Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Johnvr4 (talk | contribs) at 20:42, 7 September 2017 (→Request block of User:Johnvr4: Inserting diff). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    Repeat topic ban violations by Instaurare

    Instaurare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has again violated his topic ban from LGBT-related articles by nominating List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-LGBT hate groups for deletion and this edit. He has previous violated this topic ban, documented here and here. At some point, this topic ban needs to grow some teeth so that Instaurare will stop violating it.- MrX 03:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm surprised you remembered these things from 4-5 years ago, because I didn't. Instaurare (talk) 03:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Bullshit.- MrX 03:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh? Instaurare (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Instaurare: Since the AfD is heading for keep, could you kindly to not comment any further, and file an official appeal for your topic ban at WP:AN, which is still being logged in place? Alex ShihTalk 04:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I closed the AfD as "no action" since its initiation was improper from the start. Thought SNOW likely would have been the outcome given more time. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alex Shih: Someone violates a topic ban, and, instead of enforcing it, we recommend they file an appeal? That seems... out of place. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 04:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with that, considering there have been previous violations, and I don't believe that the editor has forgotten about the ban (which is irrelevant anyway), I believe a block is in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree, but for a topic ban that was placed in 2012 and never officially enforced despite of previous possible violations in 2013 as indicated by the diffs here, I would like to stay put for the next move of this editor. In the meanwhile, pinging @HJ Mitchell: for more information. Alex ShihTalk 05:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter if it was never enforced it should be enforced now dammit. --Tarage (talk) 06:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    One can't simply "wait out" an indefinite sanction until people forget about it. At the very least, unless you find out from HJM that the TB has been lifted or has run out, the editor should receive a reminder that it is still in effect, and a stern final warning that any future violation no matter how far in the future from now will be met with a substantial block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken: Fair enough, final warning has been issued. Alex ShihTalk 07:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll just leave these here for further evaluation of the behavior patterns of this editor: SPI of NYyankees51 (his account before renaming, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion ("NYyankees has engaged in an exchange that suggests a battlefield mentality"). I don't think a warning is sufficient, but I'd like to see what Harry Mitchell says. Mojoworker (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Manny Pacquiao steroid allegations and consistent edit warring

    Over the past month the Manny Pacquiao page has been subject to edit wars even with discussion on the talk page. Now information that is being kept is potentially libellous with a whole section being dedicated to it and now it has been added to the lede. Steroid allegations are a very serious claim and Pacquiao has already settled a lawsuit with Floyd Mayweather regarding these claims and should definitely be removed per WP:BLP as no criminal or sporting body has ever accused him of this and as the section says "there is no definitive proof on this subject, only speculation" and WP:NOTGOSSIP. Naue7 (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Even if this is a BLP issue, I don't see a reason to deal with it here. Either take it to the article talk page or WP:BLP/N. Especially since this seems to be only a dispute over the lead as the content is well covered in the article. Nil Einne (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I should clarify when I say 'take it to the article talk page' I mean continue to deal with it on the article talk page, and if necessary use some method of WP:dispute resolution such as taking it to WP:BLP/N. I also see you seem to be proposing to remove the entire content. While I'm not commenting on the merits of including the content in our article, the BLP page itself clear that well sources allegations can be included so simply saying they are just allegations and very negative is not necessarily sufficient under BLP. In other words, even with the BLP issues, I don't see any reason for this content dispute to be on ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 07:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The allegations are well documented and notable so WP:NPOV requires including them in the article (see also WP:WELLKNOWN). The section contents look fine to me, though people who follow the topic more closely might be better attuned than I am about what constitutes due weight in the context of rest of the article. As Nil says, the BLP noticeboard is the right place to ask for outside examination, or an RFC or mediation (if that's still a thing) might help. I don't see anything approaching an admin incident report here. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite the content dispute, the disputed content is being discussed on the article talk page. There are no current BLP issues on the article, the steroid allegations are well known and well sourced. Unless someone has something new to add here, then I suggest this report is closed and we get back to improving the article in question. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a real BLP issue as the "allegations" were presented in Wikipedia's voice, and are properly removed as violating policies and guidelines. Reinsertion of them clearly requires a clear positive consensus in accord with Wikipedia rules. Collect (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    All it required was the removal of the first line. Your removal of 84,951 bytes was slightly OTT. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. The current celebrity gossip so cavalierly re-added violates WP:BLP and requires an actual consensus for re-insertion. The claims as made make it appear that the subject barely escaped a blood test, that he is being sued for $5 million by "two fans" where that suit is unlikely to go anywhere, and such BLP gems as "The recovery process was quoted as miraculous.[109] Freddie Roach explained that Pacquiao is just joking around probably having a sense of humor while being interviewed and he's actually seeing a doctor and going through rehab on daily basis.[110]" seem to me to now call for admin intervention.Collect (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    There is zero proof whatsoever that Pacquiao has ever used performance-enhancing drugs. It is important to realize that Pacquiao is a high-profile figure, so naturally there will be people who are desperate for media attention who will gossip and speculate about him. The allegations are based purely on unsubstantiated rumors and do not belong in the article. That the baseless allegations are documented does not change the fact that the allegations are baseless. The inclusion of the allegations in the article is a clear BLP violation. Songisjust (talk) 10:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Songisjust is obviously a sock account. The account was created less than 24 hours after the previous sock account that was operating on the Manny Pacquiao article was blocked and already understands BLP policy? I think not. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sleeping_is_fun Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Collect this is a BLP issue, not an ANI issue. Let's focus on the discussion on the BLP noticeboard and request this one closed. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact that a person has made a charge of "SOCK" about an editor on this board seems, alas, a lack of understanding as to why such charges can only be made at WP:SPI and may be something an admin might notice here. And I note the same charge was iterated, along with personal attacks, at the BLP/N noticeboard. Collect (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Attempt to block a valid revision about Isopanishad.

    Dear Sir or Madam,

    I am trying to add a very simple addition to the body of knowledge on Wikipedia. However, some users have teamed up and are suffocating the edit due to their bias. Particularly, User:William M. Connolley is starting a edit war with me and calling the discussion boring. This editor has had a history of being warned and blocked. Please see their talk page.

    Please see my edit below:

    In the Indian civilization, one of the mantras of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and Ishavasya Upanishad popularly known as Shanti Mantra, around 700 BCE talks about the concept of infinity. The mantra is mathematical-philosophical introduction to the concept of infinity. It is given in Devanagri script and its English transliteration is below.

    ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदम् पूर्णात् पूर्णमुदच्यते | पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ||

    Om poornamadah poornamidam poornaat poornamudachyate |

    Poornasya poornamaadaaya poornamevaavashishṣyate ||

    which means: "That" is infinite. "This" is infinite. Infinite comes from Infinite. Take infinite away from infinite, the remainder is infinite." [1]. Here the root word, poorna = infinite. Other interpretations of the word, 'poorna' is are full and perfect [2] [3] [4].

    The users are unnecessarily making it a Europe vs. India issue and are calling me names and using bad words.

    Please render Justice.

    Regards, Wilkn (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Satyananda, Kaulacharya (March 1958). Isopanisad with a New commentary by Kaulacharya Satyananda. Ganesh & co., Madras Ltd. p. 39.
    2. ^ Radha Krishnan, Sarvpalli (1953). The Principal Upanishads. Allen & Unwin; Harper India; others. p. 564. ISBN 81-7223-124-5.
    3. ^ Aurobindo, Sri (1996). The Upanishads. Sri Aurobindo Ashram Press. p. 17. ISBN 0-914955-23-3.
    4. ^ Swamy, Sri Poorohit; Yeats, W.B. (March 1938). The-Ten-Principal Upanishads. Faber and Faber limited. p. 15.
    This has nothing to do with justice... This just seems to be a content dispute in which you have been blocked for edit warring. You failed in your mediation request and now are forum shopping it here. You need to gain consensus on the talk page of the article. If you can't, then you need to accept the fact that whatever you want to add does not belong in the article. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)You have started multiple talk-page discussions on the same topic. That's disruptive to the discussion and attempts to improve the article because it makes it hard to know which is the "current" discussion and leads to the same editors making the same points without progress. You have claimed there is consensus for your preferred article content when there is not. That's disruptive and impolite. Much of the talkpage discussion seems fairly well-mannered and focused on the article content, and pointing out what aspects of your suggestions are (in others' views) against which specific content policies/guidelines. Please provide specific links to certain comments you find objectionable and we can give some specific feedback. DMacks (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Among other things, they are using words like 'damned' and making fun of me saying I do not know 0 - 0 = 0. They are threatening me with blocks and calling me boring. However, that is not important. What is important is how they are ganging to prevent a perfectly legitimate addition because of their prejudice and bias. Specifically, I have posted my addition above. Kindly, inform me what is wrong with that addition? I did not get a response to this question on the talk page as well. In both the discussions, my comment is the last without any answer. The editors are just equivocating and citing of non-relevant Wikipedia policies. What policy is being violated by the above addition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilkn (talk • contribs) 14:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    An unhelpful digression from the topic. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    You need to stop or you will be blocked. At this point, you are displaying competency issues. You are trying to edit against clear consensus. Drop it, or be blocked. --Tarage (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wilkn, you may ignore outright block threats from editors who are not administrators. They do not have the power to block. See Wikipedia:List of administrators. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a threat, it's what's going to occur if he keeps disrupting like he is. Or am I wrong? --Tarage (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You are entitled to state your opinion, for whatever it's worth, provided you present it as your opinion. Please bear in mind that your lack of adminship is not immediately apparent. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no delusions of grandeur, nor do I have any desire to take up a mop. I'm simply saying what everyone is thinking here. Take a look at the Infinity talk page and tell me he's not heading for another block if he keeps spamming this nonsense. --Tarage (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mandruss: People don't have to announce who they are on this page. In addition, many block "threats" are included in Category:Standardised user warning templates. Why take exception now? — nihlus kryik  (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please show me a warning template that says, "Drop it, or be blocked." ―Mandruss ☎ 23:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    How about {{uw-generic4}} "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia", or any other level 4 warning, for that matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If the word "may" means nothing to you, I don't know what to say. Warnings are worded carefully and precisely, and I read them equally carefully and precisely. The point here is that empty threats are nothing but attempts to "win" by intimidation, and that is not Wikipedian behavior. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) What a weird argument to take on. {{Uw-harass4im}} among others say pretty much that. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Do not edit your comments after you have posted them if they have already been replied to. --Tarage (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tarage: Stop acting as admin when you are not. I am waiting for the real administrators to act on my request above. Wilkn (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    Wilkn has not learned anything from their edit warring block and continued to try to argue their incorrect inclusion across multiple boards, to the point of exhausting multiple experienced editors. Since they seem incapable of understanding consensus based editing, and instead are dead set on righting great wrongs, I request that Wilkn be topic banned from the Infinity article. This seems like the last step before a competency block.

    Tarage Explain incorrectness of my "inclusion." I have provided my entire edit above for your reference. Wilkn (talk) 03:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wilkn do you or do you not understand what consensus means? --Tarage (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think there's a need for this, I've already warned Wilkn re to WP:ARBIPA sanctions and if this behavior continues then any admin (or I) can impose a topic ban from the Upanishads/Indian philosophy topic area (which is covered by the sanctions and is applicable here), unless of course someone decides to block before that. —SpacemanSpiff 03:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I suggest you do it, because he clearly is NOT getting the point. How many days does this have to go on? --Tarage (talk) 03:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No action, per SpacemanSpiff. It took me a while to figure out that the dispute is in Infinity article. Wilkn: what you quote is not Isopanishad, it is a part of boiler plate preface and colophon we find in some Hindu manuscripts added by scribes in later centuries. Your good faith effort as well as your proposed summary comes across as POV pushing. Please stop this. The concept of infinite, in the sense of atma / soul being endless and without bounds, is found in chapters 23–25 of Chandogya Upanishad (even older than Isha), but the context of those ancient Indian sages is not a number or number theory, it is philosophy and human freedom. Context matters. @SpacemanSpiff: / others: if block becomes necessary, a topic ban over Upanishads/Indian philosophy space articles may not suffice because the article in dispute is in the math-space articles. Or, perhaps broadly construed would need to be explained to them. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MilwaukeeHD repeatedly adding erroneous information

    User:MilwaukeeHD's sole edits have consisted of adding erroneous information to List of tallest buildings in Milwaukee and Northwestern Mutual Tower and Commons. He's been reverted by two different editors and received several warnings. 32.218.34.191 (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hours by Malinaccier a couple of hours ago. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And opened an account as Raymonda18 minutes later. 32.218.40.48 (talk) 02:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Raymonda18 has been indeffed as a sock. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:109.153.185.33 on Liberal Democrats article

    User 109.153.185.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly adding unreferenced in formation on the Liberal Democrats article. Their contributions have been reverted by another editor and myself, but have been ignored and change back by the IP. I have also left a warning on the IP's Talk page to no avail. David J Johnson (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The addition of unsourced membership figures has now spread to Conservative Party (UK). David J Johnson (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked the IP for a short time. It is however a dynamic range (BT) so I have watchlisted the articles concerned. Black Kite (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks for your help. David J Johnson (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This IP appears to have re-surfaced as 217.42.40.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with exactly the same unsourced changes. David J Johnson (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated personal attacks because they won't get their way

    —PaleoNeonate – 23:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment It's been going on, with one long break, since at least July 30 on my talk page, from more than one IP address. On my talk page, I've been deleting the attacks, because they're disruptive, personally insulting, and have a "wall of text" repetitive style. July 30: [5], [6], [7]. 2 September: [8]. 3 September: [9]. Those are ones on my talk page.
    On the talk page of User: Doug Weller, 30 July: [10], [11]. 31 July: [12], [13].
    On the Talk: Nephilim page, 30 July: [14], 1 September [15], [16].
    On User talk:24.253.207.88, 1 September: [17]. On User talk:24.253.207.96, 1 September: [18], 3 September [[19]]. Both of these user pages are filled with various editors trying to get the IP editor to become civil. There has been no success so far. Alephb (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We've had two instances of IP vandalism on Nephilim today. I don't know if that's enough to reconsider page protection, but I thought I'd update the issue. I have no way to know whether there is any connection between the matter at hand and those. Alephb (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Matter Involving me and Alpehb

    To whom it may concern,

    I thought I would give you some data to consider.

    1. I stated to Alpheb on his talk page, that I was not intending insult, nor was that which I stated unfounded ( having no basis, or merit, i.e a lie) and I clarified each point he brought up and back my statements with evidence that came from his statements to me. I stated the truthful facts, rather liked , or not.

    2. I, also, told Alpehb: "As stated before, and state once more, don't message me and I will not respond. Had you not sent your statement that required an answering response, I would not have pursued the matter any further. It was you who initiated the dialogue, not I. If you don't like what is said, don't initiate.

    Again, as stated, I would not have gone any further then the edit and the matter would have been dropped, had you not started the matter with your message to which I responded with the truth that is backed by the evidence given.

    You don't want to hear the truth, or anything that I say, then don't message me and I will not message you. (the embolden parts were not part of the original communique, but add here to bring your attention to).

    This was said and meant.

    I give this to you to show where I stand.

    On another matter concerning the article Nephilim, which started everything.

    The verse in the article stated: "When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. Then the Lord said, “My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown. — Genesis 6:1–4, New Revised Standard Version"

    This verse is given as reference for a quote in the article that states: "The Nephilim /ˈnɛfɪˌlɪm/ (Hebrew: נְפִילִים‎) were the offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" before the Deluge, according to Genesis 6:1-4 of the Bible." (again embolden by me to bring attention to areas).

    I ask how can this statement be true, when the verse states that the nephilim were already on the earth by the verse, when the offspring was born? So, if the nephilim was not the offspring by the verse, then how can the statement given be accurate and true?

    Again, I state, it is up to you staff to consider the matter and act on it, or not, Just don't contact me expecting a response on the matter, for I have said all I am going to say on the matter. It is up you to deal with it, or not.

