion with the previous nominator. There has been no attempt whatsoever on his part to compromise or build consensus ever since, and in fact he continues to argue over matters I've already responded to.

Once again, sorry for the length of this ANI, but there's an 18-month history here which I tried my best to adequately and succinctly explain. I'd appreciate any help in this matter, because I really can't cope with this user any more. Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

  • FAC1 (Aug 2017), at which one editor (not involved here) wrote:
FAC1 Comment

The article uses the word "hottest" seven times (in one paragraph); "sexy/sexier/sexiest" seven times; "babe" five times; "attractive" four times; "beauty/beautiful" three times; "hottie" twice; "vixen" twice; "gorgeous" once; "cock teasing" once; "slutty" once; and "douche bag's girlfriend"...Sexist language and trivia. The Cultural impact section as nominated was a long quote farm and very offensive. It called her a "cock tease", "no dick and a set of tits", a "douche bag's girlfriend", "slutty", a "vixen", and, in one paragraph, "hottest" seven times. It compared her to other female characters and asked "who would you rather?". It was also full of trivia: e.g. that she was 26th of 50 hottest game babes.

Homeostasis07 (not the nom at this point) responded here, and the FAC coordinator responded to that response in the same thread. FAC1 was closed with the comment: We all need to remember that an article will not be promoted without the consensus of reviewers, not just how many supports there are...I would recommend working with the reviewers here to achieve a consensus of what should be in the article...the nominator should bear in mind that the same issues could arise again at the next FAC; just because a few editors disagree with the issues raised here does not mean that they can be ignored in a FAC.
  • FAC2 (Oct 2017) closing comment: The fact of the matter is that if/when this is renominated, the same discussion will take place over these issues, and unless there is a consensus of reviewers that this article meets the FA criteria, it will not be promoted; there is clearly no such consensus at the moment but one may be achieved at PR, given time and away from the FAC spotlight. Any future FAC will need to run for at least two weeks (so that quick, pile-on supports do not derail the review) and, as the nominator did this time, all those who opposed should be informed and invited to comment (as should all those who supported).
  • PR2 (Nov 2017) was closed by the nom, after posting a departure notice on the article's talk page.
  • FAC3 (May 2018) was nominated by Homeostasis, who wrote ...I've decided against contacting any and all prior reviewers, whether they were positive or negative. Czar wrote: Bad idea. This is a common courtesy and better done before starting another nom... The closer wrote: Sorry, but I'm going to close this as it's clear that open issues have not been resolved from the last FAC. The last peer review seems to have been closed in frustration with issues still on the table. FAC is not a venue for bringing something up to standard. I'd advise open dialog with previous reviewers before nominating this article again.
  • Conversations took place on Czar's talk page, Part 2, and Part 3 (including talk-page-watcher comment: ...this is a serious allegation, and it implicates the three admins who opposed the Valentine FACs.)
  • FAC4 (Dec 2018) was nom'd by Homeostasis with: ...A verbatim transcript of my interactions with all of those 21 previous editors is available on this FAC's talk page...Pinging the only users who expressed even the slightest bit of interest in commenting here: followed by five usernames, four of whom had voted support at a previous FAC and one participated at PR (seems legit). Closer's comment: ...I think Czar's feedback here and on the article Talk page are good exemplars of our operational concept of providing broad valid feedback with examples. I'd have to see a lot more support that indicates explicit examination of the article against 1a and the general themes in the article before I'd be comfortable promoting over the existing opposition.
  • Conversation on FAC4 closer's talk page
  • Conversation Part 4 on Czar's talk page (I happened to post the next thread on this talk page, which is how I saw this; otherwise I'm not involved.)
After reviewing the above, particularly "Part 3" and "Part 4" of the conversations on Czar's talk page, I oppose a two-way interaction ban, as I do not believe it will effectively address the issues. Looking forward to reading others' thoughts. Levivich? ! 05:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
The issue regarding sexism is moot to this ANI, since FACs 1 and 2, as well as PR2 [all pre-dating my first nomination, FAC3], resolved this. My nominating statement from FAC3 has been taken somewhat out of context here. It continued: "Previous FACs have led to this nomination becoming a loaded issue – to say the least – for some, so I've decided against contacting any and all prior reviewers, whether they were positive or negative. If requested, by FAC coordinators, I wouldn't have a problem with informing everyone that I've renominated it. ... Plus, I think fresh eyes all around may make FAC3 a much more beneficial experience." The quote "...this is a serious allegation, and it implicates the three admins who opposed the Valentine FACs." relates to a separate issue, which I decided against mentioning here because it's bound to get messy: I'd received a series of "poison-pen" e-mails from someone at the Wikipedia Library, in which an administrator allegedly referred to me as a "scumbag" and "sexist asshole" and all sorts of other things. Also, the user who wrote this quoted text was not a "talk-page-watcher", but was involved in the first two FACs and perhaps the largest contributor to PR2. And as I explained in 'Background', FAC3 was closed with the suggestion I "open dialog with previous reviewers before nominating the article again", so the implication that my actions could be considered canvassing is unwarranted.
I would like to believe that there's a possibility of addressing any of Czar's complaints to a point where he no longer felt the need to constantly object, but my experience thus far hasn't left me with the impression that even a remote possibility of that happening exists. As diffs in my post above illustrate, he's been hostile, uncollaborative and tendentious. I've tried – for over 12 weeks at this point – to address his concerns, but they just keep coming and changing, which indicates badgering. I've not taken the decision to bring this to ANI lightly, but it's gotten to a point where I feel like there's no other option. Homeostasis07 (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I just wanted to make a note here, to avoid confusion, that when Homeostasis07 says they "received a series of "poison-pen" e-mails from someone at the Wikipedia Library", I believe this is tangential to the primary issue being raised and - to the best of my knowledge and understanding of the situation - no one who works on the Wikipedia Library project, whether as WMF staff or as a volunteer coordinator, has been sending harassing emails, except to forward some harassment they received to Homeostasis such that they would be aware of it. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Born2cycle[edit]

Born2cycle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I really don't want to be here, but I think we've reached a point where we need to evaluate whether or not he needs to be sanctioned. For those unaware, Born2cycle was indefinitely blocked by Dennis Brown for what I can only classify as long-term disruption in the RM area (see this AE thread started by me.) He was then unblocked without any discussion. After his unblock, a new AE thread was filed by Black Kite due to continued disruption in the RM area after being as unblocked (see thread.) It was closed as being outside of AE action, and nothing was brought to ARCA or ANI afterwards.

B2C is now fixating on Kidnapping of Jayme Closs, arguing that BLPCRIME should not apply if someone has confessed to a crime but hasn't been convicted and that if sources believe someone is a murderer without a conviction based on a confession, we should call them a killer and say that they killed someone. That is of course a content dispute, but given my history with B2C (see this user talk thread), I felt that alerting them to the BLP discretionary sanctions was appropriate in case it became needed on the kidnapping article. I gave him the alert without comment, and it clearly stated that it was simply informational. His response was to revert me calling me a jerk. I then explained to him why I alerted him: he'd never had a BLP alert, and they need to be given if DS is in effect and may be needed because of conflict. He then responded by calling me unplesant. He then further clarified by accusing me of incivility, apparently for letting him know that BLP sanctions existed.

While I normally have pretty thick skin, I think what we have here is a long-term tendentious editor, who really never should have been unblocked to begin with given the clear consensus for a block at AE the first time, who knows how the AE system works, and responds to people following it with incivility and aspersions. On the whole, I think he's pretty clearly a net negative to the project and think he should be blocked again, but I'm obviously involved, so I'm bringing it to the community to discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

  • I agree with Tony Ballioni that the unblocking of Born2Cycle, a long-term tendentious editor, should never have taken place. AGF and hope springs eternal and all that, but there is nothing in B2C's long history to indicate that there was any possibility that they were going to change their ways. Their modus operandi is fundamentally contrary to Wikipedia's working model, and problems such as Tony Ballioni brings up here will continue as long as he is allowed to keep editing. I strongly suggest that the community consider a site ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The issue can be seen here and at WT:BLP. TonyBallioni should not need to work this hard when pointing out the obvious—there is no reason to identify a relatively unknown person as a killer and child kidnapper before a court conviction. Previous disputes with B2C show they are impervious to other's views and will continue pushing forever. Unless someone can point to major redeeming features an indef would be best. Johnuniq (talk) 06:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I just asked the question on a talk page and at least one person generally agreed with my point. So I’m in a civil short talk page discussion about a BLP issue/question that started a few hours ago and is essentially over already, and yet we’re here? Confused... —В²C 06:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Just noting for everyone else that the above as this post on my talk is virtually identical to your response the last time I alerted the community to your long-term disruption. This is either a case of just not getting it, intentional obliviousness to how others perceive you, or lack of competence. In any of these cases, the only option is a site ban or indef. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
        • Yeah, so I’m consistent. Is that a crime now too? I’m equally bewildered this time as last time as to why anyone would start an AN/I without first at least trying to work it out with the other. —В²C 07:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
          • I did try to work it out with you, I explained that DS alerts are mandatory, and you responded with personal attacks and aspersions. Given my past interactions with you, I decided that nothing more was going to come of discussion unless the community was alerted. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
            • I’m beginning to sense your long-standing prejudices about me, largely based on misunderstanding, inhibit our ability to communicate and work together effectively. I’m sad that you’re so quick to write me, or anyone else, off. I’m going to continue working on improving the encyclopedia where I can. Good luck to you. —В²C 07:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Summoned the unblocking admin. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • This member of the community has lost all patience with B2C and his complete inability to accept that any view other than his own could even be a legitimate interpretation of policy. The hours of everyone else's time that B2C has wasted with his crusades would be hard to count. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Regarding Talk:Kidnapping of Jayme Closs, B2C appears to have said (paraphrasing) "I disagree, but am willing to drop it", a day before Tony started this thread. We do not block editors for having different opinions. I am tired of saying it, but we are not the Thought Police. If you can give me one disruptive edit (as opposed to describing Tony as a "jerk" and "unpleasant", which is not on but is not cause for a site ban), I'll change my mind. I don't see edit warring to restore his (ludicrous and incorrect) perspective on the topic, I see one edit, reverted by another editor, and then discussion on the talk page. Fish+Karate 11:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Fish and karate, as a note, he did not post that note until I had already opened this ANI thread.
On the issue here is as Guy points out, there is a long-term trend of B2C going on endless crusades to enforce his view on what is Right (tm) (see Sarah Jane Brown and Yogurt.) This had not reached that stage yet, but was going there by all indications, and then he decided to resort to petty name calling after being given a DS alert it was clear nothing was going to be accomplished either at the talk page or on his talk page.
I’m not trying to censor someone: I’m raising the case of someone who is simply unable to work in a collaborative environment. This is early in the process this time but as has been pointed out at both AE threads and above, this is a disruptive editor who doesn’t quit until he gets his way (or on the flip side, is looking at a serious chance of sanctions.) The community shouldn’t be forced into these choices every time he has a new fixation: letting him win, arguing endlessly, or seeking sanctions. That is disruptive, and when taken as a trend over years is enough for an indef imo. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
You're right, my bad, I looked at the wrong date. I've struck that bit out accordingly. B2C has, though, in this instance, agreed to drop it (or said he will). As all the issues seem to be with BLP, or a significant misreading thereof, would a topic ban from BLPs work? I'm always keen to try and retain editors in some way unless they become a complete and total negative. Fish+Karate 11:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
The thing I was thinking of as an alternative to an indef last night was a “1 comment per page in the Talk or Wikipedia talk namespaces per 24 hours” restriction. There are questions as to if we’d want that. I suppose my reason for saying they should go back to being blocked is that they clearly learned nothing from their last block, when the community had already indicated that it had lost its patience with B2C, and now he’s managed to move from RMs to BLPCRIME, which shows it isn’t just a problem with moves. Yes, he’s agreed to drop this thing after being brought to ANI, but the question is whether or not he’ll agree to drop the next one, or the one after that, or that... TonyBallioni (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. We should try to assume good faith, though (WP:PACT notwithstanding), and hope he's learning (albeit slowly). Fish+Karate 11:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Slowly? He's been here for just shy of 14 years and he has over 27,000 edits. How much time do you think he should be given to bring himself into alignment? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
The fact this time he agreed to let the matter drop suggests to me one is never too old to learn. Fish+Karate 15:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Fish and karate: "a complete and total negative" is not the correct standard. Rather, it is whether they are a net asset or detriment to the project. By your standard, all 27K of the user's edits would have to be problematic, which I can't imagine ever happening.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
If you take it completely literally, then yes, well done. That wasn't really what I meant, though; let's go with "a significant net negative" then. Fish+Karate 15:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • keep, b2c has transcended annoying user status, or cautionary tale of misspent focus, he is an unimplacable, irrepressible, and irreplaceable archetype. cygnis insignis 15:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Folks, I do sometimes tend towards thinking that might be a little bit unconventional or out-of-the-box. I feel some of you do not recognize and appreciate that, and I’m being punished for it. This BLPCRIME discussion is a perfect example. I made one edit that was reverted and then I took it to the article’s talk page where the broader issue was uncovered (wording/reasoning at BLPCRIME), so I raised the question at the policy talk page where I think there is a reasonable and self-explanatory discussion, that also spilled back to the article’s talk page. Where exactly is the problem? When consensus changes on WP, isn’t it exactly through discussions like these? If anyone else did what I did, would they have been taken to AN/I? Seriously consider that, please. I hate to pull the persecution card, but I do feel persecuted here. In fact, everything was going reasonably until I decided to weigh in on another dispute that TonyBallioni was involved in regarding adding a link to the See Also section of the same Kidnapping of Jayme Closs article. I happened to agree with the other user and I think TonyBallioni took it personally. That’s when he shocked me with the BLP notice on my talk page (but not on the other user’s talk page - speaking of feeling persecuted) and then, instead of trying to work it out on my talk page, it quickly escalated to here. This filing did prompt some discussion on my and TonyBallioni’s user talk pages that I do feel has been productive, but filing this ANI was not necessary to cause that to occur. —-В²C 14:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment. I make no suggestion about what action (if any) to take this time around because I wasn't directly involved in the current cycle and haven't pored through all the relevant posts. I just note that there's an apparent pattern that has repeated through several cycles over a number of years: stick-like behavior that toes up to the line of tolerability, sometimes crosses it, sometimes leads to some kind of sanction, followed by a period of comparative quiet, and then a gradual return to the original behavior. Insofar as Born2cycle has many years of experience and a good understanding of many guidelines and policies, his input is beneficial — but that benefit is often offset by his insistence on certain interpretations/applications of policy that are at odds with community consensus, his persistent advocacy for those views to an extent and volume that can be considered tendentious, and a determination to prevail through persistence rather than to accept compromise and move on to other areas. That's just my view based on what I've observed, and I don't know the best solution, but I do agree that it is a concern. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • A few years ago В²C and I were in a bitter dispute over an article title issue, and while I've noted any time since that I've seen this come up that В²C does tend to badger and stonewall and relitigate and all the other tendentious behaviours until they get their way or are sanctioned (and so I endorse those observations in this thread) I have never felt along the way that this rises to the level of a site ban. Frankly В²C is a valuable resource in terms of interpretation and criticism of policy, sometimes on very contentious issues. On the present dispute over whether BLPCRIME should apply to someone who has admitted to but not been formally convicted of a crime, there's probably a point to be made there. If the community feels that a sanction is required I recommend it be something which allows them to still participate here. I don't have time today to suggest something so I'm just leaving this here as a comment.
We should very likely also rethink our DS notification guidelines. Being warned by an administrator that you're in a dispute with that administrators have authorization to unilaterally dole out sanctions on a topic is an inherently belligerent gesture even if not so intended (and I'm not suggesting that was Tony's intent), almost rising to the level of using administrative tools to win a dispute. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. That's certainly how it felt and what escalated this particular discussion into a dispute, unnecessarily in my view. I would hope all administrators involved in discussions know it's not prudent to dole out such warnings to other discussion participants themselves, but, if appropriate, ask an uninvolved admin to do so, for precisely these reasons. Being involved they may be biased and so asking an uninvolved admin to take a look is an appropriate level of precaution. I would think that would be standard practice for admins. --В²C 18:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Ivanvector, I strongly disagree that an admin giving out a DS alert as a normal editor comes anywhere near tool misuse: the template clearly says it implies no wrongdoing at the time, it is not an administrative action as anyone can hand it out, and I have never once taken any action in regards to B2C precisely because I am involved with him. Simply being an admin does not mean that people you are in a content dispute with don’t get to be notified of DS by you. It means that the admin doesn’t get to use them. I think B2C should be sure banned, or at the very least restricted so his unique form of disruption isn’t allowed to continue, but I have never once abused the tools with regards to him and have always asked the community or other administrators to take action. Comparing following the policy to the letter on how to deal with an entrenched disruptive editor who you are involved with really shouldn’t be competed to tool abuse. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how delivering the DS alert is tool misuse since as noted anyone can issue them (including non-admins). The only requirement is that involved admins cannot impose sanctions themselves (which Tony hasn't). Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I am an editor like B2C who has a large interest in page titling and page moving. While I would definitely oppose to B2C being banned altogether in RM discussion and similar activity, due to the fact that they clearly have a vast interest in this area and can bring a net benefit. I don't however oppose to some lesser ban of B2C, like no closing RM discussions (this was supported by several editors) and no editing policy talk pages (since that appears to be somewhat what this is about). I don't know enough about the BLPCRIME issue to make any comments about it specifically so I'll duck out otherwise there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I stand by my RM closes. I have had hardly any complaints, no more than average for RM closers, I'm sure. Not saying there aren't one or two questionable exceptions, like with most any other closer. I mostly help out with non-controversial ones anyway. Do you perceive a problem with my closes? What? --В²C 19:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
      • I personally don't have a problem with you're closes but I am aware that several other editors do (I think you have had more complaints than most closers, though I do see that many have been from people who frequently disagree with you) and that a RM closure and policy discussion ban would at least be a better outcome than a full RM ban. I'm not saying that I support that you are given a RM closure and policy discussion ban but I don't oppose to it based on the concerns of multiple editors. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
        • I appreciate your support. We've had our differences too, but have worked them out amicably, I think. Yes? Please don't pile on because a few others who were not able to do so are blowing the wind in a certain direction. If you look at what they're complaining about you'll see that I'm not doing anything different from others, as you already know. A good example is in that AE discussion started by Black Kite linked at the top of this discussion. See my statement there in which I point though I was persecuted for saying too much in a particular discussion, several others said much more. But I'm the one who is "tendentious"? Why me? These are the kinds of things I'm persecuted for. It's really unfair. --В²C 21:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
          • Yes we have indeed managed to work things out, despite sometimes having different views (mainly on long-term significance and ASTONISH). Remember that I'm not supporting anything, I would much prefer to oppose to any restrictions but I can't ignore the concerns of others, which I don't think are entirely invalid. Please continue to participate in page titling discussions etc. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Crouch, Swale: I think the idea of a ban on closing RM discussions would probably be worthwhile, for a variety of reasons. There's a general principle that closures should be undertaken only by someone who's neutral to the debate; someone without a horse in the race, so to speak. B2C devotes nearly all his time either to specific RMs or to matters of titling policy. The fact that he has a very long history of firmly advocating for his own unique interpretations of such policies as the only acceptable ones, often in ways that have led to disruption and sanctions, does unfortunately raise the question of impartiality in most any closing. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • * First of all let's consider that this is an editor that doesn't really contribute much to an encyclopedia - They have 27,000 edits, of which only 9% are in mainspace, of which most are related to page they've been involved in moving or otherwise discussing. 75% are to talk pages, mostly involved in arguing and/or discussing page moves. Frankly, B2C should never have been unblocked without a community discussion in the first place - it was a utterly terrible unblock given the persistent disruption in the RM area since (see the AE filing linked in the opening paragraph) - however that is now past history. At the very least, however, he should be barred from closing Requested Moves (there was consensus for that in the first place), and if he has moved onto causing issues (especially BLP related ones) at policy pages, then that needs to be looked at as well. Black Kite (talk) 19:57::18 January 2019 (UTC)
    • We don't all contribute in the same way. Because of my interest in title stability on WP (see my user page and FAQ), I tend to get involved in controversial matters about titles which necessitates many (some long) discussions on talk pages to develop consensus (that's how consensus is developed on WP). That's why so much of my activity is on talk pages working this stuff out. I was recently thanked for a good typical example of this; see Talk:University_of_Klagenfurt#Requested_move_26_December_2018. That some of you choose to persecute me for this approach while others are sending me wikilove notes for it, is disappointing. --В²C 20:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I make no comment about when/how B2C was unblocked being correct but I would dispute Black Kite's statement that User:wbm1058 "unilaterally unblocked B2C", the unblock was discussed at User talk:Born2cycle/Archive 14 where it appears several editors favoured unblocking B2C (though apparently with restrictions). I would agree that wbm105 may have been better off posting at AN or asking the blocking admin/AE filer though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I suppose I'm involved here since I unblocked B2C and have been pinged; frankly I'm annoyed at having to look into his edits again so soon. A distraction from an otherwise productive day for me. I can't really say much more before I read all through this, but two points. (1) SMcCandlish's comments on B2C's talk prompted me to unblock, so I'm pinging them now, in case they wish to review the current drama and add input. (2) I count 15 B2C signatures on Talk:Kidnapping of Jayme Closs – I think you're over your quota there. You should realize that article is running on the center rail; please take some time out to tend to outside-rail maintenance where you have much less risk for receiving electric shocks. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
You're annoyed? Sorry about that, but imagine how I feel! The discussion at Kidnapping of Jayme Closs has nothing to do with titles. I'm not sure what quota you're referring to. As to my 26 talk page edits, there are several of us who are working on that article, and discussing various issues as we go. Yes, I have 26 Talk page edits. Joseph A. Spadaro has 40. TonyBallioni has 12. I have 17 edits on the main article also. I don't think that's such an unusual ratio for main/talk article edits considering the care put into a current event article with BLP considerations. Ballioni is 4 main/12 talk, for example. My question: How is anything I'm doing wrong or problematic by any reasonable standard, much less warranting an AN/I? --В²C 22:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Still reading through this (not that much fun, so bear with me please) but one initial comment. Template:Ivory messagebox (changed to |bg=#E5F8FF) is documented as for use in system messages. Personally I don't care to see it being used on user pages for this purpose. The notification about ArbCom sanctions can be delivered without using a loud colorful message box with exclamation point icon and Important Notice section header that will draw the attention of any passerby that visits the user's talk page. Giving the notice in a more "friendly manner" may not have prompted the kind of response it got. I'd prefer sending the message without bothering to use a template. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Um... wbm1058 ... the DS template isn't the problem here. The behavior of Born2Cycle is, and your unilateral unblock of them wasn't in the least helpful. Please take ownership of enabling this problematic editor to keep disrupting the community -- a situation you could alleviate by re-instating Dennis Brown's block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Not to pile on, but this is exactly why it isn't good for an admin to unilaterally unblock someone after there was a community discussion and sanction. I did the original block and I was already very familiar with B2C (for a few years), and not every reason for the block was spelled out in that AE discussion. I did the block as outside AE to make it easier for him to get unblocked, but not to be unilaterally unblocked without discussion. The unblock was a mistake; perhaps an honest mistake, but a mistake nonetheless and B2C had not even requested to be unblocked, so technically, my admin action of blocking was a revert, which is a different animal altogether. B2C is not an unlikable person, or some ogre that sets out to wreck the place, but there exists some peculiar habits that are disruptive to the project on the whole. I don't think it is intentional but it doesn't matter. Having a lack of self control that bleeds into disruption, is still disruption. I haven't been very active since the unblock, so I can't speak to the recent behavior, but I'm not shocked that we are back here, wasting words discussion it. As for what to do now, I'm not up to pouring through diffs. I will leave that to the community. Dennis Brown - 12:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • For a current example of how my friends hold my behavior to unfair madeup standards, see User_talk:Born2cycle#Please_reopen_RM. Why do I have to endure such harassment? —В²C 15:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal (Born2cycle)[edit]

