Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is forurgentincidents orchronic, intractablebehavioral problems. Before posting: Readthese tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them ontheir talk page Trydispute resolution Just want an admin?Contact arecently active admindirectly. Be brief and includediffsdemonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal informationon this highly visible page – instead go toRequests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, youmustleave a notice on their talk page;pingingisnot enough. You may use{{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaningyou cannot currently edit this page.Instead,use/Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours arearchivedautomatically byLowercase sigmabot III.Editors unable to edit here are sent to the/Non-autoconfirmed postssubpage.(archives,search)
Start a new discussion

BATTLEGROUND and SPA by Iwog

• Iwog(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)
• False accusation of rape(edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Iwog today expressed that "This page is overflowing with errors, deception, and bias and I think it's worth going to war overregarding an issue onFalse accusation of rape([1]). This user has edited solely on this article and its associated talk page. They made a few edits initially over the presentation of percentages in the article's lead and later adding a sentence to the lead that, to me, appeared to be a tendentious edits to try to comment about the "flip" of the topic ([2],[3]). This user has repeatedly opined about the "bias", "lies", and "dishonesty" in the article and that the lead is "written intentionally to deceive".

I am requesting admins and/or the community review this user's behavior. To me, this user's behavior seems very disruptive. I know I have stronger-than-average feelings about this topic, so I'm also asking for a "reality check" that this user is indeed being a problem and that it is not my own stances on the issue making me view their behavior as such.EvergreenFir(talk)22:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with your assessment. It seems like this editor is more interested in pushing their POV rather than interest in verifiability. In fact, this editor mentions "accuracy" multiple times in edit summaries[4][5][6][7][8].In the third diff, the editor engages inthe fallacy that the truth is always "somewhere in the middle".Wikipedia is not the place toWP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS,and it's clear that this editor isn't here to contribute to the project but to crusade against perceived underreporting of false rape. The editor even says they're "going to war", which is good evidence that they're viewing this as aWP:BATTLEGROUNDand not engaging with the project in good faith. –FenixFeather^{(talk)(Contribs)}22:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The main complaint against me seems to be one of semantics. Since I'm new here, I was not aware that "going to war for truth" made my contributions into a battleground and you will find the rest of the subject is treated objectively. Although links were given for my use of the word "accuracy", no links nor any quotes were given that in any way indicated I was insisting "the truth is in the middle". I am well aware that this topic is rife with strong emotions on both sides which makes it vitally important that it is treated coldly and objectively. IMO the article is far from objective and contains much bias which I have detailed in great length. The accusation that I am not here to contribute is false. I am only here to contribute.— Precedingunsignedcomment added byIwog(talk•contribs)23:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

After reviewing my actual quote, "The actual number lies somewhere in the middle", I will clarify that my intention was to say the true number can lie anywhere within the data set bracketed by both known ends of the spectrum. I can see how this was misinterpreted. At no time did I ever intend to claim a number was half way in between or located anywhere within the set of unknowns. This is not a fallacy, in fact it's a statement of mathematical fact.Iwog(talk)23:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Can I suggest to you that maybe you should start with topics you don't feel so strongly about first, then? You should learn the ropes first before diving into articles that have the discretionary sanctions warning. For example, read up onWP:V.Accuracy is not a standard for inclusion on Wikipedia. You can believe whatever you want is "accurate", but we only include content that is verifiable. You don't seem to have a grasp of basics like these so I recommend that you edit in other areas first rather than edit war against multiple editors. –FenixFeather^{(talk)(Contribs)}23:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Once again I have to take issue with your use of semantics here. I am not using the term "accuracy" to indicate anything other than adherence to the citations being presented. In short, the way I am using the term is ONLY about statements on the page being verifiable.Iwog(talk)23:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Added: This is the first instance you cited:[9]It is clear that I am arguing for the inclusion of a large set of unknowns which is present in every single study being referenced. It's obvious that "accuracy" here means adherence to facts that can be verified.Iwog(talk)23:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

We've actually already explained to you that including the conviction rate with the fully intended implication of "any report that doesn't result in a conviction is or could be false" is aWP:ORviolation. –Roscelese(talk⋅contribs)13:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes you've explained it but you are wrong. Currently the implication is "any report that cannot be prove false is true". Please explain how this isn't aWP:ORviolation since every study admits unknowns exceeding 80%?Iwog(talk)14:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

That implication is also present in virtually all of the published research on this and every other kind of crime victimization: crime stats are usually based reported crimes, and these victimizations presumed true unless there is evidence that an assault did not happen. To be clear, "evidence" is a much lower standard than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" - the figures reported in the research don't represent "proven" false allegations at all, they represent allegations where there was a good reason to believe the accusation was false. Perhaps you think we should record crime victimizations differently, but Wikipedia adheres to reliable sources.Nblund^talk15:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Iwog,inthis revertthat you describe as "far more accurate," you add text readingLikewise it is also generally agreed upon only about 1 to 5% of total rape allegations will lead to a conviction by a court of law and can be presumed to be true.This asserts, without evidence, that "conviction by a court of law" and "can be presumed to be true" are synonymous... yet a failure to convict can occur because the jury thinks an accusation is true but is not convinced beyond all reasonable doubt. It can occur when 11 jurors are utterly convinced and one hold-out is being stubborn for reasons unrelated to the case. It can occur because the evidence relating to sexual assaults can be thin as such crimes often happen in private locations without witnesses and as victims may not immediately report, resulting in a lack of corroborating physical evidence. Convictions can also occur when the evidence is thin and the jury is biased - look at the number of unsafe convictions that have occurred due to racial prejudice, as one example. Do you maintain that a jury conviction is needed for a victim's statement that s/he was raped to be presumed to be true?EdChem(talk)15:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• Iwog is a pureWP:SPAand obviously came into WP hot; this is pretty obvious subtweeting of the Kavanaugh matter. Ipropose a TBANfor anything related to gender-relations under thegamergate DS;any admin can do this. This person needs to stay away from this topic that is too-charged for them, and try to learn what we do here and how we do it, on non-controversial topics.Jytdog(talk)17:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I would support this.Iwog's userpagesuggests a pretty close connection to the Men's Rights Movement - I don't think this necessarily precludes them from ever editing productively on gender issues, but they clearly have more passion than knowledge and they need time to learn the ropes elsewhere.Nblund^talk15:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't believe men's rights activists can ever productively edit on gender topics unless they show proof that they're genuinely remorseful and denounce it. Men's rights activism is hate speech and has no place on the encyclopedia. –FenixFeather^{(talk)(Contribs)}17:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree++. Suggest topic ban from gender and sexuality, broadly construed, per theGamerGate Discretionary Sanctions--Jorm(talk)17:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? Misguided, misinformed, and sometimes-to-frequently used as cover for sexist beliefs and language, but "hate speech" is an overkill claim, as is the notion that people who don't share your beliefs should be barred from editing certain topics. That's really not how WP is supposed to work, unless such people are bringing disruption with them, which should be decided on an individual basis. Statements like this just serve as fodder for the "left is out to get us" conspiracy theories, anyway.Grandpallama(talk)11:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is unfriendly enough to women and other minorities as it is. If you want Wikipedia to offer safe haven to misogynists on gender topics, then by all means, advocate for misogyny. It's my personal opinion that hatred has no place here. And no, I don't want to ban people that disagree with me, or I'd be asking for bans against everyone who voted differently from me onWP:AFD.Please don't mischaracterize my opinion as "ban people who disagree with me". –FenixFeather^{(talk)(Contribs)}18:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Characterizing people on the conservative end of the sociopolitical spectrum as engaging in hate speech is not appropriate, unless they engage in actual hate speech. Implying that I'm advocating for misogyny is dangerously close to a personal attack and also not appropriate. Pointing out that you are suggesting you'd like to ban people from editing on this topic who disagree with you is a perfectly accurate characterization of the extreme position you laid out, including the expectation that there should be public apologies that demonstrate "genuine" remorse. Wikipedia should be a safe place for everyone who edits it, and those who engage in any unacceptable behavior should be immediately addressed, but expanding the definition of that behavior to include positions you dislike by trying to classify them in a new way while also expecting displays of contrition in order to earn the right to edit again is misguided. And, as I said, it feeds the trolls who seize upon such statements as proof that Wikipedia is some sort of weird leftist hotbed, which it is not. Anyway, this is tangential to the specific behavioral question that was brought here.Grandpallama(talk)09:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

What in the world? You realize I'm not saying "ban all conservatives from Wikipedia for being misogynists", right?Mens rights activism was specifically identified by the SPLC as a hate group.It is not controversial to suggest that hate groups like white supremacists, male supremacists, and Nazis should not be allowed to edit in areas where they have an agenda of hate to push, and I would like you to reconsider the difference between advocating that hate be restricted from certain areas on Wikipedia and restricting people I disagree with from talking. There's a world of difference between the two. –FenixFeather^{(talk)(Contribs)}17:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

What in the world is right, as I think we're not exactly so far apart. As I said, hate speech should be restricted, but it should also be recognized that the SPLC (and even our own page on the so-called MRM) draws some distinctions between "male supremacy" (which is what it categorizes as hate groups/speech/activity and what I now think you were specifically saying you'd like to see outed as such) and the men's rights silliness, and acknowledges (as I did) that there are some legitimate voices in the latter that don't necessarily fall into the former. Every male supremacist is into men's rights activism, but not all of the goofy men's rights activists are male supremacists. Most of the ones I encounter on a daily basis who describe themselves as men's rights activists are just anti-feminists or traditionalists who exhibit some ignorance or poorly thought-out positions, and say largely stupid (but not really hateful) things, rather than seek to advance some sort of actual ideological creed. I actually think we're on the same page and just disagreeing over a point of semantics. If you are saying that male supremacy is hate speech and has no place on the encyclopedia, then we're simpatico.Grandpallama(talk)18:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The only thing the MRM has had even a remotely valid point to make about since the mid 1990's is that father's are more frequently given the short end of the stick in family court and that some feminists occasionally say hysterical things. Literally everything else they go on about is pure misogyny, and misogyny is absolutely "hate speech".ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.15:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

And if we see something hateful said, misogynistic or otherwise, we should respond accordingly. But there are a lot of people who self-identify as men's rights activists who are really just highly conservative. I'm not advocating giving any room for hate speech.Grandpallama(talk)19:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support any and all sanctions that are on the tableI've gone on record as rejecting the usefulness of TBANning SPAs, so I would support a community indef block, or a block with a broad TBAN set as the unblock condition.Hijiri 88(Thánhやや)22:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Changed tojust block the NOTHERE sock-abusing troll.Nothing more needs to be said.Hijiri 88(Thánhやや)08:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Possibly related: although Iwog has largely gone silent, aMugyuToChu(talk·contribs) was created this morningsided with Iwogin her first and only edit about 20 minute later. I'm not crazy for thinkingthisseems like a very hamhanded attempt at trolling or concealing sock puppetry, right?Nblund^talk22:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank youUser:Nblundfor pointing this out.Hijiri 88(Thánhやや)08:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I just saw this notification at the top of the page. I am a feminist and one of the first articles I looked at was this one because of the Kavanaugh issue going on right now. I'm surprised at the rude reception I'm getting. If I understand what the BATTLEGROUND law means, then Jijiri88, Roscolese, and Nblund definitely seem to be violating it with how they're treating me. It's a shame, because looking at their edits all three also appear to be feminists. Can't we all get along?MugyuToChu(talk)18:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Obvious sock/troll/joe job blocked indef. --Floquenbeam(talk)19:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Here's Iwog on their hobby horse:"Likewise it is also generally agreed upon only about 1 to 5% of total rape allegations will lead to a conviction by a court of law and can be presumed to be true."One step at a time: there is no "likewise". One source, this source, cannot establish "generally agreed upon". Where is the "1-5%" onthis page?"Total rape allegations" --the source provides data from the US; globalize, Iwog. Finally, "and can be presumed to be true" is complete BS: it's original research, POV commentary. Iwog will have us believe that 95 to 99% of rape allegations are likely false? And all this in the lede (or lead, whatever...). So, we have here a toxic soup of SPA, POV, OR, and possibly CIR (every step I laid out involves incompetence of some sort--rhetorical, logical, situational). Place a topic ban, or (someone) impose something useful viaWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate.Drmies(talk)15:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

So, when is somebody gonna block this guy?

Sorry to paraphrasethe worst extra ever,but the above-citedWP:DUCKbehaviour is grounds for immediate indefinite block of both accounts.@Yunshui:Sorry to ping you, but you're kinda my go-to for sockpuppetry issues, and buried at the bottom of a relatively stale ANI thread this ran the risk of not being noticed before getting archived.Hijiri 88(Thánhやや)08:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but it's not going to be me (norDrmies,who has also run an inconclusive CU with regards to this). There's no technical evidence linking the two accounts, and as yet I don't think the behavioural evidence is sufficient (suspicious, yes; suspicious enough to warrant the check - but not enough to warrant a block in the absence of anything else). No comment on the rest of the above.Yunshui^Vân_Thủy08:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The sock that turned up the other day, was CU'd to beUser:Architect 134,a notorious false-flag trouble maker in the Nsmutte vein. This could be similar, although it's quacking loudly - who spells the first paragraph of an article "lede" with their very first edit?Black Kite (talk)10:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Yunshuiis correct--that is, there is no support for a CU block. And while some editors deserve to be blocked for one single edit, this is not yet the case.Black Kite,I believe you are correct too: this is a troublemaker, and it certainly quacks, but given the repetitive nature of trolling, who knows. At any rate, if this ever turns into an RfC or a more formal discussion, an admin/seasoned editor will know how to weigh such drive-by comments...Drmies(talk)14:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding on to theWP:DUCK,there's this diff[10]that Simonvino immediately tried to undo when they realized they'd given themselves away as Iwog. Pretty sure the "talk page discussion" and "dragged to ANI by agenda motivated editors" is Iwog forgetting that they're on on the Simonvino account. Not to mention this really silly edit onUser:MugyuToChu's user page[11].–FenixFeather^{(talk)(Contribs)}17:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Er no - Simonvino wasn't Iwog, they wereUser:Architect 134,that was proved by a CU. It's actually pretty typical joe-jobbing by A134 - writing something that "gives them away", then immediately reverting it as if they've suddenly reaslised what they've done.User:Nsmuttehas been known to pull the same trick.Black Kite (talk)18:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh. Well, that's weird. I guess I should've known better. –FenixFeather^{(talk)(Contribs)}18:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:PAID; WP:COI

Good morning. I just would like to highlight that I suspect (talk) to violateWP:PAID;WP:COIto be paid by a competitor company ofIONIS Education Groupto delete anything concerning this education group and try to influence other users. For me it is quite clear looking of the black log of the user and his history. But I am not sure so I prefer to rely on your opinion. Kind Regards,2A01:CB00:B51:3E00:B5A6:6D4B:CEFE:28CE(talk) 12:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC

• Previous ANIs[12][13].Time forWP:BOOMERANG?—BillHPike(talk,contribs)13:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
• This has been examined multiple times and found that anonymous IPs are attempting to add promo material on this topic and then when EulerObama reverts their content and restores a NPOV they bring him to ANI. A boomerang might be appropriate, but this is like the 3rd or 4th IP to do this and I'm not sure any kind of block/ban would stop this. I think it may instead be necessary tosemi-protectmore of these IONIS pages so the IPs cannot keep doing this.IONIS Education Grouphas already been semi-protected by the admin TomStar81, based on a "long term pattern of WP:COI and WP:PAID based editing." I'm thinkingIONIS School of Technology and Management,ESME-Sudria,as well asInstitut supérieur européen de gestion groupmay need this. They are also creating various promo articles that EulerObama is AfDing, but I don't see a good way to stop these IPs from doing that. -Obsidi(talk)16:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Since there is no indication that the POV pushing and the self promotion from theIONIS_Education_Groupis ever going to stop, I second the proposal for a long term semi-protection of all the articles directly linked to that company so we can at least control the damage. A good starting point for the articles to protect is the list of all the schools of the group listedhere.--McSly(talk)02:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the ones that have had issues. There are, however, some 40 articles about/linked to the education group in total.Black Kite (talk)07:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Black Kite. --McSly(talk)01:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I do maintenance on French wikipedia. See:[14]

I have seen how IPs use wikipedia as a means of promotion (false information, inter-wiki spam). We have therefore removed unnecessary items. This way, you can manage the pages easily.