    I would not have even stated all this that went on after I made an edit that was deleted had I not got a message that required a response. It would have ended at the edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.207.96 (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2017‎

    Just to clarify -- are you saying that you stand by the comments you have made in the diffs above, such as referring to other users as "scum," "control freaks," "liars," and comparing an edit to a rape? Your defense that you simply want to be left alone is belied by the continued posting of personal attacks on other users' talk pages, even after repeatedly being warned not to do so, starting over one month ago. And as for the business of the Nephilim, this is not the right forum for discussing content disputes -- those should be handled elsewhere, such as on the appropriate talk pages. Here at ANI, we are not discussing whether or not your opinions about the Nephilim are correct; we are discussing an ongoing behavioral issue in violation of WP:PERSONAL. For our purposes here, whether you are ultimately correct or not about the Nephilim simply isn't relevant. Alephb (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with what Alephb said above, adding: civil and proper communication is important on Wikipedia as this is how we form consensus including for content disputes. Accusing other editors of bad motives and of bigotry because they do not agree with a proposed edit (which is usually on policy and reliable sources grounds), is not constructive. —PaleoNeonate – 16:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Alephb (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Tendentious behaviour of Nfitz

    TOPIC BAN ENACTED
    This has gone on long enough. I see no consensus for a block. I do, however, see consensus for a topic ban. Accordingly, Nfitz is banned indefinitely from editing the Wikipedia namespace, although I'll allow an exception for reporting vandalism (and that had better be brief, concise AIV reports). They can appeal here in six months.
    I also encourage Nfitz to take the advice given by many editors to heart. There is a time to talk, and a time to stop talking. Katietalk 00:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Nfitz (talk · contribs) has been engaged in a series of tendentiously clueless and/or mischievous discussions on a variety of subjects, one aspect of which led to this thread at User talk:Bishonen. They then transposed an edited version of that thread to their own user page in what might be a breach of WP:POLEMIC. Certainly, providing that edited version without any means for the reader to see the full context via a diff etc is disingenuous, especially given that they re-opened a closed thread etc. Aside from just ignoring them, which doesn't seem to work because they just spread the same type of commentary to other pages, what can be done to minimise the time-sink effect?