Okay, given that opinion is split on a indef/site ban, but there does seem to be consensus that B2C's way of interacting with others on this site is disruptive, I'm proposing the following: Born2cycle is indefinitely restricted to one edit in 24 hours per page in the Talk and Wikipedia talk namespace. This sanction may be appealed no earlier than 6 months, and then every 6 months thereafter. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Support As proposer. I think he's a longterm net-negative to the project, and should not be allowed to continue to contribute, but that is unlikely to happen without an ArbCom case, and I don't think anyone wants that. This sanction addresses the problem that people have identified above that he is completely unable to drop the stick or consider the views of those beside himself as legitimate, while still allowing him to participate on Wikipedia and not overwhelm discussions. I think it is a good middle ground, and for those of us who think he falls into net-negative territory is an exercise in WP:ROPE: either this works and he becomes a productive editor, or it fails and it becomes evident to the community that he is not able to reform. Either way, the problem will be solved by this. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose To namespaces other than WT namespace (and also exclude from RMs in the project namespace, since they occur at the WT namespace), I don't think there has been sufficient problems there. This seems to have been the views of the September AE case, there didn't appear to be much support for banning B2C from individual RMs. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the persecuted and accused. I deny the charges which are extremely vague anyway, and not even attempted to be proven. I find it ironic that the editor who started this AN/I is accusing me of "interacting with others" in a disruptive way. Who has been disrupted by anything I've said or done? What have I said or done that disrupted anyone? Now look at how many were disrupted for this AN/I. And this latest squirmish all started, by the way, when TonyBallioni jumped in at Kidnapping of Jayme Closs with this surprising edit and edit summary about which he still can't explain the basis at Talk:Kidnapping_of_Jayme_Closs#Joseph_E._Duncan_III. That sure looks disruptive to me... --В²C 22:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    • You are not a victim. The links to previous discussions about your history have been provided above. You only backed down on that page after the possibility of an indefinite block and you continue to cast aspersions even while this is going on. Coming to a page after you posted about it at WT:BLP and then finding other BLP issues and insisting that they have consensus for inclusion before being restored in not disruptive. That is policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
      • I was and remain bewildered by your objection to inclusion of that link in the See Also section (Joseph A. Spadaro and I await your responses to our questions at that discussion section, especially considering what WP:SEEALSO says and the similar examples of See Also inclusions in BLP/criminal related articles I listed), but I admit that it was a mistake and premature to revert your revert, and I apologize. That was out of character for me if you look at my history, but I truly thought you made an error and consensus for inclusion was implied. I won't do that again. --В²C 22:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • oppose, mildly, "It is a highly active species. Always on the move and is very squirmish, if handled. " this is the only hit I got, so I want to see that word used more often : ) never change mate. cygnis insignis 22:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Too many potential squirmishs in some new approaches, will support a consensus on some form of community pressure to inhibit unhelpful dissent. cygnis insignis 12:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless we're going to penalize all overly active participants in requested moves and related discussions the the same way. Although I don't think any action is necessary at this point, I urge B2C to consider this a warning and consider dialing back his participation in said discussions. Calidum 22:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I appreciate that but please know this issue with TonyBallioni was at Kidnapping of Jayme Closs and had nothing to do with RMs or titles. I honestly think he (and a few others) just unfairly judge my behavior through a prejudicial lens and see problems where if others did the exact same thing it wouldn't be an issue at all. --В²C 23:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • While I have argued for many years that B2C needs formal restrictions, this suggestion of edits per page per day is not it. Words per page per week might be a better measure of tendentious verbosity. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Frankly, I'm not understanding the hesitation to indef him. He's been a net-negative for a long time. Hasn't he "exhausted the patience of the community" yet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wow. Net-negative? Thank you for sharing your hateful and hurtful opinion. Why is this acceptable? —В²C 01:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't be disingenuous, it's hardly the first time you've been evaluated as a net-negative to the project. And it's acceptable because AN/I is where the behavior of editors is evaluated for the possibility of sanctioning -- which you totally know, because you've been discussed here before -- these are all AN/I reports:
The majority of these AN/I reports are specifically about Born2Cycle, while others show his tendency toward being tendentious and disruptive. Note: I stopped when I got to the third page of this. There were at least 2 more pages of listings after it.
So, yes, a net-negative, very much so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
That’s still a tiny fraction of all the discussions I’ve been involved in over those years and in every AN/I case it’s brought here by someone who disagrees with me about some issue, but complains about my behavior which is usually actually pretty typical/normal on WP, and not against any rules, as is made evident when objective uninvolved editors look at it and see nothing problematic to sanction. The bottom line is some people unfortunately take disagreement personally and develop animus towards the person who disagrees with them. I mean, look at how are political leaders are behaving. Some can disagree amicably (I can), but others get pissed off. It’s what has happened with Tony, you, and many others. I should not be faulted or penalized for disagreeing with others. But that’s all that this is about. —В²C 05:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Total outsider who have just kept an eye on this - You don't seem to understand this is not about the fact that you disagree, but how you express yourself and behave when you disagree. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
@MPJ-DK: Okay, I agree with that much: I don’t understand that this is about how I express myself and behave when I disagree. The reason I don’t understand is because, as far as I know, how I express myself and behave when I disagree is respectful and appropriate per normal standards and applicable WP behavioral policies and guidelines. I’m not perfect, but my perception is my behavior is generally above average in terms of avoiding personal attacks, not being belittling, being civil, not showing disrespect, AGF, etc., when discussing with someone with whom I disagree. Not perfect. Not the best. But above average. So, total outsider, please help me understand. If I’m wrong and it’s not just about people griping about my behavior simply because I disagree with them, but it’s something substantive about how I express myself and behave, please, tell me what it is that I’m doing wrong. Help me understand, and I’ll stop. (By the way, I think this reply exemplifies how I typically express myself and behave when I disagree - can you identify a problem here?). —В²C 07:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
MPJ-DK posts 35 words. B2C replies with 180 words, denying the observation and demanding MPJ-DK follow up with an extensive reply to his 180 words. I would call “escalation of verbosity” the central problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@Born2cycle: Comment from another uninvolved outside observer: one issue I see reading this thread is that you're responding to nearly every editor's comment. Though the content of the responses may be civil, the sheer volume of responses can have the unintended effect of "choking" conversation, making it difficult for the editors to talk to each other about you, rather than just talking to you. The community may want to see that you know when and how to step back, including maybe now. (Up to you.) Levivich? ! 07:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I have no doubt whatsoever that you do not understand what it's all about, because if you did, there wouldn't be so many complaints about your editing, because you would have changed the way you edit in response to the piles and piles and piles of complaints. The fact that the complaints continue after at least 9 years, is testament to your lack of understanding, I think.
The only alternative is that you do understand what everyone objects to, but you don't give a damn about their objections and complaints, you just want to edit the way you want to edit, no matter what the rest of the Wikipedia community says.
Those are really the only possibilities: either you don't understand, or you do and are giving the rest of us the finger. Either way, you're a net negative to the project, because you suck up way too much time and energy for the contributions you make (only 12.6% of which go to improving articles, while 51.2% go to talking about them on article and user talk pages). [57] Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I support “net negative”, although I note some improvement, if we exclude the recent affection to close discussions (actions that must be throughly scrutinised and are frequently found faulty) and attempts to reword policy (including BLPCRIME). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose this particular restriction as well as a site ban (which is not being proposed). I don't see a perfect solution here. Somehow, В²C has to move beyond the notion he is being persecuted and adjust his behavior but I'm not sure how to do that as blocks are meant to prevent misconduct, not punish editors. I don't think this proposal will solve the problem here which is one of attitude, not number of edits. But just because I oppose this restriction and a site ban (again, spoken of but not being proposed) doesn't mean I champion your behavior, В²C. Can you acknowledge that there are issues with your editing behavior and accept that sometimes your editing can be tendentious? Can you tamp that down? Because while there are some who oppose Tony's proposal, you're unlikely to get off without any restrictions at all as Tony is not alone in his criticism. Can you state how you might change how you respond to those you disagree with and give assurances that we won't all be back here a month from now? Because that is why, usually, editors call for indefinite blocks because they don't want to repeat all of this again and again. Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Just now reading over the the AE discussion from March, it strongly resembles this discussion, with pleas to change behavior and promises to, which is unfortunate to see again, 9 months later. Apparently, we already have been through this same discussion before. I'm not going to change my Oppose right now but I now think some editing restrictions are called for. If В²C didn't pick up the message being given at AE, what assurances are that this will change now? Liz Read! Talk! 04:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Take a look at some of the AN/I reports I just posted links for, and see if it doesn't change your mind. Basically, B2C has been like this from the beginning, he's been in trouble for his behavior from the beginning, and he just never changes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, for what it's worth. I find it astonishing that we can be here, on the - what - 15th or more noticeboard report, and hardly anyone seems to think that such a perennial time-sink needs a sanction that will stop there being a 16th or more report, and a 17th, and an 18th ... Black Kite (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Attempts to muzzle someone simply for disagreeing with them (whether they realize that’s what they’re doing or not) rightfully should not succeed. —В²C 07:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • More content-free argument. A net negative. Johnuniq (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh, goodness, the Free Speech gambit. Well, you say you have a right to hold your rally, and I say, sure, but you're not going to hold it in my living room, fella. Another clear indication that you have little or no understanding of what's going on here. As my mother used to say to me, "It's not what you said, it how you said it" -- and you say it disruptively and tendentiously, over and over again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Ugh, not cute anymore. I'm starting to agree with the idea of an enforced break from RM, certainly from closing them. Nevertheless, I consider my exasperation with the user to be my problem, and interaction with this type of editing is a rite we have no means or right to insulate ourselves from. A sort of continuity in our community's history, I suffer from nostalgia on occasion. And he is a good guy, I'm sure, just another stamina junkie is all. cygnis insignis 12:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • B2C: The problem — which you seem determined not to hear — is not with the fact that you disagree with others. Disagreement happens all the time, and can be quite healthy. The problem is the tendentious way in which you do it, and the fact that (as others have rightly noted) it's turned into a disruption a great many times over the past many years. That you continue to characterize concerns with your behavior as "muzzling" suggests you're not understanding that point. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose sanction. With all due respect to Tony who, as I have said on many occasions, is one of our finest and most even-handed admins, I do think this ANI thread is undue escalation. It is clear that B2C has a style of editing that rubs some people up the wrong way, and I can fully understand why that is. He has strong opinions on particular topic areas, and finds it difficult on occasion to WP:Drop the stick. On the flip side, though, he understands our article title policies better than almost anyone and most of the time he is absolutely right about the points he makes. User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle is one example - it accurately describes a phenomenon on Wikipedia which has happened in numerous places over the years, where a bad title is eventually replaced by a better one despite many years of failed move requests. New York (state) and Hillary Clinton to name just two. In itself the "Yogurt Principle" is harmless and often useful, yet B2C gets massive criticism for it. Sarah Jane Brown is another case, which Tony mentioned as a "bad thing" in the thread on his talk page. But there are many people, myself included, who think "Sarah Jane Brown" is a dreadful title for the article. It doesn't match our naming conventions, and B2C makes very cogent arguments to that effect on the occasions the matter has been debated over the years. Is that annoying to people who disagree? Yes. Is it against the rules? I don't think so. He doesn't edit war in article space, and he accepted last year's close on the SJB RM. On the actual issue that led to this thread, obviously it is a content dispute, and I can see both sides of the story. Tony felt he was sticking to the BLP rules, and of course B2C should not have called him a "jerk". But then again, as wbm1058 says above, it is possible to convey a message to an experienced editor without using templates designed for newbies, and I would have thought the discretionary sanctions notice could have been posted as a friendly message instead of a template? In summary then, the only crime I can see is that B2C has strong opinions, and sometimes goes too far in expressing them. When that happens, I would urge both sides in to please approach it in a collegiate rather than a combative fashion. B2C should try to understand why people feel annoyed by him, and similarly those who criticise should do more to understand his point of view rather than simply coming to ANI every time there's a dispute. I think calling him a "net negative" is very far from the mark. His presence here over the years has definitely helped our article titles be in a better shape. Thanks, and I hope this makes some sense.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
    • He is oblivious to his own biases, and will put endless energy and devotion into arguing a peculiar blinkered view. You agree with him at Wikipedia:Move_review#Jaggi_Vasudev, but do you agree with the number and tone of his posts there? His “Yogurt Principle” is a justification for relentless disruption until the noisy group gets its way. My “net negative”, for the last year, assessment is based on the amount of review time needed for every move and RM close he makes, a fair impartial action can’t be trusted without review. You, Amakuru, appear to be the most respect admin who had time for him, why don’t you volunteer to play his “probation officer”, he needs someone on his side who can tell him when to back off or ease off. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
    • The rules for discretionary sanctions are very strict: notifications must use the specified template before administrators can apply a sanction at their discretion for the topic area in question. isaacl (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose sanction. With no due respect to Tony Ballioni or Dennis Brown or any of the other process jockeys that spend all too much authority posturing and no actual project improvement. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
No respect, although it is due? cygnis insignis 13:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
No respect is due. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Govindahariahri, your deliberate ill-mannered disrespecting of Tony Ballioni and Dennis Brown -- both of whom have already contributed more to Wikipedia than it's likely you ever will -- reflects more upon your extremely poor judgment than it does on upon anything else. You might want to consider just editing articles and forebear from commenting on the noticeboards, where you constantly embarrass yourself with your ill-considered opinions. Born2Cycle should be worried, because when you show up in support of someone, it's almost inevitable that they're on the cusp of a block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry BMK, even without his ridiculous comments about Tony and Dennis, the community got to the point long ago where no-one takes any notice of Govindaharihari's comments. Black Kite (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I could have written the first paragraph writen by Ivanvector (18:33, 18 January 2019), although B2C and I also agree on other issues. I also agree with User:Crouch, Swale (19:48, 18 January 2019). So I Oppose this proposal--and also the site ban--but B2C please self-moderate and consider this ANI a shot across the bows and not a licence to kill (pun intended). -- PBS (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as not actually responsive to the issues that keep bringing B2C back here. I've gone from seeking an indef myself against B2C, back in the day, to more recently being highly critical of the reasoning for the indef imposed on him a year or so back. (I wrote a detailed analysis of why at his talk page some time ago [58]; the short version is that he was accused of doing the same thing over and over and not listening when consensus was against him or ever changing his stance, but that was easily disproved by the actual changes in what he was proposing and why, which were clearly directly responsive to the criticism he was receiving – he simply got railroaded anyway. And the block was invalid for unquestionable procedural reasons, including ArbCom limiting the scope of the case under which he was blocked to specific pages which were not the pages to which he was posting.)