It happens to be one of the few topics that makes spam everywhere (inter-wiki spam) and I thought it was important to clean up English wiki too.--EulerObama(talk)18:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

SanAnMan

User:SanAnMan(talk) reverted an edit I made to an article foran episode ofSouth Park,which appears to be one of this user's areas of interest. I engaged with the user on their talk page attempting to discuss precisely how, in their view, my edit violated policy. When I said they weren't being specific, the user said it was "blatantly apparent [I] just want to argue" and that I should stop leaving messages. When I said that that wasn't constructive and suggested dispute resolution, they simply decided toremoveanymessages I leave. Could someone step in and say this behaviour is not acceptable? ----92.21.174.27(talk)21:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like he would be open to dispute resolution, but there are options that don't require his participation, such as starting arequest for comments.NinjaRobotPirate(talk)22:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

That's not ideal - the RFC page says "Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others". If someone refuses to make such a reasonable attempt, is this not a conduct issue? And if not, I consider my edit just a minor improvement rather than a full-scale rewriting of the page; an RFC seems overblown. Would you still recommend RFC in this context? I'm willing to go ahead with it there really aren't any other options. --92.21.174.27(talk)14:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

You could post to the article's talk page, wait a few days for a response, and see what happens. If nothing comes of it, I think a request for comments would be justified. If there were problems after that, it would more clearly be a conduct issue.NinjaRobotPirate(talk)17:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I'll do that. ----92.21.174.27(talk)20:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate:Hello, I'm going to attempt to clear up what I believe is a very foggy and incomplete situation here. Let's start from the beginning. The articleStunning and Bravewasfirst editedbyUser:79.75.139.38on April 6, 2018. This IP-only user had made no previous edits prior to this, and I deemed the addition of the content to the article to be in violation of policy atWP:TVPLOTandWP:PLOTSUMMARIZE.As a side note, it is unfortunately rather common to have to revert edits such as this by one-time IP-only editors for this same reason on many television episode pages, and these policies are in fact specifically mentioned in the talk page of the article. This edit was thenrevertedbyUser:85.211.212.153inAugust 2018(4 months later), so at the time, I had no way of knowing if this was the same editor or not. That reversion wasagain reverted by me,this time in the edit summary explaining that the edit was in violation of TVPLOT. It was at this time that User:85.211.212.153 left thefirst message on my talk pageasking for further explanation. In an effort of good faith, Irepliedwith the key lines out of the policy exactly what he had violated. Hisresponsewas to state that I should "specify what (I) objected to in (his) edit". Again in good faith, I eventuallyrepliedwith more specific details, again using the text from the policy as guideline. Hisresponsewas that he wanted to break down point-by-point his additions. I am just another editor, and I did not feel it was my responsibility to try to teach and/or explain in specific detail WP policy that is clearly written, and yes, I did feel that at this point he was kind of beating a dead horse, so yes, Irepliedand asked him specifically to not message me directly again, and since I felt there was no point in continuing the conversation I removed the thread.

Now here's where it gets more interesting and convoluted. He eventuallycontacts me againbut this time asUser:92.21.174.27,the third different IP from what I now concluded was the same person (79.75.x.x, 85.211.x.x, and now 92.21.x.x). The IP-hopping from three different networks raised my radar here, and that's when I began digging a little deeper. Thevery first editmade by 92.21.174.27 was to modify the user talk page ofUser:94.197.120.175.That particular IP address (94.197.x.x) has been range-banned and blocked for 6 months since September 25, 2018. That same date, coincidentally enough, is the date that User:94.197.120.175 made that first edit. I also found it rather unusual that a relatively-new IP editor would already know how to do such things as API, piping links, and other such details which are generally not as easily gleamed by most relatively-new IP-only editors (my opinion here).

In summary, I firmly believe that not only did I act in good faith towards User:85.211.212.153 by 1) directing him to the WP policy in question in the reversion itself, 2) quoting him directly the section of the WP policy that the edit was in violation thereof, and 3) further explaining the details of his edit in contrast to the policy, but I have high reason to suspect that User:92.21.174.27 may in fact be IP-hopping to avoid the range ban mentioned earlier. I think we may possibly be being played here. I thank you for your time and attention. -SanAnMan(talk)22:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, there's always going to be an opposing point of view in any conflict. First, I'd point out that IP addresses frequently change outside of a person's control. It doesn't necessarily mean anything that someone uses many different IP addresses. I understand that it may seem suspicious to see IP editors who are familiar with wikicode and obscure processes, but some of them have been editing anonymously for years without being disruptive. These IP editors may indeed become caught in range blocks, but it doesn't necessarily mean the range block was meant for them. If someone is being polite and trying to engage with you, it's unlikely they're an LTA vandal who makes threats. (This seem to be what the range block was for.)

Second, I know it's frustrating to deal with people who may want to expand plot summaries beyond the recommended limits (or in ways the guidelines discourage), but there's occasionally going to be some degree of discussion necessary. Sometimes it helps if you address their questions and concerns. Someone may be trying to see things from your point of view but need help understanding where you're coming from. Once you find a better way to explain yourself, you might quickly find consensus in your favor. If you're finding it frustrating or tedious, sometimesWP:DRNhelps. Or go to an RFC and let uninvolved consensus rule.NinjaRobotPirate(talk)23:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying about the IP hopping possibly being just a coincidence and possibly out of a user's control, but as a person who actually works in the IT profession (it's my RL job), I still find it highly unusual that one user would hop across three different networks. If the IP had changed within a certain range, that would have made more sense to me. It's also still highly suspect to me that when he changed his IP to 94.21.174.27 that the very first post made from that IP was to modify the talk page of another IP account that had been long-term blocked the exact same day that his IP was first used. Anyways, that's neither here nor there at this point, he's raised his issue on the article's talk page (which, IMO, is where this whole process should have begun from day one) and we'll see what other editors have to say about it. I still feel that I did my honest in good faith best to try to answer his questions to the best of my ability. I appreciate your candor and feedback. It's admins like you that make this place a little better for all of us. -SanAnMan(talk)14:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I should probably respond to your detective work,@SanAnMan:

User:79.75.139.38, User:85.211.212.153 and User:92.21.174.27 are indeed all me; apologies if there was any confusion about that, but I thought given my editing patterns it would have been obvious to any observers that that was the case. I don't think I can explain the 'network hopping' because I don't really know what you mean by that, they are just dynamic IP addresses assigned to me by my ISP.

I have not, however, edited as User:94.197.120.175. Thatdidbecome my IP address when I was using Wikipedia from my mobile phone on the bus home from work. I'd forgotten I wasn't at home, and wanted to check my talk page to see if there were any further developments in this dispute. When I observed the prior vandalism emanating from the IP address, and the subsequent blocks, I thought it would useful for observers to understand it was a dynamic IP and not a single vandal. By the time I submitted my edit, however, I'd arrived home and connected to my WiFi again. If there was a block applied to that IP address on the exact same day it was assigned to me, then that's just coincedence.

So, no suspicion necessary. I'm not a vandal, just a reasonably-experienced anonymous editor with a dynamic IP address.

As for raising the issue on the article's talk page - if that was what you wanted me to do in the first place, why didn't you say so? I contacted you directly because you were the only involved editor. I'm still somewhat upset about your refusal to engage with me on your talk page - I think the above suspicion of me being a block-evading vandal shows you are/were not assuming good faith in me. Can you please do so going forward? --92.21.174.27(talk)20:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I can assume good faith with you, however, I have absolutely no further interest in dealing with you directly. You have raised your concerns on the article’s talk page and we will see what other involved editors have to say about it. Please do not contact me on my talk page again. -SanAnMan(talk)22:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Tapaterra001 - repeated copyvios and other issues

• Tapaterra001(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)

Tapaterra001has added multiple copyvios atVirtual learning environment,even after several warnings and advice from various editors. Please see the recent edit history ofVirtual learning environmentwith multiple revdels. The latest edit ([15]) is again a copyvio: the text after "In the last 10 years,..." is 1:1 copypasted from the referenced bbcactive.com source ([16]). Previous text in the same edit is also copied, but from another source (the first one). See alsoUser talk:GermanJoe#RD1 requested,where previous revdels have been verified and discussed in more detail.

Aside from the copyvios, other secondary problems are: the user adds non-neutral content based on low-quality sources and doesn't react to any good-faith messages to resolve such issues.GermanJoe(talk)23:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I blocked for 31 hours, multiple warnings have been given.S Philbrick(Talk)00:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I was considering an indef but am a slow worker. If the copyright violating behavior continues, I recommend that the next block be indef with a clear expectation of avoiding copyvio and engaging in talk page discussions as a condition of an unblock.Cullen³²⁸Let's discuss it03:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

You are NOT a slow worker. I'mreallyrarelythe one to issue a block because by the time I do my homework someone else has usually done it. In this particular case, I've been previously involved, having reverted several of the copyright violations plus RD1 of the edits, so I was ready as soon as I saw them do it once again after a final warning.--S Philbrick(Talk)14:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Really,orrarely?EEng20:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The behavior is continuing, despite the multiple warnings and temporary block. SeeSpecial:Diff/862383895,a copyvio ofhttp://www.hrpub.org/download/20170228/UJER25-19508715.pdf.I hate that it has to come down to this, but this looks like a clear case ofCIR.I'd suggest an indefinite block at this point.--SkyGazer 512^{Oh no, what did I do this time?}01:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism/targeted harassment

Approximately a year ago I was annoyed by the fact that the examples of Twitter bots in the examples section of the Twitter bot wiki page, that all the examples of Twitter bots were inactive, they either didn't exist or were suspended or were inactive; I was annoyed by that and as I have two twitter accounts that are Twitter bots (@maskchievous @crowdfundedkill) and they're good examples of Twitter bots, in particular @maskchievous as it auto tweets a random meme with a random emojicon and it also regularly auto changes its profile pic, then I thought to myself my Twitter bots are good examples of Twitter bots and so I decided to update the Twitter bot wiki page adding my two Twitter bots (@maskchievous @crowdfundedkill) to the examples section of the wiki Twitter bot page.

My motive for adding content was not for any personal gain, it was solely to make the wiki page better.

The result of me adding content did dramatically improve the Twitter bot wiki page as my Twitter accounts were good examples of Twitter bots and as I've said all the other examples of Twitter bots were inactive Twitter accounts.

Approximately 6 months later user: Audiodude complained saying that he didn't like that persons had added their own Twitter accounts to the Twitter bot wiki page, he was making reference to the content I had added. Audiodude didnt care less that the content I added made that wiki page better, he was just being spiteful. Audiodude later spitefully removed the content I had added.

Audiodude motive for removing the content I had added was malicious, it was done out of spite! It was essentially targeted harassment of me and was vandalism of the wiki page as his motive for removing content was malicious.

The result of Audiodude removing the content I'd added made the Twitter bot wiki page worse! which proves my case!

I contacted Audiodude about this but he denied it and lies claiming he removed the content I added for other reasons but Audiodude is lying as Audiodude had originally made comments referring to the content I'd added saying that he didn't like that the examples of Twitter bots I'd added were my own Twitter accounts but Audiodude couldn't use that reason to remove content so Audiodude invented a reason that would disguise his real motive for wanting to remove the content.

User: Audiodude should be banned. Also the content I added which Audiodude removed should be put back.— Precedingunsignedcomment added byHardeeHar(talk•contribs)01:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

So... you're annoyed by the fact someone removed yourownbots from the page? adding your own bots to the page demonstrates your clearWikipedia:Conflict of interest.It was removed because you did not provide an independent source for it, as clearly said in thisedit.Also, please stopcallingAudiodudea "vandal" and don't call his removals "vandalism"; comment on content, not on contributors.theinstantmatrix(talk)01:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, did you read the red notice on the top that clearly says "When you start a discussion about an editor, youmustleave a notice on the editor's talk page"?I have notified them for you but I highly doubt Audiodude is going to get" banned "and your edits re-added.theinstantmatrix(talk)01:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this. Please also let me know to what extent I need to re-explain or respond. I believe mycomments on my talk pagespeak for my feelings on this. I believe there's no "targeted harassment" because the first time I heard of this editor was when he or she started posting on my Talk Page.—Precedingundatedcomment added 02:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)audiodude(talk)03:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

HardeeHar,you obviously have a glaringconflict of interestregarding this content, and I recommend that you read that link at least three times, thinking about yourself as you read. Then move on to complying with the mandatorypaid editing disclosure.Defer to experienced, uninvolved editors at all times.Cullen³²⁸Let's discuss it03:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• Still, targeted hatrrassmentharrasent[17]remains a serious problem.EEng14:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Lo!—and it was the wikipedian's way to be consumed by assment.—SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room}14:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

User: I_JethroBT

The user made a personal attack against me, a defamatory, discriminatory and stigmatising attack against me.

The user messaged me in which they refer to me as a "talk page stalker".

Firstly, I'm not a stalker and referring to me as such is defamatory.

Secondly, the 'talk page stalker' wiki page refers to such a person as -

"Talk page stalkers often make very constructive commentary, and should not be confused with wikihiunders. On the other hand, neither are they to be confused with people who have a life."