    I'm limiting my WP activity due to some meds playing with my head but will try to provide more diffs later. I'm pretty sure other people, such as Johnuniq, can add to this. - Sitush (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • The "edited" version was simply, as I clearly stated, the part of the conversation with the admin, without the unnecessary, unhelpful, and unwanted contributions from the peanut gallery. I'm not sure why anyone needs to looking at my seldom-edited user page to even notice such an edit. Anyone can go look at the full conversation; I fully admitted that it was edited; I stated clearly what was cut out. And I left every time-stamp intact, that someone can very quickly click on my contributions, and see the full discussion; not that I ever expect anyone to see something that I have put on my own user page, so I can remember it 6 months or a year from now. I fail to see why this is coming to ANI ... again ... without any attempt to communicate with me first. Sitush was only extremely peripherally involved with the entire discussion (which was never about what Sitush once said ... I can't even remember who said it without his reminder, but simply my failure to understand why that community consensus is that WP:CIVIL, WP:ETIQUETTE, and other key parts of WP:5P4 are no longer considered very important. If Sitush had simply posted on my talk page - from which not only are they quite welcome (I've previously noted I'd quite interested to hear their thoughts on caste versus race, an area which they have much knowledge, and I have little), I'd have simply added a link - which I will do now. Please stop dragging people to ANI and try and communicate with them first; this appears to have become a habit of yours. Nfitz (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nfitz's extended commentaries are indistinguishable from trolling. A quick scan of User talk:Nfitz#July 2017 and the immediately following User talk:Nfitz#August 2017 shows a gnawing compulsion to continue digging without any expectation of a benefit to the encyclopedia. People are allowed to disagree and there is no requirement that someone explain issues over and over and over. At this ANI archive, Sitush complained about a personal attack from someone unrelated to this discussion. At an AfD, that person clearly implied that Sitush's comments were motivated by antisemitism. The accusation was blatant although more subtle than a direct attack. The issue of the accusation is not relevant here, but its background is important because Sitush responded with one expletive to the accusation, and a lot of subsequent navel-gazing concerned whether implying someone is an antisemite is a worse CIVIL violation than using a bad word. Nfitz's first comment was diff at ANI with a cheery edit summary that started "perhaps for once, someone got the better of you!". That is, the person who accused Sitush of antisemitism had got the better of Sitush and had won the argument with their brilliant accusation of antisemitism. For some reason, Nfitz pursued the discussion at User talk:Johnuniq#ANI sit and then at User talk:Bishonen#Proofing and the F word. After ten days of back-and-forth, Bishonen closed the section, but Nfitz continued with diff. That last comment is a classic although childish debating tactic to say that Bishonen is failing to engage with Nfitz's good-faith desire to understand why everyone else is wrong. Nfitz then recorded the discussion at permalink where they essentially complain that Bishonen is at fault ("Attempt to engage in dialogue with neutral admin"). Can anyone point to positive contributions from Nfitz? At some point, their inability to drop the stick has to be confronted and it is unclear whether their presence at Wikipedia is useful. Johnuniq (talk) 05:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coming to an Admin's page, who was generally uninvolved in the discussion, out of respect, and politely asking some simple questions to gain better understand, and avoid pitfalls, is not only not trolling, but it is the recommended procedure first step here to deal with differences of opinion. Bishonen DIDN'T close the section, a third-party did; and I never reopened it (other than fix a typo). The "last comment" was simply an apology for having intruded - anything else you detect was perhaps bafflement on why what to me looks like a simple polite exchange, has created any animosity with me (rather than the peanut gallery). Everything else you say here is some bizarre attempt to connect the dots, and make 2+2 = 5. No, I never thought that other editor was was suggesting that Sitush was antisemitic, nor was accusing Sitush of being antisemitic - perhaps I'm once again guilty of AGF, seeing the glass as half-full, and always assuming the best of people. But a simple disagreement on an obscure comment weeks ago, is not reason to continue this. What have I done? Well, most recently, I've been working on the very page that started the whole thing, quietly adding the sources that were never there to demonstrate that this was not just a small town newspaper, but showing extensive state-wide coverage over a significant period of time. No one else seemed to give that article any love once the AFD drama was over (I'm not done yet, I was going to try and research from a non-Louisiana perspective still). I continue my never-ending task to properly research User:Nfitz/nauru national soccer team to determine if it is notable or not (I've been waiting weeks for library access, which I just received notification of yesterday), I've looking at Wikidata and how we might be able to use that data to create references using templates like "Cite Q" [20], and continue, as I have for over a decade, to work on certain local topics, et même éditer un peu dans l'autre langue. My time is very limited, I'm never going to spend hours every day working on the project. I can easily spend days or weeks without even appearing. Nfitz (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Johnuniq's summation above reflects my experiences with Nfitz on this noticeboard: seemingly automatic contrarianism, an apparent inability or unwillingness to comprehend the arguments of others, repetition of the same points ad nauseum (only going deeper and deeper into a hole), and a complete inability to drop the stick.
      I have not looked into Nfitz's substantive editing, but it would have to be pretty darn good to balance out their commentary and produce a net positive. What, I wonder, is Nfitz's purpose in being here, and -- assuming they have positive content edits -- would a topic ban from Wikipedia space (which takes up over a third of their edits) [21] encourage them to participate more in actually improving the encyclopedia instead of treating the project like a glorified debating society? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really have little interest in responding to someone whose modus operandi is to get under someone's skin, and as the other person comes to your talk page, and points out your error, to "ban them" from ever appearing on your talk page, or pinging them. I've never seen anyone work so hard to only surround themselves by yes men. You've "banned" more people than I expect you can track of - so many you had to write a template to make it quicker to do so. BTW, yes a lot of my edits are in WP space - I've been contributing significantly to AFD, particularly in the Football area, for years. Nfitz (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I imagine it's no coincidence that their single most edited page on the project is... this one. — fortunavelut luna 07:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, Fortuna|, that didn't work, you apparently need to put it differently — I don't think you meant X's tools is Nfitz's most edited page. Bishonen | talk 09:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    D'oh! -yes, of course. — fortunavelut luna 09:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    How does this work. All I get is wt::getUserInfo is not a valid wiki. Nfitz (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And the reason is, is that the link above is broken. Above it says https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Nfitz&project=enwik&_sm_au_=isVm7ls60l6gtHVV when it should say https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Nfitz&project=enwiki&_sm_au_=isVm7ls60l6gtHVV - thanks everyone! Nfitz (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet you've edits here than I do. You mean, you are going to violate WP:AGF and make an unfounded speculation. Unlike some, I don't adopt an article, and guard it from any changes with my life. And I respond to most queries on my talk page, on the other persons talk page. So it's no real surprise that a page like this has got the most edits. Even though I can go years without commenting here at all. Nfitz (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm simply going to take the advice others have given me, and withdraw further from this conversation - and try not even to read it; though I'll return if an admin feels it necessary for me to do so, and summons me on my talk page. Or if I fail to ignore and there's a particularly egregious mistruth or exaggeration. Personally, if you'd all simply do what I do, and AGF about what a person does, and their actions, we wouldn't be here. Nfitz (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The tale of Ken
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    @Nfitz: Who's <redacted>? — fortunavelut luna 08:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just one of Ken's various sock-puppets, from before they turned over a new leaf. Presumably named from the famous and obvious <redacted> ... I hope at least ... been a while. But really, I just asked not to be brought back here; couldn't you ask this on my talk page? No ... don't answer. Nfitz (talk) 10:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ken doesn't have "various sock puppets", Ken's had three accounts, none of which edited at the same time. Ken didn't realize at the time (poor, stupid, naive Ken) that Ken should have linked Ken's new account to Ken's old one, but Ken was attempting to get away from harassment at a time when en.Wiki was a lot less sensitive to that problem then it is now (when the pendulum has swung too far the other way). Ken didn't attempt to hide who Ken was by changing Ken's editing style or the subjects Ken edited, so, of course, when one of the harassers filed an SPI, Ken was speared like a fish in a barrel. (Ironically, the editor who filed the SPI was part of a very large sockfarm that had taken umbrage because Ken was attempting to get something done about them. They later continued their harassment of Ken off-Wiki.) Ken brought the matter of Ken's block to AN/I, where the community discussed it, and decided that Ken hadn't really done anything so very wrong, and allowed Ken to continue editing, and a thankful Ken has continued to do so ever since. Ken's opponents often bring this up as if it were the Jesus bolt that was going to bring Ken tumbling down, but Ken actually laid the whole thing out in User:Beyond My Ken/My backstory, and Ken's still around. Ken (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • OMG this makes me so tired. I'll make this comment and no more. After Nfitz has been recently allowed back from an indefinite block, you'd think we wouldn't get all this nagging and poking and these potshots from them. I agree with Sitush that the way Nfitz has posted a steeply abbreviated thread from my talkpage on their own userpage doesn't suggest they're here for any good. Notice (now that Sitush has supplied a link) especially that the original thread contained eight posts by Nfitz, which the shortened version on his userpage has reduced to three. That reduction makes my tired final comment, "Nfitz, I really want you to go away and leave me alone", look unexpected and impatient. A minor point is that that comment of mine riffed on this one by MjolnirPants — Nfitz unmoored it by removing User:MjolnirPants as representing "the peanut gallery". AFAICS, what Mjolnir had posted was a kind-hearted attempt to answer the question Nfitz has asked so many times, and which I too had tried to answer without getting through. I thought Mjolnir's was the best attempt so far, and that perhaps light would dawn on Nfitz after reading it. Apparently not. I try to avoid referring to WP:CIR issues wrt individuals, but if the way Nfitz carries on lately isn't a CIR issue, I have to call it trolling. Bishonen | talk 08:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    • You are tired. I not four minutes ago, asked to be left out of the discussion, and you couldn't wait four minutes to ping me back? This has absolutely nothing to do with the block, which not only didn't involve ANY of the people involved here, had NOTHING to do with WP:CIVIL and was entirely about my misinterpreting something in WP:BLP which I admitted fully, apologized profusely, and haven't repeated - absolutely shame on you for approaching this with that prejudice! I have linked the full discussion on my page, as I said I would do above. You completely ignore my comments above, where I noted that I clearly stated that I had edited them, and what I had left out. My questions to you were simple, and in good faith, based on your admin comments earlier. You then chose to ignore this simple question for over 6 days. When I tried to get a bit more clarification (because I still honestly don't understand why you and the rest of the community thinks it's alright to call people fuckwits) you tossed WP:ADMINACCT out the window. Instead of calling you on that abdication of responsibility, I very politely apologized, and moved on. And for that, the now disappointed peanut gallery, who also thinks it okay to call people fuckwits, drags me and you here, to have a rematch. There were not eight comments to you. There were three; anything else was responding to unnecessary comments from the peanut gallery - which for some bizarre reason you have no problems with, despite them only trying to stir up shit. The first, which was very respectful and polite. A polite reminder 6 days later, as you had not replied at all. And then after your reply I politely responded. And again you fail to reply - and I have actually given up on you ever replying and left - when 5 days later, you suddenly pop back with a bizzare response that you don't want to discuss it. So I simply apologized and moved on. Not being able to leave the issue alone, you suddenly discover timeliness and within 3 hours you blank my apology, pretend I've posted inside a closed thread, ban me from your talk page, and are rude. And now you've the gall to come here, ping me not 4 minutes after I asked to be left out of it, and make out like I'm trolling or have a CIR issue, despite YOUR inability to understand WP:CIVIL, WP:ETIQUETTE, and WP:ADMINACCT. Sorry, I'm no longer being polite ... but you can't both try and avoid the discussion, and then run here as fast as you can to join the peanut gallery in sticking an extra knife in the back. Okay, really done now. You asked to be left alone. Then kindly leave me alone, and not ignore what I wrote only 4 minutes before you pinged me. I'm no longer interested in your unending quest to be rude when only approached with kindness, politeness, and civility. Nfitz (talk) 10:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Propose block of Nfitz per the nominator's original complaint, which has been nothing if not copperfastened by continuing WP:STICK, WP:IDHT and a healthy dose of WP:BATTLEGROUND. Not only have they just re-WP:OUTed BeyondMyKen (or at least deliberately pushed the envelope on whether they could do so), but, having claimed they are withdrawing from the thread, they return with a wall of text accusing Bishonen of all sorts of calumnies. Someone mentioned trolling above- this behaviour has, I agree gone from tendentious to trolling. — fortunavelut luna 10:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I withdrew until an Admin pinged me. There's no battleground, the debate was over, and Sitush continues to stick straws in the ant-nest. I'll happily never mention again. Perhaps you can tell me why it's okay to call another editor a fuckwit, simply because you disagree with them? And again I've reappeared, because of the "outing Ken" comment. How can I re-out Ken. I've no idea they was outed, let alone in. They identify their previous accounts and that they was blocked for sock puppetting on their own user page User:Beyond My Ken/My backstory. The public sockpuppet investigation is listed at <redacted per WP:OUTING>. And the name in the <redacted> song I mentioned above is listed in there as one of their socks. I'm not sure how idly mentioning his sock puppetry that he documents himself, and we publicly document to the world, is outing him. And since when was being a former sockpuppet a secret? Nfitz (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block Who cares if it is good-faith questioning or trolling? The effect is that other editors are drowned in Nfitz's snide commentary that is totally unrelated to improving the encyclopedia. Saving a false account of a discussion (see "edited version" in the OP) is bad enough, but smearing Bishonen with fake mentions of WP:ADMINACCT is unacceptable—the link states the obvious, namely that admins are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, yet Bishonen is absent from Nfitz's block log and has posted a single message at Nfitz's talk. I don't know the OUTING background but clearly Nfitz's references to BMK above are an attack. Johnuniq (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hang on. WP:ADMINACCT is not just about tools. That's the first sentence of the first paragraph. Keep reading, onto the next line where it says Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. I don't think 6 days to reply to a simple, polite, civil, question is prompt, when the editor has been very active. And even then, I didn't raise it, until they came here, and started twisting the truth. And hang on, people unnecessarily discussing my background and calling people fuckwits isn't a personal attack, but very subtle mention that no one else would probably even get of someone else's past is an attack? Seems to be, if you don't agree with someone, and want to get rid of them, anything they say is an attack, and you can call them a fuckwit as much as you want, but it's never an attack. The hypocrisy here is stunning. Nfitz (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • My diff was caught in an edit conflict. I previously diffed several comments the last time Sitush dragged me to ANI. On that note though, I won't diff the vulgarity in question. Sorry to hear Sitush ... I've been there. Heck, with the insomnia I have currently, meds are still playing with me - but a bit differently. On that note, a couple of quick real edits, I've been meaning to do for a while, and off to bed. Nfitz (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • And after that act of kindness, they double down. @GoldenRing: Here's a recent diff. I previously diffed several similar the last time they dragged me to ANI. I focused on the fuck off because I felt it was worse (and was more recent). But similar comments aren't unusual such as this. But as I've stated before Sitush is a good editor ... however they have a battleground attitude that crosses over to the point that they can't accept even minor criticism. Nfitz (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support So, despite even this thread being in part about posting in a closed talk page thread, Nfitz not only posted unnecessarily to my talk page but attempted to continue that via edit summary after I reverted them & asked them to go away. And their edit summary here bears no relation to the post and appears to be some sort of snide commentary in itself. This sort of behaviour has been going on for some time now, not merely in relation to the anti-semitism issue. - Sitush (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how asking you to simply discuss something with me first, rather than going to ANI is unnecessary. Also you DIDN'T ask me to go away. The second edit was simply fixing the Reflist you damaged when you reverted me; it was only after that you asked me to go away. And I did. What's wrong with the edit summary? My position is that that people need to be WP:CIVIL and you call that tendentious? In what way is asking people to be civil, being tendentious? How did being civil, somehow become controversial? Nfitz (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I apologize then that I don't think it's okay to call people fuckwits or fuck offs or whatever you want to call people using the word fuck. Really going this time. Nfitz (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, good grief, I simply put it there, to read and understand the discussion between myself and Bishonen, without the peanut gallery comments, because otherwise, even I was having a hard time following it. It was never for public eyes, I kept it off my talk page (well I tried) just so no one would make a fuss, and I've now removed it. I didn't change a word of text, nor a date stamp of the comments between us. That's not the epitome of anything other than someone trying to understand what the heck happened. I have no idea why anyone ever even came across it - that page has gone many years with nary an edit. Tendentious behaviour would require me to put it somewhere prominent, not try and hide it away somewhere. Tendentious behaviour wouldn't also have waited weeks to get 2 responses, and would have pointed out the clear WP:ADMINACCT fail, rather than simply turning a blind eye for it, and graciously apologizing. What does a block accomplish here? Whatever issue there is, has been dealt with. I've never been accused of such a thing in the dozen or so years I've been here, despite having more than one disagreement during that time, so I'm hardly a danger to re-offend on this issue anytime soon. Though I still don't understand Bishonen's position that it's perfectly fine to call people names, like fuck off or fuckwit. Perhaps if someone would explain that to me, clearly and simply (pretend I'm a fuckwit), this would all go away. Nfitz (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    *The above response, particularly Perhaps if someone would explain that to me, clearly and simply (pretend I'm a fuckwit), this would all go away clearly illustrates that this editor is unable to let things drop and walk away. Strongly support a block. --regentspark (comment) 20:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose block. I see unfortunately heated exchanges, and I don't see any one individual as being the 100% baddie here. There have been some unfortunate overreactions (to some unacceptable insults, certainly), but I'd stop short of labeling anything as deliberate trolling. I don't see how any blocks now would be preventative, and I recommend chilling, cooling and generally relaxing all round - if everyone can just put this behind them and move on, wouldn't that be lovely? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, and just a suggestion for anyone who really wants to help defuse all this - take the high ground and be the first person to stop talking about it? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose block. At least for now. I agree with Boing! said Zebedee, I don't see anyone being particularly at fault here. A block here would unlikely be helpful and blows this out of proportion unnecessarily. May I have some time to ask Nfitz on his talk page to drop the discussions that are being perceived as tendentious? If that fails, then perhaps an editing restriction can be implemented. Alex ShihTalk 14:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose  WP:Civility is a "widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow".  Unscintillating (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Let cooler heads prevail. Nfitz is already on thin ice with the recent indef block and they know it. They are trying to withdraw from the conversation at this point. However, if something borderline tendentious happens again this should be considered - good faith can't be assumed every time. Garchy (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • They haven't withdrawn from it in three weeks, despite numerous explanations and requests to do so. And they were still in the same vein here and elsewhere only a few hours ago. Why will it be any different this time? A block until they demonstrate an understanding seems entirely preventative to me. - Sitush (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You could be completely correct - but I view a block here as punitive, not preventative. Not blocking in this particular incident would not prevent a block in the future, if an issue arises again. Based on their behavior once this came to ANI I don't see a block being preventative. Garchy (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, over 2 weeks - I can't even count now. - Sitush (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Not Colosseum is a really good link. BMK brought up that this page is Niftz's most edited page. I think that an editor who's more concerned with the drama than with the encyclopedia is one who might benefit from the topic ban I mentioned. Also, it's generally considered inappropriate to close a thread which is soliciting community input after less than 14 hours. I understand the desire to shut down drama machines, but sometimes letting a smaller drama machine run will save us from dealing with a larger one in the future. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was about tendentious behaviour, of which the posting on their user page was just one example. Even in removing it, their edit summary shows no understanding of why. As in past instances, including the BLP issue others have referred to, they have some sort of misunderstanding of AGF as a panacea. It isn't (eg: WP:PACT), and it definitely isn't when it is applied only to suit one's own position. Anyway, that's me done here - due for another doping. - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This appears to be "OUT Beyond My Ken" week, since an editor who attempted to out me juts a few days ago wound up being blocked. Interestingly, he posted pretty much the same information that Nfitz did here, but, of course, that doesn't make Nfitz's WP:OUTING any more acceptable. I have warned Nfitz on his talk page that they violated that policy, and that a repeat on his part will be brought to admin attention. In the meantime, I have redacted the information, and asked it to be oversighted, as it was in the previous instance.
      Nfitz make some interesting remarks about me. First he comments about my modus operandi which, as is often the case with Nfitz, he gets totally wrong. My modus operandi is to improve the encyclopedia in any way possible, which is why 73.05% of my edits are to Mainspace, [22] whereas only 34.2% of Nfitz's edits are to Mainspace [23]. If I get into a disagreement with another editor, it gets taken to the article talk page to straighten out. If the other editor insists on taking it to my user talk page, and won't cease when I ask them to, then, yes, absolutely, I throw them off my page ignominiously, on their backside, just as I would throw out of my house someone barking at me in my living room with a bullhorn. As I remarked to one editor, I have to engage with them on the article talk page, and I'm happy to do so, but there is no obligation that I keep my user talk page open to bores, cranks, idiots and assholes. I might even tell one to "Fuck off" if the circumstances were appropriate.
      So, it would certainly be understandable if, given his attacks on me, if I were to !vote for an indef block for Nfitz, but I'm not going to do that. I'm am going to support the option I mentioned above, before he decided to violate policy and outed me. Beyond My Ken (talk)
    My apologies Ken. I never saw the other discussion. If I had, I would never have been stupid enough to mention the same in the middle of a discussion to block me. I didn't mention anything Ken has already mentioned himself elsewhere, and I thought was common knowledge for obvious reasons that I can't discuss. I'm strongly in favour and support the outing policy, and will never mention it again, and work to make sure others don't as well - no matter which way Ken votes. Nfitz (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (see below)Support indef topic ban from Wikipedia space - However, some kind of sanction against Nfitz is required, given his egregious record of behavior, so if the consensus is for a block, that would be my second choice, and this should be taken as support for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Due to some new information which has come to my attention via e-mail, which I am unfortunately not at liberty to share, I am now convinced that Nfitz is here on Wikipedia for all the wrong reasons, and that he really has a negligible interest in improving the encyclopedia. Instead, what we see of his behavior at the noticeboards is actually his primary purpose here, as he puts much more energy into doing opposition research than he does to doing anything remotely productive. Give this, I now Support indef block, but if there is no consensus for that, then I endorse the alternative of an indef topic ban from Wikipedia space. This is essentially the reverse of my previous !vote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ken is referring to some diffs I sent him, in a show of good faith, because I was concerned that he was unaware of unrevdeled information, that I thought he'd want to have revdeled. The time involved to "research" this was minimal. Mostly simply clicking on some links six months ago after this guy I'd never heard lands on my talk page unbidden and insults me, because I was nice to someone at ANI. I actually don't have an enemy or opposition list. I—just as every editor should—approach each edit from a neutral view. Ken does a lot of fine work here, and I have no reason to have any prejudice against him - well at least not months later. Later on - months later, I quite inadvertently tripped over something else I figured he didn't know about. I actually spend a fair bit of time simply reading Wikipedia (the mainspace, not the wikispace), when I tripped over something else; yes when I found it, I looked around for about 5 minutes to see what else was visible. And after this thread started, and being accused of revealing stuff that I didn't know was a secret I did go back and checked what I knew - and ran a slight intrusive search and noticed something in WP space that should be revdeled. Honestly, writing the email last night documenting all this with diffs and links took far longer than the 5 minutes here or there. I hate being here, as a defendant; and I stopped being here here much as uninvolved a while ago, as requested; my first ever attempt in 12-years in private to transparently put together a possible block of text for future dispute resolution is what landed me here - if you've not noticed, I'm actually not particularly good or practised at this kind of battleground type stuff - and unfortunately tend to solve a problem by reading the policy and guidance, and following it - only to discover that only gets your in further trouble. I love doing research - which you can probably tell from some of my mainspace edits. Yes, the hour last night could have been better spent (sleeping actually), but I felt I owed it to you that you knew what I'd seen; almost all of it was before I even knew there was something in all that was even outable. Ken, when you calm down, can you reread what I wrote, pretending that I'm simply a friendly person you vaguely no, who you trust? I think it might look different from another light. If what I sent you had any nefarious purposes, I simply wouldn't heave sent it to you - I'm just not operating on that, or any level; I figured I knew something that you didn't seem to, and would want to know, so I feel morally and ethically obliged to share it with you - even if you seem to hate me. Nfitz (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y'know, when one finds someone going through the contents of one's garbage can, one is generally not inclined to take seriously their claim that they were only doing it so they could look at all your bills in order to help you save money. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly where you live you don't have to keep your garbage cans on city property! :) Seriously though, I wasn't looking in a garbage can. Weeks ago I was reading about an old movie actor, for simple enjoyment, and I just tripped over it. The only aspect of that email that may have been looking in a garbage can didn't occur until after this thread started, as I'd got the impression there was more in wiki that could be revdeled. Nfitz (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support either indef topic ban from Wikipedia space, or indef block, or both. This is a serious case of CIR, and needs to be stopped. If Nfitz backs off and assures the community that his disruptiveness is over, I'd settle for the topic ban. But if he doesn't, I think an indef block is in order, with standard offer. Softlavender (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef topic ban from Wikipedia space - I have seen Nfitz argue at too many ANI threads that had absolutely nothing to do with him. Obviously, I encourage uninvolved editors to participate at ANI but I would expect they have the competency to create meaningful and sound comments. In no way has Nfitz given me any confidence that he can do that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose  I think there is an element here of an attempt to set up Nfitz by editors who support incivility enabling.  Incivility enabling is not policy based and should not be supported.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Incivility enabling" - nice buzzphrase. (Buzzphrases are always nice because they eliminate the need for actually thinking.) But, still, I'm afraid you're wide of the mark. What's at stake here has nothing to do with "incivility enabling" (and why one editor would want to enable another editor to be uncivil is beyond me; perhaps they're both part of the Worldwide Incivility Conspiracy?), it has to do with tendentious contrarianism, disruptive argumentation, serial I-didn't-hear-that-ism, and behavior virtually indistinguishable from trolling. Those behaviors have been shown by Nfitz on a wide variety of subjects, not just the current "Fuck off" instance; it's simply the most recent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Worldwide Incivility Conspiracy<runs off to start writing WP:WWIC while giggling like an maniac.> ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef TBan from Wikipedia space – Editor appears to be interested in contributing. But, the walls of text and wikilawyering are an ongoing, unnecessary time-drain. I don’t think it’s quite CIR. More like a basic lack of understanding that every argument or criticism they have has already been discussed ad nauseam. There is a time and place for such. But, we can’t argue any possible process imperfections in every simple discussion. We have to get along, compromise, drop sticks, and not always get the last word. I’m a big believer in civility. But, sometimes an annoyance needs a few harsh words. Above that, the editor has been given a lot of rope. A block may be warranted. But, I’m glad I wouldn’t have to deal with the appeals. Objective3000 (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBan from Wikipedia space – Have had quite a few interactions with this editor at AfD and have been following this thread and the previous block / unblock action. To be involved in something like his previous block and to continue posting the screeds of text and links attempting to discuss the most minor of points almost immediately says to me (on top of my opinion of him from AfD) that, whilst this is an editor who does make positive contributions in the Mainspace, this is also an editor for whom the purpose of enWiki is to engage others in debate around protocol and behavior as much as it is to build an encyclopedia. I'm not really seeing positive contributions outside of the mainspace but what I am seeing is a lot of time being taken up trying to deal with his comments. Unless Nfitz can show clear instances of significant input in the Wikipedia space that have driven positive outcomes for the community as a whole, I think he should be restricted to mainspace editing. Fenix down (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef TBan - based on the responses, I have zero confidence the behavior will change. Atsme📞📧 18:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Is there any record of the almost a third of this user's edits in the Wikipedia space being productive? --John (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you looking at; I've never really looked at these tools? I asked above about the broken link that was giving stats, and no one replied. All I see here are 0s, blocks of blanks space, An unpopulated graph, and my last 30 days of edits on various projects (which seems incomplete, I was in thwiki earlier today ... also I don't think I've edited Wikinews in years, let alone the last 30 days). Nfitz (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a shame, it's a really useful analysis tool. Try reloading it. Meantime I glean from it that only 34.3% of your edits have been to articles, 31.2% to Wikipedia space, and 19.8% to user talk. So you make five discussion edits for every three article improvement edits. I look for a better ratio than that. Your most edited page ever? This one, with 252 of your 9,523 edits here. That's a lot. Do you have an explanation? --John (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see. I have to click on the enwiki ... and then comparing to the link above that I've been asking for help using for two days, with no response ... it's because it was broken all along.
    All the Wikipedia space? 31.2%. Is that WP: ... if that includes AFD and WP:FOOTY .. then it would be mostly that - well other than this year, but if you take out March and the last 4 weeks. As I've mentioned, I enjoy research. So there's lots of research of AFD submissions, particularly in the Footy area, and trying to find and document notability, and then improve articles.
    Yes, that is an interesting tool. And a little scary - kind of feel like the first day I got an Android, and I wandered into Ikea, and it started messaging me about where the best deals were in store ... :) Nfitz (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Bludgeoning? I've barely made a substantial comment in 2 days, since just after the voting started (other than Ken's outing charges above the voting), and tried to avoid bludgeoning it. Elsewhere, I seem to be in trouble for my responses - which I've not actually made yet to this proposal. Yes, of course I'd follow a topic ban - I've never been one to simply ignore such direction. I don't think it's the right approach though - because I will appeal it as being far to much a blunt instrument than what I think may be needed here. And personally, I don't want to spend the time being involved in that kind of process. I'll put together some points - though at risk of being accused of bludgeoning. Nfitz (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I sincerely hope you are kidding. I suppose you aren't so I support indef block as WP:CIR. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    How am I kidding? Look at my WP edit history. The indef proposal was made on Monday at 10:31 AM UTC. My last edit that could be a bludgeon until you commented above about 60 hours later (22:25 PM UTC on Wednesday) was about 3 hours after the proposal at 13:52 PM UTC on Monday, (other than my apology to Ken and reply to his response), a simple question about a broken link (that no one fixed for over 2 days), and a question about how a similar link worked, and minor edits. And between 10:18 AM UTC on Tuesday and 18:06 PM UTC today, there was not an edit, other than some typo fixes. Diff me an edit that shows I could be kidding? @@Nihlus Kryi: Some of the stuff spread here is a nice fiction, but when you dig down in detail, you find that the foundations are very poor. Nfitz (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef TBan from Wikipedia space per Fenix down, who puts it well. I also urge Nfitz to leave Sitush and BMK alone. Nfitz insists that his commentary on these users is well meant, and that may well be, but unfortunately he doesn't seem to have any sense for how unwelcome his approaches to them are. Nfitz, I advised you in quite strong terms as early as March to leave BMK alone, after you had posted various offensive stuff on his page and your own: "Leave BMK alone. I don't only mean don't post on his page, I also mean don't troll him on yours or elsewhere." My post is still on your page. You'd have done yourself a favour if you had listened to me then; please do so now. I hope I don't have to propose formally banning you from talking about BMK and Sitush, and/or from posting on their talkpages, as per WP:IBAN, but if it becomes necessary, I will. Bishonen | talk 22:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    I don't think I've mentioned BMK since your request in March, until he took a run at me the other day, out of nowhere; do you have a diff showing otherwise? (honest question ... I don't pretend to remember everything). He's got to leave me alone too; he is banned from my talk page, BTW, and yet there he is. Nfitz (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I did post on your page, to inform you that you had violated WP:OUTING, and that if you did it again I would take it to an admin fo consideration of sanctions. Such a notification takes precedence over what is, after all, an informal user ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you are 100% correct. Sorry, that was an unfair comment by me above; I'm feeling a bit miffed that I feel that I tried to do you a favour, losing an hour of sleep last night to document stuff to you, and that is feels like you not only threw it in my face, but that you then use my dirty face as evidence against me. I'm retracting the talk page ban then from last Spring (though now do you find a way to use my retraction and apology against me?). Nfitz (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And by "took a run at me out of nowhere", I assume you're talking about the fact that I commented on this thread, which is about your behavior, and which I did not initiate? Were you somehow under the impression that by banning me from posting on your talk page you were banning me from commenting on your disruptive behavior when other editors bring it up for community discussion? Did you believe that by inappropriately and inaccurately referring to personal and private information about me in response to that was in some way a positive contribution to that discussion? Is it your contention that by e-mailing me the results of your opposition research – which I can only assume you planned to use against me – you were in some fashion endearing yourself to me, rather than demonstrating the extent of the ammunition you had gathered? Are you fucking kidding me? I am decidedly closer to death than I am to the beginning of my life, and I sure as hell wasn't born yesterday. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I was referring to you joining the peanut gallery at Bishonen's talk page earlier ... which I can't diff, because it never happened - in fact you haven't been there since 3 months. I said I wasn't very good at this enemy thing right? I think I got you and Sitush mixed up a bit (your styles are similar) ... as he seemed to vanish and then you appeared. Either way - that's a 100% error on my part. And I do apologize. Again ... which is nothing but true ... though I'm sure you won't believe it. Nfitz (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you have every right to post here. I just wish you'd stop assuming I have any motives in that email other than being helpful. Nfitz (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't think it was part of this discussion. I was simply showing you stuff at Wikipedia that I thought you may not know about so it can revdeled. If you did know about all of it, I don't know why outing even applies - given you in your own words, say the exact thing I'm now in trouble for, for merely alluding to. Nfitz (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to Nfitz – At this point, you are doing yourself no favors by editing here. I suggest you accept the TBan, with a right to appeal in six months, and ask for a close. You can still show that you are a valuable editor in mainspace. If you continue to defend yourself, you may well be blocked. Folks here have better things to do and patience has limits. Objective3000 (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Scor140399