    It would make more sense to use an RM-specific topic ban, than either a general block, or some weird 1RR thing across the entire site, since he never ends up at ANI or other dramaboards for anything not related to RM, from what I can tell, and he's productive outside that one problem area. Sanctions are to be preventative (of actual issues, not imaginary or hypothetical ones), never punitive.
     — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  05:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes, a topic ban on article naming was what the AE thread had consensus on, but then he was blocked indefinitely so the AE was closed - until, of course, he was unblocked and carried on with the type of editing that got him to AE in the first place. One of the many failings of Wikipedia's arcane processes, unfortunately. Black Kite (talk) 07:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Quick point: can anyone articulate exactly what I supposedly did that brought me here to AN/I this time, and how what I did supposedly violates anything? BTW, the discussion cited related to Kidnapping of Jayme Closs had nothing to do with titles or RMs. I was actually working in article space trying to improve an article I was interested in and got involved in a content dispute, followed WP:BRD, etc., which led me to informally (no rfc) proposing on a talk page a possible change to a guideline. I honestly don't see what the problem was, so my question stands. To anyone. Why are people talking about RM limitations? I've been (mostly) avoiding being tendentious in RMs. See my history! I feel like I'm being railroaded, again, though I won't rule out the possibility that I'm missing something. --В²C 01:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • You were never "railroaded". Many editors have expressed concern about your editing over many years. You finally pushed far enough that you got yourself blocked. Your constant refrain of "I don't get it" doesn't help. Omnedon (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, talk page sanctions are almost never a good idea. We want people to use talk pages to carry out any detailed discussions they wish to have. Having lots of edits on a talk page is not a Bad Thing in and of itself. I don't care if B2C uses a talk page to argue against policy when most think he's wrong, or to disagree with other editors about an interpretation of a guideline. That's what talk pages are for - talking things over. Annoying or not, I have not once been shown that this prolixity and tendentiousness is spilling over into article space and causing any kind of disruption in article space. Fish+Karate 11:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, I don't think anyone's saying that many talk edits by themselves are a problem, or that debating with others on talk pages is wrong, or that article space is being impacted. The concern centers mainly around the long-term tendentiousness of B2C's interactions in talk space, and how that negatively affects the relevant forums and community. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support some form of action re B2C, but (like others above) I must weakly oppose this proposal. A sanction in the form of x edits per y time period strikes me as a little too arbitrary and unwieldy, and would presumably require constant policing to enforce — and having to constantly sink time into addressing issues caused by this user is one of the things I think the community's trying to get away from. I realize that B2C was blocked[59] for a period in 2018 for similar behavior, and that to judge from the continuing debate it hasn't affected the desired change. That being the case, it seems like another block, perhaps of a longer duration, may be necessary. However, something less severe like banning B2C from RMs for a period might be worth trying. Either way: without action, it seems likely we'll all be meeting here again in another six to nine months to re-debate it.

    My take on the broader situation:

    The very lengthy and regular history of problems that the community has had with B2C over many years (a portion of which was linked above by Beyond My Ken) should, I think, be of at least some concern to anyone interested in the overall health of the project. As I've said before, I don't think B2C is motivated by anything other than a sincere desire to improve Wikipedia... but problems arise from the fact that his views on how to improve Wikipedia are often at odds with the community's — or to be more accurate, the problem is that he takes his advocacy for his views too far, often turning to filibusters, stick-wielding, repetitious persistence to get a particular favored outcome, or other such tendentious behaviors. I feel like these things have a corrosive, negative effect on the nature of debate in the forums, and makes it less likely that users (particularly newer ones) will be willing to engage.

    Concerning though those problems are, the more disheartening part is that B2C rarely acknowledges the problems, and instead voices bewilderment at why he's yet again the center of dispute. I say disheartening because if he hasn't internalized the need for change after so many iterations — and with such similar concerns expressed by such a variety of editors across so many years — I fear that change may never happen. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Flooded with them hundreds's signature[edit]

I didn't want to bring this here, but I've tried to communicate with Flooded with them hundreds on their talk page about it and got brushed off, and they are continuing to use the signature, so I believe this may need community attention.

An example of the new signature can be seen in this diff.

Flooded is a prolific recent changes patroller, and does a lot of good work in that vein; however, they also (by necessity) become the first person to make contact with a new editor, by leaving a template on their talk page. I believe that this signature would be very confusing for new users - it smacks of conflict and bitterness, and for people who intend to edit collaboratively (and are getting a template for making an honest mistake) it will be positively off-putting.

WP:SIG says that anything that's not allowed in a username is not allowed in a signature; I don't believe that a username along the lines of 'AdminsTreatMeLikeDirt' would survive a nomination to UAA. I'm not looking for Flooded to be blocked or anything, I just think that they should change this signature, or at the very least stop templating new users with it and potentially driving people away from the project. GirthSummit (blether) 13:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

A tricky one. Possibly violates WP:SIGLENGTH (as being too long) and WP:CUSTOMSIG (which states "a distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users"). However there's no actual disruption as far as I can see, no personal attacks or incivility etc. GiantSnowman 13:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Indeed - for clarity, I am not accusing Flooded of incivility. I'm just concerned that a new user, reading that long and snarky signature, would be either confused or put off. And, given the nature of the work they do, a template from Flooded with this signature attached to it is the first contact from the community that a lot of new users receive. GirthSummit (blether) 13:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree it's not ideal, but I'm stumped as to what we can do about it. GiantSnowman 13:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
The operative element of the signature is (sig inspired by Hullaballoo)—and is to whom you must go. ——SerialNumber54129 13:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Notified. GiantSnowman 14:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually, it's better than Flooded's previous oversized signature. (And there's really no point in engaging Hullaballoo Wolfowitz in a discussion about it, there'll be no joy there.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Username policy actually states that "Usernames are not allowed on Wikipedia and will be immediately blocked if they...are...long..." Rather ambiguous, given that how long 'long' is isn't actually defined. Probably needs clarification. Would be rather unfair to block anyone on that basis though. It might however be wise to suggest to Flooded that even if there isn't currently a policy or guideline banning his username, one might turn up if he doesn't find a way to be a bit more subtle with his gripes. Definitely offputting for a noob. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
The point, all, about me directing you to HW was not to discuss anything with him (why? it's none of his business), but to intimate that, perhaps, the issue has already arisen? This discussion—and there have been others of a similar vintage—pretty comprehensively tanked the question. And hypotheticals like "scaring noobies" is little more tha an exercise in Project Fear. ——SerialNumber54129 14:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't agree with you about Project Fear, and I actually think the two cases are rather different. HW, from what I can see from a quick look at their contrib history, mostly works on content, and doesn't use talk pages much. Flooded is a very prolific patroller - they template tens or hundreds of IPs and new accounts every day. We are all encouraged to be welcoming and communicative with new editors - that message does the exact opposite. GirthSummit (blether) 14:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Since the issue is the message being sent out, the cases are clearly exactly the same; by your logic, the issue would be resolved if FWTH stopped patrolling. Would that be an improvement to the encyclopaedia? ——SerialNumber54129 14:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Have we treated Flooded like dirt two years before they created their account? Good to know.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes that would be a clever trick, Bbb23 ;) but, more mundanely, I think it just refers to the previous (3?) usernames. ——SerialNumber54129 14:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
In response to Serial Number 54129's question above - yes, this particular issue would be resolved by their ceasing to patrol; no, that wouldn't be a benefit to the project; and that's not the outcome I want. I just hope to convince them to stop posting what amounts to a complaint about how Wikipedia is administered on the talk page of hundreds of new users every day - that's not what warning templates are for. I brought it here because I hoped that, if it was clear that the community wanted them to change it, that might carry a bit of weight. GirthSummit (blether) 15:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Incidentally, @Girth Summit:, I probably ouhgt to emphasise that I am actually in agreement with you on at least one aspect of this: I think the signature is childish, petty and with a certain arrogance. But I think consistency and fairness to established editors are as important as ?civility to new editors, and however much I personally dislkie those sigs, I object to condemning one without the other: condemn both, if the community wants to return to it. ——SerialNumber54129 15:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I originally had an issue with his purple sig (which I thought what this thread was all about) but having seen 3-4 people already raise it with him on his tp I figured me leaving another sig message would be pointless, I feel like this editor is intentionally trying to be disruptive .... He caused issues with the purple and now here we are a new signature and still more problems,
FWIW Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz's sig was also raised here a few years ago but nothing was done about it - If anyone deserves that signature it's TRM!, Anyway there's generally leeway given to sigs but I feel this is rather pointy and quite honestly childish,
Just my 2p anyway. –Davey2010Talk 14:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Genuine question Flooded with them hundreds - Do you have diffs where you were "treated like dirt" I'm genuinely curious. –Davey2010Talk 14:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Apparently I missed the part where this thread is about his sig and welcoming new editors - Doesn't really fill the newbie with confidence does it .... "Welcome to Wikipedia, I've been treated like shit for 3 years" ..... Don't welcome new editors (unless you change the sig) = Problem solved. –Davey2010Talk 17:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Let's say I was welcoming new editors, ending every welcome message with "By the way, the administrators will treat you like dirt!". Not in a signature, just at the end of every message. I would imagine a topic ban from welcoming new editors would be forthcoming. I don't care if FWTH has it in his signature day to day, but the welcome template should be welcoming. And that welcome template includes the signature, we should not be hung up on the fact the phrase is within the signature, we should be considering the fact it's within every welcome message FWTH leaves. It's proselytizing and not an appropriate message to give to potential new editors. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. FWTH is well aware of this conversation and has shown no inclination to participate. I imagine he's loving the attention. I would hope FWTH could voluntarily choose to stop welcoming new editors until he changes his signature. If he doesn't then he needs a topic ban from doing so. Fish+Karate 16:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the OP here, who has for all practical purposes been editing for well under a year, could explain why this is a matter of such moment that it called for escalation from a talk page post to a drama board fracas in less than one hour, and why they apparently did not consider another part of the policy they cite, Wikipedia:Username_policy#Consider_leaving_well_enough_alone. Moreover, since their real concern is that the signature Sends The Wrong Message to new users, it is probable that their purpose violates WP:NOTCENSORED. Finally, we have enough jackass editors here who blithely treat new users with appalling callousness and arrogance; it seems quite odd and counterproductive to ban signatures which send the message "Don't let the bastards grind you down" merely because it might tend to offend the bastards' tender sensibilities. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    • WP:NOTCENSORED is for encyclopedic content. We do not censor encyclopedic content because we are here to be a reference for people on a variety of topics. This does not extend to things posted elsewhere. For example, you cannot insult people, share viewpoints in support of things like Nazism or pedophilia, and you are supposed to avoid biting new editors. (And if we really wanted to be more friendly toward women, we would not allow degrading sexual content in userspace, but that's another matter.) This is not censoring, this is having a modicum of professionalism when it comes to getting work done on wikipedia. Natureium (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) (and I see F&K has made essentially the same point above) I think it more useful to frame this issue in terms of disruptive anti-vandalism patrolling than a WP:SIG violation. Suppose someone, instead of using {{uw-vandalism1}}, left the following:

Hello, I'm Example. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. I have been treated like dirt by many admins since 2001. -Example (talk)