As you can see it refers to such a person as being someone that has no life, which is stigmatising and discriminatory when you take into account that I am physically disabled/an invalid and am house bound.— Precedingunsignedcomment added byHardeeHar(talk•contribs)11:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• You misunderstand. I JethroBT is referring to himself as a talk page stalker.Reyk_YO!11:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• • Also, heads up to@I JethroBT:Reyk_YO!11:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I notified I JethroBT at their talk page, like you are supposed to do and were told in the section immediately above.RickinBaltimore(talk)12:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• For anyone who wants to avoid this kind of misunderstanding in the future, you can use{{tpw|safe=yes}},which produces(talk page watcher).Ivanvector(^Talk/_Edits)13:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

  Or{{tps|w}}which is even shorter, —PaleoNeonate–01:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• One editor, two frivolous complaints in less than a day. I'm tempted to apply a boomerang...Salvio^{Let's talk about it!}13:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, after reading this I am of the opinion that this individual should be encouraged to apply their talents in a more appropriate venue than Wikipedia.Shock Brigade Harvester Boris(talk)13:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
• Welp, this was a misunderstanding. I probably should just stop using that tps template altogether-- I have to wonder why the term "stalker" caught on for it. Thanks for the suggestionIvanvector.I JethroBT^{drop me a line}13:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

A bit of harmless fun from the early days, mostly.This discussionmight also be enlightening. (I'm not suggesting rehashing it).Ivanvector(^Talk/_Edits)13:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@IvanvectorandI JethroBT:See also:[18]GAB^gab20:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The bit on the Talk Page Stalker page saying “On the other hand, neither are they to be confused with people who have a life." is completely intended to be humorous and not taken seriously. Kindly look at the box on the top of the page saying “This page contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous. Please do not take it too seriously.”Vermont(talk)14:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I do believe this young lad here may be trying to inform us of a persistent wolf attack... --Tarage(talk)19:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Interesting claims

@HardeeHar:I noticed these edits in older revisions of your user page.There is a particular wiki page relating to a person I know personally, this person confirmed to me that most of the wiki page about him was BS; he has no control over that wiki page nor did he consent to it and he has publicly disputed the claims about him in said wiki page! News media lied about him and the wiki page sites those lies.this is indeed considered having a conflict of interest in relation to that person's article (seeWP:COIfor more information). Having an article about us is not always a good thing, especially if it exists because of notability acquired through a controversy. I did not check which article, but please seeWP:BLPCRIME,in some cases an article can be deleted).also I've have admins gang up on me bullying me and defame me calling me a stalker, this bullying and name calling clearly an attempt to provoke me into arguing with them so as they could maliciously ban me.Calling standard communication and warnings bullying suggests you may not behere to build the encyclopediawhere communication is important for learning and consensus forming (WP:CONSENSUS).In the talk pages of one particular wiki page I have seen contributors openly conspiring to create a blog on which they'll make certain claims, then they would add the claims to the wiki page and cite the blog and claims which they had created!This would be unacceptable per Wikipedia policies (seeWP:IRS,WP:RS,WP:PRIMARY,WP:USERGEN,etc).Basically Wikipedia has its own version of the truth and its own version of what the word proof and credibility mean; it's an interesting website full of alternative facts.This also suggests that your concerns may not be about building an encyclopedia based on reliable sources. —PaleoNeonate–01:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Thor's AxeWP:IDHTWP:RGWand edit warring

• Thor's Axe(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)
• Transition from Ming to Qing(edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive993#Flaring tempers over Chinese history
• 26 September 3RR case resulting in 48 hour block

I'm a bit sad that it's come to this already, but this new user, whose edits are restricted to articles about the transition between the Ming and Qing dynasties refuses to listen to advise fromKleuskeand myself and is now over theWP:3RRbrightline for the second time onTransition from Ming to Qing.The crux of the matter appears to be aWP:RGWdevotion to documenting military rape and bride-taking by Manchu forces during the wars of the Ming-Qing transition; however it's led to frequent issues withWP:NPAagainstOpasney(here's an example),a complete failure toassume good faith,a lot ofWP:IDHTtoward my frequent attempts to explain the concept of consensus to them and, of course, serial edit warring. This user was already blocked for 31 hours for previous edit warring on this article, and appears not to have learned their lesson. In addition, while they were subject to the attentions of a notorious joe-jobber while blocked, they did admit to creating a second account "as a backup" though they haven't brokenWP:SOCKyet. I didn't want toWP:BITEthe newbie, but Thor's Axe just won't listen. If the community feels their contributions might still be of use to the encyclopedia, then an indefinite topic ban from the history of China is probably in order so that they can learn how to operate within a consensus model in less personally contentious areas.Simonm223(talk)15:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I've added some links above including the 26 September 3RR case. When I first saw this it seemed to be a case of Thor's Axe warring to add unsourced information.A typical revert by Thor's Axe is here,and his edit summary is typical of the reasoning he wants us to accept:The version you kept did not reach full consensus, since there is ongoing dispute about its content.When he reverts, he often removes sources added by others. An admin could simply wait until he breaks 3RR again and then issue a longer block, since he appears oblivious to actual consensus. Normally we might consider article protection as an option, but I wouldn't favor that here, since he appears to be the cause of the problem. If I am the closer, I'm considering a much longer block.EdJohnston(talk)15:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they're already overWP:3RRtoday. I only brought it here instead ofWP:3RR/Nbecause of theWP:RGW,WP:NPAandWP:IDHTelements to the situation which compound the edit warring andWP:OWNtendency.Simonm223(talk)16:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

An additional note: if this user wasn't brand new, I'd probably be asking for a long-term block. About the only defense in their favour is that they may simply not understand a lot of Wikipedia's culture.WP:RGWis a pretty easy policy to run afoul of early on, especially when you're sure you're right. I don't think Thor's Axe should be editing Chinese History articles right now, but if there's a chance they could learn to be a better editor in areas where they're not so invested in a specific POV, it might be a reasonable course of action. Of course if the consensus is that it's not worth the trouble, I'm not going to be pushing against a long-term block.Simonm223(talk)16:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I highly doubt these are new users... Perhaps sockpuppeting should be looked into?

Thor's Axe(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)

Montalk123(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)

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

&

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

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

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

Epeyhuza(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)— Precedingunsignedcomment added by168.244.10.48(talk•contribs)19:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest that it's deeply unlikely thatThor's AxeandOpasneyare both socks of the same sockmaster considering they've been involved in a substantial content dispute on these pages. Furthermore, I have seen nothing to suggestOpasneyis anything other than a decent Wikipedia editor. However ifThor's Axeis actually a sock of an experienced editor then yes, myWP:BITEconcerns would go away.Simonm223(talk)20:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying they're the same person. I'm saying they're two different people. Compare the edits by Opasney and Milktaco on each article. All of Opasney's revisions have restored the articles to Milktaco's older versions. And for being "new," Opasney is well aware of Tongolss judging by his edit summaries. Both users have history with each other. Milktaco was originally Rajmaan but did a couple tricks to transfer his edits to Milktaco. As for Thor's Axe, he has the exact same agenda as Montalk123/Tongolss.

Please open asockpuppet investigations page.Do not provide just a bare list in an ANI, because if there isn't much tying some of these people together, it unfairly drags them into this stuff.I JethroBT^{drop me a line}20:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Again I can guarantee that I am not using multiple accounts. Also I would like to explain a bit about my actions. Most importantly I do not think my edits were unsourced. There are links to my edits.Thor's Axe(talk)21:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I admit I was a bit emotional. Because I cannot assume the other user Opasney is editing with good faith, since he kept accusing me of lying or fabricating without a valid reason. The very first response of it was not pointed at my comment, but me as an individual. This means there was no discussion from the very beginning, as Op made it into a war straight away.Here is the first response from Opasney to my first edit on talk page. You may check the first few edits on the talk page. I am also frustrated for things to reach this stage. Hereby I claim: I AM WILLING TO STOP EDITING NOW, before a consensus is reached. I will try my best to let that happen and discuss with Opasney. However I also would like Simonm223 or any of the administrator to act as a fair third party in the process. And declare that a consensus is acquired when reasonable for me.Thor's Axe(talk)21:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Also the dispute between me and Simonm223 is over the definition of a stable version. According to his claim the previous version is stable because it did not trigger debate for a relatively long time. I find this way of determining what is a stable version rather random. AlsoKleuskehas been talking to me in a very condescending manner on my talk page, using phrases that "I don't give an owls hoot about what you" reviewed "or not." and "Have you not learned anything". I find this deeply offensive and I despise her rudeness. While I agree it is rational to listen to more experienced users, she should communicate properly as a basic.Thor's Axe(talk)21:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, please kindly note that in my latest edit no sources were removed. This indeed happened in my first few edits before the 48 hours block, but I learned from that and made a compromise. Again I think you misunderstand my good intention because of my apparently aggressively manner of editing, which was largely triggered by the offensive behaviours of Opasney (again he used personal attack, claimed all my points to be lying or fabrications from the beginning to the end and ignored some of my sources).

Again, I can stop the editing now and try to reach a consensus. But with the current situation I think your opinions were a little bit biased against me, since I might have broken some of the rules. I hope you carefully can view the case, and provide the necessary support for me since I do not believe Opasney is editing with good faith.Thor's Axe(talk)21:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

So basically you assume bad faith with regards to Opasney, claim there is consensus when a cursory glance at the talk-page shows its absence,accuse Opasny(on my talk-page) of "spreading rumour", "personal attacks" and "malicious" editing, flat-outstatethat Opasny has no right to comment. Moreover, you happily continue edit-warring after your block and somehow take umbrage at my wondering whether you have learned anything from a 31 hrs block and saying I don't give a "owls hoot" about whether or not you "reviewed consensus"? My impression is that you do not understand whatWP:CONSENSUSentails, do not understand that theWP:ONUSis on you to gain consensus, think youWP:OWNthe page in question, and seem convinced attack is the best defense (WP:BATTLEFIELD). Not a very promising sign.Kleuske(talk)09:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, this is one of the more extreme cases ofWP:BATTLEFIELDbehaviour I've seen lately in part because it came on so fast and so aggressive with so little provocation. And despite us giving you nearly a day to do so youstillhaven't self-reverted your breach ofWP:3RRfrom yesterday, which also suggests you haven't really learned from your block. As forourconflict, I came to the page as a neutral party, but it took very little time to see thatOpanseywas editing in good faith while you were not even attempting toassume good faith- your subsequent behaviour toward me, such as cherrypicking my statements to make false claims that you were basing edits off my suggestions, and edit-warring with me when I attempted to restore the page to its pre-conflict state, is what led to my dispute with you.Simonm223(talk)11:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Despite saying they'd learned their lesson Thor's Axe persists in making major revisions deleting reliable sources atHeqintoday, editing againstWP:BRDimmediately.Here's a relevant dif.In addition they've shown seriousWP:IDHTtendencies regarding their personal attacks and a lack of self awareness concerning their tendency to characterize any editor who is short with themas attacking them.I don't think they'reinterested in collaborative work at all.Simonm223(talk)13:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Another day, another strategy

Today TA is back at it atHeqinandTransition from Ming to Qing,this time not deleting reliable sources but instead insertingWP:WEASELwords like "some historians believe" and "but according to this primary source this was in fact the case." As usual they're cherry-picking advice that suits their agenda and reverting major edits back in contrary toWP:BRDand I'm getting... tired... of playing whack-a-mole. I've asked them to discuss edits constructively at talk over and over; this is especially significant as@Opasney:has said they were misrepresenting information in their preferred primary source to push their POV and they just won't hear that this means they need consensus for insertion. Can some uninvolved editors and / or adminspleasehave a look? I would like not to be in a gatekeeper position here.Simonm223(talk)14:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

And now this.[19]Simonm223(talk)14:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks as they call me a hypocrite for asking them to stop trying to POV push a contested primary source.[20]Simonm223(talk)15:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Formally requesting a block

• Changing my original requestAfter today's back-and-forth with the concomitantWP:OWN,WP:BATTLEGROUND,WP:NPAand, honestly,WP:CIRissues (textwalls on talk with no indentation despited repeated requests to indent) I no longer think my original request of a t-ban is sufficient. Can somebody please block@Thor's Axe:?(Also, I don't want to be in the position of looking like I feel ownership of the page so I'd really like some third party input on the edits themselves, notwithstanding all the behavioural stuff here.)Simonm223(talk)16:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support.There have been enough IDHT, WP:PRIMARY and WP:OWN issues, accompanied by editing against consensus to reach the conclusion that it may actually be aWP:CIR-issue. I strongly have the impression TA is not used to being contradicted.Kleuske(talk)16:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

IP 51.7.229.221

This editor showed up today as anWP:SPA.That purpose was to remove the linkage from individual annual editions of American track and field championship articles to the article about the series.[21],[22],[23],[24]as examples. With an account history of just today, they cite wikipedia policyWP:BOLDAVOIDas their excuse. I initiated a conversation to offer suggestions on alternatives to accomplish their sudden need for conformity without damaging the links. At least they conversed. Not only were resistive to the suggestions (and of course started by protecting their edits with reverting), but when I suggested their behavior was improper, theydeleted the notice.While I find all of this offensive, it may not rise to the level of vandalism, but certainly is not collegial. I would like them to find a means to repair the damage they have done, unbolding being the easiest solution, and refrain from doing further damage.Trackinfo(talk)22:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I certainly do not have a "single purpose". I simply noticed that most of the articles about US track and field championships were badly formatted, and so I set about fixing them. My purpose was obviously not to "remove the linkage" blah blah. The link this person is concerned about is still present in all of the articles. And yet they began pestering me, demanding that I make certain further edits. I say here, as I said to them: I made the articles better, and if they want to make them better still, great. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work, isn't it?51.7.229.221(talk)22:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous complaint and a boomerangWP:TROUTagainst Trackinfo may be necessary. A disagreement with a new user who appears to be following policy and editing in good-faith doesn't call for an ANI post.power~enwiki(π,ν)22:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Trackinfo, The IP editor appears to be correct on almost all counts:

• They are not an SPA
• They are correct aboutWP:BOLDAVOID
• You, rather than the IP editor, were uncollegial from your first post on their talk page
• I would have deleted that obnoxious notice too.
• It does not even come close to "rising to the level of vandalism".
• Of a random sampling of similar articles for other sports, it appears they are all formatted generally the way the IP editor has done.
• The link to the general article is still included in the navigation template.
• You are free to add the link back into the lead or the infobox or something some other way if you want.