    Scor140399 (talk · contribs) continues to inappropriately add non-free content to articles despite being advised multiple times not to do so. The non-free uses of File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg and File:Football Federation Islamic Republic of Iran.png were previously discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 18#File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 17#File:Football Federation Islamic Republic of Iran.png, and the files were subsequently removed the file from Brazil national football team and Iran national football team respectively with this edit by administrator by Explicit and this edit by adminstrator Graeme Bartlett as a result.

    Scor140399 first added the logo to the Brazillian team article here despite there being a hidden comment advising that the image had been removed per the aforementioned FFD discussion. The image was removed again with this edit explaining why. Further explanation was added to User talk:Scor140399 here and here. Scort140399 subsequentally re-added the image again here and once again here even after being advised for a third time not to do so on their user talk with this post. Similar re-adding of non-free content to the Iranian team article here and here despite edit sums explaining why the file was removed.

    I realize that Scort140399 has only been editing for little over a week (at least the account has only be editing for about that long) so it not totally unexpected that they would not be familiar with WP:NFCCP and the aforementioned FFD discussions. They have, however, been advised of these things and yet still continue to re-add the files. While it's true that even a FFD consensus can change, there is a proper way to go about doing so and Scort140399 has been advised (at least with respect to the Brazillian team logo) to discuss things with the closing admin and see what needs to be done. A short block might seem a bit harsh in a case like this and mistakes are to be expected (especially from new editors), so perhaps one final warning from an administrator might help the situation and avoid anyone getting blocked. At some point, however, repeating the same mistake(s) over and over again starts to move into WP:IDHT territory and may require something stronger than a warning. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Marchjuly: I have issued a final warning. Based on user contributions, this is probably a simple case of WP:CIR, where a block may be the only way to get their attention. Hopefully it won't escalate to that point. Alex ShihTalk 12:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Alex Shih. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Concerned about a question and responses from an editor on the RD

    Wrecklessly closed, per request. -- Begoon 09:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I would like to ask for User:Plasmic Physics either be blocked or topic banned from the WP:RD. They are trying to emotionally blackmail people into answering questions on the RD to help them with their plans to carry out experiments which could be risky, apparently without competent supervision. I removed the nonsense once and gave them an only warning that that crap wasn't welcome on the RD, but they reverted. I've removed again but in the absence of an assurance from Plasmic Physics that they will never try to such nonsense on the RD again, I think they either needed to be blocked or topic banned from the RD. You can see the question and responses here [24], my second removal. My first removal was [25] and it was added back here [26]. To be clear I don't know enough of the chemistry to say, how risky these plans are and most likely wouldn't comment on the issue even if I did, but another editor has expressed concerns and one of their responses was what brought this here:

    If other users are abstaining from giving advice because of safety concerns, then they are actually doing me a disfavour, as come 2018, I will go ahead with this experiment, with or without their advice. If the safety issues are as severve as you suggest then, I think we can both agree that I would be better off prepared than not.

    Nil Einne (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, I did briefly consider notifying WP:Emergency even though it wasn't urgent but although I know it's normally better to notify than to not, I decided this was definitely not the sort of thing that would get any action. Likewise although I live in NZ and I believe the editor does as well, I'm not sure there's any real authority I can contact who will be interested. (That said, if anyone does feel there's someone to contact, feel free to let me know.) Ultimately if the editor wants to carry out potentially risky experiments without competent supervision or knowledge we can't stop them. But people on the RD should be free to choose not to answer questions because they fear the consequences if their advice is wrong, misunderstood or misapplies, and therefore should not be told their refusal to answer is wrong because someone plans to be reckless regardless. Nil Einne (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's OK Nil, he's in New Zealand. He'd have to go full China Syndrome before it affects the rest of us. -Roxy the dog. bark 12:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh and my warning is here [27] Nil Einne (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Not that I think that it is needed, but in my defense - my final post under the question before it was finally removed was as follows: "Let me make it absolutely clear to any interested party - the pripmary aim of this query does not include obtaining health & safety information, but does not exclude its provision." Everyone can also see that at no one point did I make demands. Plasmic Physics (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Irrespective of whether you are asking for health and safety advice, no editor should be seen as "doing [you] a disfavour" if they choose not to give you advice. If anything, I would go as far as saying that no editor should answer any question where another editor might potentially be putting themselves at risk, even if that editor were qualified to do so. Blackmane (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Public opinion on an abstainence is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that I see it as a disfavour, since I will be put at a disadvantage, which is included in the definition of 'disfavour'. Level of risk is both relative and subjective, not absolute. Just about every action in life has a level of risk involved, from stirring a hot cup of tea to crossing a busy street. It should be every user's prerogative to decide for themselves, whether abstaining or engaging carries more risk to the poster of any particular querry. I was hoping that other users would consider my potential disadvantange when making that decision for this querry. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nil Einne is correct in stating that you are emotionally blackmailing editors to help you. Whether you see it as a disfavour or anything should not be relevant to anyone, nor should it be a point to be used to coerce editors to offer advice. I daresay legal ramifications could arise should an editor suggest something which you then go and do, and blow yourself up. Every action in life has a level of risk involved is a total red herring and has nothing to do with what is being discussed here. That sort of risk is risk that an individual takes upon themselves. To take your example, what you're saying is basically "I want to cross this road and would like your advice on how to do it. If you don't give me that advice, I'm going to cross anyway but if I get hurt crossing this road, you should feel bad for not helping me." Blackmane (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree that it is emotional blackmailing. I suspect that you and Ein are implying the Self-Punisher's Threat type of manipulation, which is an incorrect assesment. The conditional statement in your interpretive extension of my example would be more correct if changed to: "I'm going to cross anyway, but if you don't give me that advice, I may get hurt crossing this road, you may feel good for helping me." This reordering changes the causuality of the statement - here I'm not making a threat of reprisal if my request is not met, since my action to cross is a cause not a consequence.
    Furthermore, I only raised the point of disfavour as a counter point when Wnt implied that abstainence would do me a favour, H&S-wise. So, I believe that my right to respond was only fair.
    In regards to the mention of red-herring, I was meaning that many other questions have risks associated, maybe less obvious and less likely, but risks all the same, which users freely choose to ignore. For instance, the question on Liquid gas containers - the poster may attempt to test for themselves whether some liquid gas containers do actually become brittle following one of the respponses from another user, and injure themselves in the process. However, that does not seem to be a concern for anyone. In addition, this sort of risk is also of the same type as referred to in your response, as I will be taking it upon myself as an individual. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I, for one, do not feel emotionally blackmailed. Now will you go do whatever dumb thing it is you plan to do, and leave the rest of us to build an encyclopedia? EEng 08:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We should help this guy by writing to his Faculty, and telling them to watch out for a nutter in a lab coat with a maniacal laugh. "THEY SAID I COULDN'T DO IT. AHA. HAHA. AHAHAHAHA". -Roxy the dog. bark 08:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well now, invoking the concept of a DA and calling my venture 'dumb' might be a bit of an overreaction, as we've yet to confirm any actual risks, hwoever likely or severe, from a topically educated user. In either case, I am glad that at least one person does not feel manipulated by a post(s) made in good faith.
    That said, I will indeed continue the course, although that does not mean that I will discontinue aiding with the "building [of] an encyclopedia", and, yes, I have been partaking in that. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Plasmic Physics what we need to close this thread is for you to write something like "I get it that what I wrote, saying that people should give me advice if they really think I might hurt myself, upset people. I won't write anything like that again." If Plasmic Physics won't write that I suggest they be given a preventive 24 hour block to ensure that they understand that we will not accept that behavior. The issue of this thread is that behavior, nothing more.Jytdog (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't garuantee that anything I write in good faith won't cause upset. It can't be helped if some people are easily offended by conclusions of sound reasoning. I simply stated a reasonable counter-argument, and I never said "should".
    You and Ein insist on calling this incident a result of 'behaviour', which I find offensive to my character, as though I intentionally or wrecklessly caused offense. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, please close this. I don't think that Einne's actions of deletion, reversion, and ultimately creating this incident discussion fits in with the description of a troll. Their actions do however suggest vexatious litigation, especially as there appears to be a history of frivolous incident reports, and knee-jerk reactions. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear: it's Plasmic Physics that's the schoolboy troll (and not a very accomplished schoolboy at that, given his use of the "word" wrecklessly). EEng 12:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing of User:Thetruth16

    Over the past year, User:Thetruth16 has been editing the following articles related to former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos and his subsequent downfall:

    He adds content to these articles and uses sources to tilt the article's neutrality to be "pro-Marcos". Here are some examples:

    • In the Philippine presidential election, 1986 article, he tilted the neutrality of this article by reiterating that both the ancestors of Benigno Aquino Jr. and Salvador Laurel (Benigno Aquino Sr. and Jose Laurel) both collaborated with the Japanese during World War II. This fact does not fit in this article, since the topic is about the 1986 snap elections. (see 1)
    • In the same edit history, this editor added the fact that one of the computer technicians that walked out of the Comelec count, Linda Kapunan, is connected with the Reform the Armed Forces Movement, and indicated that the walkout is planned by RAM, discrediting why the walkout happened in the first place. (see 1)
    • In the People Power Revolution article, this user added a statement that the one that issued Benigno Aquino Jr. the fake "Marcial Bonifacio" passport is linked with the Moro National Liberation Front, and at the same time, reinforcing the sources that Marcos declared Martial Law because of communist insurgency and the Moro uprising. If you read the whole article, it made it look that Aquino is being linked with communists and Moro rebels. (see 2)
    • In the Benigno Aquino Jr. article, he reiterated that Aquino's father, Benigno Sr. was a Japanese collaborator during World War II. It also claimed that Aquino did support the Moro rebellion and "rubbed elbows" with the Communist Party of the Philippines in the 1970s. (see 4)

    If his edits got reverted, he immediately challenges whoever reverted his edits to counter everything that he had put up there and he uses the WP:Reliable sources as his shield so that his edits won't be easily removed. He uses sources in such a way that it will favor his "pro-Marcos" ideology. Many users have already complained about his editing behavior and this user got blocked twice for edit-warring. See first and second ANI report against this user. Recently after removing most of his edits, he reverted it back to his version of the article.