on the talk pages of new users. Certainly that would be regarded as disruptive? I don't see the point of having the clause Signature use that is intentionally and persistently disruptive may lead to blocks. if we can never enforce it, either. (and since Hullaboo does not do anti-vandalism patrolling to my knowledge, there would be no selective enforcement here). I would argue that while Flooded can use this signature in other contexts, in the context of leaving newbies message, he should not be allowed to (he should use a different signature when doing anti-vandalism patrolling) and should be blocked if he continues to do so (I suppose that would be regarded as more admins treating him as dirt). Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
In response to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz - yes, I'd be glad to explain. As I said above, Flooded is very prolific - you just have to look at their contribution history to see what I mean. I raised in on their talk page, and they made it pretty clear that they had no intention of changing it, so I wasn't sure what else to do:: I suppose I could have waited and asked them again, after they'd put it on a few hundred more people's talk pages, but I didn't really see the merit in that. I did consider leaving well enough alone, and rejected that idea because I was genuinely concerned about the potential for harm to the project. I have no axe to grind with Flooded, I appreciate the work that they do, I just wish that they would do it without putting that negative, snarky message (which I did not read in the spirit you assert is intended) on the talk page of new users.
I agree with Galobtter and F+K - I've got no problems with Flooded using that signature in other contexts, but not when templating new users. GirthSummit (blether) 16:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I couldn't figure out what else to do, so I blew this dispute up as much as I could -- that does not exactly provide confidence in your grasp of policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
You are right, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I have not been editing that long, and my grasp of policy is not comprehensive; I hope you can also see that I'm doing what I can to develop it. Your mischaracterisation isn't fair - I am not trying to create drama, I'm trying to stop something from happening. I saw someone doing something (very frequently) that I thought was counterproductive; I asked them to stop, in what I hope was a friendly and respectful way; they brushed me off, and carried on doing it; so, thinking that it was urgent because of the sheer frequency with which they were doing it, I brought it here. I have never raised an ANI report against another user before, and I'm not calling for sanctions - I have no beef with you, or with Flooded, I just want them to stop templating people like that. GirthSummit (blether) 17:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC) (Feeling somewhat like he's been treated like dirt by HW since earlier this afternoon)
It seems to me an editor raising a concern (Flooded's signature) here which has been brought up over a period of time by multiple editors and has, arguably, now gotten worse, has a good enough grasp on how Wikipedia operates to recognize a "chronic, intractable" dispute. Considering a number of longtime editors agreeing with the concerns raised here by Girth, their posited lack of experience does not seem to have caused them to misstep in this posting in anyway. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Seems pretty childish to me, but nonetheless, the signature seems to only cause potential harm to Wikipedia if it is present while Flooded is welcoming/warning new users. A block should be enforced if he continues to persist in this. Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 16:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Speaking as a newbie who has had early issues with some admin, when I saw Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's signature, rather than finding it off-putting, I found it quite encouraging. It was nice to know that I wasn't the only one who felt a certain way. I encourage other editors to question their assumption that this signature is a negative message that would be off-putting, as opposed to a positive message of encouragement (yes, seriously). As Hullaballoo said: ...we have enough jackass editors here who blithely treat new users with appalling callousness and arrogance; it seems quite odd and counterproductive to ban signatures which send the message "Don't let the bastards grind you down".... Nobody should believe that FWTH's signature is what's going to determine a new user's opinion of WP or how people treat people on WP. The new user will form that opinion on their own anyway, indeed most new users already have formed an opinion before ever editing (new editors are not new readers), and long before they'll have seen FWTH's signature. Levivich? ! 16:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Levivich: At least you should close the bold on your sig (I did it for you, but you should still close it up) SemiHypercube 16:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@SemiHypercube: Sorry, fixed, and thank you for point it out to me (and cleaning it up here). Levivich? ! 16:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Levivich, who told you that new editors are not new readers?
Unless you've gone batshit crazy, do you seriously wish to claim that a newbie editor makes a round-trip across random user-t/p(s), ANI threads and all the backstage-drama before choosing to correct a typo or insert a line or whatever?
And, by the way, what's your previous account or did you have an habit of maneuvering through the trenches, prior to your excellently competent edits? WBGconverse 19:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@WBG: There are no new readers of Wikipedia. If you ask your phone or computer a question, the first thing that pops up is a WP article. It's the #5 website on the internet. Every student and every other internet-connected person in the English-speaking world looks stuff up on enwiki. This is not an encyclopedia, this is the encyclopedia, and has been for years. I'm not sure how you can imagine that somebody would start an account here who hasn't previously read Wikipedia, although I am starting to understand why you're so mystified by newbie proficiency, if you think that before starting an account, new editors basically have never read the encyclopedia before. Levivich Making many veterans jealous with his amazing markup skillz since registering his first and only account in November 2018.? ! 19:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Levivich, you were claiming that most new users already have formed an opinion before ever editing. And, that's not remotely equivalent to the nuanced strawman, that you defended above.
I am quite unsure as to how an average reader of WP (who types a string into Google, clicks the first link,reads the WP article as TRUTH® and closes the session without bothering about any other non-mainspace-stuff) who is yet to contribute to the site, has formed an opinion about how this site is run or all the backstage stuff.
Years back, a A/B testing from WMF'S side did exhibit a greater newbie retention rate, when the RC-patrol-templates were more friendly and to-the-point. And, my experiences over Quora et al leads me to believe that an average reader of WP has hardly any ideas about how the stuff is written, how welcome they are to contribute to WP and what our internal policies are.
Also, now that I remember your request for arbitration, certain hazy stuff becomes clearer. WBGconverse 06:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
@WBG: I am glad we agree on something (friendly welcome templates are welcoming). Quora is not Wikipedia. How do people know about the backstage stuff of Wikipedia? From the media. Examples from this week: [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65]. Plus the studies, books and films. From the main page, even when logged out, click "Community portal" and the very first link at the top is "Dashboard" which lists everything backstage, including this page. If that doesn't convince you, here's 300+ examples of significant coverage in RSes of WP's backstage. Levivich? ! 06:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Levivich, meh. I surely did not know about Quora not being WP (so, thanks for the info); I was pointing to the questions raised over there about different aspects of WP.WBGconverse 07:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
WBG: Oh! Well, if you're judging me or other newbies based on your experiences with people who ask questions about Wikipedia on Quora or other websites, then you may want to rethink whether that's a representative sample. Levivich? ! 08:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Hullabaloo's signature is clearly allowed, if for no other reason than the length of time it has not been challenged. I don't see any reason to force FwtH to change their signature either, but they should know that willfully antagonizing a large part of the community is unlikely to benefit them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Replying to: the issue would be resolved if FWTH stopped patrolling. Would that be an improvement to the encyclopaedia? The answer to this rhetorical question is simple. Yes, this would be an improvement. Flooding the talk pages of alleged vandals by messages that only call for more vandalism is surely not what should be done.Pldx1 (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • A fellow editor wrote to me privately about this ANI discussion, my reply to them is the following: "My friend! How are you doing? Thank you for writing to me. It's great you've done so in advisory of the recent signature issue that arose on my talk page hours ago. You are absolutely correct that the signature may be frowned upon by everyone but I am hoping for there to be consensus which allows me to use it, as I am a strong supporter of individual rights and I am of the opinion that my exercising of the right to voice out in the name of freedom of speech will not be as disruptive as one or more ANI participants have suggested. As you can see, a past discussion linked in the ANI discussion, involving another experienced user, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, whom I have taken inspiration from by the use of this signature, has shown that the community may be accepting of the said signature in contrary to the views of the original poster, which suggests that the signature may scare off new users. That may be true, but that may also be false. It is very subjective. One may argue that my signature could actually make new users feel like home, as it shows informalcy on how regular non-admin users are treated by admins. Moreover, I believe the signature is rather subtle and that newbies will not even notice it. Sometimes they don't even notice the entire message because they're newbies who are more likely to be elsewhere than on their own talk page. You are correct, I am absolutely pissed. I am pissed about the bias against new editors and how admins have treated me and other non-admin users terribly. I do not wish to go further on specific incidences but I would like to say that I am not happy and I have tried taking a break for two weeks but apparently I seem to have been suffering from wikipediholism. Changing my signature might easily solve the ongoing case at ANI but it will, however, make my efforts to exercise my freedom of speech void. But of course, if there is a community consensus to prevent me from using this new signature, then I shall change it or revert to my old one at extreme reluctance. Best wishes to you."-- Flooded. Treated like dirt by many admins since 2016 (sig inspired by Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Essential reading, for those not familiar with it: Wikipedia:Free speech. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOTFREESPEECH - you are free to complain about admins elsewhere but not on newbie talk pages. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Galobtter, I am curious as to where exactly should one complain about the omnipresent admins? In all seriousness, I feel like that would be WP:FORUM behavoir. Maybe there is a Talk Page I am not aware of? ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 19:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • While I've enjoyed working around Flooded with them hundreds, I agree this signature is disruptive, pointy, battlegroundy and insulting. Free speech is one thing (not actually practiced here); walking around with a chip on one's shoulder is another. Please stop with the dirt! -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    And yes, this is a horrible message with which to greet new users.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • So I have been looking this over, is there any sign of anything actually happening with new users in relation to the signature? PackMecEng (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    Unmeasurable.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
We could always ask the new users who have been templated what they think of the signature, and what effect, if any, it had on them. Levivich? ! 18:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Might be worth a look. If there has been no impact is there actually a problem? Personally I am not a fan of non-stock signatures in general but eh not a big deal for me. PackMecEng (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the concern here seems based on an assumption that something is bothering somebody else, but there is no evidence that any new users are actually bothered by this. In the meantime, this discussion has inspired me to update my own signature. Levivich Treating many admin like dirt since 2018.? ! 18:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Levivich, PackMecEng, you're right - the concern is partly based on assumption, rather than any objective evidence of harm; however, the signature runs contrary to the whole objective of templating. Patrollers (including myself) don't just template obvious vandals - templates are also given new users who are acting in good faith but who aren't aware of our policies and guidelines. At the point when a brand new (good faith) user gets their first template, they most likely don't know what an admin is - they need a friendly welcome, information about why their edit was reverted, and what policies they should read to avoid making the same mistake again. Adding that signature on to such an important first contact is, I believe, frustrating that objective. GirthSummit (blether) 19:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Girth Summit: I agree welcomes should be welcoming, of course. But looking at this recent example, it seems like the signature is the least-unwelcoming of all the unwelcoming templates. Even this first template [66] [67] [68] is unwelcoming IMO. (Compare to the welcome I got or the {welcome} template, both of which are actually welcoming.) The standard warning templates, even the info-icon ones, are not welcoming. When I look at this, the signature, kind of an obvious joke, softens the harshness of the template, rather than making it worse. When I saw Hullaballoo's signature for the first time, it made me feel more welcomed and less alone. So I personally don't think it frustrates the objective, I think it may even promote the objective. (More to the point, I think the templates need an overhaul to be more welcoming.) I interpret it one way; you interpret it another way; I don't know how new editors by and large interpret it. So I think it's good that you brought this up for discussion, as it's definitely something worth looking at, I just don't see it as obviously a problem (or obviously not a problem). Levivich? ! 20:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • When we welcome people, we need them to... feel welcome. Like they want to join the Wikipedia community. Many of us have had a job or volunteered somewhere where there's someone who feels mistreated and wants to let you know that every chance they get. It quickly becomes tedious/obnoxious (unless you come to feel the same way, of course). That person is never the person who welcomes you and shows you around. If it were, that person would be fired/dismissed/whatever. Grumpy Gus keeps his job when his job doesn't depend on making people feel like a welcome part of the community (and if it goes as far as "I do what I want even if everyone complains" I would presume it would be hard to find a long-term home in a place built on collaboration and community). So yeah, I think the role someone takes for themselves here does matter when looking at something like this. There are plenty of examples, for better or worse, when we tolerate something in one situation but not another, e.g. there's more allowance for some harsh/profane language when in the midst of a heated content dispute, but take the same language and direct it at newbies while welcoming them, and it wouldn't be ok. F+K has a good point that if this were a typed message to each user rather than part of the signature (no difference to them), it would be a clearer problem. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe they have been treated like dirt. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    I don't think a failed RFA is a good reason to wear a chip on one's shoulder, especially given the impossible standards the community sets these days.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Dlohcierekim: - (without making a judgement on the primary issue) - the community having impossible standards would actually increase the justification for a failed RfA to initiate chip-wearing. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    I would agree with this, although I don't think a signature like that is the way to go. Natureium (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    But that's an RfA. I haven't participated for a long time but is participation now restricted to admins? If not, was there a substantially different outcome between the !votes of admins and the !vote of non-admins? If neither of these are true, I don't see it as being good evidence admins treated them like dirt. Nil Einne (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    Oh no, they haven't been treated like dirt by admins. I would say the community has been pretty patient with this user. Natureium (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    The admin/non-admin distinction is really besides the point, isn't it, because if he changed the signature to "Treated like dirt by many editors since 2016," that wouldn't really assuage anyone's concerns, would it? Levivich? ! 19:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    Well there are two questions here. One is whether the signature is okay. Two is whether there is evidence for the signature. Above someone else asked for evidence for the signature. The RfA was presented as evidence for it. I fundamentally disagree since it isn't evidence specific to admins. For people who will allow the signature, but only with evidence, then it probably matters to them. For people who will disallow the signature, evidence or not, then I don't think it matters, it may still be an interesting question to some while others may consider it off topic. As long as evidence is presented, it seems fair to challenge that evidence, regardless of personal feelings of the matter. Nil Einne (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    P.S. Yes I'm aware some would argue if both admins and non admins treat someone as dirt then it technically still applies. My view is that if when you single out a group, you're implying there something special about the way that group treats you, or at least you have insufficient evidence about people outside that group. Nil Einne (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Nil Einne: Point well taken; I hadn't considered the aspersions aspect, as it is an unevidenced accusation. Yet, "like dirt" is so subjective... and if we went that way, we'd have to require everyone with such a statement to provide said diffs. I also agree with your points (far) below that the editor should want to change their signature, and hopefully will after reading this discussion, and at a minimum, remove the reference. Levivich? ! 22:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The chances of FWTH being blocked as a textbook-case of POINT seems to be exponentially increasing with time. I'm supporting a block in case of any more posting on a newbie-t/p with that signature per the concerns expressed above. WBGconverse 19:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • My two cents: He should want to change it - having essentially two grammatically incorrect sentences as a signature is awkward and confusing looking. But that said said, as pointed out before, this guy changes his name or signature on like a monthly basis. Wait a month and he’ll probably pull a complete 180 and change his signature to “Frank Johnson - talk page” or something. It’ll likely resolve itself. Sergecross73 msg me 19:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Flooded is a prolific and excellent vandal fighter. Had I seen the RfA before the snow close, I would have given it moral support. Yes, failing RfA is dissapointing, but antics like this are more of a behavioural problem than having a history. Flooded, if you want to succeed in a future RfA, take onboard the critcism, and stop having what essentially looks like a tantrum (your RfA criteria fit into that too). It takes a cool temperament to be a good admin, indeed a good contributor. If you want my advice, revert your signature, keep doing what you're good at, and address the issues raised in your RfA. Antics like these throw the possibility of an RfA succeeding years down the line. Bellezzasolo Discuss 19:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Refusing to change the sig after a massive backlash at AN/I is disruptive, as is spreading around its hostile, anti-fouth pillar message to new users and vandals. Falling back on your right to free speech is not a valid excuse for WP:POINTy behavior—as has been pointed out, the right to free speech does not exist on Wikipedia. If this is your response to a failed RfA, then you've accomplished nothing but proving that your RfA failed with good reason.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  20:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
My view is that Flooded should change their signature, because they realise how bad it is for the community and how poorly it reflects on themselves. (I pretty much feel the same about anyone said to be treated as dirt, e.g. the two named above.) But there's no point trying to force them do, even for when they post to new users. Consider for example that many user talk pages have even more unwelcoming messages and if some newbie makes it to one of them to discuss some message, they're going to see them. Nor is it sufficient to justify a topic ban on dealing with new users, or a site ban. It could be one of the many realms of evidence that would be considered. As others have said, the issue has surely damaged any hope for a successful RfA in the near future and made those of us who didn't participate including non admins like me, sure that the right decision was made. Nil Einne (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually on further thought, I wouldn't mind forcing them to remove the Hullaballoo thing. Even if Hullaballoo Wolfowitz doesn't object, it IMO is unnecessarily confusing and unnecessary for their message. Anyone who needs to knows that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has the same sort of signature already. Nil Einne (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with this. It seems, at a minimum, we could all agree that each signature should only have one username in it, to avoid confusion. Levivich? ! 22:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers and Template editors are supposed to act on behalf of the community. If User:Flooded with them hundreds prefers to act otherwise, he should better resign from any parcel of authority... before being ousted from all of them. A guy who is 10% of an admin should fulfill at least 10% of ADMINACT. Pldx1 (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a good point. Most of their extended privileges involve working with new users to some degree. Using these extended privileges to spread a hateful message to new users is appalling, and if they'd rather use an edit summary to soapbox about their resentments, they should not be in such positions of trust.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  21:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Maybe I'm a bit odd, but if I was a new user to a website and I received a message that, as per a comment above, said,

"Hello, I'm Example. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. I have been treated like dirt by many admins since 2001. -Example (talk)"

I think I'd be rather intrigued, and at least it would show a human side to the post - personally I think the worst aspect of these so-called "welcoming" templates is that they are so obviously generic and impersonal. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It’s frown-worthy, and probably shouldn’t be used in welcoming newcomers. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pinging Dennis Brown, who has been active in WP:WER. Don't think we can do much in light of the precedent set by HW, but it sure makes me wonder about FWTH's attitude toward WP (and wonder if it has anything to do with their recent unsuccessful RfA). I don't think they should be welcoming new editors with that signature. Miniapolis 01:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • If anything, TheMagnificientist/Zawl/Flooded with them hundreds's sig should say "treating admins like dirt since 2016". Just read that unblock discussion on Commons. Holy crap. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • See also Wikipedia:No attacks on Wikipedia. bd2412 T 05:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Is this still going on?! Someone be bold and close this, and soft-block fwth until he gets it. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Unnecessary grandstanding, pointy and probably detrimental, and not inspiring confidence and/or trust in editor's good judgement; but presumably not egregious enough to slap down. These things accrue, like the annoying habits of family members :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Signature appears to be a clear infringement of WP:POLEMIC. Leaky Caldron 09:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Leaky caldron. This violates the spirit of WP:POLEMIC; however, it is much worse as it is being plastered on every page he leaves a signature. If you aren't happy, then leave; continued use of this signature is pure disruption and should be met with a block to end the disruption, perhaps indefinitely. Nihlus 10:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Flooded with them hundreds: At the end of your post above, you said that if the community consensus was that you should not use this signature, then you would stop (albeit reluctantly). I think that this thread demonstrates that such a consensus exists, at least as far as using it when templating people. I don't want to see you blocked, and I don't want to see you T-banned from patrolling and templating - please will you undertake not to use that signature when putting templates on people's talk pages, so that we can all draw a line under this? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 11:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Since we're determining a consensus, I also agree that FWTH should not use the sig (but also should not restore to the vile purple sig). WHat the hell is wrong with just signing your username? Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pinged here. I agree with Leaky_caldron that no matter who has is, it is a cut and dry case of POLEMIC. If someone has extra bits to help work with new users, that makes it worse as they are granted a position of trust. While I'm all for free speech, Wikipedia isn't the town square or your own living room, and no such "right" exists here. It's a privately owned website that is free to make it's own rules. The 4th Pillar, which ties into WP:POLEMIC, is pretty clear about this. Dennis Brown - 12:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Its just plain confusing for new users; it is your first message, of course you will look to see who it is from - is this person friendly, are they a crank, or someone you could be confident getting advice from, etc. The present sign off would make me wonder; who is this guy who seems to have a chip on his shoulder so big he feels compelled to tell complete strangers about it? What are admins?(new users may understand moderators or sysops..administrators not so much). What is a sig? who or what is Hullabaloo.. that 60's TV series? why? At the very least, it implies some sort of cliquey "you should know what this is about" which would be off putting for many users, and the exact thing welcome messages are supposed to help with. No such problems with the purple sig though, sorry BMK. Curdle (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Both signatures are the equivalent of a "Oh poor me I am such a victim" posts on Facebook or Twitter. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I think you're having arguments with administrators and non-administrators. I know you having trouble with failed RfA then you make inappropriate signature also welcoming members they are thinking about you're biting with new members per WP:BITE. I honestly don't know you risk being blocked from Wikipedia for reason because of WP:SIGLENGTH and WP:CUSTOMSIG. That's doesn't make sense about your new signature. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 15:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I think we either need the signature changed, or a community ban on new changes patrol/new pages patrol/welcoming new users. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll start by saying I can't shake the impression I get that FWTH is vastly more interested in obtaining adminship than any other aspect of the project, which is a great shame as it's clearly distracting them from rational thought and appropriate behaviour. I'll start with a positive; FWTH has contributed a significant effort to the project and made a positive difference through their interactions with new editors and that's a large net positive. Now the negative; all their good work is almost entirely offset by their unfortunate tendency to display immature, impulsive and reckless behaviour. This immature, impulsive behaviour is the reason for their Commons difficulties at present, and it's largely why their most recent RfA failed (they were counselled at ORCP to avoid an RfA, advice duly ignored).
    If FWTH can demonstrate a significant improvement in maturity, interaction with other experienced editors and eliminate their impulsive, reckless streak, I see no reason why they can't go on and be a dutiful servant of the community in the role of administrator. It's going to take a while, constantly illustrating why it would be inappropriate for you to be an administrator doesn't get you through an RfA, but a concerted effort to improve yourself as an editor can correct this. So, my advice is to remove the chip from your shoulder, setup a nice straightforward signature, and avoid thinking about being an admin (it's not all that it's made out to be - unless you want an army of stalkers and people trying to get you sacked, then it's brilliant). Hope that helps. Nick (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