The only fault I can really find with the IP editor is reverting prior to coming to an agreement, but... the MOS is really clear on this, and they only reverted once. And, I suppose, they could have tried harder to work with Trackinfo to come up with an acceptable compromise wording, except when you treat an editor with disrespect, you can't really fault them for not meekly saying "Yes Sir". --Floquenbeam(talk)22:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Trackinfo,your "suggestion" on their talk page that the IP editor's contributions were improper, was itself improper. There is no hint of vandalism here, since the edits bring the articles into compliance with the Manual of Style. IP addresses can change and perhaps this is a person who used another IP in the past. Or perhaps they read extensively before beginning to edit. That's what I did back in 2009. But this incident is definitely unworthy of an ANI report, and your behavior looks far worse than that of the person you are reporting.Cullen³²⁸Let's discuss it22:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this sort of thing, but this is probably theBKFIP.NinjaRobotPirate(talk)23:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

That's possible, I suppose, but unless there is a better reason to suspect that than "an IP editor who is right about something and doesn't like being talked down to by an editor with an account", I don't think we should assume that. --Floquenbeam(talk)00:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

As often happens as I read Wikipedia articles, I noticed something -- in this case, a blue link in bold face -- that looked jarring and wrong, and so I wondered if there was a guideline about it. Turned out there was,MOS:BOLDAVOID,so I fixed up the problem I'd found. I was surprised that a user took such exception to this, and relieved when three other users found no fault in my editing. Now I'm surprised again to find myself traduced by a fourth user, who accuses me of long term abuse. The page they link to describes someone who targets biographies of living people, where they "remove the phrase "best known for" from an article with an edit summary of "rm pov"".Why would me fixing a style issue in articles about athletics events lead you to make this accusation? Why would anyone fixing a style issue ever be any kind of problem at all?51.7.229.221(talk)09:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It looks more like a sockpuppet ofKumiokobut as long as they're improving the encyclopedia and making good faith edits, I don't see why we need to bring out the tar and feathers. Particularly when they say insightful things like "Why would anyone fixing a style issue ever be any kind of problem at all?"which is a question I have asked myself.Ritchie333^(talk)(cont)11:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Gee thanks. Traduce some more why don't you. Perhaps you and everyone else so put out by it can share with us why someone fixing a style issue bothered you enough to accuse them of sockpuppetry. I would not have expected a single negative reaction to it, and I think it's a pretty major concern that it prompted such a viciously negative response.80.189.156.215(talk)19:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Calton

User has been increasingly belligerent, the user has not assumed good faith, and appears in violation ofCivilityandEtiquetteprotocols. This includes bringing up an unrelated incident as part of the discussion on a talk page (which they justified as "how could I miss it?" ), failure to discuss the situation at hand on the talk page forAnthony Bourdain,acting unilaterally before consensus was met, and a general animosity-ridden approach to both me and the situation at hand. The user's talk page seems to suggest that this sort of thing has happened with some regularity, and that the user has not addressed these concerns when others have reached out. I don't know if punishment is warranted, but I feel it necessary to alert an admin about this user's behavior.Fireflyfanboy(talk)03:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

You just caught a warning atWP:ANEWand now you're going to try to re-litigate it here? This is not gonna turn out well for you.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.03:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I believeUser:Calton's behavior warrants further inspection. I have vowed not to make any more edits, and have deferred to talk page consensus for the article. I have even apologized for a previous comment. But they have not done any of this, and like I said, I believe that their behavior is in violation ofWikipedia:EtiquetteandWikipedia:Civility.Fireflyfanboy(talk)03:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I just came from that thread, where I saw you makingWP:POINTYedits,casting aspersionson Calton, making demands and incorrectly accusing him of making "ad huminum" arguments, when Calton had never said anything about you at all. In short, I saw a lot of bad behavior on your part, and a bit of patience on Calton's part. I also saw you catch a warning for edit warring (which you deserved) fromDrmies,right before you filed this. My advice to you is to erase this whole thread as well as your notification on Calton's talk page quickly, before an admin sees it.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.03:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Does citing an unrelated incident from my talk page count as "never [saying] anything about [me] at all"...?Fireflyfanboy(talk)04:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Does the advice of two seasoned editors mean anything to you?Drmies(talk)04:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Considering that "citing an unrelated incident" consisted of Calton saying "And neither is edit-warring, as you found out in June" well before they actually reported you at AIV, I'm gonna go with "Yup."ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.04:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

RE: "erase this whole thread as well as your notification on Calton's talk page quickly, before an admin sees" -- It is-- too late for that.--Dlohcierekim(talk)01:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

RE: "I believe User:Calton's behavior warrants further inspection." -- that's been done. You might wish to withdraw this.--Dlohcierekim(talk)01:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Drinkreader IP edits: time for a community ban?

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

---

• 2600:1:C6E1:BDC1:A87F:C0E0:E4D:CAC(talk·contribs·WHOIS)
• Drinkreader(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)

The IP has, over the past few days, removed material from articles and talk pages related to various mixed drinks. He has at various times claimed copyright violations and made vague threads of legal action (e.g.,[25][26]). His most recent claim today is that the discovery of a reference is intellectual property: we can't use a reference because he found it first ([27][28]). Finally, he has threatened to continue his disruption across multiple IPs ([29]). His current actions show no intent of trying to collaboratively work through things; he appears intent on disruption and content removal.

It is apparent from contribution history that this IP has formerly edited as Drinkreader, so this pattern of behaviour has been occurring off and on for the past four years. I suggest that it is time for anindefinite community ban of this user,so that any further disruption can be reverted on sight with an immediate block of the IP. Is there support for this? —C.Fred(talk)14:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Is this really what you consider collaboration? You have yet to even suggest wiki articles to where as i can make better corrective edits within wikipedias guidelines. All youve done is threaten to, and currently attempt to ban me. That doesnt sound like someone open to helping new editors contribute to the encyclopedia.— Precedingunsignedcomment added by2600:1:C6E1:BDC1:A87F:C0E0:E4D:CAC(talk)15:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The IP is claiming a copyright violation from a book they wrote in 1803? Or are they claiming that, having republished this quote in their own work, that they can then claim copyright of it?Ivanvector(^Talk/_Edits)15:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Funny you mention that, you wouldnt have half the references you have on all the cocktail pages of it werent for me. WHO DO YOU THINK THEY GOT THOSE REFERENCES FROM? So, even if you ban me, ive still contributed indirectly to dozens of articles.— Precedingunsignedcomment added by2600:1:C6E1:BDC1:A87F:C0E0:E4D:CAC(talk)15:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia appreciates your additions of references. Note this text below the edit window: "By publishing changes, you agree to theTerms of Use,and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under theCC BY-SA 3.0 Licenseand theGFDL.You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license."Ivanvector(^Talk/_Edits)15:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• support indefinite community ban of this user-block evasion, legal threats, combative attitude out of the gate. We'll get along fine without him.--Kintetsubuffalo(talk)15:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

see alsoCategory:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Drinkreader--Kintetsubuffalo(talk)15:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• support indefinite community banSaying"if i decidebto be disrruptive there isnt a (expletive removed) thing you can do about it.

[30]is about the most blatant possible admission that you should be banned.Tornado chaser(talk)15:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• support indefinite community ban per normHarassment of other users(and me), see my comment near the bottom of this section. Lakeside Out!-LakesideMiners^{Click Here To Talk To Me!}15:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

<keyword>you</keyword> thats just it ivan, someone else, irrevocably agreed to release my contribution(s) without accrediteding sources, yes many original sources are present on the pages. Again, how do you think they got those? They just looked, when half the pages are far outdated and inaccurate by 500, and some 200 year old drinks are accurate to the year? How do you think thats possible? Hmmm.. somebody must have spent an awful lot of time researching to figire this out. Ive read so many cocktail amd recipe guides from 1522 (yes, in latin, in my hand) to today. Ive written over 250 articles on cocktails and cocktail history and ive written 72 books, and am editing my 73k. Im the real deal. If you saw your lifes work being plagiarized and destroyed and inaccurately presented wouldnt you be a wee bit upset?

If you said something about cocktails, i could not only tell you if its true or not, i could tell you the original source where you got that info. Its literally all i read and have read. Seriously, try me. Ill answer right away.— Precedingunsignedcomment added by2600:1:C6E1:BDC1:A87F:C0E0:E4D:CAC(talk)15:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Also they have been harassing other users as well, Look atUser_talk:Drinkreader,and at this edit to my talk page [[31]]Look at the bottom. Lakeside Out!-LakesideMiners^{Click Here To Talk To Me!}15:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support indefinite community banand suggests that the IP in question needs to learn what copyright actually covers. Protip: not shared secondary sources.Simonm223(talk)15:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Fromthis edit:"Fucking stealing ass assholes. Fuck you. You all act so fucking tough behind a keyboard. I will drop my location and we can see whats up."

Watch out, we got a badass over here.LOLOLOL I love aninternet tough guy,but that's no reason to let someone who obviously can't even imagine what it means to act like a grown up edit here.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.15:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Wait, do they credit for someone else finding the same sources as them?Lakeside Out!-LakesideMiners^{Click Here To Talk To Me!}15:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Why indef?

You dont owe me anything, but why assume things will always be the same? Do you not think circumstances change which inturn changes demenor?— Precedingunsignedcomment added by2600:1:C6E1:BDC1:A87F:C0E0:E4D:CAC(talk)15:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked(anon) for one year. That said, IP, if you think you have alegitimateconcern about your own work beingdirectly copiedin Wikipedia (not just that we refer to it) then please contactWP:OTRSby emailingpermissions-enwikimedia.org.Ivanvector(^Talk/_Edits)15:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Blackgaia02

• Blackgaia02(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)

Previous ANI discussion can be viewed here.For simplicity's sake, I shall refer to this user asBG02. I am very bothered by this user's uncollaborative behavior, frequent dismissal of rules, and generally rude behavior towards other users,even going as far as threatening another user to kill themselves.BG02 has previously acknowledged his behavioral problems in hislast chance unblock request,yet over the years, he has continued the same type of behavior. Even his signature (talkpage if you dare) indicates that he is an inapproachable user.Please also note that BG02 has been sufficiently warned about his abusive behavior recently.Please view the following diffs:

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

---

Note:There's plenty more instances of abusive behavior, but I do believe listing 10 diffs (mostly) from this year alone is enough is state my case.

Given that the user has already been given a final chance, and is showing no signs of improvement at all, he should beindef blockedper the agreement in his last chance unblock request.Sk8erPrince(talk)16:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• I feel about the same as Sk8erPrince as seen above. —JJB^ers16:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
• Looking at these diffs, I also concur. Holy smokes.--Jorm(talk)16:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
• My first thought is: none of this is very recent. The user's last block and the "last chance" unblock discussion are from 2013. Only one of this list of diffs occurred in the last month, and that was itself pretty mild. The user does seem to have ongoing conduct issues especially within the past year, however. I'm just not sure there's anything for admins to do with this.Ivanvector(^Talk/_Edits)16:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

You are right, BG02's last chance unblock discussion was in 2013. Yet, he broke the promise he made; I am pretty sure he understands that continued outbursts will result in being reblocked. Over the course of 5 years, BG02 has continued to belittle other users and ignore Wikipedia policy,noted in this diff.Additionally,Farixhas warned BG02one final timethis year, which is gracious enough on Farix's part, since he could have just went ahead and reported BG02. From my perspective, it seems that BG02 has ignored the warning, and continued his spree of abusive behavior.Sk8erPrince(talk)17:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• You got off of an indefinite blockless than two weeks ago,and this is what you get up to? --Calton|Talk20:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I would like to kindly remind you that BG02 is the subject here, and not me. Yes, you are right. I recently got off an indef block, but unlike BG02, I value second chances granted by administrators. Regardless of my personal history, it doesn't make my report any less valid. Problematic users are still problematic users, either way.Sk8erPrince(talk)20:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way Skater. Opening an ANI thread means your behavior is just as much in focus as theirs. I'm likewise not amused that you're diving head first into the drama boards two weeks after coming off of an indef. In the future I'd rather you go to an admin you trust and then them file it. --Tarage(talk)

I thought a user that is unblocked is to be treated just like any other contributor, unless they violate the terms of their unblock again. By your logic, Tarage, a user that was blocked before should not be reporting other users? I can't see why relaying my report to an admin is a better option, considering that I could compile my own report and post it myself. And to clarify, I have no prior interaction with BG02, but I find his abusive behavior very disturbing.Sk8erPrince(talk)20:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Ahem. I would like to say, as an admin, that I try with greater or lesser succes to not sound pushy, aggressive, or imperative. Try to be polite until the time for politeness has passed.--Dlohcierekim(talk)21:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid that we don't care much about 2013. So long ago, who remembers. At the risk of sounding imperious, Tarage is right in saying that when one brings a complaint here, their edits and behavior are very much of interest of the denizens of this place. They have been know to hurlboomerangs.Has anyone tried to reason with the editor in question?--Dlohcierekim(talk)21:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I see no evidence, Sk8erPrince, of you attempting to engage the user in discussion. --Dlohcierekim(talk)21:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

You are right. I have not attempted to engage with BG02, because I do not wish to be at the receiving end of his personal attacks. BG02 has displayed a pattern of abusively replying to other users andsending death threatsto any contributor that he thinks is in his way, or proves to be an inconvenience to him (at least, in his perspective). I do not believe BG02 can be reasoned with becausehe has been warned one final time in June 2018,and since then, has made no improvements in editing civilly in a collaborative environment, which is what Wikipedia is. So to answer your question, other users have tried to reason with BG02, but to no avail.

Additionally, although the last chance unblock request dates back to 2013, the conditions of that unblock are still in effect. The diffs listed above shows that BG02 is in violation of those terms; 9 out of 10 of them are from this year.Sk8erPrince(talk)21:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

You don't get to per-emptivly judge someone guilty of attacking you BEFORE they attack you. You always engage. --Tarage(talk)23:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

His recent past interactions all point to a strong unwillingness to communicate civilly. I do not wish to subject myself to the possibility of being cussed out. It's like deliberately walking into a lion's den just to get bitten. Sure enough, that's just a possibility, but I have listed what he has done, and there's no denying nor excusing the excessive amount of abuse in the diffs.Sk8erPrince(talk)23:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Please, if you're absolutely dead set on ignoring everything else I'm telling you, next time you find yourself in a need to report an editor, run it by an admin you trust first? I really don't want things to go south for you so quickly after you were unblocked. --Tarage(talk)23:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Putting aside the fact that Sk8rPrince was only recently unblocked, that list of diffsisproblematic, considering they go back quite a number of months this year. I'm not sure I agree with Ivanvector that there isn't much that admins can do with this. At a minimum, BG02 should get a reminder of the 2013 unblock agreement. A less merciful admin could certainly block them for violating those terms.Blackmane(talk)23:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

  I would go with a reminder and asking them what is going on first. Engagement, discussion and then maybe a block. Five years? I think blocking someone on an issue that has lain dormant for 5 years would be a bit trigger happy even for me. --Dlohcierekim(talk)01:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  I have gone with the reminder and inquiry. Blackgaia02 has not edited since 6 hours before this thread was started. The last time personal attacks were raised as an issue on his talk was in June. --Dlohcierekim(talk)01:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  Blackmane, I don't disagree with what you said, and I should have said "I don't see anything for admins to push buttons over". Reminding the user they have been told to keep it civil as a condition to remaining unblocked seems a perfectly reasonable admin response.Ivanvector(^Talk/_Edits)09:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks,Ivanvector.I'm not good at this interpersonal stuff. On reflection, I see I may not be the only one. Probably the nature of the interface or something. FWIW, Blackgaia02 replied on my talk page. He's at a loss. Perhaps those of you who are good at interpersonal dynamics can help.--Dlohcierekim(talk)10:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector:Apologies if I came across as being overly critical. That was not my intention. The thrust of my point was that the discussion had descended into more about the complainant than about the user being reported. Even though a glance at the diffs did show some problematic behaviour from BG02. I may stop by Dlohcierekim's TP to make a comment.Blackmane(talk)01:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• I also agree with the basics of what Sk8erPrince has laid out above. Back in April I had a debate with this editor over the addition of unsourced content (which they repeatedly refused to source) and ended up warning them that I would have to report them here if they kept acting contrary to their unblock agreement. If the warning in June is any indication, apparently they chose to ignore that.G S Palmer(talk•contribs)20:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

This is the diffthat shows BG02's unwillingness to abide by Wikipedia policy. And this isthe messageGS has posted on BG02's talkpage. It is apparent that BG02 has been sufficiently warned about the possibility of a reblock.Sk8erPrince(talk)21:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps in light of the many comments above, you could stop posting in this thread? You made your report. Your participation here is controversial. We can handle it from here. --Floquenbeam(talk)21:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• I hate therecent ruleshere, the whole "you need to put a source or else its nuked or removed" especially in anime articles. The fact people are always being so high and mighty by reverting said things such as genres added and such like removing HUGE chunk of characters in a page. Just because adding a picture not related to the article, genre not related to the article, character sections that regarded as cancerous by people like TheFarix and removing facts due to NOT SOURCED offends me, insults me, depresses me to the verge of losing hope to this site. So what, I should delete all the articles I made because all of them are violations of Wikipedia's "Anti Fandom Law"? Look, I am not happy and not in a good mood on actually stating opinions because I felt someone pointing a gun over my head if I add an "unreliable source". I don't have my freedom anymore over which is content and which is not:<.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare)(talk)02:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

  So, if I'm hearing you correctly, you don't believe that sourcing "rules" should apply to you, or the areas you're interested in?--Jorm(talk)03:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• The "recent rules" you "hate" are merely a sign of the maturing of Wikipedia. For better or worse, we are now the English-speaking world's first stop for quick information on the Internet, so we now have a much heavier obligation to make certain that the facts we present are accurate. That means that more and more information is going to be required to be sourced, and if it's not sourced, it's going to be deleted. You can look back fondly on the good old days where one could play a bit fast and loose and slip in a bit of {factual) OR without sourcing it, but those days are unlikely to return: in fact, it's much more probable that sourcing requirements will gettighteras time goes on. I wouldn't be surprised if 10 years from now, no new information will be allowed to be added to an article unless it is accompanied by a citation from a reliable source.
  We arenevergoing to be a site that welcomes "fans" with open arms - Wikia exists for that. Perhaps you would be more comfortable there?Beyond My Ken(talk)04:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

That site never ever want to accept me either. Even if I did one edit as what I did on their "Gundam Wiki". Wikia is also starting to go on the route of wikipedia, I don't belong there too.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare)(talk)03:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

2011 Indian anti-corruption movement - return of LTA?

2011 Indian anti-corruption movementis currently in something of an edit war state. I dropped notes forDrmiesandRegentsParkbut they would appear to be offline. I am a little concerned that this might be the return of people associated withWP:LTA/IAC,which suggests reporting here.