    There was also a proposal to impose a topic-ban to this user since the his edits are getting too disruptive to the neutrality of the article mentioned above. Please check if the edits itself adheres to WP:NPOV and a topic-ban or a block can be imposed for this user. Thank you. -WayKurat (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me tackle the issues raised point-by-point:
    As you can see above, all the contributions you deleted (which I reverted) cited reliable sources and are verifiable. We have a content dispute here yet you keep on raising about my conduct Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Focus_on_content, current and past, while you yourself have deleted a large swath of cited content without discussing first contrary to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete, which says that "the burden of establishing verifiability and reliability rests on those who are challenged about it, there is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten". Content disputes are better discussed in the talk page Talk:Benigno_Aquino_Jr but it seems like your preferred route in handling content dispute is to delete, and to report to admin after your deletions got reverted. Thetruth16 (talk) 12:05 pm, Today (UTC−4)
    @Thetruth16: Do not post in the middle of other people's posts, post after their post. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    These two diffs linked to by OP are concerning because their edit summaries bear little to no relation to the actual changes. That tactic is common enough among WP:TEND editors that I believe there should be a section added to that page on it. @WayKurat: Did you mean to include a different link in your second point? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ian.thomson: The second point covers this edit. Thetruth16 reverted back his edits on September 2016 then added the "Linda Kapunan" information with it. Also, take note of the sources he gave on this edit. It is all self-published. He replaced it with a "more reliable" source after I have pointed it to him. -WayKurat (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    All the sources I gave above supporting my existing contribution are definitely not self-published as per WP:RS. If they are, I wouldn't mind part of my contribution being deleted. But what you did was you deleted everything that I edited even if there are multiple reliable sources cited and this violates Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete. Thetruth16 (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thetruth, please stop saying that I am "censoring" your edits. I am pointing out that since you have started editing here, all of the Marcos-related articles' neutrality are now tilting "pro-Marcos". Please also stop shielding yourself with Wikipedia's policies. A lot of editors have already pointing out that your edits are mostly pro-Marcos and anti-Aquino and you are using Wikipedia policies on reliable sources to protect your contributions. Let other editors and administrators check the neutrality of your edits. -WayKurat (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WayKurat I added the contribution stating that Ninoy Aquino has links with the communist / muslim insurgents and this is properly cited with reliable sources, does it really matter if this edit is pro-marcos or anti-aquino? And isn't deleting this well-cited contribution considered censorship? Following your argument, contributions citing reliable sources should be deleted/censored if they don't speak in favor of Ninoy Aquino since they tilt the article to become "pro-Marcos"? @Ian.thomson: Thetruth16 (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In my experience, Thetruth16 has been editing the above articles in the original post in a skewed manner, especially in phrasing to favor Ferdinand Marcos and to demonize Marcos's opponents. He has been a disruptive editor and has been blocked twice. His edits have been highly disruptive to the mentioned articles. It looks like he is at it again at the Benigno Aquino Jr. article, demonizing Aquino who was one of the stuanchest opponents of Marcos and is considered a hero in his home country. -Object404 (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are suggesting that we sweep these reliable sources under the rug just because they might "demonize" Ninoy Aquino, just like what WayKurat did by deleting well-sourced content without discussing his deletions at all? Does these sources from national newspapers and TV all deserved to be censored and not mentioned in Wikipedia? http://manilastandard.net/opinion/columns/virtual-reality-by-tony-lopez/141677/setting-the-record-straight-on-edsa-1.html%7Caccessdate=August%2030,%202015, http://www.philstar.com/letters-editor/604043/will-noynoy-aquino-be-hero-muslims-mindanao, http://www.manilatimes.net/the-ninoy-aquino-i-knew/31974/, http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/198820/news/specialreports/ninoy-networked-with-everyone-reds-included.
    And deleting without discussing or even trying to rewrite just like what WayKurat did isn't disruptive? And restoring the deletion is? Talk about double standards. How about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete? Also, Your comment pertains to your previous experience which has already been dealt with and not in this current issue.Thetruth16 (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep inserting content which is off-topic and unrelated to the article & its subject, such as "Malaysia had financed a secessionist movement in Muslim Mindanao led by the Moro National Liberation Front to undermine Philippine interests."[2] specifically to make the subject look bad. -Object404 (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It was for context, since earlier in the article different sources have mentioned that Ninoy was supportive of Malaysia's cause in its dispute with the Philippines on Sabah. I do understand your point that it can be deleted to make the paragraph more coherent. Also, I can see though that you have retained the more than 90% of what WayKurat has deleted/censored. Thetruth16 (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thetruth is more than ready for a NOTHERE block, and this discussion is not giving me any reason to think otherwise. WayKurat, thank you for bringing it here; I know these reports are time consuming, but they are worth it, if only for the record they establish. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: as you can see above, all the 4 examples WayKurat brought up have been refuted. So you think that these 4 should have been censored/deleted? If they have to be re-written in an more neutral tone, other editors should be rewriting them over time consistent with Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete. However, some of the facts that WayKurat has been trying to censor/delete are hard to refute, like Aquino's links with the communist insurgents which can be verified by multiple sources throughout the article. Thetruth16 (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah no I didn't see that. The problem isn't even so much the factuality, partial or complete, of some of the things you thrown in--it's the verbosity, the edit warring, the synthesis, the POV. And the talk page behavior. Did I mention the edit warring? Drmies (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: Per WP:EW, I understand that reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. And the policy in question here is Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete. Also, I would have preferred to discuss content dispute in the talk page Talk:Benigno Aquino, Jr.; however, as you can see, WayKurat failed to respond on the points I raised in the talk page (and even above), focused on conduct and instead of content contrary to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Focus_on_content, resorted to mass deletions (even if everything is consistent with WP:RS) and finally reported me to admin while he himself is violating Wikipedia rules. Thetruth16 (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thetruth16, I did not respond to your disputes to stop this edit war and as I mentioned above, let the other admins and editors here check the neutrality of your edits. As I have noticed on your editing style, you keep on adding this kind of information and if someone challenges you about the neutrality of these, you will give them the headache to check every edit you make if its neutral.
    From day one, that is what you are doing here, even since you have adding questionable information anonymously using an IP address. And to think to some point last year that you used blogs and self-published sources that are also being used by those pro-Marcos Facebook pages and websites, that already set the tone of your editing style. To reiterate what Object404 was saying, your edits villify Marcoses opponents and at the same time you glorify their achievements. -WayKurat (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to let other editors check the the contributions you deem non-neutral, then why did you Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete. You could have created a discussion in the talk page to gain consensus, which you didn't. Also, it's moot and academic if I used sources that didn't comply with WP:RS last year - it wasn't aware of the guidelines then, and these all sources have all been removed. I don't even know why you have to bring this up now that all the remaining contributions and sources very much comply with WP:RS and WP:V. Thetruth16 (talk) 04:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Drmies:. As of this moment, Thetruth16 is reverting back his version of the articles mentioned above, more than 24 hours after the his edits were removed. This somehow bypasses the WP:3RR rule. -WayKurat (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk about double standards? Didn't you WayKurat delete my edits more than 3x? Didn't you violate Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete? Just now Object404 did a review on my edits on Benigno Aquino Jr. and Philippine presidential election, 1986 and way over 90% of what I contributed that you've censored/deleted have been retained. Besides, all the 4 points you raised above have been more than adequately addressed.Thetruth16 (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not "retain" your edits, Thetruth16. I just haven't had much time to review the articles above nor edit them with which your biased edits have been very damaging to their form and are a big headache. -Object404 (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Headache" is a good word to use here. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benigno_Aquino_Jr.#/media/File:Philippine_puppet_government_officials_in_Japan_1945.jpg
    2. ^ The Manila Standard. "'Malaysia's new plans to undermine Philippine interests'". Retrieved May 19, 2015. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
    Object404 Good thing that you understand this Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete, which says that there is no need to immediately delete contribution (which are well-sourced, but you argue as non-neutral) that can instead be rewritten as necessary over time, unlike WayKurat who just deleted/censored everything that doesn't speak favorably of Aquino (including his links to the communists) even if they are from reputable sources. Just so WayKurat is aware of the relevant Wikipedia policy, I'll put them here verbatim just so he/she won't keep on violating it: "The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias." and "Especially contentious text can be removed to the talk page if necessary, but only as a last resort, and never just deleted." Thetruth16 (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • My suggestion is that any time an account is created with the word truth anywhere in it, that a separate shadow copy of the wiki be created just for them. Their edits will affect only that copy, and only they will see that copy, with their edits. They can edit away for years without bothering anyone, and without getting blocked. Everyone's happy. EEng 16:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the usage of WP:RS that's the problem with Thetruth16's editing, it's his style of editing and wording which is biased towards glorifying Marcos, making him look innocent and demonizing Marcos's opponents. -Object404 (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You are shooting the messenger? So you could as well blame the reliable sources - editors in the national newspapers, photographers, and TV - for any revelation that makes Marcos looks innocent and that demonizes Marcos' opponents? And editing for the opposite - sources that demonizes Marcos is totally fine? It's the reliable sources' POV and factual revelations and not mine. And censoring everything, including Aquino's association with the communist rebels and his father's association with the Japanese in WWII, just like what WayKurat notwithstanding Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete is the way to go? Thetruth16 (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but you keep Poisoning the well. An example of Thetruth16's biased wording style to make Marcos look good was his initial insistence that it was only communists and leftists who were the main targets of Human Rights Abuses during the regime of Ferdinand Marcos, when in fact thousands of innocent civilians were the victims of torture, murder, mutilations, etc. He even protested the usage of the word "innocent" to describe the innocent victims, which can be seen in the article's history logs - [28]. The section has since been sort of balanced. -Object404 (talk) 06:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, don't use this forum to argue and discuss about content, since this has already been dealt with. At that time, other editors questioned the word "innocent" as well, and one editor even said inTalk:Ferdinand_Marcos#Human_rights_abuses_section.3B_initial_sentence that the word innocent you inserted is "too vague, not to mention emotionally loaded." And when you said that you'll dig up more sources, those are the facts", RioHondo said that this statement itself is problematic. And weren't you told to mention the name of the authors whose opinions you presented in as facts in Human Rights Abuses? See, you accuse me of being biased, but many other editors here Talk:Ferdinand_Marcos#Human_rights_abuses_section.3B_initial_sentence get a sense that you yourself are biased. Thetruth16 (talk) 11:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're saying the thousands of falsely accused human rights victims were not innocent? -Object404 (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    76.116.148.215 disrupting two pages

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

    User 76.116.148.215 making unsourced edits to Disney's Animal Kingdom and Six Flags Great Adventure, multiple times over multiple days, ignoring attempts to discuss on talk page, and ignoring subsequent disruptive editing warnings on talk page. Also request the two pages IP is disrupting be locked 24 hours at least. Rockypedia (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The Six Flags Great Adventure page was given a source, from Six Flags itself. The issue stems from incorrect information regarding the captioning of "the world's largest theme park". This record is currently held by Six Flags Great Adventure in Jackson, New Jersey, which stands at 510 acres. Someone on Wikipedia continually attempts changing the Six Flags Great Adventure page to erroneously show that the 500-acre Disney's Animal Kingdom is somehow larger than the 510-acre Six Flags Great Adventure. The source is Six Flags itself. The "sources" stating Disney's Animal Kingdom are not valid and outdated. (In addition, since I work for the amusement industry, Disney's Animal Kingdom is 403 acres, and has a 97-acre parking lot, bringing it to 500 acres. They are unable to expand further. Since this is insider knowledge, I have not placed this on the Wiki article, but I just thought you'd like to know.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.148.215 (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2017‎

    We go by reliable secondary sources here. The OC Register source is easily a reliable source (and not outdated - it's from June 2016), and the other two are not as strong but good sources nonetheless. We go by reliable sources because otherwise, anyone could arrive here and claim that they had "insider knowledge" that contradicts your "insider knowledge." Additionally, your Six Flags source is a primary source, which is not the worst thing in the world, but not as good as a secondary source - and that source plainly states "largest regional theme park in the world", whatever that is. My guess is the "regional" qualifier is there to allow them to claim "largest" by excluding Disney from "regional" theme parks, but who knows. Either way, Animal Kingdom is 580 acres, and Great Adventure is 510.
    You also should've discussed this on your own talk page, or the talk pages of the articles in question, long before now, but you ignored my attempts to discuss. I'm glad you're finally discussing now but it shouldn't have taken an administrator warning to get you to do this. I'd also strongly suggest you register an account. Rockypedia (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay you've now reverted again, here, without continuing the discussion or even acknowledging the WP:CYCLE link I pointed out to you on your talk page. Admins, I give up. I don't think this IP is interested in a discussion. Rockypedia (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Semiprotected both for a week, to encourage the IP to use talk or find something else to work on. If that doesn't work longer semiprotection may be warranted. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Karlfonza

    Discussion has been re-opened at the main noticeboard. Alex ShihTalk 01:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I recommend stronger measures for Karlfonza (Commons page has more info/ad content). They continually keep uploading unencyclopedic (often highly artistic) images and adding them to broad-topic articles such as "Word", "Library", "Ant", and "Vase", all in cases where obviously useful images exist, and this editor just wants to tack on their own images. I've been trying to revert most of the edits, though there's a lot. A very small percentage of their photos or actual edits are beneficial, making the work tedious and yet making me hesitant to suggest a sitewide ban, but they clearly don't understand the rules and won't bother to learn them. Any advice? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Two.25.45.251

    I'm going to go out on a limb and request some sort of clemency for Two.25.45.251 (talk · contribs), who has been blocked by Favonian as a sock of the Best Known For IP. The Long-Term Abuse page is here, and the registered account has just been added to it. So far as I know, this is the first account this editor has ever registered. He's been a long-time determinedly unregistered editor. His edits have been mostly gnoming, with emphases on removing POV (notably for a long time, the phrase "best known for", hence the moniker) and on fixes to statements about science. Note this edit summary by Ritchie333 on that LTA page, a couple of weeks after he created it: "this one has never done actual WP:VANDALISM as such". The "long-term abuse" consisted of edit warring and incivility when he was reverted. There is a very long story here, including numerous AN/Is (many, possibly most, started by the person himself objecting to being treated as a vandal). During my adminship, I was part of an effort with Drmies (I believe it was my idea) to get him to stop being uncivil and thereby break the cycle of his being blocked and then blocked again for block evasion. I remain convinced that his article edits are not merely well intentioned but overwhelmingly good. However, the effort failed (although he's been noticeably more civil since), and he was community banned in January 2016 after this discussion at AN.

    Most recently, it was his blocking by Winhunter and complaint here that led to a case that is currently open but on hold at Arbcom. During that discussion, Berean Hunter revealed that he had been contacted by the IP's employer and had advocated the editor take the standard offer, beginning with registering an account.

    The editor's statement at the Arbcom case request—or that of the recently registered editor now blocked for being the BKFIP—is here. I had noted some of the statements the editor quotes, and the one calling him a vandal particularly saddened me. This person has wound up community banned despite not being a vandal, and to my mind that is at odds with our purpose here, and calling him a vandal because of the existence of an LTA case page, or even because he is community banned, an unforgiveable looseness of terminology. Whatever we do about uncivil editors, whether registered or not, we must not throw around terms like "vandalism" if the edits don't justify use of the term.

    This editor has been community banned, and the administrative corps generally follow comunity consensus. But it seems to me that he has a right to make a statement at the Arbcom case, regardless of bureaucracy, and that he also deserves credit for finally doing what many people begged him to do, and registering an account. Can any of the experienced editors here suggest a way forward, if it's only letting his statement remain at the case page and transcluding further statements from his talk page? I do feel this person is owed far better treatment than, say, Willy on Wheels: he has not edited "for the lulz" or to push a point of view, and if he's ever vandalized, I've not seen it. Nor, as I say, do I see him being seriously uncivil in recent edits, although I may have missed it. I defer to the wise folks here; I'm out of ideas. (And I'm now going to notify everyone I pinged. I won't notify Winhunter; anyone who disagrees with that judgement call, go ahead.) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment This user specifically stated they are not Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. I have only limited experience with the LTA we call "best known for ip", but what experience I have shows that this person routinely attempts to actively deceive administrators during unblock requests. If this user is indeed "best known for ip", they are doing the same here, too. This is said without prejudice; I cannot tell if they are the same person. Is it not the case that this user could make a statement to Arbcom via email? If it is not the case, I would endorse unblocking a talk page solely for this purpose. I believe Yngvadottir is not suggesting we lift the community ban, and so I make no statement on this point. --Yamla (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Even if they aren't the BKFIP, they are clearly admitting to evading a ban here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=798719426 Keep them blocked. --Tarage (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is my understanding that Yngvadottir is not disputing block evasion. I haven't looked at the case, but it seems the question raised is whether, assuming the editor was "only" uncivil but not harmful to articles, the response was proportionate, and whether evasion of an unjust block would be excusable. (As I said, I haven't looked at the case; I'm only trying to clarify for myself and others what the argument is about.) Samsara 01:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If this user wishes to make a statement on the Winhunter case, they can do so by email to arbcom-l, or they can email me and I will copy it to the case page as a clerk action (assuming that the content is not in violation of policy). GoldenRing (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as one of the many, many, many blocking admins. BKFIP's song and dance has for years been that their "good" edits ought to wholly excuse any possible misbehaviour, of which there has been plenty (see WP:BKFIP, I'm not going to repeat the laundry list). So this account claims they're not the same person, well so have nearly every one of the IPs listed on the LTA page, and the editor has admitted in the past that our list is "massively incomplete". They've behaved in exactly the same manner as BKFIP: angrily objecting to a series of "good" edits being reverted and then edit warring into a block, resuming the edit war when the block expired, lashing out at anyone who didn't agree with their "good edits" justification, and swearing they're not BKFIP. I have zero doubt that they are, and BKFIP is an editor who WP:TE and WP:CIR could have been written about. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That being said, I fully agree that we throw around the term "vandal" much too liberally. BKFIP has never been a vandal as far as I'm aware, but certainly a tendentious and disruptive user. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm opposing the proposal to offer this editor clemency. I also don't believe there's any way forward that doesn't force administrators to tiptoe around an editor who admittedly has no interest in even trying to get along with others and collaborate, and has a history of causing major drama whenever there's any hint of a need to discuss their edits. I'll add more below in a bit. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had an interaction with BKFIP a couple months ago, and based on that, I am not terribly hopeful that we can find a solution here besides the ongoing on whack-a-mole with their IPs. I found that they were completely unwilling to admit that there was even a possibility they were wrong. Even if they were correct about the content issue (and I do not believe they were in this case) such an attitude makes communication very difficult. So mark me down as pessimistic. That said, if we wanted a way forward: with sockpuppeteers, we generally ask for them to sit out a block of a certain length, and then appeal, upon which the standard offer usually includes an unblock and some restrictions. We could try the same thing here; ask them to sit out a six month block; appeal thereafter; if they don't use IPs in the meanwhile, unblock them, but place a 1RR restriction and possibly a civility restriction (yeah, I know those work too well). I can't really come up with something easier than that. Vanamonde (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (Responding to remarks and suggestions above, not just to Vanamonde93, but parking here for neatness' sake.) A 1RR has been tried in the past. As to civility restrictions, as I say, my impression is he is much more civil now, but the community's patience has been exhausted and a ban is a ban. I'm not asking for it to be reversed because I'm clearly way outside the community norm here; I believe I was the only one arguing against it in the ban discussion, which I linked above. But WP:CIR?? This editor writes excellent English and his edits are overwhelmingly good, including demonstrating a grasp of science I wish I had. (Not all, however. I've been on the receiving end of a tongue-lashing from him myself for not agreeing with all his edits.) He very much had a point about knee-jerk reverts—until he was banned. There may be developments in the case of which I'm unaware; in particular, I see an Arb making statements about him baiting admins into blocking him, and I have no idea how his editing history of which I'm aware can be construed that way. What I see is someone with a laudable addiction to improving the encyclopedia and expertise we can use, who has a terrible temper and sufficient mastery of the language to sling stinging insults, but who has (in my estimation) come increasingly close to keeping a civil tongue in his head in accordance with community norms, and has also worked with us by finally registering an account, for which I think we should afford him some modicum of allowance. Maybe the suggestion to e-mail Arbcom is a start, thanks. Maybe the arbs will also allow the statement he already made to be restored? Yngvadottir (talk) 05:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is certainly a common community antipattern of the form "make reasonable good-faith edit, get reverted/templated/blocked/otherwise mistreated, overreact with incivility, get written off as a disruptive vandal". This case may have started out that way, but I don't think it's a great fit for that pattern anymore; it now looks a lot more like "make edit likely to prompt inappropriate reverting/templating/blocking/etc and use that overreaction as an excuse to stir up drama". But arbcom does have a way of making everything look worse. If you think you have a better way to approach this situation, I certainly won't stand in the way. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I think there is no harm in restoring his comment to the Arbcom case. I know "Banned means banned, goddamit!" but what have we got to gain by censoring his views? He is a party to the case and we should put his opinions up - we don't have to agree with them. Asking him to email arbcom sounds like a pointless dog and pony show, when we actually have the statement already in our archives. More specifically, I would revert this edit but the page has been full-protected so I guess it would be "admin abuse" to do so. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Paging @Amortias: who protected the page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The page(s) were protected as no case has been opened and as such no evidence should be being submitted, if and when the case is officially opened and evidence is required this may be included (it being presented by a blocked user may need to be dicsussed seperatley) until then the pages should be left as the are. If the committee wish to have this included they are free to include it themselves as tehy can overrule any clerk action, anyone who wishes to have the information added to the page is free to request it from the clerks or lodge a a request to the committee via e-mail or at the arbitration noticeboard. Amortias (T)(C) 12:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That removal also included two sections added by IPs, some or all of which material has now been added to my talk page. It doesn't belong there and goes into things I know nothing about, because I don't know anything about the other banned user mentioned in the removal edit summary, although I did at one point know a lot about the BKFIP case. It's only his statement, under the registered account I named in the section header, that I would ask to be restored at some point. At what point is also above my pay grade. @Opabinia regalis: thanks, and maybe you do know when it should be added. I suspect you are confusing two cases, but as I say, I may have missed more recent developments. I would also not have removed talk page access; venting after a block is expected; but since he's banned, he's not going to get unblocked, so presumably that factored into Huon's decision. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had very limited wiki-time lately, so I wouldn't be surprised if I were confused (but if you're thinking of Vote X, no, I've got those two straight. I think. ;) The case is in suspended animation for the time being, so my preference would be to leave it alone for now and sort it out later if and when WinHunter returns to participate. For the time being, the post is in the history and not going anywhere. In any case, if some sort of alternative resolution is going to be reached here, I'd rather see it emphasize improved future behavior than focus on past events. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal for Two.25.45.251