Since there seems to be a general feeling here that this signature is not appropriate for welcoming new users, I propose that: While User:Flooded with them hundreds' signature contains text other than his username, he may not post on the talk page of IPs or non-autoconfirmed users. Natureium (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer; of course if he would like to continue to patrol for vandalism or welcome new users, he could just change his signature to the default. Natureium (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, per my above. Fish+Karate 20:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Natureium. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 20:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • A trap, which they will quickly fall into by using tools they use to deal with vandals. I have made a better suggestion to the party involved. I hope he accepts it. Leaky Caldron 20:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
    It's not meant to be a trap, it's meant to be an option. They can either change their signature to something that doesn't violate WP:POLEMIC, or they can avoid interacting with new editors. Natureium (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
    Ever clicked a button and realised you had made a mistake? It's a trap for accidental error with block-happy Admins. who will show no mercy when the inevitable happens. Leaky Caldron 20:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
    That would be a risk one would take if one chose to click buttons while having a signature that the community agreed one should not have when clicking those particular buttons. In this situation, the editor can either (1) take LC's excellent talk page advice to change the signature and never have to worry about accidentally clicking the wrong buttons, (2) keep the signature but never click those buttons, or (3) change the signature back and forth, but be damned careful about it. Levivich? ! 21:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I hope User:Leaky caldron's overture bears fruit and makes this unnecessary, but I'll support this in the meantime. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. If Flooded with them hundreds feels like this is a trap, they can easily avoid it by using a sensible sig. In the meantime, we can't have people badmouthing the project to new editors. Bradv🍁 20:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - As the best option currently available. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I would rather Flooded takes LeakyCs advice and simply change their sig than have to support this .... but for the time being I'll have to support but like I said I would rather they change the sig without all of this. –Davey2010Talk 21:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The best solution is for the editor to voluntarily abandon the abrasive and bewildering signature. Those who do not want to be treated like dirt (whatever that means) should not treat other people like dirt. If determined to keep the bizarre signature, this editor should be prevented from interacting with IP editors and new accounts. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I said from the outset that I didn't want sanctions, and I'd still rather Flooded change it without the need for this - however, support if they won't if they don't do it voluntarily. GirthSummit (blether) 22:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, in favour of a a general rule that achieves the same thing, proposed and discussed at WT:SIG. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support It's absurd we're even having this ridiculous discussion. Praxidicae (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support as I don't think the sig is within policy to begin with, regardless of where they post, which would normally be grounds for a request for change, then a block if they won't change, lasting until they DO change it. This is pretty standard under WP:DE. Dennis Brown - 00:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support although I would also support an indef until the user agrees to change the signature to something collaborative. Same for Hullaballoo. If someone has been treated like dirt to the extent that they want to rub it in everyone's face, the issue needs to be sorted out at a noticeboard where the community would decide to either sanction those who have inappropriately treated an editor like dirt, or that no sanction is required. In the latter case, it would be fine for the user to put a mild note on their talk page complaining about the indignities to their human rights, but people are not free to spread rubbish. Johnuniq (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not sufficiently disruptive to merit any sort of sanction. VQuakr (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support by common sense unless he changes the signature to an appropriate one. The words now used in the signature are totally inappropriate with no doubt. Vandalism could still be handled with noticing the related users by other helpful users. But anyway, the best solution is let him change the inappropriate signature; the proposal should be carried out only when he refused to do so. SænI will find a way or make one. 01:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
    • By the way, this method may also be used if similar conditions occurred next time (although I don't want it happens). SænI will find a way or make one. 01:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • yeah. Why not Flooded could just op to take that out, but whatever float their boat.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose in general as I said above, I think they should change it, and failing to change it reflects very poorly on them as it does to anyone who uses such signatures. But I'm opposed to topic banning them from welcoming new users or sanctioning them in any way. I would however support a weaker version removing the Hullaboo thing while allowing them to keep the 'treated like dirt' thing if they really want to prove to us how unsuited they they are for administratorship, or any trust really, from the community. BTW, when wrote my post above, I wasn't aware of the history here. (I vaguely recognised the name but had no real impressions or memory surrounding it and only checked out the RfA enough to see it was fairly strong opposition.) So I wasn't aware that the Flooded account only goes back to 2018 as a claimed WP:CLEANSTART after a few weeks`of abandoned the previous account. In particular, I wasn't aware of the Commons unblock request. While mostly it's not germane to us, the reason I brought it up is because the unblock request seems to almost acknowledge their behaviour here at the time in 2016 (ignoring commons) leading up to the indef was poor. Despite that, as they also acknowledged they were given a second change. Yet now we have them claiming they were treated like dirt since 2016..... Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Per all above. WBGconverse 11:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: A reasonable solution to disruptive behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - If you wish to welcome new users, don’t have an unwelcoming signature. The signature in question cannibalizes his own efforts at welcoming people. Sergecross73 msg me 19:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I note that Flooded has put the 'Retired' banner on their talkpage, and that User:Primefac has deleted their userpage by author request. I'm saddened that it has come to this - I'd hoped that developing a community consensus against the signature would convince them to change it, not drive them away. Could someone please close this now, perhaps with a note to the effect that the community appreciates their contributions, and would welcome their return, subject to the terms in Natureium's proposal. GirthSummit (blether) 19:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Feel free to add any notes of encouragement, but the discussions should definitely run their course. People “retire” to avoid scrutiny all the time. 99% sure he’s already retired once or twice already in similar situations in the past. Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support User has purportedly retired now, but frankly, given the lack of any semblance of responsibility and maturity, both here and elsewhere, and apparently extending back several years, I cannot trust that this not just an attempt to evade scrutiny. This restriction needs to be formalized and logged.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  19:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as too weak. This should not be limited to certain pages. Nihlus 19:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose after much thought on the grounds that at least two editors that I know of have this signature, and only one of them is being sanctioned here. Like focusing on edits instead of editors, we should focus on behaviors instead of editors. If the consensus is that editors with this sort of signature can't post on new user or IP's talk pages, then that sanction should apply to every editor who has this sort of signature, or to none of them. It's not fair to apply it to just one of them on the grounds that one of them posts to new user pages more than others. All editors should have to play by the same rules. Levivich? ! 20:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • So, you're saying because there are two problems, and circumstances make it difficult to solve one of them, we shouldn't take any action to solve the other? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • No, I'm saying "the rules" should apply to all editors equally. If one editor with the signature "Treated like dirt by admin..." is prohibited from posting to talk pages of IPs and new editors, then all editors with that signature should be prohibited from posting to talk pages of IPs and new editors. I oppose this proposal as written because it only targets one such editor, rather than all editors with the same signature. Levivich? ! 21:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Not the way it works. We solve specific problems identified with specific evidence. If there's no evidence that HW is welcoming new users, then the solution suggested here for Fwth is not relevant to HW. If HW starts to do so, then there will be a precedent. In general, we don't do "preventative" sanctioning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • LOL, BMK. I don't think you meant that to be funny but thanks for the laugh just the same. Levivich? ! 05:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Preventative sanctioning is exactly what we're supposed to be doing. Fish+Karate 09:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Of course you're right, I don't know what I was thinking in choosing "preventative." Levivich's laugh is entirely appropriate.
    What I meant to express is that we don't put sanctions on an editor when there has been no evidence presented that there is a problem in regard to that editor, all the evidence has been about a different editor entirely. We don't sanction on the mere possibility that there might be a problem in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • A moment of clearing my brain by watching Australian Open tennis and it came to me (literally "popping" into my head) - the word I was looking for was pre-emptive: We don't do pre-emptive sanctioning.
    (And you young'uns stop snickering -- this'll happen to you too, eventually! Wait until you get up to the sofa and walk to the kitchen, only to have completely forgotten what you went there to get.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @BMK: I completely disagree, that is totally wrong! I can't believe you would actually argue that, uhm, you know... I mean, I can't believe you would say...er... wait, what was I arguing about again? Why did I walk into this room? Levivich? ! 17:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as applied to any page - To be precise, Weak Oppose as worded as awkward to enforce, and Support requiring the change in order to continue posting to any talk pages, not just new users. After giving it more thought, the issue is the signature; it's becoming a big issue because it's being used on new users' pages, whereas there wasn't quite the exigency with HW's signature, but the issue is indeed the signature, which is plainly inappropriate according to our signature guideline, and not that it's used by someone who edits certain talk pages. It's a distinction I raised above, but I think it's really just about the urgency. This, as proposed, would be difficult to enforce as there are plenty of good reasons when one might need to post to the talk page of an unregistered or newly registered user. Ultimately, here's all that should've been necessary: "hey, we have this section about the purpose of a signature, and yours looks to be unambiguously problematic in that regard. would you change it?" It shouldn't be ok for any talk page, and of course I would support the same restriction on HW or anyone else who uses a signature to spam the problems they have with the community. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support but with a wider scope, as above. I also agree this kind of thing needs to be formally stopped by changing WP:SIG. GiantSnowman 11:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as preventative pre-emptive; I note no diffs have been presented indicative of an actual problem. Incidentally, from a personal—rather than policy-based—point of view, yes, I think that no-one should use this signature. Note: "no-one". ——SerialNumber54129 13:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Flooded with them hundreds' signatures have been very disruptive. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Trillfendi [edit]

No admin action needed, discussion devolving, closing. TelosCricket (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)(non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm reporting the above user for blatant incivility for no reason at all. Today I had reverted the user from two articles' GAN nominations since per WP:GANI "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination." I left a polite note on the user's talk page explaining the scenario as well as on the GAN talk page. The user then had a really battleground reply on his talk page and proceeded to personally attack me on the GAN talk page and other profanity. This is seriously gross when an experienced editor resorts to simply name calling and not taking time to understand why he/she was reverted. —IB [ Poke ] 20:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I’m sorry that you’re offended by the female anatomy, which isn’t profanity, or idioms that you’re unfamiliar with—no one called you a “name” anywhere, stop projecting. And it’s “her” not his, all that time you’ve spent on my page today it takes all of two seconds to see the right at the top it says “this contributor is female so don’t call her a male”. And no you weren’t polite at all, so I came back with the same energy. Just because we have different interpretations of the policy, in which we’re both right, doesn’t mean you should lie. Trillfendi (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Please show with differences where I made personal attacks to you Trillfendi, or called you "dumbass". Regarding your pronoun, no I did not check your user page where it is written that you are female (which I can see now). And no, other users in GAN agree with my actions, so stop with the mighty attitude and learn civility. I will leave the rest to administrators. —IB [ Poke ]
You’re not a psychic. You don’t know what edits I’m going to make anywhere at any time. I interpret anyone can nominate as such. Knowing there’s a backlog almost a year long, it’s not like anyone was going to start reviewing it anytime soon anyway. So go snitch somewhere else. And anyone can nominate means just that, so my interpretation was indeed right. If anyone can’t nominate then the policy must be changed. Trillfendi (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
You do realize that you just changed your story 180 degress, implicitly agreeing that you were not a significant contributor prior to GAN, reallying making your attitude over this even more questionable. The natural assumption is that an article nominated for GA review is believed to be at GA level already. I could nominate Lucha Brothers now and in the next 8 months bring it from a newly created skeleton to a Good Article, but that's not how it works. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Article Marvelous Marvels of Marvel (movie) is also not eligable for GAN, at least not to anyone else. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think the female anatomy was the objectionable part of that reply. Anyone familiar with vernacular English understands the subtext. I honestly think someone has been overly sensitive and overly reactive.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
“Tough titties” is just sarcasm. No one is taking anything sensitively besides the person running to administrators about such saying. I didn’t say “GFY”. Trillfendi (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Overall, I think Trillfendi's response was not in keeping with a collegeal environment, I'm not sure it warrants admin action. Some deep breaths and self calming might help.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    I never look to see what someone's preferred gender pronoun is. Being a dinosaur, I sometimes lapse into the collective "he". Mostly I use "they" or "thay". Some users gender remains a mystery to me and I enjoy a certain mystery in a relationship.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    Well in my relationships I prefer to know the gender, to avoid surprises at awkward moments. But that's just me. EEng 17:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • IndianBio's initial reverts were almost guaranteed to get anybody's back up, but fundamentally they were not wrong. I see that Trillfendi has acknowledged the need for discussions before they nominate articles they haven't edited much. As such I'm not seeing anything actionable here at this time. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    Indeed. @IndianBio:. "Please", "thank you", and "I'm sorry to bear ill-tidings, but", can go along way to not upsetting other users. Calming breaths. Then cpmpose your massage.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Alright folks, I’m eating lunch. Back to your regularly scheduled editing pursuits. Much bigger problems out there right now. Trillfendi (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

  • User:Trillfendi should be more precise in their plea to elevate the said articles to the status of Greater Article Ever. According to a Google list of synonyms, "rough titties" can be parsed as: durable titties, strong titties, resilient titties, sturdy titties, rugged titties, solid titties, stout titties, long-lasting titties, heavy-duty titties, industrial-strength titties, well-built titties, made to last titties, ruffian titties, thug titties, goon titties, hoodlum titties, hooligan titties, roughneck titties, hood titties, heavy titties, bruiser titties, hardman titties, yahoo titties -- and, why not, google titties. Which one to use ? Pldx1 (talk) 09:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    I think from the subtext she meant "industrial-strength titties".-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    Where's Neelix when we need him? This gives me an opportunity to link to this titillating DYK item. EEng 16:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    For those who don't understand, see this ANI thread. SemiHypercube 16:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Frankly bizarre accusation of edit-warring in Wikipedia talk:Spam[edit]

In this edit, @Ronz: has made an accusation of edit warring. Given that no one has made more than one relevant edit to the articles under discussion, it’s rather difficult to simultaneously assume good faith and competence. A look at it would be appreciated. Qwirkle (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Did you ask him what he meant? Natureium (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Looks clear .... WP:EDITWAR.

11:52, January 15, 2019 diff hist +266‎ Alcatraz Island ‎ Reverted 1 edit by Drmies (talk): Not WP:BOOKSPAM. (TW) Tag: Undo

11:51, January 15, 2019 diff hist +515‎ Fort Point, San Francisco ‎ Reverted 1 edit by Drmies (talk): Not WP:BOOKSPAM. (TW) Tag: Undo

11:50, January 15, 2019 diff hist +548‎ Fort St. Philip ‎ Reverted 1 edit by Drmies (talk): Not WP:BOOKSPAM. (TW) Tag: Undo

11:49, January 15, 2019 diff hist +467‎ Fort Macomb ‎ Reverted 1 edit by Drmies (talk): Not WP:BOOKSPAM. (TW) Tag: Undo

11:48, January 15, 2019 diff hist +502‎ Fort Pike ‎ Reverted 1 edit by Drmies (talk): Not WP:BOOKSPAM. (TW) Tag: Undo

--Moxy (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
No, @Moxy:. those are each separate articles, each with one and only one edit by those involved. There is not the slightest trace of edit warring, as actually defined in the policy you cited, anywhere, by anyone. Qwirkle (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
At first glance, I'd say he added back book spam.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Moxy: Could you add in the links to the difs or tell us who made the edits. I'm far too lazy to chase them down. ANd too fat to catch them.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Drmies: for he's the most rationale of us all.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
No, no, no, he's the only rational one here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/Qwirkle. Even a proponent describes it as an "edit-war".--Moxy (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I'm not seeing anything actionable here. An argument over what is/isn't book spam. And going behind someone and reverting their removal of said book spam might not be edit warring, but it might be something else.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Well, one shouldn't confuse "edit warring" with "breaking the 3R barrier". One can argue that Qwirkle is sort of edit warring in that they're reverting a whole lot, and I certainly disagree with their edits (and I am glad Ronz does too), but this isn't (yet) something we should call on the Parrot Brigade for. Drmies (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Given that they were the same edits that you had reverted, I suppose that someone could argue that you were sort of edit warring...that is, if the idea of a single edit to an article constituting an “edit war” were not inherently fatuous. Qwirkle (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
This is why I adhere to 1RR for most things. Looked like bookspam to me, but I can see how others might disagree.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Removing spam is good; adding it back? meh.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Placing 'the' seminal work on a subject in articles connected with it strikes you as spam? A single revert of another person’s revert of a third persons edit strikes you as edit warring? Qwirkle (talk) 06:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Never said that. Never said either one. Still don't see what action you are seeking.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you just did. You may not have realized it, perhaps. Emanuel Raymond Lewis’s Seacoast Fortifications..&cet is the first major scholarly retrospective on the subject covered here, and 5 decades on, it is still the starting point for study of it. And I surfaced Ronz’s behaviour here because he claimed, to paraphrase as I did above, that single revert[s]of another person’s revert[s] of a third persons edits - that’s what occured there - was somehow “edit warring”. you appear to be endorsing that idea. Qwirkle (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Er, no.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

If that is indeed the case, I think it odd that you would be asking, in effect, what I see wrong with this picture. We see a series of implicit or explicit accusations of bad faith, from spamming to edit-warring, that appear to have no substance to them. Ordinary editing is described as misbehaviour; poisoning the well appears to be rather a norm for WP:SPAM if this mess is typical. And there are unfortunate overtones of ownership as well; there appears to be an assumption that the spam project puts ordinary editing on hold.