I cannot revert at the article any more but have tried to communicate the person who is removing stuff through edit summaries, a note on their talk page and notes on the article talk (with ping). It probably need protection but there is a peculiarity, too: although it is ages since it was last protected, the remover has pretty much done the standard routine of clocking up a minimal number of edits at an innocuous article before moving over to this one, almost as if they thought it was still protected. Weird but help/advice would be appreciated. Should I even notify them of this thread, as I would usually do?

A word of warning: if it is the LTA then do not get involved unless you are preferred for a shitload of trouble, possibly including off-Wiki stuff. -Sitush(talk)21:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Editor reverted and warned. If they edit the article again without gaining consensus on the talk page first, I'll block indef. --Floquenbeam(talk)21:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Floq. -Sitush(talk)21:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

CU was warranted but delivered no results--not really surprising if it has been quiet for a while. Note that I have not previously, to my knowledge, run CU on IAC accounts, certainly not to the extent that I remember any of the details. One of the CUs with more experience in the matter might take this up--if it gets worse, I suppose. Thanks Sitush.Drmies(talk)22:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for running a check,Drmies.~Oshwah~^{(talk)(contribs)}10:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• FWIW, the Crusader of the2011 Indian anti-corruption movement"Anna Hazare" was almost back in action and was in thenewslately, hence the rise in the interest of editors on that page. I don't believe for now that this is LTA yet, but more admin eyes would certainly be helpful. --DBigXrayᗙ22:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
• As I said at RP's talk page, I don't think this is the LTA either (and I tangled with that one a fair bit). There isn't the sort of aggressive legalese that was IAC's hallmark. This is just plain old axe-grinding.Vanamonde(talk)22:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

If edit warring, content disputes, and disruption like this have been an ongoing occurrence with this article, why not resolve the matter by applyingextended confirmed protectionto it?~Oshwah~^{(talk)(contribs)}10:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, they (or someone with the same aim) is back there deleting swathes of stuff. I've alerted Floq but I don't think they're online. -Sitush(talk)06:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Situshhas reverted my stable edits and keeps reverting when I restore to the last stable version (mine) instead of his prefered version. He also seems to think that IP editors ought not to edit at wikipedia. FWIW, the involvedUser:Ramesh8888may have aWP:COIthrough sharing a surname withAnna Hazare.103.30.142.163(talk)07:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Not familiar with the LTA but have warned the recently active IP user (103.30.142.163(talk·contribs·WHOIS),103.30.141.57(talk·contribs·WHOIS)), and will block/protect if the disruption and aggressive conduct continues.Abecedare(talk)07:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Which it has,Abecedare.I've semi'd the article for a month. If the IP-hopper continues to harass Sitush, any admin who sees it will hopefully block. The range is 103.30.140.0/22, so far.Bishonen|talk10:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC).

Whitewashing and WP:SPA on Salt Bae article

Blitzcreamhas been performing whitewash edits on theSalt Baesince their account was created. The Blitzcream account was created shortly after an incident regarding "Salt Bae" and Venezuelan presidentNicolás Maduro.Over 60% (25/41) of the edits made by Blitzcream, which is most likelyWP:SPAwhenWP:DUCKis applied, involve "Salt Bae" or related discussions. The user only attempted to diverge from the article and make other edits once WP:SPA was brought to their attention (see diffs:my tag regarding possible WP:SPAand some ofthe first edits made by Blitzcream involving an article other than "Salt Bae"). The user Blitzcream also seems experienced with Wikipedia policies regarding edit conflicts, raising questions on whether they have specialized in contorversial articles in the past.

Their first edit reverted by addition of content regarding the incident.Blitzcream's first editfalsely stated in their edit summary that a source did not contain criticism against "Salt Bae". To further support the content, an additional source was added regarding the incident andit was once again reverted by Blitzcream,with the user pushing to delay the addition of content by creating an unnecessary talk page discussion.I explained that my edits did not mention so-called "political displays"(which was one of the main reasons Blitzcream reverted) and that the content only contained the responses of individuals provided by reliable sources.I attempted to add the content once morein the most NPOV wording I could think of in order to avoid further conflict. This, of course,was reverted by Blitzcream.After continuous reverts,I continued to try and discuss how wording could be improved without censoring content.After that and other options,Blitzcream again falsely stated that "Salt Bae" did not receive criticism in the sources.I explained to Blitzcream that I attempted to make the wording suitable for them,but the reverts continued. After the constant whitewashing and reverts,I left a final message clearly showing the content of the sources while using direct quotes and warned them to cease their disruptive edits.I added the information back to the article with multiple sources and updated details.This was reverted.I added the information again with simple, NPOV wordingto serve as a middle ground and to end the conflict. This was reverted.

So this is why I have decided to direct this conflict here. I have dealt withWP:SPAandWP:COIusers before, especially on theSmartmaticarticle, and would be grateful for any help as this is unecessarily stressful and I do not wish to edit in conflict as it only wastes time that can be spent improving Wikipedia. Thank you for any feedback and I will make improvements where they are needed.----ZiaLater(talk)03:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I am struck by the amount of effort being put into arguing if a guy who puts salt on meat is a communist or not. That is all. --Tarage(talk)06:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Uh. Sorry. I know you have 12k edits to Blitzcream's 40, but believe it or not, I'm not seeing it. For example, you're inserting the claim that "Gökçe has... been criticized for his political displays": the examples given in the article, and by extension, the sources, are referring to miscellaneous instances of criticism on social media. I mean, that's not typically something that's considered to be encyclopedic. At least, it's debatable whether and how such things should be included in an article; a reasonable content dispute ripe forWP:DR.What else has he done? Slightly de-emphasize classifications of "Kurds" in favor of actual nationalities? Really not seeing this.Swarmtalk07:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm:That is the thing. The content added is not stating that Gökçe is being criticized for his "political displays". It is stating that he was criticized for serving a luxury meal to the president of hungry nation. Whether or not that is a "political display" is up for interpretation. I have asked for suggestions of wording that would be more NPOV and avoid political issues, but the only action that Blitzcream has taken is reverting and censoring the content. As the article currently stands, it is a half-truth saying that only Maduro was criticized when Gökçe was also denounced for his actions as well.

Regarding the edits surrounding the Kurdish background, those were only minor edits, though Blitzcream still maintained an antagonistic approach towards other users as well. Blitzcream described edits byLkasso1(who is just as new as Blitzcream) as being ""Turkish/Kurdish nationalism bullshit".Their behavior makes me think that they are not here to build an encyclopedia.----ZiaLater(talk)13:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I looked through the reverts atSalt Bae,and other than maybe remindingBlitzcreamaboutedit warringto watch their reverts, I don't see much here that's actionable nor do I see anything that constitutes a gross violation of policy that warrants action here and now...~Oshwah~^{(talk)(contribs)}10:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah:Thank you for taking time to look this over and providing feedback.----ZiaLater(talk)13:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

ZiaLater- Of course; always happy to help:-).~Oshwah~^{(talk)(contribs)}13:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• This looks like a collision between an internet-famous person (where virtually all sources are likely to be hyperbole),WP:BLP,and a national environment where virtually nothing is free of some kind of political overtones. Reminding people to keep tot he talk page until there is consensus seems like the way forward here. Of course, I would nuke the article. Internet-famous is synonymous with not-famous in my view, but I recognise I ma in a minority there.Guy(Help!)20:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Maybe. On the other hand, whenTemasek Holdings,the Singaporean state investment arm and another company jointly invested US$200 million in the parent company of Salt Bae's steak house chain, valuing the parent company at US$1.2 billion, most sources mentioned him sometimes in misleading ways[32][33][34][35](well previous 2 are from before the agreement, I couldn't find any content after the announcement & to be clear I didn't restrict to mention of Salt Bae)[36](this is from before, there are sources after but this one is less sensationalistic with actually discussion of possible reasons for the investment but still mentions Salt Bae)[37][38].They seem to continue to do so[39][40][41].And while notability is not inherited, see also[42][43][44][45]which perhaps reflected the way internet fame can intersect with real world fame.Nil Einne(talk)19:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppets ofUser:Livioandronico2013

On Commons, we have discovered thatUser:Livioandronico2013has been abusing multiple accounts to (a) evade their indef block [since November 2017] and (b) to cheat at Featured Picture Candidates for several years in over 300 nominations. The other accounts areUser:ΣπάρτακοςandUser:Architaswhich are now also blocked on Commons. Earlier this year, Livioandronico2013 used their Wikipedia account to attack me on Wikipedia. Seethis AN/I postand was blocked here for a week. You might want to investigate if these accounts have been used to cheat or disrupt Wikipedia and consider blocking some or all of them. --Colin°^Talk08:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Livioandronico2013(talk⁺·tag·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log·CA·CheckUser(log)·investigate·cuwiki)
• Σπάρτακος(talk⁺·tag·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log·CA·CheckUser(log)·investigate·cuwiki)
• Architas(talk⁺·tag·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log·CA·CheckUser(log)·investigate·cuwiki)
• The first account is indef-blocked on Commons and the other two are checkuser-blocked, also on Commons. They arenotblocked on enwiki, and they havezero page overlaps outside of article spaceand the few articles they have edited in common are only a handful on each, and separated by years; that is to say they have not "cheated" in any discussions. The only technical violation of policy that I see here is that Architas editedoncewhile Livioandronico2013 was blocked back in May, but I personally don't think that's worth actioning now. At best, maybe a one-account restriction is in order here.Ivanvector(^Talk/_Edits)09:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• I've left a note atWT:FPCregarding this matter. I'll keep an eye out for socks.MER-C20:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• Hipeople1988(talk⁺·tag·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log·CA·CheckUser(log)·investigate·cuwiki)turned up today on Commons just to let everyone know they had moved on from secretly cheating to being obviously disruptive. Enforcing one-account on WP would seem to be wise. --Colin°^Talk20:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, it seems thatBbb23has made that official. The new sock doesn't seem to be registered on this wiki.Ivanvector(^Talk/_Edits)19:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing by User:Hasive

Hello, I suspect thatHasive­has been paid to edit on wikipedia (without disclosing these payments previously).

The Bengali Wikipedia community has recently obtained evidence that Hasive was paid BDT 1.5 million (about $18,000) by the government of Bangladesh to write Wikipedia articles about every Bangladeshi parliamentarian (source from gov site 1, 2). For two years he has been writing these articles without informing the community about the payments. He has only recently admitted to this after being confronted about it (on Bengali Wikipedia's mailing list and village pump). Yet he is claiming, as an excuse for not informing the community there, that this was merely a personal project of his.

I suspect, based on the sorts of edits he has been making on the English Wikipedia, that his work here is ­also being treated as part of his work writing articles on Bengali Wikipedia about parliamentarians.

This suspicion of mine has become stronger due to a comment of his on the Bengali Wikipedia village pump; he has stated "Aside from parliamentarians, information about every parliamentary constituency is being regularly updated on Wikipedia. This data has also been, and is being, added alongside Wikipedia to 'Wikidata', one of its sister projects".

At present the Bengali Wikipedia community is decided torevoke his admin rightsthere and indefinitely ban him there. He subsequently resigned from the board of Wikimedia Bangladesh and his membership of Wikimedia Bangladesh has also been canceled by the board over this. Link:https://bd.wikimedia.org/s/­1f2

I thus request that the English Wikipedia community begin to investigate this matter.

• B­engali Wikipedia discussion

source from gov site:

1.page 22, table 9(Archive)

2.page 3, table 14(Archive) --আফতাবুজ্জামান(talk)14:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

So, nobody is touching this. Can we discuss stuff disclosed by Hasive at bn-WP in en-WP?

I did look at their edits and it matches what was said about their edits there.

BLP violation:unsourced content PROMO content. COPYVIO from source added innext diff.(already has been revdelled)

BLP violationunsourced PROMO content.

diffand

this diffis copy/pasted from the source which is page 8 of the word document in bengali hostedhereat the bengali government PR office. (the word document is a series of bios of members of the bangladeshi government; i copied it into google translate). I sorta suspect it was written by Hasive as part of the project discussed at bn-WP, but cannot of course know).

This person's editing is horrible.