    Anyway, we have actually made some significant progress, as this user has now created an account. That means they are accountable in one place, rather than jumping IPs and evading blocks (which is the real problem). So, taking Yngvadottir and NE Ent's suggesting of "a way forward", I am going to propose the following solution:

    1. Unblock Two.25.45.251 - call it an amnesty. This means drawing a line in the stand and saying "right, we're starting again". I'm going to forget about any blocks I have pulled; conversely nobody else is to bring them up. It's in the past - forget about it.
    2. All edits go on that account - no IPs, no sockpuppetry
    3. If they post to a noticeboard saying "Admin 'x' lied about 'a', 'b' and 'c'" - leave it. Rebuke it factually if you really need to say anything.
    4. Anyone who is not absolutely sure of what's vandalism and what's good-faith, read User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to vandalism first, and recuse totally from taking action
    5. If you have to revert this editor, leave an edit summary that can be defended later (eg: "see note on talk page [link]", "consensus from other articles is that this is okay for these circumstances, sorry, will discuss on talk in a minute") - NO TWINKLE, NO HUGGLE
    6. Any genuine cases of edit warring that are grievances by other editors, go to WP:AN3 and follow the usual procedures
    7. Do NOT block without consensus here

    The basic idea behind this is that I feel admins as a whole need to set an example and show we are unscrupulously fair and beyond suspicion. Quite frankly, I feel like bloody well indef blocking the next person who makes an incorrect vandalism call on this user, but I suppose we've got to AGF that people think they're doing the right thing even when they're not.

    If we don't do something like this, this dispute is never going to end - ever. How many years has it been going on? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you Yngvadottir, Ent, Ritchie. I agree with most of what Ritchie has to say, maybe all of it. How long? At least since 2011. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh dear. This is the first edit to that editor's talk page not left by a bot. I have never seen an IP address that started with the word "Two". The warning was placed by an account which had been active for three days, allegedly; it is funny how Two.25.45.251 just keeps putting fingers on sore spots, wittingly or unwittingly. Drmies (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I never said that the username looks like an IP address. The AntiSpoof MediaWiki extension won't allow you to create accounts without any letters (at least in the version I use on my wiki). Therefore, someone could attempt to register an account and deceive it to look like an IP address by simply changing one of the numbers to spell out that number in words. For users who aren't very familiar with how accounts work, that account could look like an IP address at first glance. Also, I must note that when my actions were mentioned at ANI, I was not notified and was only aware after going though the inappropriate reverts by Drmies of my good-faith edits. Pillowfluffyhead (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Pillowfluffyhead, you have had an account for four days. You need a lot more clue before you start getting involved in issuing warnings to anyone about anything. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to be clear, yes, please, Ritchie333. I hope it works. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose an unblock or clemency. Just within the past six weeks or so, this editor has:
      • Written this edit summary.
      • Denied being the Best Known For IP editor, including in the unblock request of the account I declined. I don't think there's any genuine doubt they are that banned editor, is there? In that case, we're all agreed they're a habitual liar.
      • Evaded the ban plus a block.
    They could probably fly under the radar and improve grammar if they were able to collaborate with others. What gives them away, time and again, is their superiority complex (I'm not using that lightly, but as Vanamonde93 said above, they are incapable of considering that they might be wrong, and simultaneously they belittle and insult all who disagree with them; not admitting that they're always perfectly right must be a sign of inferior intelligence) and their inability to work with others or deal with opposition in a civil way. I see no indication of a change, no commitment to a change, no recognition that their past behaviour was problematic, not even a recognition that their past behaviour was theirs. Do we need copyeditors this badly that we're willing to subject editors to this kind of abuse? Huon (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Huon, the principal difference now (as I think Berean Hunter mentioned on the last ANI thread) is that his employer knows about his history on WP, and as I understand it has "had a word". That's why he's now finally got an account, and it also gives me some confidence that if he tries socking or IP block evading again, he's going to end up getting his employer collateral blocked again, and get another disciplinary action. I apologise for being vague about this as the full context of this is stuff I've been told in private by BH, but I do believe circumstances are now different. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ritchie333: The employer knows about what history, exactly? The one Two.25.45.251 denies is theirs? Do you find that claim credible? If circumstances are now different, surely Two.25.45.251 has acknowledged that their past conduct was inappropriate and committed to a change in conduct towards other editors? I seem to have missed that; all I saw was "I have only ever made good edits" and "I get more satisfaction out of responding viciously than I would out of responding politely". Is that inspiring confidence in you that we'll see a change? (And to Boing! said Zebedee: Yes, it is fair to hold them to those statements of 2011 when there's no indication of a change of mind or a change of attitude. Did you see any of that? Where?) What the proposal will do is make it much more difficult to enforce civility standards down the line; if some unwitting admin were to block them unilaterally for their next piece of viciousness, I foresee them not addressing their own conduct but claiming the mantle of victimhood.
    It's generally agreed that being right is not an excuse for edit warring, because edit warring is still disruptive even when you're right. I don't think being right should be any more of an excuse for this pattern of "viciousness", for exactly the same reason. People who are unable to comply with the fourth of our pillars should be just as unwelcome as those who can't comply with the first or second. Huon (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps one could ask them if they have changed their views since 2011? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    They deny being the same person and assert they only ever make good edits. Do you find those assertions credible? Should we ask them whether they have changed those views since September 3? Huon (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to email you with what I know about this user, but the general gist of it is "stop this or you will lose your job". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I support the principles behind Ritchie's proposal; but I just do not see the justification in this case. Is this an editor so much of a net positive that we can cut them as much slack as is being proposed here? We have block evasion, incivility, edit-warring, and just plain being difficult. Now I'm willing to forgive some of that in the belief that by registering an account the user wishes to start afresh, in a sense. But Ritchie seems to be proposing to effectively place the community under some restrictions with respect to this editor, and apart from prohibiting sockpuppetry (which is prohibited anyway) allow them to do as they please. Now those restrictions are not bad ones, and really (apart from the point about twinkle) should apply everywhere. But I for one am not happy accepting them back without safeguards to prevent this from degenerating again. In particular, I would want a 1RR restriction. Also, it may be a good idea to restrict them from following up an article talk discussion with diatribes on user talks; that is specific, and enforceable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanamonde93 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't really understand this train of thought. The point isn't "slack", it's figuring out the least-disruptive solution to the problem. And the result, hopefully, would be subjecting editors to less abuse. I admit that "no blocks except by consensus" thing sticks in my craw a little, because I can think of much more deserving editors who fell into that "get blocked for being rude about being unfairly blocked" trap and never got an offer like that. I guess trying something like that is an investment in the future good-but-volatile editors who might benefit from a similar plan.... Well, I still think the first post is an AGF overdose and this is a lulz problem, not a poor self-control problem, but I can hope to be wrong. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support Ritchie333's proposal, as I see it as offering a decent hope for a disruption-free future. The thing about Two's employer knowing about the problems does offer us something that is different this time too. Also, with an account, it will be clear that there will be plenty of eyes on Two's editing if an unblock is granted, and equally clear that a return to old habits will almost certainly result in an effectively permanent indef block. We potentially have something good to gain here, for relatively low risk. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      PS: I've added a "Proposal" subheading above, to make it easier for people to locate what is actually being proposed - I hope Ritchie333 doesn't mind. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I made a bolded "oppose" comment further up the main thread but since there's an actual proposal here now, restating my opposition. I applaud the effort to find a way forward but there are many parts of this I don't like, and so this comment is long. For one, I don't know why this editor and not any of the other dozens of banned users who "make good edits" but don't work well with others. I'm fine with amnesty for editors who show that they recognize why they were blocked and make an indication they'll try to avoid those actions in the future, that's what we have the standard offer for. This editor has not done so at all, in fact they've outright said they're going to keep right on with everything that gets them blocked and banned because they think they get what they want anyway (paraphrasing from [29]). Furthermore, with the nature of their IP-hopping and "good edits" they could get away with evading this ban for a very long time if they didn't always fall back into the same pattern of drama whenever anyone reverts them for anything, and as such I don't have any faith that trying to limit them to an account is going to be of any use at all, even if we assume they've changed their mind about their stated intention to evade any block they disagree with (which you'd think, and they've demonstrated, is every block). BKFIP has made these sorts of assurances before to escape a block, and has broken their promise each and every time. Even so, I'm all for second* chances and would probably support this or at least stay out of the way, but this proposal also puts unusual restrictions on every editor who interacts with BKF, requiring everyone else to jump through hoops to avoid crossing an editor with a short fuse and long history of antisocial behaviour. Sometimes our fellow editors get things wrong, like calling constructive edits vandalism or mistreating IPs - we can deal with those on a case-by-case basis and we should, but part of editing here is being able to deal with people disagreeing with you from time to time, especially when you're right. BKFIP won't or can't, and it's not in the project's interest to make special rules for editors who are this dysfunctional, no matter how good their edits are. I'm also not pleased about the message this sends that if you persistently evade a community ban long enough that it just goes away.
    If there's a way forward for this editor, it starts with them respecting their ban and sitting out for six months, and then demonstrating that they have any intention at all to avoid the situations that have led to their past blocks. I don't believe that creating an account that's as close to an IP address as you can technically make demonstrates any intention at all for that to be their only account going forward, and besides, creating an account has never been required and isn't now. It's not just the ban evasion that's a problem: the core of it is the user's negative overreactions at the drop of any hint of trouble that needs to be addressed, and they could have been doing that just as well as a dynamic IP over the years. Instead of looking to improve, we have yet another round of the aggressive edit summaries and revert warring that led the latest IP to be blocked, all of which occurred before they were identified as BKFIP (it originally had nothing to do with ban evasion); had they responded more appropriately it's likely nobody would have ever made the connection. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Re "they've outright said they're going to keep right on with everything that gets them blocked and banned because they think they get what they want anyway (paraphrasing from [30])" - is it really fair to condemn someone for the rest of their Wikipedia existence for something they said back in 2011? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing that the editor has done in the intervening six years suggests that their statement is any less true now than when they wrote it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, of course not. NE Ent 02:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're missing what I'm getting at. There are two sides to this; you've covered the edit warring and incivility, but every time he has complained about being reverted for "vandalism", the other party has also been in the wrong - that's why we've got an Arbcom case in cold storage right now. So, my plan is to take the "incorrect vandalism revert" part out of the equation, and see what we're left with. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear what you're saying, but that's just not even close to the entirety of the problem. BKF doesn't just respond poorly when they're mistakenly called out for vandalism, they respond poorly whenever anyone challenges them over anything at all. Take for example this discussion: this resulted from BKF editing a section to remove what they perceived as copyvio, while one editor disagreed with removing some important parts from the article's lede and another disagreed that the existing text was copyvio in the first place. All three editors had valid concerns, but rather than discuss and come to an agreement, BKF angrily insisted that their opinion was infallible and insulted the other editors' intelligence until their IP was blocked. In that instance the other two editors tried to address BKF's concerns, nobody called BKF a vandal, nobody reverted an IP just because it was an IP, it was just a simple content dispute that set BKF into meltdown mode. And yeah, that was two years ago, but once again I've seen nothing to suggest BKF has tried to improve at all, and the latest incident suggests to me that the pattern is ongoing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well quite. If he reverts to type he'll be indeffed soon enough. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Contra Yngadottir (who I admire very much anyway), I thought BKA was a terrible editor from the get-go, making lots of what could be called good-faith edits under AGF, but which made the articles worse. I'll leave the policy questions to the wikilawyers but I think the project is better off without BKA. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You could always just log in and tell us who you are, but I'm aware of the deep irony that suggestion might invoke in this case. -- Begoon 03:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The problematic edits continue after block

    IP blocked, OP advised and ze Grammar Nazis march triumphantly into the sunset. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    24.178.29.47 (talk · contribs) I have reported this IP three months ago, and this IP has been blocked for three months by Berean Hunter for disruptive editing and failure to discuss. After this three months block has expired, this IP continue to making inaccurate changes in hip-hop related articles without explaining why. I been keeping an eye on this IP after the block has expired and it's look like the editor behind this IP haven't learned anything at all from the block. The edits has continued and still don't generally helping the articles at all, they still don't seem to have any concept of proper grammar or the Manual of Style. The IP is still making very awkward grammatically incorrect edits in album pages and it doesn't help they keep disregarding the messages and continue to edit without giving much a response. Example, when I left a comment try to explain why I have a problem with the edits, but didn't get a response. I have try again, but still didn't get a reply, this editor has ignored warnings and continue making these unnecessary changes to articles, and editing without responding is considered disruptive.