Sorry, but rather than calling it "edit warring", it would have been better to bring up WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. Given the context of the discussion, calling it "Using reverts to restore the same material on multiple articles without notifying anyone of the reverts, after multiple editors have expressed their opinions that the material may be spam in a ongoing discussion about the material" in order to be more precise would just add too much to an already overly-lengthy discussion. As I've already brought up WP:IDHT and WP:FOC to the discussion, I think a reminder of WP:NOTBATTLE is appropriate now that we're at ANI over terminology. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

No, we are at ANI over use of inaccurate, pejorative, descriptions of other’s editing, poisoning the well by describing a rather good source as book spam, or a routine revert as edit-warring. That sort of thing. Qwirkle (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
So we agree-- it's not edit warring but something else.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Edit peace-keeping? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Edit police action? We in the States were very big on that at one time.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, now we just name our wars with inspiring patriotic titles spun up by the DoD's PR department. Edit-Enduring Freedom? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Edit-liberating.United States Levivich? ! 23:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Edit mutually assured destruction. EEng 22:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────War!! What is it good for!?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing (uh), say it again y'all. (Sorry, I tried, I really, really tried, but the impulse was just too strong.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I think if it's used as a source, it should be linked to. I think if it's just added into the See also section that that section should be reserved for internal links to other articles. I can see why if added not as a wource how someone could mistake it for book spam. Though I think that is probably for some other discussion ? -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
" describing a rather good source as book spam"-- but it wasn't used as a source in the articles? Just added to "See also"? See above.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Passing over the minor errors of fact (“Further reading” is not quite the same as “See also”), this might have justified someone reverting with a summary of “looks like bookspam”, but when someone else restored it, accusing them, inaccurately, of edit-warring is poisoning the well. At that point, the burden of proof is soludly on the other foot, and a simple trip to Worldcat ot even Goo-Goo Books should have ended it there and then. Qwirkle (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

an ip removes embedded ext links without replacing them with footnotes[edit]

Thus the references are lost. Please talk senses to them.- Altenmann >talk 04:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

PS. When posting the ani notice in their tak page I noticed a repeated pattern of noncooperative editing. It looks like a behavioral problem. - Altenmann >talk 04:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Are you sure the IP is not correct? For example, diff is very defensible. At any rate, if the external links are badly formatted refs, the solution would be properly format them. Johnuniq (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • In my view, the IP is incorrect in the outright deletion of in-line ELs, which should be converted to refs whenever possible (if the source is reliable). In the example cited, a wikilink is not an acceptable substitute for a reference, as they serve different functions. An article full of wikilinks which has no references is not a properly referenced Wikipedia article, since the wikilink is just a way to sent readers to another article, and WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
    On the other name Altenmann is equally incorrect is simply reverting the IP's edit. Both editors should convert in-line ELs to refs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes I am correct because I am restoring references in text. Next thing here comes another warrior and deletes half an article which became unreferenced. Seen that all the time and had to restore from history when shit happened during my long hiatus with articles I cared. No I cannot convert. I am barely using computrr in my state now. - Altenmann >talk 05:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

No, in-line ELs are deprecated, so please convert them to refs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Altenmann: 170k edits from '03? WP:SOFIXIT: "Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. If you notice an unambiguous error or problem that any reasonable person would recommend fixing, the best course of action may be to be bold and fix it yourself rather than bringing it to someone's attention in the form of a comment or complaint. In the time it takes to write about the problem, you could instead improve the encyclopedia." Thanks to Beyond My Ken for taking a few seconds to actually resolve the problem, something I hope you will do yourself next time.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  06:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

It looks like you can write but cannt read. I told you i have troubles with computer, smartass. I see lots of new shit in articles i just mostly letting it go. Let new wikigenerayio s worry. - Altenmann >talk 08:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

  • What kind of computer problem would prevent converting ELs to refs, but not prevent creating a new thread on a talk page? Missing {} keys? Is there a policy about not trying to edit the encyclopedia with a broken computer? Levivich? ! 20:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
(Altenmann might also have meant they find it difficult to use the computer, or wiki markup. I can recommend the visual editor or 2017 source editor for putting in refs easily, if that's the case! They make it much simpler.) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)|😹|✝️|John 15:12|☮️|🍂|T/C 21:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh for the days when a person's cites were their own business.(sigh). template:cite is useful. It just takes time to fill in the spaces. I think there is a tool to make it easier, but I don't know where to get it.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Wot Goldenshimmer said.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
From the IP's reply, it seems the primary problem is simply they misunderstood the purpose of those links.They weren't alone since Johnuniq above seemed to do the same, and frankly, I may have as well. Especially for the first one on Rubylith. One thing which doesn't seem have been properly mentioned yet is these weren't just normal bare external links. These were external links formatted as text in the article. This very bad formatting since it can easily be totally unclear the links were even intended as refs. As said before, the Rubylith one in particular looks a lot like it's simply intended to provide further information on Rubylith rather than actual reference the claim being made. It's far preferable if you are going to use external links as refs, to simply leave them as formatted but bare external links. In other words, put [http://example.external.link/like/this]. This isn't good, but it's better than the poor formatting that was used in the article since at least it looks more like the external link was intended as a ref. Of course even better is to format the ref. I mean even adding a simple <ref></ref> i.e. <ref>[http://example.external.link/like/this]</ref> or <ref>http://example.external.link/like/this</ref> is IMO better then nothing. Even better, use of various tools should make it easy to add some minimal proper formatting as mentioned above. Nil Einne (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Iamveselin[edit]

I have blocked Iamveselin for three days for failure to collaborate, failure to respond to other users's concerns and, as a subset of failure to communicate, failure to use edit summaries (they never use summaries and they never talk). I have also warned the user that if they persist in this kind of behavior, the next block will be indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

First encountered this user about a month ago as I noticed they were using the wrong type of dash on professional wrestling championship articles. Wasn't a big issue at the time and I undid their edits and told the user in the edit summary that they were using the wrong type of dash. I thought that would be enough, however, it wasn't and they made more of the same type of edits that I reverted. Iamveselin continued doing this, so I left a post on their talk page explaining what they were doing wrong. I thought this would be enough, but it wasn't and Iamveselin again made the same type of edits, so I reverted them and left another post warning them that if they continue to ignore me, they will be reported. That seemingly stopped their edits in regard to this issue, but I just noticed that a few days ago, they were at it again on the List of WWE SmackDown Women's Champions page. It should also be noted that this user has three separate warnings from this month about their unconstructive editing (content removal) on a couple of female wrestler articles. I did not want to have to make this report, but this user is ignoring mine and other users' warnings. --JDC808 00:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Pro wrestling articles having the wrong kind of dash... ANI?? REALLY??? EEng 00:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
    Man this is like Cat Nip to ya, just don't "Nip and drive" please. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
    <sound of screeching breaks, people screaming> EEng 00:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
    Don't need the sarcasm. Like I said, I didn't want to make the report (because the dashes are a petty issue). The real issue is the fact that the user is flat out ignoring anything posted on their talk page or edit summaries (and the dashes aren't the only disruptive editing the user has done). --JDC808 01:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
JDC808, I have been editing for almost ten years and have been trusted by the community to be an administrator. I still don't understand the distinction between the "right" and the "wrong" type of dash, and consider the distinction to be trivial. If you care about dashes so much, then change dashes to your heart's content. But there is no point in bothering the editors who do not care about dash variations. That's pedantic. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Cullen328, I am sorry that you never learned about the different types of dashes (-, –, and —), and they do have specific uses. The fact that you are brushing this off and telling me the proper dash doesn't matter (when it does in quality writing) and basically telling me to edit war with this user makes me question you as administrator. Did you read the whole report? Dashes aside, the biggest issue is the fact that this user is ignoring mine and other user's warnings. --JDC808 01:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
JDC808, I did not tell you to edit war. I told you that if you want to do dash related gnome work, you are welcome to. You have presented no evidence of actual disruption, except that this thread that to you started is kind of disruptive. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
You told me to "change dashes to [my] heart's content." I.e., if he changes it, then I would revert to the correct way, and it'll just be a continual cycle, otherwise known as an edit war, and we'd basically be right back here again. No evidence? Right, I guess you didn't look at any links. And once again, the dashes are not the issue. Stop getting hung up on that. I shouldn't have to repeat myself so many times to an administrator who's supposed to read the whole report. --JDC808 02:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Has this editor ever reverted you for changing a dash to a hyphen, or vice versa? You need to present actual evidence of actual disruption, JDC808. Yes, I saw a few warnings on their talk page. Are you asking for this editor to be blocked for that? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
He hasn't directly done a revert of me or others, but he has readded the incorrect dashes despite being told multiple times he was adding the wrong ones. If you need every single instance, I can link them, but there's a lot and another user has also reverted him for this same issue. On the other issue, the user is also blanking or removing content and has been reverted, but has also ignored those warnings. The user is obviously ignoring our attempts of communication and continues to make the same kinds of edits. A block may be needed so he knows he just can't continue making edits despite others warnings. --JDC808 03:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
JDC808, the distinction between hyphens and minus signs and en dashes and em dashes is not a matter of writing since that distinction is absent or completely muddled in handwritten manuscripts or in writing with a manual typewriter, and great works of literature have been written those ways. Instead, it is in the province of typography and orthography. Yes, the Manual of Style calls for different midline characters in different situations. That is why we have gnomes who love to copy edit the work of the editors who actually write encyclopedic prose. No content creator should ever be criticized for using an en dash instead of an em dash. That is the worst type of pedantry. If you are among the editors who care about these distinctions, then just fix it and move on. If you ever correct the dashes and hyphens in the articles I write, then more power to you! I will never complain about such a trivial matter, and will barely take notice. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Once again, you're getting hung up on the dashes, and not the real issue of the user flat out ignoring attempts of communication. The thing is, I have "fixed it" several times but this user keeps changing it back despite edit summaries/talk page posts (and it was originally correct before the user began editing these articles). So am I just to basically keep "fixing it" because the user ignores edit summaries or their own talk page? --JDC808 08:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, exactly who is getting "hung up" on hyphens and dashes is debatable, but, yes, the lack of communication is a problem, but you need to re-evaluate why' you think it's so darn important to talk to him when the subject matter is so incredibly trivial. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
You guys have a knack for dodging the real issue. Before you made your edit to this comment, I thought to myself, "great, he's finally seeing the real issue", but then you expanded this comment, and now I'm face-palming because you're basically bringing it right back to square one. It doesn't matter if the dashes are trivial, what matters is the fact that I've tried to communicate with the user to rectify the issue, but they will not/are not responding and continue to make the same edits. --JDC808 22:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
(ec)JDC808, some editors never even look at a user or article talk page. They want to edit, not communicate. If this devolves into an edit war (that's IF), then you should post to the WP:ANEW. But ignoring you and other editors isn't a block-worthy infraction. And, I gather from the general response to your complaint, it's unlikely that any admin is going to see this situation as an immediate, urgent problem that calls for a block imposed upon an editor. I don't think posting your problem here is deserving of ridicule but clearly this behavior isn't seen right now as disruptive although it might seem that way to you. NinjaRobotPirate did post a warning about the General Sanctions about professional wrestling on Iamveselin's user talk page so now they've been warned. Hopefully, they might pay attention to this message. Liz Read! Talk! 06:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Hopefully, but they probably won't given their track record so far. --JDC808 08:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Watch that kind of talk or you'll get a folding chair smashed over your head. EEng 01:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
EEng, I did a major expansion of one pro wrestling biography, Dick the Bruiser, a fellow who was involved in an ugly brawl at Madison Square Garden on November 19, 1957 that left the arena littered with many thrown chairs. Some things never change. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I do care about dashes, but I don't care if people use them when they're writing, and don't think it really matters at all. Sort of like spelling things wrong, or other punctuation mistakes, wrong citation styles, or whatever, as long as it can be understood, I'd rather have the content to read than none, and don't think we should stress over whether new content is formatted correctly. It's easy to fix a few typos and stuff than to write from scratch, so — I see nothing wrong with people adding content that's formatted wrong really, but that's just my 2¢ :) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)|😹|✝️|John 15:12|☮️|🍂|T/C 01:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
According to MOS you should say "my $0.02". EEng 02:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @JDC808: I wouldn't expect the user to stop ignoring you anytime soon. They have never edited anything but article space. They don't talk. I would say more, but I have to dash.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I take a slash-and-burn approach myself. EEng 02:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

────────── Seriously, we get more threads here about "pro" wrestling than about American politics, abortion, tinfoil hats, the Mideast, birthplaces of Balkan soccer players, and Japanese animation genres combined. You people get your act together. EEng 02:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  • It's almost as if the General Sanctions that was imposed didn't solve the problem, just saying. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

In this recent BLP EW re: subject's satisfaction/dissatisfaction with her contract/employer (obvi implications are obvi), it looks like Iamveselin was removing the potentially-problematic content, and communicating his reasons through HTML comments. I'm not seeing why they were given a warning for this. The previous warnings seem to be about this EW from last week where the editor's sourced additions were removed without explanation. Not sure why they were given a warning there, either. Though they are using – when they should use -, the rest of their contribs look like improvements to the encyclopedia to me. Levivich? ! 05:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  • The examples Levivich show here do not look "disruptive" to me, the reaction to those seem to be more disruptive - removing a source, readding a rumor cited to an unreliable source - neither actions help the article and to me doesn't actually make Iamveselin look disruptive in their edits. No diffs provided to show "disruptive behavior" only references to messages on their talk pages, which by itself is not proof of anything. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • After looking at the 3 warnings that triggered this, two are for the same article and after reviewing the history does not seem like they are "disruptive", one user takes exception to some content and they go back and forth - but instead of talking about it, two warnings are slapped on Iamveselin's talk page which to me seems antagonstic. The 3rd warning was because someone thought that removing rumors with an unreliable source is apparently not acceptable a BLP, and templated them. I'm not seen the case for "disruptive behavor" here. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It's amazing how behind the times one can get if you don't pay close attention. For instance, I was totally unaware that when the universe was created, precisely what variety of short horizontal line must be used under each and every possible circumstance was part of the package. Here I was, thinking that whatever version was readable and conveyed the information was OK to use, and it turns out that there is always an ABSOLUTELY CORRECT VERSION -- and apparently JDC808 knows precisely what that is. Whodda thunk it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Low cost computer, around $200
  • reading Wikipedia, free
  • BMK's post, priceless-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @EEng: I prefer "tuppence"-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Dash it all man-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • BMK's use of double hyphens in that post was masterfully subtle. Levivich? ! 06:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken, so if something were grammatically incorrect or had typos but readable and conveyed the information, its okay, even if it happened to be a run on sentence on an encyclopedia where were trying to present professional quality articles, and maybe we forgot to use correct punctuation here and there, thats ok? Gotcha, but there's a difference between well-known, well–known, and well—known. --JDC808 08:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Please learn what you're talking about: the use of hyphens and dashes is not in any sense a matter of grammar. As Cullen has already told you, that's in the realm of typography and orthography. Stop taking yourself so goldarned seriously. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I guess that went over your head. Regardless, your post did nothing to resolve the issue, and there's already enough of that here. --JDC808 20:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
The fact that there's really no "issue" to be "resolved" seems to have gone right over yours. If you see something you think is wrong, fix it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken, so the fact that this user is flat out ignoring attempts of communication to resolve issues is not an issue? I already said this to Cullen above, but I have "fixed it" several times, however, the user keeps changing it because they are ignoring edits summaries and talk page posts. "Fixing it" is only temporary because they will just change it again, and it will just be a continual cycle. You all are supposed to be admins, but you're giving absolutely poor advice here and overlooking the real issue. --JDC808 21:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Just looking at that last article they edited which JDC808 copy edited, if I'd added that much text, I'd have needed more copy editing than they did. They've not edited since Jan 19. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC) I've left them another note asking them to join us. As they have not edited since (I think) before the ANI notice, it might be a while.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC) I've a confession to make. I can't tell an n-dash from an m-dash from a hyphen. I use the "-" key or sometimes type it twice "--" (rarely) for all three. It's the only horizontal line above the bottom I have.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC).