He is, happily,not an adminin en-WP.Jytdog(talk)23:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

If true then they should surely be globally banned, which would mean getting the WMF involved. Some sort of strong message has to be sent out when people are conducting UPE across multiple language projects. -Sitush(talk)01:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. While we can 86 him from here, it won't do anything for Bengali Wikipedia; this needs to be taken up at Meta at some point. I still say we have cause enough to indef him from en.wp right here and right now before we take that step, if he's continuing to edit. —Jeremyv^_^v^Bori!04:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano:The user has already been indef-blocked and desysopped on bnwiki, as Aftab stated, so those actions directly affecting him on that wiki have already taken place. There isan ongoing effortto check all articles he created/improved on bnwiki pertaining to certain groups of people for copyvios, with a separate but related effort (search for "Appointment with Editor of Prothom Alo" on that page) to see if a newspaper would be willing to license certain articles, from which lots of copyvios on bnwiki are derived, under CC-BY-SA.@আফতাবুজ্জামান:At some point you will need toinformMeta,as Jeremy suggests, and possibly Wikidata as well about this situation.mahir256(talk)17:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• I ran into this editor in 2017, when they createdFoundation for Research on Educational Planning and Development,which was speedily deleted as a copyright infringement. I then had to revert their additions toZunaid Ahmed Palak,which at the time was one of the most unambiguously promotional puff pieces I’d come across on Wikipedia. (Apology for no diff; I’m on mobile, but look through the history beginning in April 2017.) All of this user’s substantive contributions are going to have to be checked carefully./wiae/tlk12:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Hereis the primary content I was referring to./wiae/tlk20:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

User:72bikers Accusations of harassment

72bikershas "banned" a number of users from their talk page, asking them not to post warnings of any sort. AnANI discussionin May determined that "banned" editors may post a single warning per incident on 72bikers' talk page. However, they have continued to accuse editors who do so of harassment, violating policy and "lacking the ability to judge what is a actual violation". Recent examples are[46][47].I would ask that 72bikers either substantiate these claims of harassment or stop making these accusations. I would certainly welcome any examination of my own behavior, as I feel thatthis(which triggered an accusation of violating policy and "optics of harassment" ) is perfectly legitimate and acceptable warning. –dlthewave☎20:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The question here is why do people feel that they need to post warnings on their page? If they feel they have to then there's obviously a reason and that should be looked into as more import than 72biker's responses. Is there another behavioural issue here?Canterbury Tailtalk21:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Dlthewave- Yes,72bikerscan ask you not to post on their user talk page - and yes, it'sgenerallyexpected that the user's wish is honored when such a request is given. We can't force a user to rescind their request for other editors to leave their user talk page alone, nor can we force a user to rescind accusations of harassment. If the user doesn't want you to communicate concerns, warnings, violations of policy, etc. directly to them first -fine.Taking concerns directly to the editor is a courteous thing to do, and if he doesn't want that, it's his prerogative. Just do what the guidelines state, which is to bring it to an administrator or admin noticeboard to have handled. If the only concern you're raising here is regarding72bikersaccusations and requests for others to not edit his talk page, there's not much we can do. Aside from this, are there other concerns that you need to discuss here regarding this user?~Oshwah~^{(talk)(contribs)}21:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I feel that I've been following the consensus from the previous ANI discussion linked above, yet 72Bikers continues to accuse me of harassment and policy violations not just once butevery time I post a legitimate warning.I feel that these accusations are inappropriate, unfounded and distracting and I would like 72Bikers to stop making them perWP:ASPERSIONS.Since I'm not supposed to post this at their talk page, I am asking for help here. –dlthewave☎22:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I have idea. How about you stop editing his talk page. Also, since your fully aware of and took part in the previous discussion regarding his talk page, this appears to be an attempt toWP:FORUMSHOP.--RAF910(talk)22:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Let'sassume good faithand not respond in a sarcastic tone, please. It's not going to help the user nor will it resolve his frustrations. We need to be patient, listen, and try and help as much as we can if possible.~Oshwah~^{(talk)(contribs)}22:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)X 2Dlthewave- I would do your best just to ignore the accusations and don't let them get to your emotions, and to just leave the user's talk page alone if his responses bother you. If you know that you're doing the right thing and ingood faith,you're addressing legitimate issues, and doing your best to follow policy and what was decided in the last ANI discussion, it shouldn't bother you if he throws "harassment" at you and what-not. He's not the user who will ultimately decide what constitutes harassment or not. If the user chooses not to take your warnings to heart, then he's the one whose losing out - not you. That being said, is this user continuing to repeatedly make the same edits in violation of policy that you warned the user about? Is there something outside of the harassment accusations that should be discussed regarding this user's edits or compliance with policy? This is what we can help you with, and much more so than accusations being thrown around:-)~Oshwah~^{(talk)(contribs)}22:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding those last questions, seehere.That's just the latest incident in a long list.Waleswatcher(talk)00:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I would point out what editor Dlthewave said is not entirely correct. Its my understanding that only legitimate "required notices" such as for this noticeboard discussion be placed on a editors talk page and only once. How is a warning that is not a actual policy violation and only in the opinion of the warning editor legitimate. I have ask this editor numerous times politely to not post on my talk page as to the two policiesWP:HUSHandWP:NOBAN.I believe if this editor had legitimate cause he would have simple went to a noticeboard such as here the have me sanctioned. but it would seem even there view of actual policy violation flawed. I would also point out I did not directly say he was harassing me but simply the optic of what he was doing, given the history, might be perceived as such, as the result of this confirmed.

I would also point out this editor not very long ago started a discussion to do away with the policies that allowed a editor to requet that other do not post on there talk page. But not even one of the admins thought that was a good idea.

@Oshwah:,@Canterbury Tail:,as to whether or not I am being harassed, I would like to bring to attention there has just been another noticeboard complaint filed, that also appear to be fruitless[48].Claiming he would not go to noticeboard if he could post warnings on my talk page. -72bikers(talk)01:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@72bikers:"Its my understanding that only legitimate" required notices "such as for this noticeboard discussion be placed on a editors talk page and only once."Who told you that? I provided a link to an ANI consensus that says otherwise. –dlthewave☎01:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

72bikers- I understand that the warnings left by other editors can be annoying and perhaps even aggravating, but the purpose behind such notifications is to allow editors who have concerns regarding possible issues that you're involved with to bring them directly to you so that it can be resolved if the concerns are correct, or explained and understood by the messenger if the concerns are wrong. I wouldn't consider such messages left ingood faithan annoyance or an attempt to harass you, but a courteous thing to do before getting more users and administrators involved with the matter. IfDlthewave's warnings and concerns are incorrect, you should be able to respond and explain in a calm and civil manner why they're incorrect so that you're both at the same level of understanding and that things are indeed okay. If you respond by pushing those users away from your talk page and by telling them to stop editing it and leave you alone, you're only going to cause more frustration upon yourself if such concerns are legitimate and address real issues that need to be resolved. You mentioned thatDlthewaveWaleswatchermade a report toAN3that you believe is fruitless and without merit. Had you allowedDlthewaveto voice concerns regardingedit warringto you directly first (assuming that it's incorrect), you could have explained the discrepancy and resolved the matter right then and there. Because you've robbed yourself of allowing others to communicate with you directly by telling them to not edit your user talk page, you're now seeing a direct consequence of this action - they're going to report the matter(s) to the appropriate noticeboard(s) and you're going to have to deal with explaining things on those reports when asked about them. Compared to doing that and with all this in mind, doesn't it seem easier foreverybody(including yourself) if you instead maintained an open communication policy on your talk page and you welcomed users to voice concerns and leave warnings so that you can discuss them peacefully before it becomes 'escalated' to a noticeboard? How you manage your user talk page and who can post messages and warnings to them is ultimately up to you - I obviously can't force you to do anything. I just want to help you to understand that you're making things harder on yourself in the long-term and in the end by keeping people who leave you warnings off your user talk page, and that being open, civil, and receptive to warnings, concerns, and criticism is the best way to handle such things and is ultimately much more easier on yourself:-).~Oshwah~^{(talk)(contribs)}03:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank youOshwahfor explaining it better than I could. It was actuallyWaleswatcherwho filed the AN3 report, but they were similarly banned by 72bikers and unable to discuss the issues before escalating. –dlthewave☎03:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Dlthewave- Ah, my bad. I thought you were the creator of that AN3 report by mistake - please accept my apologies.~Oshwah~^{(talk)(contribs)}03:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I wish it was that simple Oshwah, I truly due. But when things like this and much more[49]and[50]and this[51]in reference of me, its hard to see good intentions. When a editor with a adversarial view tries to chastise you and only post warnings if they did not have good enough proof to actually have you sanctioned, its hard to see the assumption of good faith. look I simply requested like many times before for him to post on my page, and I simply mentioned the optics of his actions and he came here to have me sanctioned. I do appreciate you taking the time to respond to such thing, as the admins responding to Dlthewave request to do away with the policies that I presented with my request stated without it would swamp them with mostly trivial matter. Cheers -72bikers(talk)04:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

72bikers- It sounds like we need to open a dialogue of communication between yourself andDlthewave(andWaleswatcheras well), where you two openly come to an understanding of exactly what caused your initial frustrations (like what you pointed out above) so that you can allow these users to talk to you on your user talk page again and trust that they'll havegood faithin mind and avoid the exact things that started this breakdown in communication to occur. Would you be willing to allow these users to post on your user talk page again so that they can reach out to you and talk to you in a civil manner and you and they can collaborate and work things out? You'll be able to share what's going on, what bothered you, and allow them to do the same. This is the best thing that you can do and for all of you - come to an agreement with them and let them communicate with you openly. I'm sure that one condition with them is that you won't accuse them of harassing you or that you won't make rude, uncivil, or bad-faith assumptions toward them. You'll obviously be able to have them agree to things you don't want to see either. What do you say? Can you give it a shot and see how this goes?Dlthewave?Waleswatcher?Are you two on board and okay with this too?~Oshwah~^{(talk)(contribs)}19:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I would be open to dialogue and would suggest includingSlaterstevenif they are interested. My concern is that 72bikers has engaged in a pattern of both personal attacks/off-topic comments on the AR-15 style rifle talk page and DS/3RR violations in article space. I would like to arrive at a solution that allows us to address this disruption without provoking accusations of harassment and policy violation which draw the conversation away from the topic at hand. –dlthewave☎16:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Two of those are not on your talk page. Nor are they about any users posting here (or at the edit war thread). Now I( asked you directly on my talk page, and I am asking you here, would you rather have warnings posted on your talk page or just be reported without warning when you might have breached policy? Because what you are not going to have is to be allowed to breach policy.Slatersteven(talk)09:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I regularly question whether72bikersishere to build an encyclopedia- but this is an old issue. As perseveralprevious trips to AN/I over this issue, users are free to issue standard statements and warnings on 72's page. 72 is free to delete those afterward and they shouldnotbe reinserted. 72 is free to ask users not to postmore on that topicbut users are free to raise new issues with 72 in the future even if he's "banned" them.Simonm223(talk)12:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I do believe 72bikers is here to build an encyclopedia. What I find is 72bikers does a poor job of articulating legitimate concerns. I don't agree with the idea that we should just ban people from our talk pages left and right. I agree with others here that in general its not a good idea to blanket ban people from out talk pages. But once such a prohibition has been requested it should be respected. I think 72bikers should do the following:

1. When posting to article talk pages,Be bright, be brief!Write out what you want to say, proof read it then cut the text in half (I don't always practice what I preach...).
2. Don't beat the horse (alive or dead). Sometimes people don't answer the questions we ask. You can't force them to. Consider that your audience isn't always the person who disagrees (and may, in good faith, never agree). Use a coherent argument to convince the undecided or new to the discussion (again, bright and brief really helps).
3. Discuss first, edit last. This one applies to other editors as well. If a section of content is the subject of a current talk page disagreement, don't change it! Propose changes on the talk page. Try to resist the urge to revert (again my practice and preaching aren't fully coherent). When we are in a consensus gridlock trying to figure out how to balance this or that, it doesn't help when someone adds some new content without proposing the edit first. It almost certainly will result in a number of article changes/reversions and editor frustration. Just propose it first!

These suggestions apply to myself and other editors as well.Springee(talk)12:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The truth is that, since I've got back from my wikibreak, I've seen moreWP:3RRandWP:AN/Ithreads opened about 72bikers than any other editor I've interacted with. They've had plenty of warnings regarding their comportment, with the talk page issue being one of them. And while many of those cases have beenmarginal,72 haspulled 2 blocks in 2018 for edit warringand yet continues to push the line of EW behaviour often, while remaining disinclined to discuss their behaviouron their own user talk page- which inevitably spills out into the boards with additional marginal edit warring accusations, and complaints to AN/I. So yeah, there's someWP:NOTHEREbehaviour going on. Whether admins consider it severe enough to be actionable is another issue, but what it comes down to is that 72bikers is often a obstruction to resolving challenging and fraught content disputes rather than a participant. And that's a problem.Simonm223(talk)13:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment:From where I sit, 72bikers' pattern of behavior clearly fits multiple elements ofWP:NOTHERE:battleground behavior (banning users from their talk page, accusing them of harassment, arguing tooth and nail over just about every edit from an editor they disagree with), repeated warnings and blocks, little interest in collaboration (even with like-minded editors, from what I've seen), and disruptive edits.

For a recent example of that last, whendlthewavetried to get some input on the issues at AR-15 style rifle, 72bikers posted multipleWP:TEXTWALLslikethis,this,andthisthat have clogged the discussion to the point it's almost impossible to read (especially for anyone new to this that might actually have provided a fresh perspective). Those WOTs are often riddled with typos to the point they're hard to parse, and more importantly they are very long and usually miss the point under discussion. I don't know to what degree that's intentional, but it's certainly disruptive. Then there's the kneejerk reverts on anything they disagree with (seeherefor the latest of that, including a revert of my removal of a duplicate reference), usually followed by more walls of text on the talk page.

Since multiple warnings and short blocks don't seem to have helped, it seems to me a longer block or topic ban might be called for.Waleswatcher(talk)14:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I dislike the idea of dragging different accusations into an ANI.Slatersteven(talk)14:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

WW, this seems like a self serving position on your part. Some of the edits in question were reversions of material that you added in a way that, while not a bright line violation, were not helpful. For example, here [[52]] you add material to a section that is an area of active disagreement. You didn't propose the material or change first. Youshouldhave known better given your involvement in the on going discussions. Here you revert material that 72bikers added a while back and that had been stable [[53]]. I can see how an editor might feel you were targeting their work since you didn't discuss this removal first (discussion added after removal [[54]]). If we go a ways back here you are saying thatWP:ONUSto remove new content is on the editor who wishes to remove rather than the editor who is doing the adding (the opposite is true) [[55]]. 72bikers generally isn't initiating the controversial changes, you have initiated several. It creates a certain amount of baiting a trap by antagonizing targeting some of his edits and then ignoring consensus when adding edits that can't reasonably assume wouldn't be controversial.Springee(talk)14:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

And your comment seems equally self-serving on your part, doesn't it? As seems to be typical for you, your comment is riddled with falsehoods and misrepresentations (seethisfor a particularly egregious recent example of such misplaced accusations). But this really isn't about me, or you, so I'll not respond further.Waleswatcher(talk)15:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Let's be fair; most people fall for a joe-jobber once before they notice the pattern of behaviour. After all, most peopledon'thave checkuser authority. I wouldn't lean on this too hard as any sort of blemish onSpringee's record. They walked back the complaint immediately upon being told it was a joe-jobber and while they and I may not often see eye to eye, they're a decent editor and, unlike 72bikers, I wouldn't expect to see them up before AN/I or 3RR as they understand and adhere to Wikipedia norms well.Simonm223(talk)15:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Offensive edit summary

Yep,diff.