    Edits before block:

    Edits after the block has expired:

    I added the old diffs at the top to remember the last report I made regarding this IP. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    As I mentioned in a section or so above, I don't watch this page. But a ping and an inadvertent mouse click brought me here. First off, it seems to me that if you are going to complain about another user's grammar, you ought to be more careful about your grammar when filing a complaint against them. In fact, the grammatical errors you've made on his talk page are so glaring that it takes some real chutzpah for you to even mention the word "grammar". Speaking of the ip's talk page, you accused his edits as being "disruptive", yet I've looked through his contribution history and I'm not seeing it. Perhaps he made a few grammatical errors, but if bad grammar is now a critieria for determining disruption, have a care as you yourself might have a block coming your way. I also see you directing him not to "stop going to articles to change things out of personal preference, these articles was just fine how they are" which sounds an awful like WP:OWNERSHIP.

    Outside of slapping a template warning (and subsequent berations) on his talk page, it doesn't look like you have tried to engage him on any of the talk pages of the few articles he has edited since his block expired. Why is that? He is under no obligation to respond to you as the two of you don't appear to be in an edit war. AFAIK regular editors who follow policy are under no obligations whatsoever to respond so don't presume to lecture him on his need to respond to you if you aren't bothering to give him something meaningful to respond too in the first place. Someone making edits you don't like is not disruptive editing. Him not giving you the time of day is also not disruption.

    Finally, I'm a bit confused as to this edit of yours on the ip's talk page which according to your contributions was made 16:52, 4 September 2017, yet your signature time stamp reads 23:25, 3 September 2017. What is going here? That man from Nantucket (talk) 08:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @That man from Nantucket: Why are you questioning my timeline for and did you even look at the whole talk page? I try to engage with this editor before and never get an reply, here the diffs to prove it [56] [57] [58] [59]. Another editor PaleoNeonate, give this editor advice to communicate but ignore it and keep on editing before Berean Hunter has blocked them. You seem like you're are only accusing me for ownership, which I not. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't question your timeline. I asked why was your timestamp on a comment different than the one in your text. It made things difficult to follow. If you think an admin here is going to take action based upon comments you and others made three months ago in conjunction with the ip user's current behavior, you got another think coming. I still don't see a problem with the ip user, other than you don't like his edits. What about them, still remains to be seen. His grammar is certainly better than yours.That man from Nantucket (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @That man from Nantucket: I don't be making rude comments about my editing, I been editing Wikipedia longer than you have, and I know that failure to discuss your edits is considered disruptive. You clearly don't understand this issue here. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that you are not engaging the ip editor in a good faith manner. What edits do you find objectionable? What is wrong with them? You can't just plaster the user's talk page with a template saying they are being disruptive, revert their edit and then come here to complain about it. Well, I mean you can, because that is exactly what you did, but rather your shouldn't. What you should do is open a discussion on the relevant article's talk page and say what you think is precisely wrong with their edit. Hint: saying it is "disruptive" is not helpful. Ok, so you have a problem with the grammar. Quote the part of the edit you think is grammatically incorrect. Don't just revert all of their edits because you have a problem with one edit. If they keep re-adding that content, then ask for assistance on one of the many project pages or open up an incident at the edit warring notice board. In short, don't come here asking admins to block someone just because the editor was blocked 3 months ago, because you haven't made a recent reasonable attempt at discussion with this user. Exhaust the many other options available to you first. The admins have far better things to do then to get involved in content or style disputes. If anyone else has read my screed, I suggest you close this section and direct TheAmazingPeanuts to follow the steps I've outlined. That man from Nantucket (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @That man from Nantucket: Don't tell me what I can do okay, I have reported these kind of edits before and nobody didn't have a problem with them, I'm not gonna not take advice from you. All you saying is based on your opinion and I don't like the way you talk to me. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Life is full of disappointments. I'm not entirely certain the you are recognizing the irony of you complaining about the ip's grammar and them not doing what you tell them to do. There's probably a word for that. That man from Nantucket (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @That man from Nantucket: What the hell are you talking about? You didn't even bother to look at these diffs I show you earlier [60] [61], I been trying to get a reply from this IP and nothing came from it, even other editors who have more experience than I do, admitted that I trying to engage with this IP. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Failure to communicate is indeed a problem (reaching consensus is impossible without it (WP:CONSENSUS) when edits are challenged, restoring changes without discussion is also problematic, we have a good WP:BRD explanatory supplement about this). I however also see a lot of reverts of edits which do not appear problematic (not only edits from this IP address user), so I'm not sure what to say (owning attitude is already explained above, I'm not sure if this is what is happening, but it's not impossible, but I see no strong evidence of this through talk page warnings)... Many of the IP address editor edits appear to be copy-editing, which is not uncommon and rarely contentious. Some copy-editors have been blocked for disruptive editing and failure to communicate, like happened before for this IP address. —PaleoNeonate – 11:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @PaleoNeonate: I don't wanna be that editor who think they own a article, which they not. Most of the edits are not bad, but most of the changes essentially only contributed to corruption the language and added nothing to the content. I don't understand what the editor was trying to achieve. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPants at work: I completely agree with you, I don't think it's matters how bad someone's grammar in the talk page is, it's matters in the article's text. The reasons I reported this issue because the IP's unnecessary changes to hip-hip related articles, take a good look at the diffs above and you can see why I have a problem with them. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no no. You needed to wait for someone else to criticize my grammer before responding. See, you came here to (essentially) complain about the IP's grammar. Our limerick-friendly friend then complained about your grammar. Then, I showed up in a puff of lame jokes to make fun of the grammar criticisms. Then someone should have pointed out the bad grammar in my bad joke, and so on and so forth. We need to keep the cycle going. That way, it's bad grammar, all the way down. And everyone would be having fun. But now you've ruined it all. For shame!
    @MPants at work: Yeah, this IP need to be blocked. I see no point to have this editor to be around, if they not gonna respond to their fellow editors. I hate editors who keep quiet about edits. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Block him for what? I see no actionable diffs presented here since he came off his vacation. The alarms of poor grammar are exaggerated. I've seen a community tolerance level for far worse. If an admin wants to poke through his recent contribution history looking for sin, who knows what they will find. I took a peek and it was your garden variety gnome type of edits. Are you seeing something different, or are you just predicting the future? If it's the latter, WP:ROPE applies. Otherwise I stand by my earlier assessment that there are some ownership/style issues in play here.That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @That man from Nantucket: You don't seem to get it, MPants at work and PaleoNeonate have already point out their problems with this IP's edits and their refusing to respond. If you don't understand about this topic, stay out of it. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you don't seem to understand; WP:OBLIGATION means precisely what it says. No one owes you anything here. Is the ip violating the accepted norms of WP:BRD? He was bold and you reverted. You still haven't shown where he is re-adding his changes. What you have presented is simply four articles he has had the unmitigated gall to edit. WP:AGF, try it. That man from Nantucket (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPants at work: If you look at my contributions on Wikipedia, my editing are mostly on articles related to albums, and I know editors who been on Wikipedia longer then me can tell that something wrong about this IP's editing, if you don't know, this IP have been editing since March and most of the edits are very questionable, here's more diffs before the block [62] [63] [64], and diffs after the block has expired [65] [66] [67]. This editor also have a bad habit of linking common words to articles, words like "singer", "songwriter" and "recording artist", which is against the guidelines (WP:OVERLINKING). TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @MPants at work: Taking a look at their recent edits since the block expired, I don't see many problems with their grammar. Some edits look perfectly fine. But even if there are, there have been no reasonable attempts to discuss this with the ip. Accusations of disruption, being told not to edit articles because they are "just fine as they are" and especially generic demands to "explain your edits" (instead of giving the ip exact diffs) are quite unreasonable. Since I'm not a mind reader, I suspect the ip was blocked because they were restoring their edits without using the talk pages. That's edit warring and warrants a block. But there is no edit warring going on at the moment. The ip has made some changes, Peanuts reverts and insists upon an explanation for the edits that just were reverted! As long as the ip is not attempting to reapply his edits without engaging, there is no edit warring. ANI isn't for resolving content or style disputes or even guideline enforcement. I just don't see the reasons our legumes themed editor is throwing to the wall in hopes one will stick warrants a block to protect the project from the ip. That man from Nantucket (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @That man from Nantucket: This editor have been reverted by other editors too, by Atlantic306 [68] [69], ThePlatypusofDoom [70], Koala15 [71], and MarnetteD [72], so I not the only one who reverted this IP's edits. I even asked another editor Ss112, in back in May and he too agreed that these edits are a problem. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone gets reverted now and then. Don't take it personally and assume good faith. And this isn't May. Stop bringing that up. He was blocked and served his time. I'm out.That man from Nantucket (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm seeing what looks like disputed accuracy. The IP's grammar really doesn't seem all that bad (it's not good, but...), but some of these edits look like factual disputes. Consistent bad editing certainly can be a problem. But whether an admin wants to take a look at this is not up to me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked six months for repeating the same behavior. You have to engage in communication with the other editors who are raising concerns. Waiting for a block to expire and then picking up the baton at the same spot and trying to run with it again is attempting to circumvent the reasons for the original block in the first place. He absolutely does have to communicate.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TheAmazingPeanuts: May I offer you some advice? When communicating through text, specifically online but in other mediums as well, one's grammar is the equivalent of one's appearance and mannerisms when communicating face to face. If you want people to give you your due respect, and to presume that you are intelligent and thoughtful, it would be best to always present yourself as such. Using poor grammar on talk pages -while clearly not a problem per se- can create difficulties when others are asked to weigh in with judgements based in whole or in part on your words. I would advise you to use the best grammar you can, except when you are cracking wise, making an off-the-wall comment or making a point of using poor grammar. Of course, this is just advice, and as I said, it's ultimately incumbent on everyone to continue to assume good faith, regardless of whether or not "u rites gud". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPants at work: You are completely right, I admit that my grammar isn't the best ether and I probably didn't made my report clearly, which is why nobody didn't respond to my report quickly. I try to made my reports more clearer next time, to be honest, I rarely report here so I sorry if my grammar can be confusing to some. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Huyandrew99

    Huyandrew99 (talk · contribs) has been doing this for a while and has been blocked multiple times in the past, but now that he's doing it again, it's annoying us to the edge. For example, he keeps changing the Daytona 500 broadcaster at 2018 Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series from Fox to NBC because of Adam West's death (despite West having no association with NBC that I know of), a soapboxing case that has been happening for a few months, including on IP addresses. He and his IPs have been a topic of discussion at WikiProject NASCAR as well.

    Furthermore, he has also been repeatedly moving the Alabama 500 (fall) race article to "Thomas & Friends 500", claiming the race has been renamed it despite there being no announcement whatsoever from Talladega Superspeedway on a race sponsor for this year. Since being blocked three times has not made him stop, I think it's time to block him for good. Zappa⚡Mati 03:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • NASCAR-related pagemove vandalism immediately after getting off a two-week block for NASCAR-related vandalism? Past block for socking? User talk page with nothing but warning templates? Support indef. This editor shows every indication of being WP:NOTHERE. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeffed (which doesn't necessarily mean forever) but a good reason will need to be put forward before an unblock request is granted. Mjroots (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated SPI Recreations

    The talk pages on these first two pages keep getting recreated by the LTA Gabucho181. I reached out to Oshwah, and he deleted and salted the first one. I don't know if anything can be done about the IP hopping, but can we take care of the second one since they moved to that page after the first one was salted? I listed the third one since that will be the next step for the IP to go to. You can see additional damage at the users talk page. Pinging Пугачов Иван Петрович in case he would like to add anything.

    I have zero familiarity with LTAs, so I am bringing it here. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Unfortunately salting in this situation achieves nothing, as the vandal just moves to a new title that we haven't protected. In fact if anything it is better not to salt in this situation, because as long as the vandal is coming back to the same page title(s) that he or she has used before it's easy to watch them, but if he or she is forced to move to a new title that we don't know, we can't be watching it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with JamesBWatson; I wanted to see if the user would actually move to another another title (the reason for salting in this instance) - it also helps me to further prove socking if anything. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it's a tough one. For now I'll just add it to the sock reports since there doesn't seem to be much else that can be done. Thanks, both of you! — nihlus kryik  (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User: 36.72.55.141

    36.72.55.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) based in Indonesia has made a mass of edits today. The edits to BBC News (TV channel) and all other BBC date entries are vandalism and I have reverted them. I'm not qualified to comment on the numerous other changes - although they do appear to be incorrect. Should this user be blocked?

    He seems to be messing with dates, should I revert the rest of the changes? —JJBers 12:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably, I just haven't the time to check all the "edits". Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reverted them all where they hadn't already been reverted. Regarding a block, the user is long gone now. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your help. David J Johnson (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He hasn't gone away, still meddling with dates, so I've blocked for 31 hours. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent vandalism

    There is repeated vandalism on the Talk:Marcus Garvey article by User:170.55.167.186. Mitchumch (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Odd "<" editing

    Over the past few days I've run across many instances of someone replacing all the left brackets (<) on a page with the unicode characters for the symbol: & l t ; . (Apologies; can't get it to show up correctly here without spacing.) This results in broken refs, messed up punctuation, and sometimes a pretty unreadable page.

    Examples can be seen at Triple bond and Peshawar cricket team.

    This always comes from an anonymous user, and every time that I've checked, it has been that account's only edit. A large proportion of the pages seem to be on Indian topics, but I don't know what percentage of wiki articles fall into that category, so maybe that means nothing.

    The character replaced is almost always <, occasionally &, and once >. Also, very rarely (maybe 2 in 50 times), an edit summary is given, such as recently at Shani Prabhava.

    I'd love any insight as to why I keep seeing this. (And if this is not the proper place to report this, please correct me - this is not my area at all.) Let me know if there's any other info I can provide that would be useful. Thank you! Jessicapierce (talk)

    I'm not sure there is much that can be done at the moment. The two examples you gave were by two different IPs. Thanks for the fixes though. WP:AIV is available should the problem become more widespread. Mjroots (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In only one of your examples was the edit "that account's only edit". Two of the IPs already had multiple edits to a variety of articles. If you examine each accounts' other edits, you can see whether they were constructive or not, and if not, revert the edit(s). If there is a pattern, then warn the user (see WP:WARN for some sample templates), and if necessary, report them at WP:AIV. If there is continuing vandalism to a single article by multiple IPs or an IP-hopper, then you can request semi-protection of the article at WP:RFPP. -- Softlavender (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen this, too. I chalked it up to some browser bug. I suppose it could be vandalism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much for the replies. My fault, re the "only edit" thing - although I gave poor examples here, I assure you the vast majority of this has been from IPs with only one edit. This is what led me to think it isn't vandalism, but an error/bug/mystery. No big deal, just thought I should report it. Jessicapierce (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem sounds like the character entities fooling either the user's browser or the internal (Wikimedia server) wikitext parser into not recognizing what were intended as html-like formatting tags, sort of like a grammatical hypercorrection. I'd AGF and communicate to the person that they're causing problems rather than solving them. If it gets out of hand, an edit filter could intercept the changes. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by User:Motorsporteditor

    After receiving a final warning for removing an AfD template from Josh Tibbetts (diff 1), stating that they would be blocked if they did it again, they did exactly that, removing the AfD template from Sam Cartwright (diff 2). I've already reported this to AIV, where I think this report correctly belongs, but was declined first on erroneous and then procedural grounds (diff 3, diff 4). Additionally, this editor has engaged in other general disruption (diff 5, diff 6) and made personal attacks against User:PlyrStar93 and myself (diff 7, diff 8). I think a brief block is called for here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Contant Stalking by User:Sir Sputnik

    The AfD template I removed from Josh Tibbetts and Sam Cartwright said I could do so once some changes were made. I made those changes and removed the tags yet User:Sir Sputnik continued to try and remove the page and remove my account. I feel like a temporary block should be put in place for bullying. User:Motorsportbattles 7:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

    Motorsportbattles, AfD templates say no such thing. As a matter of fact, they say directly the opposite. You may be new here, but the editors frequenting this board are not. That is an entirely disingenuous defense. Care to try again? John from Idegon (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Motorsportbattles: You wouldn't be having this problem if you weren't repeatedly creating articles on footballers who fail our notability guideline. If you don't stop doing this, you may eventually find yourself back here with a request for a new article topic ban, which I would fully endorse – at the moment you're just wasting other editors time by forcing people to go through the AfD process. Number 57 11:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked. The name seems to be Motorsporteditor, as per Sir Sputnik's report, not Motorsportbattles, which they confusingly sign as. The timestamp is wrong too.[73] Motorsporteditor, please sign using four tildes, (~~~~), then it'll come out right. People need to be able to get to your page by clicking on your signature, and to ping you — the pings by John from Idegon and Number 57, won't have reached you, simply because you signed the wrong name. Anyway, I think Motorsporteditor needs a block right now for disruptive editing such as this, and I've given them 31 hours. Bishonen | talk 20:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