That was MPJ-DK that copy-edited Iamveselin's last article contribution. Looking at the very last sentence of my last post, you don't see the difference? On Iamveselin's talk page, I told them all they had to do was press the "-" key once, but they're instead clicking the first dash (which is an en-dash) from the list of characters below the editing window. --JDC808 10:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes I did, and found the edits made by the editor in question were jus fine. In fact other than the fact than not getting the intricacies of - vs. – vs. — (worst WrestleMania main event ever) I am not seeing examples of being disruptive -- the fact that they don't seem keen to use talk pages is in itself not a problem. If it's not about the dashes please provide diffs where their editing is so disruptive that it needed to go to ANI. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I didn't want to get involved here but I am honestly disappointed in the admins here. JDC808 is trying to report an issue for rectification and instead of working on it, you saying it's for ANEW, not ANI. It shouldn't be that difficult for one of you just to move the conversation there. Given the number of edits I have to go back and forth with Iamveselin, (visible clearly in Becky Lynch:Revision history) I had to warn them. I tried to reach for consensus without reverting here, Talk:Becky Lynch#The Man/Feud with Ronda Rousey (BTW that was my previous username) but didn't find any response. I don't like you guys dodging the issue by simply arguing about "dashes" where the real problem is the user's lack of communication. Why pro wrestling have so many complaints? That I don't know, probably it's easy to update on a weekly basis and new users don't understand in the first place. As MPJ-DK pointed out, sanctions are not really effective. I would suggest further page protections to force these kind of newbies use discussion pages. I follow WP:PW/MOS and WP:PW/Sources for my edits. How should we deal with them if they do not response to open-ended discussions? Admins, please look at the situation and stop blaming others' and misuse the phrase "disrupting editing". If you think others' had made a mistake, you are free to criticize them and clarify the situation with civility. Thanks, and I ended up here since I had a watch on Iamveselin due to their continuous disruptive editing (which is editing without consensus, ignoring warnings and no response). ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I am sorry Cullen328 and EEng, but I feel like you are belittling the reporter. I would care much less if you had done the same to Iamveseline, since they never even show up to conversations. You should not neglect the assumption of good faith and admins are generally considered to be experienced and well-respected editors whom others can look up to. I apologize again for the basic lecture, but even the bests sometimes forget the divine principles. ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. The real issue is lack of communication from the user (Iamveselin), but there's only been one admin (Liz) that hasn't been belittling of the issue or gotten hung up on the dashes. This discussion could probably be much smaller if those who have chimed in focused on the real issue instead of mocking the issue of the dashes. --JDC808 20:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
So I have looked at the edits and see the following edits being labeled as "disruptive editing" because the user is 1) over linking two places, 2) adding a source that others find redundant and 3) being a little more detailed than some editors would like in an update. Is it annoying that they won't communicate? Yep totally, but to say "disruptive" is an over reaction and no diffs has been presented where their actual edits are disruptive - which is probably why it's hard for anyone to take this serious when all they've seen for "evidence" is the dash-darned dashes. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
MPJ-DK I consider disruption whenever they are doing the same edits WHILE ignoring my messages. ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with this. If a user continues to make the same edits despite attempts of communication to correct the issue, that is disruptive and could cause the article(s) to be unstable (it hasn't gotten to an unstable issue, but just saying, it could). --JDC808 20:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
ImmortalWizard - You kept doing the same edits too, reverting without explaining them except perhaps saying "unnecessary" which doesn't explain anything really. The way I see it you are both disruptive or neither are disruptive, since you've really not explained anyhing, just slapped templates on their talk page where is that person's motivation to talk to you? MPJ-DK (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Unless of course I am unaware of the messages you've left for the user on their talk page that may have been deleted?? MPJ-DK (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
MPJ-DK it isn't only me who slaps templates all the time. I tried to be polite and tried to reach a consensus with discussion. But they did not respond. If an edit is bad IMO, I can revert it if they don't respond. I can't just leave a message all the time like "yo, why you ignoring me." ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Please show me where you were polite to the user over the reverts you kept doing? Or even attempted to explain to the user why you revert their edits. I see 1 attempt at communicating and it was just "hey look at this link". MPJ-DK (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
MPJ-DK here and here. After that, it was other users as well who flushed out warning templates on their talk, which make everyone disruptive then based on your logic. ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
So I repeat one time where you basically said "I disagree with the naming of the section". Which I mentioned already, I was wondering where the polite conversation about the reverts was initiated but repeatedly ignored? MPJ-DK (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Ignore the undetified man, focus on his message
Oh and that was not a polic related issue, it was you wanting to label the section as "feud with Ronda" even though it goes way beyond that, I would have disagreed with that too. To be "disruptive" they have to do more than just disagree with you. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't get why you guys always blame people on stuff. The evidence is clearly visible that they are ignoring multiple messages and warnings from others. It is not unpolite to disagree on something, as long as you are open for discussion. I bet they are laughing behind the screen watching YOU guys taking no action against them and instead finding faults on those who are reporting for good. Yes I admit, "disruptive" I'd very much subjective, but not responding for concensus and continuing to edit the same is a much greater sin. And most of the time, people who revert use templates as shortcut. Blame the system then instead of attacking us. ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Some will remember the discussion a few months ago re recognizing that most pro wrestling sources are not independent but rather part of the kayfabe promotion machine, thus radically reducing both the number of articles in this topic area and the amount of brainless detail within those articles that remain, and in turn reducing the amount of wrestling-like tussles over nothing that the rest of us are asked to referee. See WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive989#Thought_about_further_measures_to_reduce_wrestling-related_disruption. Not for action now, but to continue planting seeds for future action, I'd like editors to consider whether we should recognize the sources listed at WP:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Sources#Industry_specific as non-independent. EEng 16:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I do remember that one, still have unanswered questions on that one, but that's for another day/place/time/dimension. Honestly the problem here goes two ways - no communication on talk pages vs. reverting and templating insted of trying to engage in conversations and explan why they are doing the reverts. Faults on both sides, should never have been at ANI IMO, that's just my $0.02 MPJ-DK (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @ImmortalWizard: I have two questions for you if you don't mind answering: (1) What was the reason for this revert (there was no edit summary)? (2) What was the reason for this warning stating "Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted." What was the vandalism?) Thanks. Levivich? ! 20:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich:
  1. There was surely edit summary (ce-copy edit). Perhaps I should have added WP:PW/MOS to be more specific. I did wikilinked that and WP:PW/Sources on edit summaries on that article beforehand. I was working on that article for a while and probably there was slight frustration which made me only do ce. It is also a kind of common sense and I couldn't be bothered to specify each time.
  2. I had a warn them since that WAS "disruptive", as I mentioned above, since they ignored my previous messages and edited the same despite.
And if you guys really want to talk about my actions and editing style, please start the discussion somewhere else. This is not the appropriate place as this is supposed to be only about the alleged users' actions. My contributions clearly wasn't the cause of their "disruption". ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I got to say, this section is full of WP:ABP despite controlled by admins. ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

ImmortalWizard, I would invite you to have a look at WP:BUNGEE where your argument of "not the appropriate place" is both explicitly and specifically countermanded. To sum up, I quote: "Anyone who participated in the dispute or discussions might find their actions under scrutiny." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks appreciate that. But people are getting off topic too much here. ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
IW, you're saying "they are ignoring multiple messages and warnings from others" and my question is, why did you (and others) warn them in the first place? What is it that they are doing wrong? I see vandalism warnings but no vandalism. Hyphens/dashes don't merit a vandalism or disruptive editing warning. So what is it that you're warning them about? For example, you cited PW/MOS above; what part of PW/MOS did they not follow? Levivich? ! 21:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Looks like I have to repeat again. I am warning about the user editing without continuosly ignoring messages. If you are interested, ask each an everyone of the editors who gave warning. There is no obligation to specify what's in WP/PW. Anyways, it is basically that you are not supposed to add unnecessary week to week contents. ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@Levivich: Have you got any idea what this issue is about? Iamveselin is frequently making edits like this which includes "two–time" with an en dash instead of a hyphen. Anyone familiar with written English knows that is wrong without any need to consult a style guide. Iamveselin has never commented on a talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
So this is just about dashes? Levivich? ! 22:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
No, it is not just about dashes. It's the user's lack of communication to resolve issues, which, on my part at least, stemmed from the issue of incorrect dashes. --JDC808 22:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I think with all the talk about dashes, everyone seems to have seriously missed the point. The OP has raised concerns about the editing of another editor. The editor is not responding to talk page communication from the OP. The crux of the matter is not the debate between dash styles but the failure to discuss. I've seen many instances on ANI where such an editor has been hit with a "hey you! you need to talk" block. Irrespective of the matter being debated, shouldn't this post be judged on the same merit? --Blackmane (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Post-close comments[edit]

  • So lets get this straight, an editor has been blocked for not responding to (from looking at their talkpage) false accusations of vandalism when they were adding unobjectionable (in the, its not uncited and its not a BLP violation sense) material to an article, and someone threatening to report them (as they have done) for not using the right type of dash? What the fuck is this "Bully people off wikipedia" month? The correct way to respond to people making unreasonable demands is to ignore them. An editor is not required to kowtow to the em-dash mafia. Jesus Christ. Next time someone has a go about dashes, I think the only response needed will be 'fuck off'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
In response to "threatening to report them for not using the right type of dash": the user was told multiple times that they were using the wrong one, but they kept ignoring me (as well as at least one other editor) and continued to change it from the correct dash to an incorrect one. The user would not discuss or address their edits, so what else was there to do? --JDC808 07:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • No, this makes perfect sense:
  1. "But ignoring you and other editors isn't a block-worthy infraction." - admin Liz in this thread
  2. "I wouldn't expect the user to stop ignoring you anytime soon. They have never edited anything but article space. They don't talk. I would say more, but I have to dash." - Bbb23 in this thread
  3. "I have blocked Iamveselin for three days for failure to collaborate, failure to respond to other users's concerns and, as a subset of failure to communicate, failure to use edit summaries (they never use summaries and they never talk)." - Bbb23 closing this thread
  4. "If you do not respond, you will be blocked." - Something nobody said to this editor.
Encourage the silence and then punish the editor for it without warning. Three days for a first-offense, to boot. Makes perfect sense. Levivich? ! 06:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The above comments completely miss the point. Wikipedia is a collaborative community and if people raise issues, you need to discuss them. If you can't or won't, find another website. The user's edits included blatantly silly changes to hyphenated phrases, replacing the bog-standard hyphen with an en dash. Sure, it's trivia, but when someone does it over and over and over, and never responds to other editors, they need to be stopped. Johnuniq (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with admin Cullen328: "No content creator should ever be criticized for using an en dash instead of an em dash." Levivich? ! 06:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Criticized is a strong word in this case. I tried to explain to the user the issue, but they ignored it and continued to make the same edits with no explanation for why they may have thought they were right. --JDC808 07:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Again, the issue concerns replacing hyphens with en dashes. Did you miss what I wrote (twice), or do you not believe it. If the latter you might check a few of the diffs, including the one I gave you. Johnuniq (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Johnuniq, I understand (and I think everyone else does too) that the complaint is that the editor is replacing hyphens with dashes, not just using dashes instead of hyphens when adding new content. Examples of this are in the history of the article linked to by OP. [69] But the user is also adding new content; much more than they are messing with dashes. Look at this revert [70] and this revert [71], it's not just about dashes. Content is being reverted there, too. But the editors (plural) who are reverting this content and posting vandalism or disruptive editing warning templates are making it seem like it's just #$T#$!@$# being posted on the page and reverted, when in fact it's dashes PLUS content, even sourced content. So what's going on there? That's why I asked above "why did you revert?" and such questions. Anyway, dashes isn't the reason the editor is blocked; not communicating is. Look I've written way too much about this as it is, so I don't see the reason for me to argue the point any further. But please don't insult me by repeatedly suggesting that because I disagree with your point of view, it means I don't understand, or I didn't read the diffs. Levivich? ! 07:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
As those differences you linked were my own edits, look at what was actually done. The only content I removed was trivial content (e.g., "first-ever"). The rest was changing the text back to how it previously was (which was more concise) before Iamveselin's edits, which introduced some grammatical issues. Now I can't speak in regard to the content that was the subject of the warnings made by ImmortalWizard and Static with those articles. --JDC808 07:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Huh? Please read your last comment above. Why write that if you already knew that the issue had nothing to do with using an en dash instead of an em dash? Johnuniq (talk) 08:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Because I wasn't interpreting the statement quite so literally. Let me rephrase, then: No content creator should ever be criticized for using the wrong type of hyphen or dash. To which I would add: no editor should be required to engage with other editors who are removing sourced content and calling it "vandalism", or who edit war to include poorly-sourced potentially-damaging rumors in a BLP, and no editor should be blocked without explicit warning that X behavior, if continued, will lead to a block. Levivich? ! 08:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Looking at the general case, an editor doesn't have to accept that the violations they're being accused of are valid ones, but there is a requirement to respond, to say in return: "my edits weren't vandalism and here's why." There's no necessity that they carry on an extensive discussion, or accept the other editor's behavior (they're perfectly free to report them as well), but a complete lack of response serves to undermine Wikipedia's system.
    The problem with this specific case is that the people reporting the lack of communication were themselves blowing up a trivial issue of typography ("bog-standad" or not) into a major issue -- which is why they received a goodly portion of sarcasm in the responses they go in the thread above -- calling things "vandalism" which were not, and so on. In the end, though, when push comes to shove, not communicating with anyone is a more serious problem than turning a molehill into a mountain, which is why the block went the way it did -- at least that's my interpretation of events. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Would just like to point out that I never once called the "dash" edits vandalism, only disruptive as they continued to make the same edits despite attempts to correct the issue. It was in the other warnings from other editors where "vandalism" was used. --JDC808 07:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

CharlieNgo2002[edit]

CharlieNgo2002 has been stating his point of view continuously in Venezuelan politics-related articles (e.g. Juan Guaidó, President of Venezuela, Vice President of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro) and even the article of the country itself with misleading edit summary (which all of them are "Fixed typo; Fixed grammar; Added links"). It seems that he wanted to start an edit war. After checking his contributions, in my view, he is probably a single-purpose account. I also doubt if he is a sock puppet of someone, but I can't sure. SænI will find a way or make one. 01:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Also thanks Kingsif and Irn for helping revert his edits. SænI will find a way or make one. 02:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the account for forty-eight hours, and explained why on its talk page. It's not impossible that this is a redeemable, good-faith account, so we'll AGF for now and see how it behaves once the block is up. Steve Smith (talk) 04:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Steve Smith: OK thanks. SænI will find a way or make one. 04:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock request[edit]

RESOLVED:
EdJohnston applied one week range block to IP. Further discussion not needed and now closed. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 20:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, Apologies if this is in the wrong place I'm not entire sure where to ask,
Long story short 2A02:C7F:C8B:7500:B15C:A9E3:1175:D78B, 2A02:C7F:C8B:7500:B0FC:9FD8:7068:8E8 and 2A02:C7F:C8B:7500:E492:E6D7:2AA2:B38A have all been replacing content on various article talkpages with what I consider to be crap ([72][73][74]) - One IP was blocked however they've simply jumped to a new IP/device meaning the blocks are useless
so I was wondering if a rangeblock could be applied so that they're blocked on all devices ,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:C8B:7500:0:0:0:0/64 for one week. Let me know if you perceive the same problem in any additional ranges. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
You're a legend thanks EdJohnston!, Okie dokie will do, thanks again, –Davey2010Talk 03:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Edit Warring and Block Evasion[edit]

Mopped up. SemiHypercube 01:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi there, apologies first if there's a better place to ask this. This topic covers a few things so I wasn't sure where to post specifically, since edit warring and suspected sock puppetry are both involved. There have been edits to the article Dakota Johnson which have a long history of having her personal life edited (specifically, with removing her relationship with Chris Martin) mainly by one editor geolocated in France (for multiple IP addresses) who's already been rangeblocked at Special:Contributions/2A01:CB04:493:C300:0:0:0:0/64, but continues to delete the same information with no explanation. Currently, the IP address the user is using, 92.184.96.183, is engaged in an edit war with the same deletion pattern. I've already warned both users on edit warring and to take the issue to the talk page, but after looking more into the page's history, this has been happening for a while already with this user. I'd appreciate any advice for action that can be taken. Thanks, Rosalina2427 (talk to me) 04:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I blocked the IP editor for a week. I can semi-protect the article if you want, but it seems like this might clear up the problem. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate: Thanks. Semi-protection would probably be best; it was previously protected for a week back on December 20, 2018. Rosalina2427 (talk to me) 11:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Another IP showed up, so I semi-protected the page for 2 weeks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

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

O-Qua-Tangin-Wann 2015[edit]

This is a frustrating one; O-Qua makes a lot of minor, but still constructive edits. However, the editor seems to be on a mission to change any occurrences of spelled-out numbers greater than 9 to their numerical equivalents. This is despite the fact that multiple people (including me, just yesterday) have pointed out MOS:SPELL09 and MOS:RETAIN. In fact, looking at their last twenty (or 20?) edits, 12 of them have been of this type (diffs: [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86]), quite a few of which were made after my most recent message on their talk page. I've brought this to ANI now because of their continued lack of response to my (and others') concerns. Note, English doesn't seem to be the issue here, since I did find a tiny handful of Talk and Wikipedia namespace edits among their other edits, and they seem perfectly capable of communicating, just unwilling to do so. Their talk page is a long list of template warnings, and they've had a couple short blocks in the past, but I'm not sure any of that seems to have made any impact. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  • I've checked contributions and what the OP says is true: he's on a mission and has been warned repeatedly. A block is needed at this point. EEng 18:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I asked them to not edit further w/o responding here. However, I see prior block notices but no feedback from the user. This must be MOS Ignorer week.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Bidhan Singh vandalizer[edit]

Edit filter modified, hopefully will hold back some of the vandalism. SemiHypercube 01:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE, before the administrators of Wikipedia do something about the mobile editor who keeps disrupting India-related articles? How many times & how many pages must I request 'semi-protection' for, before the administrative community finally does something? GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@GoodDay: What IP address(es) and/or account(s) is this editor using? What are some diffs? It would be helpful if you said it, lest you violate WP:NPA and risk a WP:BOOMERANG. SemiHypercube 17:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Check my contribs history. You'll see how many times I've reverted the range of mobile edits & how many times I've requested page semi-protection. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
To SemiHypercube: see here and here for discussions pertaining to this Bidhan Singh vandalizer. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 17:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Inviting @LiberatorG:, @Shellwood:, @General Ization:, @Cptmrmcmillan: and @Fylindfotberserk: to discussion, as they've recently reverted disruptive edits, by the 'mobile editor(s)-in-question'. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  • I think an edit filter specifically to check for addition the string Bidhan singh and/or addition of arbitrary newlines by IP editors in India related articles would go a long way to curb this sort of mindless vandalism. Semi-protecting an indeterminate amount of pages for short periods isn't a solution for somebody who is singlemindedly focused on vandalising Wikipedia.  << FR (mobileUndo) 17:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Concur about a filter. First noticed pointless newlines being added at the beginning of Google Earth, so not just India articles. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the alert, GoodDay, even if it was a little obscure; the readers here aren't necessarily aware of what you have already said at WP:RFPP and elsewhere. Apparently there used to be a User:Bidhan Singh, who was indeffed in 2014 by Ponyo, and who has ever since been adding his own name to articles. Here is a typical edit. Sneaky! I agree with the previous speaker that a filter seems to be the way to go. We can't have all these articles on permanent semi. Filter editors please take note. Bishonen | talk 18:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC).
Done. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Great! Thank you. Bishonen | talk 19:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC).