See the rest ofSpecial:Contributions/Loricarey.This person and a sock (filed at SPI) are reverting removals of breitbart.com that were done pursuant toWP:BREITBART.Jytdog(talk)21:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Goooo bye bye.Canterbury Tailtalk21:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail- Thank you for blocking the user - you beat me to it.~Oshwah~^{(talk)(contribs)}21:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

No way I'm defending the person's edit summaries or claims made (that alone is banable offenses), but I do have concerns that the material that was removed that they reverted met the RSOPINION allowances that the Breitbart closure allowed for, with those removing the BB links and materials sourced to them perhaps cutting off more than the closure allowed form. I've already discussed w/ Jytdog related to the removal on the diff above on that talk page, and while there's a valid point on UNDUE issues, that should be a point of discussion before removal; the BREITBART closure was not allowance to remove any BB link, only those that were being used to source factual material (or least, factual material in WP's voice). Wumbolo made upUser:Wumbolo/Breitbart as opinionon the 25th after the closure to track seemingly valid uses of BB under RSOPINION, and some of the reverts of this user are based on removals of BB after this list was made.Masem(talk)21:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Masem- I don't see an issue with restoring or fixing such material if what was removed should be kept. Obviously, the concerns and decision behind blocking the reported user was due to theirincivilityandpersonal attacksadded to their edit summaries. I didn't consider the content itself when looking into the matter; just the edit summaries that were left.~Oshwah~^{(talk)(contribs)}21:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Masem,*sigh*. Sorry, we're talking about a longterm harasser here who makes violent and obscene threats all over the place, may well have thousands of already blocked socks, and you want to make some point about how to keep more Breitbart in our articles? Does Breitbart need a hug? If this harasser has valid points to make, why don'tyoudiscuss it with them.Drmies(talk)03:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I have revdeleted the edit summary in question and changed this section's header.Salvio^{Let's talk about it!}21:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Salvio giuliano- Thank you.~Oshwah~^{(talk)(contribs)}21:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Damn, wejustdiscussed doing this at the weekly Far-Left Pedophiles of Wikipedia (FLPOW) meeting, and apparently, Jytdog beat us to the punch. Oh well.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.21:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Found another one:Sagobony1.HickoryOughtShirt?4(talk)22:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked bySalvio giuliano(thank you).~Oshwah~^{(talk)(contribs)}22:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

My pleasure.Salvio^{Let's talk about it!}22:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

And talk page access removed/edit deleted.theinstantmatrix(talk)22:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• the current header is just so dull.:( But thanks for the swift mop-wielding!Jytdog(talk)22:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• another sock:Special:Contributions/PuncharyanJytdog(talk)22:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Done.Black Kite (talk)22:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you,Black Kite.~Oshwah~^{(talk)(contribs)}22:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Another:Awlsbloch–dlthewave☎23:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked.~Oshwah~^{(talk)(contribs)}00:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Considering the incitement to violencehereremoval of talk page access might be in order.MarnetteD|Talk00:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

While not as egregiousthisshould be looked at as well.MarnetteD|Talk00:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

MarnetteD- I've revoked talk page access from both users and redacted the revisions (WP:DENY). Thanks for the heads up:-)~Oshwah~^{(talk)(contribs)}01:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank youOshwah.MarnetteD|Talk01:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

MarnetteD- You bet:-)~Oshwah~^{(talk)(contribs)}01:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• AlsoSteplush–dlthewave☎04:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

  Blocked byZzuuzz--Ymblanter(talk)08:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• +Sizerhurts(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)
• +Scentgotta(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)

Not a big surprise given the website in question. This may need a rangeblock in the end.Guy(Help!)09:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

This is JarlaxleArtemis, hopping around on open proxies. A range block is not going to be effective. --zzuuzz^(talk)09:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeeeup, I figured:-/~Oshwah~^{(talk)(contribs)}12:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding:

• Zionist and Proud18(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)
• Novadock(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)
• Hersbrice(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)

I assume someone will sweep these up at some point?

I have blacklisted breitbart.com for now, which should prevent further reverts.Guy(Help!)13:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

JzG,how long are you planning on keeping breitbart.com on the blacklist? It'sused quite a lotand, in some cases, can be a reliable source and beneficial to an article.Vermont(talk)22:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there a way to make it so only confirmed editors can add it? Like have an edit count requirement? --Tarage(talk)22:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

in some cases, can be a reliable sourceOn this planet? --Calton|Talk22:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Could we switch it to being on XLinkBot's disallowed list?Black Kite (talk)22:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Breitbart News is only reliable for its own editorial opinions. At best, if it reports something, it can be used to search for reliable sources to see if they report the same thing, and then that citation (from the RS) can be used. I see no reason that Breitbart shouldn't be blacklisted for as long as necessary.Beyond My Ken(talk)04:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It is already on the xlinkbot list, the issue was socks reverting removals with offensive edit summaries. Only blacklisting will stop that.@Vermont:If there's consensus on Talk that a link to Breitbart is appropriate, overcoming the strong consensus that it's unreliable, it can be added to thewhitelist.Please note that in general "Breitbart said X, source, Breitbart saying X" would require a reliable independent source to establish that the statement is actually significant, perWP:UNDUE.Guy(Help!)08:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The edit filter would be a preferable option. It wouldn't take a minute to write an appropriate filter. I'd suggest it's removed from the blacklist as soon as possible. --zzuuzz^(talk)08:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I have formally requested that it be removed from the blacklist and instead XLinkBot be used hereMediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#breitbart.com_2as the blacklist should only be used as a method of last resort, and XLinkBot can handle these less than a week old socks. -Obsidi(talk)14:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

This has been on XLinkBot for 10 months now, showing that that has been tried to no avail. Though an edit filter could do the trick, seen that this is an unreliable source anyway (meaning that its use should be limited), there is no reason that future appropriate additions, if any, cannot be handled by the whitelist. Skimming through uses I would be surprised if there currently are more than 10 proper uses in mainspace (the few (3!, but I did not search hard) I saw should go through whitelisting at some point, but no hurry; links outside mainspace can be disabled). --Dirk Beetstra^TC18:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I stand corrected, we may get to 20, on maybe 10 pages. <shrug>. --Dirk Beetstra^TC18:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Briancua

On 22 August in an ANI brought against me byUser:BriancuaI committed to make an effort to better adhere toconduct policies.Since then I have tried extra hard to be constructive, engaged, civil, and collaborative with all editors. I like to think I have always done this but accept that my performance (while not specifically violating any of the rules) had room for improvement. I didn't think the ANI brought against me by BrianCUA was fair as it seemed to be a deliberate attempt to have me banned from the site because I have consistently bought a degree of challenge to BrianCUA's edits. Nevertheless I accepted the ANI (despite long service) and tried to move on. However, regrettably I feel that while I have made an effort to improve, BrianCUA has not. As an editor they seem to demonstrate a bias towards conservative Catholicism - this can be seen by glancing at the totality of edits which are always aimed at reinforcing a overly-positive perspective both on Catholic teaching as well as organisations relating to the Church (eg theKnights of Columbus.To the extent that article are starting to look skewed and biased. I have set out some examples below. These are by no means exhaustive. I apologise in advance for the length of this but am trying to be as conscientious as I can. I've tried to avoid this turning into a petty tit-for-tat against me and BrianCUA (and you'll see that concerns have been voiced by other established editors) - it's just that I have a genuine concern that the spirit of Wikipedia is not being abided by and I'd just like someone to check if there is an issue. If it's the case that I've been over-cautious then I will accept that. Thank you again for your time.

• Over-turned all edits (WP:EDITWARRING) relating to Knights of Columbus and the Pledge of Allegiance to imply bigger role for the knights than the sources suggest (WP:PEACOCK). No justification given and no attempt to engage with the discussion initiated on the talk-page:

[[56]] Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus#Pledge of Allegiance

• I added material on Cardinal Arinze and the rainbow sash and then removed my own material as I didn't think it was appropriate to the article. BrianCua restored the material and has argued that I am not allowed to remove it unless I achieve consensus (no other editor has expressed a view so "consensus" in this case means permission by BrianCua. Followed up with threats on my talk page to have me "banned" if I continued to pursue this point. Additionally the fact that another editor has suggested the stressing of "unity" is tendentious editing:

Talk:History of the Catholic Church and homosexuality#Rainbow sash User talk:Contaldo80#Disputed edits and behavior

• Failure to retainWP:CIVILITYwhen collaborating with other editors. Repeated use of sarcasm, for example "I didn't make a mistake. I copied directly from the source. Again, remember that just because the phrase is written in italics, or in quotation marks, or in Sanskrit somewhere else, doesn't mean we do it here."

Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus#First usage of Culture of Life

• Repeated rejection of attempts by other editors (Contaldo80, Aquillon, TronVillain) to find a compromise solution in relation to the term "culture of life" in favour of a tendentious approach that asserts usage by the Catholic church is widely understood and accepted:

Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus#RFC on quotation marks

• Tendentious editing onCatholic Church and homosexualityto giveWP:UNDUEprominence in the lead (and main article) to gay rights activists disrupting Catholic masses - opposing the concerns of other editors (including Roscelese). Even though incidences of this were limited and protesting against communion was actually only ever done globally once according to sources cited:

Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality#Desecrating

• Concerns raised by a number of editors (including Steeletrap, Johnpfmcguire and Contaldo80) at the repeated "playing of the system" (ie circular citation of Wikipedia rules to frustrate attempts by other editors to make progress on article) which is designed to reinforce tendentious editing relating to a social conservative/ conservative Catholic perspective (especially relating to the issue of homosexuality). Possessive behavior (and inconsistent application of guidance) in relation to articles - which rejects any attempts by other editors to make changes that are seen as a threat to the conservative catholic viewpoint:

Talk:Knights of Columbus#Removal of KoC political activism in the lede Talk:Knights of Columbus#Lead section

• Citing a source that has subsequently been demonstrated as having made a fundamental error in relation to dating, raising concerns aroundWP:RS.Continuing to insist on using that source without provide a fuller quotation to reassure that the remainder of the material is reliable, despite the fact that other editors have supported this approach as a way forward.

Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus#RFC on quotation marks#First usage of Culture of Life

• Insisting that the articleDissent from Catholic teaching on homosexualityretains a substantive section in the main article setting out in detail the teaching of the catholic church on homosexuality despite arguments that this unnecessarily duplicates material in other articles, and cherry-picks phrases such as "All people, including those that are LGBT," must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity, "and" every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided "which more than one editor have agreed isWP:UNDUE.Additionally rejecting solutions aimed at compromise and a desire to "play the system" (arguing that most people wouldn't know the catholic church dislikes homosexuality and therefore a sentence in the lead which is not a commonly accepted fact needs to have substantive supporting material in the main body):

Talk:Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality

• Admitting that they wereWP:HOUNDINGme to visit a page not previously visited to specifically over-turn edits I have made.

Contaldo80(talk)22:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Unless someone would like me to, I don't plan to give a point for point response to all of these allegations. I will simply point anyone interested to the relevant talk pages and edit summaries. There you can see extensive discussions where it is clear that not only am I engaging with others, I am making efforts to cite relevant policies and guidelines for all the actions I am taking. There you can also see that it is far from me against the world. There are others who have agreed with me, as well as those who have disagreed. You will also find that, when a dispute seems intractable, I have sought out other opinions fromWP:3OandWP:RFCon multiple occasions.

I would like to specifically address the accusations of incivility, hounding, and threatening. I have no doubt that I have made mistakes along the way, but the difs show that none of this is true.

• With regards to incivility, on the occasion in question I didn't mean to come across as incivil, andapologized if I did.
• There was one occasion when I edited an article I typically don't, andContaldo himself saidhe was "sure that it wasn't your aim at all to hound me." He then acceptedmy explaination when I said I wasn't hounding himby saying "No offence taken."In any case, it was one time, and certainly wasn't repeated.
• Finally, I never, ever threatened to ban him (even if I could). In fact, Isaid the complete opposite:"You often have substantive contributions, so I don't want to see you get banned." --BrianCUA(talk)23:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism, including libel

Eric Carmenpage is being vandalized repeatedly by an IP and a user name to include libel. Can someone help me stop this? Ip IP edits are 69.54.63.217 and user edits, almost word for word, is Cherrykid6. Both IP and user notified of this incident.P37307(talk)13:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I protected the page for a week to start with.--Ymblanter(talk)13:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Genre warring again

BadboyOli(talk·contribs) has been changing genres withoutconsensus,with or withoutreliable sourcesfor a few days now and has not heeded multiple warnings. Reporting here because disruptive editing such as genre warring have been increasingly denied atWP:AIV.I reported toAIVbut I can't tract down what happened to it. Thank you, -FlightTime Phone(open channel)13:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

No, you were told in the edit summary that club wasn't sourced ergo it was removed, like I said, please add a source to it and then it can stay…BadboyOli(talk)14:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Ugh...anothergenre war? As best I can see both of you are slow-motion edit warring, and you need to work this out on the relevant talkpages and/or throughdispute resolution.If it continues, to stop it I'll protect any necessary pages at whateverwrongversion it's at. (And I'm really considering taking action on a Fergie song and a Mariah Carey song besides trying to condemn them to damnatio memoriae... this place makes one do strange things)The Blade of the Northern Lights(Thoại して hạ さい)17:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Propose Wikipedia sets a policy of not commenting on subjective elements of creative works such as genre.Simonm223(talk)23:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

There is currently an RfC about not including genres in infboxes atWikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Request for comment on removing genres from musician, album, and song infoboxes.Thryduulf(talk)02:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've put my comment there.Simonm223(talk)13:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed TBAN for WO1977

As I wrote inWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rah Crawford (2nd nomination):

In addition to beingdeleted once already,this was recreatedas a draft,which was declined three times. The author then copy-pasted the text of the draft to mainspace, and arranged for the draft to be deleted by tagging it withtemplate:db-g7.While it's true thatWP:AfCis an optional process, asking people to spend their time reviewing your work, then ignoring their input and moving it to mainspace anyway isWP:GAMINGthe system. Not to mention that the copy-paste and history deletion technically makes this a copyvio. Edit comments (currently deleted) like,Sulfurboy mentioned it was too close to the wording on another site - That bio was submitted at the same time as we submitted to Wikipedia it is by the same writer. Although, I did make many changes to this in order to not look like it was plagiarized.:)make it clear that there's undisclosedWP:COI.

Rather than just indef blockingUser:WO1977asWP:NOTHERE(which I think would be justified), I'd like to try the less draconian measure of a TBAN against editing any topic, broadly construed, related to Rah Crawford. --RoySmith(talk)14:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, it isn'tWP:AfCthat is the problem, but this was deleted. Shouldn't it have had to go throughWikipedia:Deletion reviewto recreate it? For instance if he found "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page," then that would be the appropriate process right? As far as I can tell he never went through that process. The delete on the userspace draft (if he was the primary author) would seem to be ok (I don't know if he was the primary author as I cannot see it), likewise if he was the author of the userspace version, copying that to article space isn't a copyvio -Obsidi(talk)20:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Can someone please throw a spam filter together...