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

(post-close comment) I'm pretty sure I mentioned edit filters when the issue was last raised here at ANI... –FlyingAce✈hello 14:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

zzuuzz or any other Edit filter admin, please also include the string "Bidhan Singh" and its capitalizations (Bidhan singh, bidhan Singh, bidhan singh, BIDHAN SINGH, etc) in the edit filter. there is no notable person or author with the name "Bidhan Singh" (only a narcissist vandal) so we are safe on any collateral damages from this filter. --DBigXray 15:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess the filters aren't working, because Mr Singh is back, causing more disruption. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

PS: I'm no longer going to request page protections, as administrators there seem reluctant to permanent semi-protect or long term semi-protect attacked articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, why do you think that page protection will help here ? since you know about this vandal more than me, can you guarantee that once the long list of pages, you want protected, are protected then this vandalism will be stopped ? I hardly believe that will happen. Bidhan Singh will simply move on to other pages and indulge in self glorification. IMHO, the Edit filter is the most optimum response for this situation. Perhaps some more tweaks to the edit filter are needed. So let's help the admins like zzuuzz, Oshwah and Bishonen in solving the problem, they are trying to help without causing massive collateral damage. Dont loose hope and let the vandals win this one.--DBigXray 17:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I did some testing logged out, and it seems the peripheral portions (addition and removal of the FLC date) which allowed the edit to pass through. << FR (mobileUndo) 18:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Without wanting to sound pedantic or giving too much away, the discussion above requested a filter to prohibit this phrase in articles, and that is exactly what was implemented and is working absolutely perfectly. If you want a prohibition of this phrase in pages instead, I'll need to have a little think about where to put it (as well as whether it's efficient or useful). This is why, elsewhere, I requested some facts about typical edits. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    Indeed I would point out that this also seems to affirm that simply semi protecting some pages wouldn't help. In fact, we would have ended up semi protecting talk pages and the editor would just move on to other pages. Meanwhile a poorly implemented blanket ban on the term anywhere by anyone would have made this discussion and any future discussion of this difficult. Nil Einne (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
zzuuzz, I think enabling it for only article and talk namespaces would be enough for now to stop the vandal for now. << FR (mobileUndo) 04:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
What has technically happened is that I've adjusted one of our omnibus filters, with all its pre-existing conditions (which I'm not going to go into great detail about). Creating a dedicated filter for one vandal is really a last resort, and requires quite a bit of information. So far, the filter has registered (and prevented) 9 relevant hits. I'm going to watch what happens with this filter for a while. Not only will it register a likely list of IP addresses and targets, it will also probably indicate to what extent talk pages are a problem and potential evolution of the vandal's behaviour. I appreciate that this vandal has already added themselves to talk pages, but getting rid of vandals can often be achieved more effectively by subtle adjustments and not wielding a big banhammer. Let's see what happens for a while. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

2604:4080:1300:8031:1483:60cf:3474:35d8[edit]

Yet another WP:NOTHERE on US road articles. 2604:4080:1300:8031:1483:60cf:3474:35d8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is repeatedly adding uncited info without consensus. When asked to stop reverting by an editor, they essentially mocked said editor, claiming that we should not revert their edits without a discussion, since "facts and citations don't matter". Cards84664 (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks familiar.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@Dlohcierekim: You want to give it a go? They're still going. Cards84664 (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, but I'd recommend asking for WP:RPP. Semi-protection would prevent IP and dynamic IP editors from editing the page, and typically they get bored and move on. Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I went ahead and did it anyways since I was on the page. Hope you don't mind. :) Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I believe that this editor is the same as an IP that removed Interstate 605 (Washington) from the same page, based on their assertion that a former (but serious) proposal should not be listed. SounderBruce 02:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I invited them to this discussion and Semi'd the page.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:TAGTEAM[edit]

This thread has outlived its usefulness. The article was fully protected because of the edit-warring. One narrow warning was given to an editor. Now all I'm seeing is a bunch of bickering.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) and AshLin (talk · contribs) have been WP:TAGTEAM on Indus Valley Civilization article. Please see edit wars here by FF, here by Ashlin, here again by FF, and here again by Ashlin, no one else undid my work during that timeline. FF accused me of edits I did not make. But, I pointed to him, it was not me. After I proved he was falsely accusing me of edits I did not make, he came with a petty grammar excuse here, which was very small, it was over adding a first name, however, I fixed it. Then AshLin (talk · contribs) came and undid my work without an explanation. As you can observe from the diff, which Ashlin and FF WP:TAGTEAMed -- I just took out unreferenced content, fixed spelling and added references; added these two references, one by Gregory Possehl and other by Shearer 2010, FF did not dispute these two references in talk when we discussed. As mentioned, instead accused me of edits previous done by WP:CONSENSUS, not me, afterwards he dodged by finding a petty grammar excuse. Again, if you look at AshLin (talk · contribs) edit history for the past few days, it was largely edit warring on FF's behalf. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC))

Looks like a content dispute. There is discussion on the article talk page. IVC stuff is quite well-known for being contentious but I don't think two people disagreeing with one necessarily makes for a tagteam effort. I know Fowler was absent from Wikipedia for quite a while, as indeed I have been, so perhaps your edits stood because they were simply not around at the time you made them? I'm not delving into this but I think dispute resolution will be the way forward. - Sitush (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Sitush, please point out the content dispute undone by Ashlin here without an explanation. I just removed unsourced material, fixed spelling and added two references (These two references I would have gladly removed if mentioned in the long talk discussion, but was not). It was just about keeping the version FF likes, as he stated many times, "I wrote this article" and something similar, etc. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC))
  • I agree that this is a content dispute. However, there is also an edit war going on while the dispute is being discussed. I have therefore fully protected the article for one week so the editors can resolve the dispute, either on the Talk page, or, if not possible, through some other means of dispute resolution. AshLin, your last edit to the article was a rollback, which was not justified. Continuing abuse of the privilege will result in the loss of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Highpeaks35 (talk · contribs) has also recently started reverting / removing cited text from the Slavery in India page on the regulation, and prohibiting slavery, failing to participate in the article’s Talk, page, and blanking their own: talk page, which is not what i’d expect from one of the most prolific editors. 83.104.51.74 (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
IP, Highpeaks is not the only editor who has reverted you, and your edit summaries labeling other editors' edits vandalism constitutes personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Frankly, I am flabbergasted by this ANI thread. I'm not even sure where to begin and how deep to dive into this slough of Farce. Highpeaks35 is very likely unaware that AshLin is one of the most respected Wikipedians around. AshLin was one of the main organizers of the First Wiki Conference India in Mumbai, 2011, at which Jimmy Wales was the keynote speaker, and at which I was nominated in absentia for Awesome Wikipedian, though not awarded, however, later receiving a Indian barnstar of National Merit, which along with last year's Pakistani barnstar of National Merit, are among my proudest possessions. Highpeaks35 is unaware that AshLin is a senior retired officer of the Indian Army, and has served as lead judge of the photography contest Wiki Loves Armed Services (He appears in the link under his own name.) AshLin, moreover, was the winner of the Nature Forever Society's prestigious Sparrow Award, 2017. (He is the one holding the snake.) It's one thing that Highpeaks35 is badmouthing me, for I'm used to a level of discourse on Wikipedia that seldom rises not just to the level of graduate students I have taught, not just to that of the occasional undergraduate class, but not even to that of the rare high school student that appears at our institution as a summer intern. But it is quite another when without understanding AshLin's edit summary, Highpeaks35 is imputing a motive to the edit, which by virtue of roping me in, turns out to be tag-teaming. It is best to quickly close this thread; for the more time it is open, the more I will seethe at this calumny, and the more I will consider delving into Highpeaks35's own not so stellar edits that have been the bane of India-related pages lately. Seriously, there is a limit to what the WP community will put up with. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler, please see what Bbb23 has noted above: "AshLin, your last edit to the article was a rollback, which was not justified." Now threatening me with personal attacks like: "best to quickly close this thread; for the more time it is open, the more I will seethe at this calumny, and the more I will consider delving into Highpeaks35's own not so stellar edits" is unacceptable behavior. Using your past repeteur to justify your current behavior and racist-language/choice of words like "Hindu garbage" against me and my work is unacceptable. Your threats and racist language like "Hindu garbage" is not acceptable. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC))
PS My ineractions with Highpeaks35 are usually more along the lines of the exchange in Talk:Great_Famine_of_1876–1878#Plagiarism_in_cited_source.. Note that when I did post examples of plagiarism at WT:INDIA, Highpeaks35 had lost all interest in the topic. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
PPS It is not that Highpeaks35 has not been warned by other editors, sympathetic ones. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@Highpeaks35: commenting on your edits is not a personal attack. See WP:WIAPA. Furthermore, BOOMERANG exists for a very good reason. Then again, Fowler&fowler,

Unmitigated garbage. All stitched clothes were introduced to India by the Muslims; all garments of gods and goddesses of the Hindu pantheons in Hindu temples in North India are made by Muslim tailors. Indeed the profession of a tailor in north India is usually associated with Muslims. What is all this Hindu garbage. The Hindus wore only draped clothes before the Muslim conquest of India. This is documented in several books on the history of clothing in India.

is beyond the pale, in my opinion, although from what has been evidenced here, seems to be a one off. Bellezzasolo Discuss 22:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
PPPS As for racism and Eurocentrism, I hear the refrain at least once a day, here though is the context in which it was said. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler, You accused me of promoting plagiarism is moot. I used a source from Dr. Bimal K. Paul, a professor from Kansas State University. His book Food and Famine in the 21st Century, edited William A. Dando, who is a Professor Emeritus, Department of Geography, Geology, and Anthropology, Indiana State University and published by a notable publisher. Meets WP:RS. Now blaming me, is moot. Also, do not change the subject. You promote a Eurocentric POV push and called me and my work "Hindu garbage". I do not tolerate such words, like "Hindu garbage". Saying those words "Hindu garbage" is unacceptable (in any circumstance); and now threatening me with BOOMERANG is just plain wrong. I can't image using "Jew garbage" or "African garbage" in any circumstance. Period! (Highpeaks35 (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC))
You might want to read law of holes. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock request[edit]

Hi. Please can a rangeblock be placed on the 39.48 range? It's part of a LTA range, with a couple of blocks in the past 24hrs alone, but this goes back a lot longer than that. Here are a few examples from today:

Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Back this morning at 39.48.176.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (also reported at WP:AIV). Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced information[edit]

An IP user, 42.110.153.26, has made multiple edits in which they are removing content from articles and placing a generic comment of "unreferenced section". It does not appear that they are adding any additional content nor references to the articles in which they are editing. I have reached out to the IP user via their talk page but I doubt that they will respond. Shall we treat this as a vandal? Please advise. — Mr Xaero ☎️ 20:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

They were blocked before you posted this. Natureium (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) At a quick glance, many of their removals are good; Belgharia still oozes old world charm of Bengal. The cosmopolitan culture of new age Bengal hasn't yet penetrated the town. [87] is clearly non-encyclopedic. For [88], the bus-route to the high school may not be necessary, but the lack of references isn't the main reason to remove it; the information could fairly obviously be verified on an online mapping service. The IP editor probably should sign up for an account if they're going to make potentially-controverial edits like this, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@Mr Xaero: the IP is blocked for 31 hours. I suggest keeping an eye on them and look at their actions once the ban expires. ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I have reverted all of the edits that were made by the IP user even though they are unreferenced material in the articles as good measure. — Mr Xaero ☎️ 20:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Just to check, Mr Xaero - are you saying that you have reinstated all of their removals? power~enwiki indicated that he thought that many of their removals were good - the one he quoted certainly seems unencyclopedic, and should not have been reinstated. Did you check through them first and only reinstate the dubious ones? GirthSummit (blether) 08:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@Girth Summit (sigh) - yes I reverted all edits. However, I am looking at the articles in which had the information removed and attempting to provide sources. If a source is unable to readily be found I am adding the {{Unreferenced section}} or {{Citation needed}} to the areas in question. (Please don't hit me hard with the ban hammer)Mr Xaero ☎️ 12:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Citation needed tag is provably better than removal for most of them, but the problem with the one quotes above is the style, rather than the sourcing - it's unencylopedic puffery, a source wouldn't make it any better. There weren't that many edits, I'll take a look through this afternoon and review for style (unless you get there first). Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 13:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. I plan on removing the information that is clearly unencylopedic as it should not have been included in the first place. Sadly though most article pertaining to locations within India are filled with this "information". — Mr Xaero ☎️ 14:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Okpeletier (talk) creating hoaxes[edit]

The user has been repeatedly creating articles (and on their userpage) of a bogus TV series "Tea Queens". They have claimed that this is part of a school project here. Grounds for a block? CoolSkittle (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

They haven't repeated it since their final warning. This isn't a brand new account, making contributions like Draft:The Walking Dead (season 10) (not ideal, but not a hoax). Instead, I propose the following: Okpeletier is indefinitely topic-banned from creating pages. This may be appealed at any time. This is due to lack of comprehension of WP:V and problematic page creations, and I would suggest revocation after some solid, sourced, article work. Bellezzasolo Discuss 21:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Indef or topic ban for John1427[edit]

Very obviously WP:NOTHERE, and indeffed accordingly. Black Kite (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I suggest user John1427 be either indefinitely blocked or topic banned from religion (broadly construed) as per WP:NOTHERE. The user insists on changing the article Jesus in what I can only see as either vandalism or failure to understand Wikipedia [89], [90], [91]. I am also somewhat concern by the user's habit of going on the talk page of every user who comments on them or revert them to leave messages in what is starting to look a bit like harassment [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104]. As Tgeorgescu points out, the user clearly states they don't believe in WP policies, further showing they are not here to contribute [105]. Last and least, requesting to change one's user name twice in less than a week does not look serious [106], [107]. All the evidence suggest that this user is not here to contribute. Jeppiz (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Agree since this editor thinks that his/her own religious POV trumps WP:RULES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I just want to let you know Jesus loves you, but I don't agree with anything you said. The Wikipedia policies are flawed and flexible, as shown in the five pillars. And just because one Christian says one thing about following hard on the policies, doesn't mean I do either. Highbrow isn't very persuasive to commonfolk, whom 95% of the world belong to, so the academia doesn't sway me either. I forgive you. John1427 (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Quoted from User talk:Tgeorgescu. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Disagree 1st, there I see an unfounded case for vandalism lacking reasoning. 2nd, WP:HA#NOT; Does anyone not want a kitten post? I would understand. 3rd, name change "does not look" serious is a far fetched perception, and carries no weight on the argument. Fourth, Wikipedia clearly states to use common sense in the articles, in which I have exercised in editing Jesus, and have been confronted to have vandalized Jesus who claimed Himself to be risen? To conclude, no policies have been violated, whether I believe or disbelieve is irrelevant, just as whether you believe or disbelieve the Gospel is irrelevant to the consequences of eternal damnation, and "harassment" has been put on kitten photos and boba tea pictures, and I prospect name changes could clearly imply John1427 is ready to get to work here. John1427 (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I did not ask for your forgiveness, so forgiving me is a token of contempt (conceit), for me and for the Wikipedia community. Besides, nobody wants to change your own beliefs, but we require you to act as an adult. Teaching you WP:RULES certainly does not mean that I have harmed you. You simply don't belong in our company. This isn't harm, as I have been in no way harmed by being denied membership of the Rotary Club. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree per Tgeorgescu. The editor appears to want to apply his own religious morality and POV to the encyclopedia.

It's a Deeper Issue.
Georgia Pastor Jentezen Franklin + 10,000 person congregation = passes WP:GNG? NJ Pastor John Wagner + 10,000 member congregation = fails WP:GNG? I criticize Wikipedia for its sense to invite pornographic actors on WP:PEOPLE instead of men who serve and follow the LORD our GOD. Resolve as you wish. John1427 (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Quoted from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Wagner (pastor). GPL93 (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree per Jeppiz,Tgeorgescu and GPL93.John1427 keeps trying to change the Jesus article from "Jesus was a first-century Jewish preacher and religious leader" to "is the only begotten son of God" [108] and then sends whoever reverts that a picture of a kitten with "Jesus loves you" to their talk page. I don't know if he is for real or just a troll or what but it is a nuisance and dealing with it is a waste of time.Smeat75 (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban from religion, broadly construed. This person mistakes this neutral encyclopedia for a religious tract, and their disruption must be stopped. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Indef - This is someone editing with an agenda and not here to improve the encyclopedia. Show him the door. WaltCip (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Indef If they want a pulpit, I suggest here, not WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As an aside, the username is a bible verse, specifically John 14:27. Rather asinine for someone who espouses a my-way-or-the-highway demeanour to be referencing a bible verse about easing others' troubles. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 00:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Non Halal Bacon[edit]

Nuked from orbit. -- The Anome (talk) 10:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non Halal Bacon Has made several seemingly constructive edits, but if you look at the edit summaries they are egregious. Example: diff 1 diff 2. They have made several more edits with the same summaries in the 2 minutes it took me to navigate to ANI. Requesting that diffs be struck. User seems clearly WP:NOTHERE. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 10:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry and I have stopped with the insulting comments. Non Halal Bacon (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • This user is using inappropriate edit summaries which is discriminating and offending Muslims despite being warned. Could any admin please revdel relevant materials and block if appropriate? Thanks. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talkcontribs) 10:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Umm, yeah I think you'll find Captain Eek already said this didn't he? It's been stopped ages ago. Non Halal Bacon (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I think you'll find your conduct was so egregious that you were reported by two users simultaneously. Also, if replying to talk page comments please add only one new colon (":") per level. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 10:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I was just merging threads. Stop your egotistic behavior. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talkcontribs) 10:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

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

This user is clearly now socking using Special:Contributions/Ban_Sharreah_and_let_Muslims_enjoy_pork. Home Lander (talk)

Amitkr5339[edit]

Amitkr5339 has been told on numerous occasions that when he creates articles he must include references and demonstrate notability, but he has continued to generate articles with no references. His user talk page is littered with notifications of newly-created pages being moved to draft space because they were not deemed fit to be in mainspace and his contributions page has further newly-created articles without references. I don't know whether the editor fails to understand English, but he obviously has a problem in complying with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) David and myself have tried to assume good faith and have treated Amitkr5339 as a new user, trying to explain the issues with his edits and how to use refs etc. He does read the messages (diff) but it appears as though, this user is not bothered to respond. He does understand English and on one rare occasion (diff), he has replied on his own talk page. He has stated [109] that he has some kind of an emotional / professional connection with Sheikhpura district Cricket club in Bihar (a part of Bihar Cricket Association) and his edits are mostly related to the WP:Cricket and other sports. He has used WP:AFC in past but it seems after few rejections has started creating articles on main space again. I believe a restriction to mandatorily use WP:Article wizard to create new articles should be placed on this user. With failure to do so, leading to incremental blocks. --DBigXray 12:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock request[edit]

There appears to be a user/users from an IP range constantly adding random countries to Supermarket articles without specific references.

Please see examples here:

94.236.195.28 94.236.211.207 94.236.136.133 and today 94.236.134.63

[[110]] [[111]] [[112]] Angryskies (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree this is disruptive but I'm no expert at rangeblocks. The addresses are not part of the same subnet (eg 94.236.194.0/23 only covers one of the addresses) and it looks like it would at least a /17 rangeblock to cover all of them. GoldenRing (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
GoldenRing, correct, per the calculator, Special:Contributions/94.236.134.63/17 should cover all of these. Home Lander (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Which, I think, amounts to blocking a whole Bulgarian ISP? GoldenRing (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
GoldenRing, hell if I know. Face-wink.svg Home Lander (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)