Special:Contributions/93.182.104.0/21seems to be having fun posting links[[Kıbrıs Türk Devletı]]and[[639-1 ısoo]]with a few variations. If someone could throw together a spam filter that would be great, I would however, bed beckons. Thanks. —billinghurstsDrewth15:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Billinghurst- Have these edits continued on other IP ranges and after September 30? If so, what other ranges did they occur on?~Oshwah~^{(talk)(contribs)}19:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

No idea. I was analysing a set of IP data only, and looking at the abuse. Randomly looking at the articles that have been hit, the vandalism is on a broad range of articles, rather than deep within each. The worst vandalism looks to be atTurkish_Cypriot_State,and there it doesn't seem to be broader in an IP range. Also adding another term, though this isn't wikilink'dkuzey turk devleti.—billinghurstsDrewth02:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Renewed nonsensical numerology and talk page abuse

• Fuller.david(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)
• 74.141.210.18(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)

Renewed nonsensical numerology and talk page abuse on gravitation-related articles after final warning in April 2018. That final warning resulting in a reply"In Your FACE DVdm!!!!!"

Most recent target isTalk:Gravitational coupling constant.Case ofwp:NOTHERE.-DVdm(talk)19:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the IP user andFuller.davidwere both the same person - the timeline of edits toTalk:Gravitational coupling constantappear to fit and support this. The only edits this user has made to the article space is four edits toEntropic gravityon 1 April 2018, and one edit toUnified atomic mass uniton 27 September 2017. Fuller.david's user page is full of math formulas and equations, and they've also used their user talk page for this as well. All other edits have been to article talk pages and appear to be completely off-topic and having no involvement with discussion or collaboration with other users. I'm starting to questionWP:NOTHEREas well. Regardless, I believe that there's enough information from what I've found to justify an indefinite block. If the user intends to make positive contributions to the project and their intentions are to build an encyclopedia, then they'll have no problem with formulating a logical and convincing explanation in their unblock request.~Oshwah~^{(talk)(contribs)}19:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! -DVdm(talk)21:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Broome, Western Australia

Would someone mind imposing a block on The Drover's Wife for hoaxing and personal attacks? She's persistently adding a claim that slavery existed in the Broome article in the late 19th century, despite the cited source never making such a statement; and when I've reverted, all I've gotten is personal attacks.

Background: the article states that slavery and slavery-like conditions existed in this place in the 1880s, but asslavery was ended in 1833,Iremovedthe statement. To my surprise, I wasreverted with a fierce response,and while giving awarningat her talk, I noted that thecited sourcenever said that slavery existed at this site. (The source's only uses of the stringslavare a bit about slavery-like conditions and a note about the 1833 action, page 45; a note that "reports" of slavery were made, page 110; and a citation to a work withslavesin the title, page 217.) Shere-reverted,which I againrevertedand accompanied with astern warningabout hoaxing, and all that happened was are-re-revert.[I'm at 2RR, but I'm not going to 3RR (as she already has), let alone surpassing it.] Moreover, I've been given repeated baseless allegations: I'm"misrepresenting both the detail and character of sources",I'm "flagrantly misrepresenting a source",and I'm trying to"play unsupportable ideological games".

Adding a claim of X with a citation is a claim that the cited source says X: if it does not, you've added a hoax. (Moreover, remember thatWP:Vdemands a citation that directly supports anything that's been challenged, and I've demonstrated that the citation does not support the challenged content.) There's room for lenience the first time (typos, misunderstanding the source, etc.), but when you're repeatedly reverted with warnings and yet you restore the hoax and respond as I note above, it's beyond time for lenience. Moreover,WP:WIAPAprovides that "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are a kind of personal attacks, and she's presented no evidence for source misrepresentation or doing something for any reason other than enforcing compliance with the sources. [Hint: I've never heard of Broome before, and I wasn't aware that there was a dispute on this subject; I couldn't have had an opinion on the question.] There's no room for tolerating the combination of hoaxing and personal attacks.Nyttend(talk)01:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

User Nyttend seems not to have any knowledge ofBlackbirdingin Australia, and appears to be involved in an edit war. Another uninvolved editor has suggested that the discussion be moved to theAustralian Wikipedians' notice boardfor improvements to this article, and I've added a couple other related articles to that discussion that also need better references.Bahudhara(talk)01:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

This is surreal. Nyttend has a very strong point-of-view (that slavery in Australia definitively never existed because of theSlavery Abolition Act 1833and because of his own opinion as to the definition of slavery (which differs from the statutory definition of slavery in both the UK and Australia). Neither of these points of view are well supported in reliable sources. I reinserted content that was supported by the cited source. These are obviously complex issues, and I am very open to different wording - all I'm definitively opposed to is Nyttend's blanket POV. Nyttend's entire response to this issue has been to repeatedly accuse me of "hoaxing" for not sharing his POV, threaten to have me blocked and revert without explanation.

Considering Nyttend has repeatedly accused me of "hoaxing" for insisting on a mainstream interpretation of Australian history, it is a bit rich to claim that I'm the one making personal attacks. He claimed a source published by the Australian Heritage Commission was written by "environment specialists" and not historians in a false attempt to dismiss it. He suggests that the source did not support a reference to "slavery", when it plainly does in context - again, happy to workshop language as to exactly what one says about the disputed section (again, this stuff is obviously nuanced and complex), just opposed to the attempt to remove any reference to slavery in any context. Nyttend's behaviour has been ridiculously aggressive from the get-go and is blocking what seems to be a reasonably easy issue to resolve if one focuses on sources instead of his established and overtly-stated point of view.The Drover's Wife(talk)01:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

An editor I've never come across just postedthis link from the Australian Broadcasting Corporationon my talk page, which is another brilliant example of the sort of mainstream history that Jyttend has threatened to have me banned for including because it differs from his personal POV.The Drover's Wife(talk)01:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I requested the two editors to note the issue is better in the Australian project - to try to lose the personal point making. As what happens when it gets lost in the interpersonal unnecessarily. Please see Australian the notice board to see why I suggested as such. Please also see the article itself to see why I believe there are some apologies required, and the term 'hoaxing' dropped.JarrahTree02:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment from an uninvolved editor, looks like a content dispute that shouldn't have escalated to the point where anWP:ANIreport was necessary, it's definitely not a hoax, I posted some references at theAustralian Wikipedians' notice boardto illustrate it is the mainstream view of Australian history.Isaidnoway(talk)06:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Nyttend claims slavery could not exist because slavery was illegal and the first sentence of Wikipedia'sSlaveryarticle defines slavery asde jure.Yes, the UK parliament did pass theSlavery Abolition Act 1833;it also passed theModern Slavery Act 2015because slavery has persisted. That is not a hoax. Experienced Wikipedia editors should know that the first sentence of a Wikipedia article is not always perfect.92.19.29.177(talk)19:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Slander on Page

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

---

Hello,

A User who joined Wikipedia in mid September has been negatively and persistently fixated on page Tanya Ekanayaka. There has been no positive contribution by this user other than deletion and complaints to administrators. Yesterday a{{COI}}has been placed by this user (Boogiewithstu) stating that 'another major contributor' is 'closely connected' to the subject with NO reasons or evidence based facts to support the claim. This is a very malicious attack on the subject of the article. It seems (looking at the user's activity/cotributions on Wikipedia) the user ONLY negatively targets edits made by this user (this user has never engaged with the said user but has been reported by him/her previously much to this user's surprise). The user is now taking to slandering the subject of the article publicly on the subject's page - see page issues. The accusations are in violation of civil behaviour. The subject did not ask to be on this wikipedia page. Where is the impartial and civilised code of behaviour which ought to be practiced by users? Users must NOT be allowed to slander the subjects of articles. Please - HELP! The {COI} should not be there.

Thank you.NSNMN(talk)

I see noslanderlibel.EvergreenFir(talk)07:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

First things first -@NSNMN:,youmustnotify the user you are reporting, on their user talk page. There is a large yellow box that shows up when you edit this page, which tells you what you need to do. Secondly, the COI template appears to be 100% relevant and there is no slander there. Thirdly, the user you are reporting has edited a variety of pages, unlike yourself, and you are required toassume good faithon the part of other contributors. Fourthly, please don't talk about yourself in the third person ( "this user" sometimes means you and sometimes the other editor) - it makes your post harder to read and understand. --bonadeacontributionstalk07:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you help to resolve the issue? I.E check the page, edit, add or delete information where necessary? Thank you.— Precedingunsignedcomment added byNSNMN(talk•contribs)07:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

You ignored the requirement to inform the user you reported. I have done that for you. --bonadeacontributionstalk08:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Boomerang indef blockNot here to build an encyclopedia. COI. General incompetence. --Tarage(talk)09:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh and delete the article. This is clearly someone hired to do this. --Tarage(talk)09:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• BoomerangperTarage.However, the editing pattern forBoogieWithStumight merit a closer look; user registered an account less than three weeks ago but seemsveryfamiliar with policies. There's a disclaimer on the user page about having done gnomish edits for a while, but the user has already taken someone to ANI, been doing a good amount of templating, and has an unusual familiarity with the various noticeboards for someone who has never had an account before or done anything beyond gnomish edits.Grandpallama(talk)10:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello - I have not been paid to make any contribution to this or any other page. I am a well wisher and someone who recognises the artistic and humanitarian contribution of this subject to the world. I am not a professional Wikipedia editor/user and the edits made have been made with reference to evidence based material on the internet.bonadeaI have, since you pointed out, made a note on the talk page of the user referred to- thank you for letting me know - my delay owes to the fact that I am not a professional Wikipedia user. If errors have been made on the page, correct them. It has been my hope and expectation that other impartial and fair users and editors would contribute to this page. This should be the intention of ALL users on Wikipedia. Instead, this page has become the focus of a particular user whose edits relating to this page have involved attacking me, making widespread deletions including a list of external reference URLs and now implicating the subject of the page. The user has been engaged in this kind of activity on this page ever since joining Wikipedia in mid September which leads me to question the motives of this user. The subject of the page has not, to my knowledge, requested to be on Wikipedia. The COI implicates the subject negatively - the subject being someone who does not have a voice on Wikipedia - the statement that the content is being edited by someone 'closely connected' to the subject *does* reflect negatively on the subject (a living person who has a life and career outwith Wikipedia). It implies that the subject of the article is consorting with people engaged in unethical behavior. Therefore I respectfully ask that the COI be removed and edits be made to the page compliant with Wikipedia conventions and ethics. Please help. Thank you.— Precedingunsignedcomment added byNSNMN(talk•contribs)12:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

A 'compliant page' would not be sourced almost entirely to Ekanayaka's publisher's website. Wikipedia needs evidence of significant coverage in third-party sources.86.147.197.124(talk)13:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

86.147.197.124(talk) - This is why I have requested edits and references to be added where relevant. A series of external references were deleted by the user who has now placed a COI. Dragging in the subject of the article via a COI, who to my knowledge never asked to be on Wikipedia and who therefore has no voice in this matter is very unfair by the subject (issue explained in detail above). The user who placed the COI has provided no evidence for the claim. I suggest that the COI be removed, therefore. Thank you.— Precedingunsignedcomment added byNSNMN(talk•contribs)13:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

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

The Rambling Man

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

---

I find myself stuck in an edit war withThe Rambling Man(talk·contribs). A week or so ago he took exception to an edit of mine, and reverted it. I explained my reasons and reinstated the edit. He reverted again, and this has continued, with me suggesting over and over again that we should take the disagreement to some appropriate forum (seeIstván Kovács revision history), and him reverting again and again without discussion, just issuing dire warnings and dark threats. Clearly we aren't going to be able to settle this between ourselves, it will have to go to some forum, but he simply won't co-operate. And he keeps repeating the false claim that 'numerous editors' have told me to stop, and making false allegations that I have 'broken' something, and that I'm 'disrupting Wikipedia'. This is nonsense. It's only TRM who has an issue here. This is shocking behaviour from an admin. Please insist that he must discuss this properly and stop making these false accusations.Colonies Chris(talk)11:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Wow, ANI for this?István Kovács (footballer, born 1992)is a one-paragraph article and TRM's offensive edit isdiff.The argument appears to concern the wikitext for a link. It must be an important link because each side has reverted the other half a dozen times. TRM is not an admin and winning a battle like this is unimportant. Even if you're right, let it go (that message is for each side).Johnuniq(talk)11:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
• @Colonies Chris:I'm afraid this is squarely a content dispute, which this noticeboard is ill-equipped to handle (and so does not). Basically, though the best way to stop edit-warring is—to stop. Firstly, chew it over on the talk page between yourselves, and, if after discussion you fail to reach a consensus, there are other methods ofdispute resultionavailable: your first would bea fresh set of eyeslooking the issue over. If youdothink that The Rambling Man has edit-warred, and you think they should definitely be reported for it, then the noticeboard you require ishere;although I'd personally advise against it as a course of action. YMMV, of course. All the best,——SerialNumber5412911:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
• I thought the same thing, but yeah, you know it's got to be important if there is an edit war going on over it./s Not a peep on the talk page either. I agree, let it go,let it flow.Isaidnoway(talk)11:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
• Chris has been told numerous times on his talkpage not to break piped links. You can check his talkpage archives if you want more info. TRM is far from the first person to have to deal with this. Its not content specific. Chris likes to remove piped links without good reason, does this on a variety of articles annoying various editors etc. This has been positioned as a content dispute by Chris when in reality the problem wouldn't exist if they stopped doing disruptive make-work that they already know annoys people.Only in death does duty end(talk)11:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Even more reason, if it's necessary, for them not to go to ANEW I suppose; well, voluntarily, anyway.——SerialNumber5412912:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Serial BLP violator IP back again

We've had ongoing problems for months with a very immature IP posting serial BLP violations across a number of Australian conservative politicians. His usual static IP, 110.22.50.32, received a long-term block several weeks ago after countless warnings. He's now editing from a new IP to dodge the block (49.177.138.206) addingrubbish like this.Can we please get a block on 49.177.138.206 as well?

I think it's probably time that his favourite target,Marcus Bastiaan,was permanently semi-protected to put a dampener on it. Might also be an good idea to semiprotect his second-favourite,Matthew Guy,as Guy is two months away from an election and it's probably not a good look to have BLP-violating rubbish repeatedly added to his article.The Drover's Wife(talk)11:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Clearly the same user, new IP now also blocked.Ivanvector(^Talk/_Edits)13:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I should also point out,The Drover's Wife,that you're required to notify a user when you discuss them here by posting a message on their talk page. It's kind of a moot point now, but please remember for next time.Ivanvector(^Talk/_Edits)13:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It's about extremely clear block avoidance, and regarding an immature kid who pretty clearly enjoys being a nuisance. It only goes here because there doesn't seem to be any clearer means for obvious blocks that aren't overt vandalism. What is the point of adding more rigamarole to the process of dealing with him when (from his responses every other time we've done this) it just seems to serve as further encouragement to keep it up?The Drover's Wife(talk)13:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm just reminding you what the rule is: when you start a discussion about an editor here, you notify them on their talk page. There are very few admin-attention pages on Wikipedia which have a requirement like this, and they are all the same: when you report, you notify. There's no exception for clear disruption: there would be no agreement on how disruptive a user should be before invoking the exception, and probably not even a broad agreement on how you would even measure disruption for that purpose. And I'm not trying to get you in trouble, I'm really just reminding you, like I do with anyone who reports here and forgets to notify the editor they're reporting. So, like I said: please remember for next time. I'm surethisuser will not have any success trying to find an administrator to unblock them on this technicality, but it's happened before.Ivanvector(^Talk/_Edits)14:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)