    Orlando IP rangeblock needed

    Indeffed MusicLover650 has been creating sock accounts and also using various IP addresses from the area of Orlando, Florida, including lots of IPs assigned to the regional school system. The pattern shows activity during the week but not the weekend. Today was particularly trying, with seven different IPs showing up. Can we get a rangeblock on the following? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Involved IPs

    Sorted 21 IPv4 addresses:

    168.184.240.142
    168.184.241.59
    168.184.241.191
    168.184.243.63
    168.184.243.172
    168.184.243.213
    168.184.243.249
    168.184.244.47
    168.184.245.111
    168.184.245.236
    168.184.247.54
    168.184.247.108
    168.184.247.208
    168.184.249.22
    168.184.249.34
    168.184.249.69
    168.184.250.160
    168.184.251.20
    168.184.251.165
    168.184.252.183
    168.184.253.1
    Total
    affected    		 Affected
    addresses    		 Given
    addresses    		 Range Contribs
    4096 4096 21 168.184.240.0/20 contribs
    3072 512 3 168.184.240.0/23 contribs
    256 4 168.184.243.0/24 contribs
    512 3 168.184.244.0/23 contribs
    256 3 168.184.247.0/24 contribs
    1024 6 168.184.248.0/22 contribs
    512 2 168.184.252.0/23 contribs
    1414 1 1 168.184.240.142 contribs
    256 2 168.184.241.0/24 contribs
    1 1 168.184.243.63 contribs
    128 3 168.184.243.128/25 contribs
    1 1 168.184.244.47 contribs
    256 2 168.184.245.0/24 contribs
    128 2 168.184.247.0/25 contribs
    1 1 168.184.247.208 contribs
    128 3 168.184.249.0/25 contribs
    512 3 168.184.250.0/23 contribs
    1 1 168.184.252.183 contribs
    1 1 168.184.253.1 contribs
    399 1 1 168.184.240.142 contribs
    1 1 168.184.241.59 contribs
    1 1 168.184.241.191 contribs
    1 1 168.184.243.63 contribs
    1 1 168.184.243.172 contribs
    64 2 168.184.243.192/26 contribs
    1 1 168.184.244.47 contribs
    1 1 168.184.245.111 contribs
    1 1 168.184.245.236 contribs
    1 1 168.184.247.54 contribs
    1 1 168.184.247.108 contribs
    1 1 168.184.247.208 contribs
    64 2 168.184.249.0/26 contribs
    1 1 168.184.249.69 contribs
    1 1 168.184.250.160 contribs
    256 2 168.184.251.0/24 contribs
    1 1 168.184.252.183 contribs
    1 1 168.184.253.1 contribs
    21 1 1 168.184.240.142 contribs
    1 1 168.184.241.59 contribs
    1 1 168.184.241.191 contribs
    1 1 168.184.243.63 contribs
    1 1 168.184.243.172 contribs
    1 1 168.184.243.213 contribs
    1 1 168.184.243.249 contribs
    1 1 168.184.244.47 contribs
    1 1 168.184.245.111 contribs
    1 1 168.184.245.236 contribs
    1 1 168.184.247.54 contribs
    1 1 168.184.247.108 contribs
    1 1 168.184.247.208 contribs
    1 1 168.184.249.22 contribs
    1 1 168.184.249.34 contribs
    1 1 168.184.249.69 contribs
    1 1 168.184.250.160 contribs
    1 1 168.184.251.20 contribs
    1 1 168.184.251.165 contribs
    1 1 168.184.252.183 contribs
    1 1 168.184.253.1 contribs
    Thanks for that, Black Kite. Interested parties can see a history of this disruption at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/MusicLover650, a new LTA page. Binksternet (talk) 02:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pillowfluffyhead and User:Ronhjones

    Hello. Quite by chance, I have noticed some very odd behaviour from this user, an associated IP, and an administrator who responded to the user.

    Firstly, observations about the user:

    • The IP address 24.91.248.60 and the user are one and the same. See User talk:24.91.248.60 and User:Pillowfluffyhead
    • The IP's very first edit was to WP:AIV - see Special:Contributions/24.91.248.60. This indicates that the person making the edits is not new to Wikipedia, though under what username or IP they edited previously, I do not know.
    • The user seems mostly concerned with reporting other users. I do not see any contributions to articles other than reverts, many of which are clearly inappropriate.
    • The user has made accusations of vandalism which are entirely without basis: [74],[75],[76]
    • The user has made several incorrect accusations that usernames violate the username policy: [77],[78],[79]

    Based on these observations, I believe that this user is not here to build an encyclopaedia, but seems entirely or almost entirely dedicated to disruption.

    Secondly, regarding the administrator.

    • The IP, one day after their first edit, made a series of 16 reverts of edits made by another anonymous user, claiming "block evasion".
    • At 23:00 on September 1, they left a message accusing the other anonymous user of sockpuppetry and vandalism:[80]
    • At 23:01, they posted at WP:AIV:[81], offering only "LTA" by way of explanation
    • At 23:04, User:Ronhjones blocked the other anonymous user for three months: see [82].

    I find it astonishing that an administrator would take at face value a spurious AIV post by an anonymous editor, and without any further checking or analysis of the situation (that I can see; three minutes seems insufficient for there to have been any though), apply such a long block.

    I am posting this here because a) I think User:Pillowfluffyhead's edits and behaviour deserve significant scrutiny and b) I think User:Ronhjones behaved entirely incorrectly in this incident. Thank you for your consideration. 60.90.97.250 (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Just want to point out the AbuseLog that triggered the block, which turned out to be a false positive edit by Anonymous44. I have no comment on the behavior of either editors. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dropped a few problems on Pillowfluffyhead's talk page; you can see them here, just before they reverted me saying "RVV" and without addressing the problems. GB Fan noted problems too. We should really have more people overseeing these Recent changes patrollers, maybe. The whole affair with the IP/Anonymous getting blocked would have been more clear earlier had it not been for this irritating habit of blanking the talk page. They did the same here after a comment or two from Kudpung--"hostile" remarks, apparently. Well, we're dealing with an editor whose every edit needs to be weighed carefully. Moreover, I am not convinced that this account, and the aforementioned IP, constitutes the entirety of their career here. I hope they'll be commenting here; if not, we should consider putting them on some kind of notice: this is too many screw-ups, and they're not innocent ones. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have concerns about FPH's edits too. See [83] I also agree that the IP is unlikely to have been the user's first experience with Wikipedia. Meters (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I'm not known for beating about the bush, my comments could hardly be regarded as hostile. In fact I'm actually very supportive of new users who are trying to be genuinely helpful but just not getting it right. That said, this user, whose edit count under this account demonstrates very little experience (and that's what matters here - I haven't investigated further), should not be patrolling new pages at all. In fact they barely even qualify for vandalism patrol. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, SoftBank is an internet provider in Japan and may pozsibly be offering VPN services. Just thought it might be worth mentioning as 60.90.97.250 only began editing yesterday. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The edits done by the IP were all unsourced. We do not just block because someone reports at AIV, we look at the last few edits. Lots of IPs report other editors at AIV, that is not unusual. You cannot use an edit count of an IP to see if they have been here before - there are way too many dynamic IPs in the system, they may well be a very experienced editor who just wants to edit as an IP - there are plenty that do. Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mean to say there was anything wrong having previous experience under other IPs. I was just agreeing that to me this appears not to be a brand new editor, making what I interpret as apparent competency issues more concerning. If they don't have previous experience then it is inexperience rather than competency, but either way they should should be dissuaded from reviewing. Meters (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This is all a bunch of garbage and I'm not going to comment here further. You are all entitled to your opinions and I am entitled to mine. I am never going to be a content creator, as that's not my strength. I've seen several admins get promoted at RFA without being content creators. Heck, if you guys want to block me over this nonsense, be my guest. I'm going to keep doing what I am best at until that time comes (if it comes). Pillowfluffyhead (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

    • If anybody has evidence indicating what connection there might be to an older IP or account, the place to report is SPI, and if not then it's not terribly productive to keep bringing it up here; we can't do anything about it without evidence. As for the current issues, PFH, there's no requirement to create content and people contribute to the encyclopedia in many ways, but when a number of experienced editors are trying to give you advice about how what you're doing is not correct, you should at least try to take that advice. Saying you're just going to keep doing what you're doing isn't a good way to participate here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    So User:Ronhjones, you blocked an editor for three months because their edits were "all unsourced"? Your claim is false: many of the edits included sources, eg [84][85][86]. Even if it were true, where in the blocking policy is there any support for your action? If you want material to be sourced, you request a citation; you don't block the editor who added it. I do not think what you've said here is any kind of explanation for what you did. In the three minutes which elapsed between IP1 posting at AIV and your blocking of IP2 as a result, exactly what did you do to appraise yourself of the situation? What part of the blocking policy did you consider justified your action? 153.231.201.93 (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Your claim, 153 etc., is belied by the fact that {{uw-unsor3}} and {{uw-unsor4}} warn the user that persisting will result in a block. Nyttend (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that the user was adding references in their edits, how is your point in any way relevant? Which claim of mine is belied by it? 153.231.201.93 (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There were no references added on the day in question. One edit changed the subject name by one letter, often that is regarded as sneaky vandalism.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 15:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronjones (talk • contribs) [reply]

    Edit warring on United Firefighters Union of Australia

    On United Firefighters Union of Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The following three seem to be edit warring over a wp:content dispute. The article needs to be PP at the least.

    Jim1138 (talk) 06:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Jim,

    Atriskboy and myself are not edit warring with each other, it appears we are both reacting to constant vandalism of that page by user NSWFire and a static IP address user - FF83 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefighter83 (talk • contribs)

    (Non-administrator comment) The article certainly needs a few extra eyes, since it appears to be a massive fustercluck. No comment on who's right and/or wrong. Kleuske (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello. It's rich to call what I have done vandalism. It is true that the UFU is currently carrying a $200,000 + debt arising from the split of all members bar three, and it is documented in their annual report. They have also received much formal criticism for their continued defence of members who have been found untrustworthy. However, I am happy to split these subjects off into a second page - perhaps called "United Fire Fighters Union Australia - Controversies" to keep both the peace and to avoid accusations of white washing. NSWFire (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that Firefighter83 has now deleted the subject matter previously agreed to be factual, branding it opinion. I strongly urge that it is resumed, as it relates closely to the history of the current publicity. NSWFire (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    There appears to be no such agreement, as I stated in my edit, your addition reads as an opinion piece or press release and therefore is not an appropriate addtion to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefighter83 (talk • contribs) 04:42, September 7, 2017 (UTC)
    Full-protected indefinitely, and then re-full-protected for three days because indefinite was a mistake. Nyttend (talk) 05:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to comment on the content until the edit warring issue is settled. Both Firefighter83 [87] and NSWFire [88] have continued the edit war after being given edit warring warnings. Both appear to have broken 3RR after the warning. I support edit warring blocks for both. Atriskboy stopped editing the article after the warning and did not break 3RR, but was edit warring on this article and the related Country Fire Authority. All 3 very likely have a conflict of interest in this issue. .
    There is alsonow an SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NSWFire concerning a new account User: Ethicschecker that was created eight minutes after the edit warring notice and has now edited the article. [89] [90].
    Country Fire Authority is part of this mess too, with a number of SPAs in common, and several other SPAs active. Meters (talk) 05:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm generally not fond of handing out blocks when several people have been warring at one or two pages; easier to protect the page, and if the users are otherwise good editors, it avoids creating their block logs. If you think that blocks would be better than protections here, please explain your reasoning. Of course, disruptive sockpuppetry, if proven, is good reason for sustained blocks on all accounts involved. Nyttend (talk) 05:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know that blocks will solve this any more than temporary full protection will (unless an admin actually makes a definitive edit). The parties do not seem to be able to work this out. 3rr violations after an edit warring warning are a definite bright line issue, and this ANI was an edit warring thread so that was my take. My comment was made at almost the same time as the protection. I would have looked at things differently if the article had already been protected.
    We have a big mess of SPA and apparent COI editors who have taken their union infighting to the Wikipedia pages. Meters (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent disruptive editing at Kathi Darbar

    Bhagirathkamaliya has just returned from a second block for vandalim/disruptive editing at Kathi Darbar, and is already edit-warring there to include the same unreferenced content as before. The editor has had numerous warnings, but has never acknowldeged one – and indeed has never posted on a talk-page – so there doesn't seem to be much hope that a polite explanation will cause any change in behaviour. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Escalated the block to 1 week; but I think by this point indefinite is probably appropriate also. Alex ShihTalk 15:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This particular one may be linked to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kjp007 but I don't have time to look deep now. Also, when it comes to these caste pages, it'd be helpful if a {{Uw-castewarning}} is left for the user along with the first warning as it'd avoid the need for ANI etc. —SpacemanSpiff 15:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Request block of User:Johnvr4

    Johnvr4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I would like to request a block of User:Johnvr4 under WP:NOTHERE. To quote User:Nick-D in March this year, Johnvr4 "doesn't seem interested in working collaboratively to develop neutral and appropriate encyclopedia articles. ..I believe that a block would be justified by [his] repeated attempts to create articles which are unreliable and inability to listen and respond to the concerns which multiple editors have raised about them .. . Fundamentally, I don't think that Wikipedia is an appropriate location for the stuff [Johnvr4] want[s] to publish, or that [his] approach to doing so is in line with Wikipedia's collaborative ethos." (User talk:Nick-D#U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan's southern islands). Johnvr4 is repeatedly trying to create articles which are severely biased against the U.S. government's view on things, and distorts sources to do so. This was raised at the original Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Red Hat by User:Moe Epsilon, in regard to a reference which was distorted [91], at User_talk:Johnvr4#Air_defense_interceptors.2FGenie, and at U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan over the reasons for removal of nuclear weapons from Okinawa (partially due to a perceived vulnerability to terrorism, which Johnvr4 repeated tried to downgrade from the article). He also is repeatedly unable or unwilling to recognise a consensus formed against him [92] and has recreated his preferred version of deleted content three times in his sandbox after an MfD was closed against him (see User talk:Johnvr4#Red Hat content, and further advisory by User:RoySmith (User talk:Johnvr4#Recreation warning). Another example of concerns about his editing style came from User:AustralianRupert at [93]. This user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia in line with WP's principals, and I kindly request that he be blocked from further editing. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Power~enwiki (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for now I'm still not fully done reading below, so I'll put this in for now. —JJBers 01:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comment: at [94] Moe Epsilon said: "You have only edited a small handful of article topics and I can't look through your editing history and find an example of you making major changes to an article and then not having a major dispute on the talk page. Your contributions have either been deleted outright, reverted partially or debated upon heavily. That is concerning. I told you back in 2014 that was concerning because I took a single reference you supplied, which was used several times in your writing, and it wasn't factually accurate according to what the references said." which again is another indicator of the problems this user causes. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Please pardon my interruption but I'd like to inform this discussion of Wikipedia:Requests_for_history_merge#New_requests forOperation Red Hat where the history of the text that User:Moe Epsilon once accused me of "cooking up in my spare time" as a reason for AfD as well as Bucksohot06 assertions about it in MfD, DRV, and here will soon be visible again. those editors and others had been told very clearly the assertion he continues to put forth about submitting that text is untrue. Buckshot06 restored that very text. The restored page history will make those misrepresentations apparent despite his stated opposition to restoring it.Johnvr4 (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

    • Sincerely regretful support from an involved party. I actually sort of like John. My second discussion with him on my talk page indicates that he can carry on a concise and non-bludgeoning discussion when he chooses to. He was very polite about accidentally referring to me as "he" instead of "she", and came to my talk page to apologize about feeling like he'd villified me/dragged me into this mess. I genuinely don't think John is being intentionally disruptive just for the sake of causing problems. I think if we could get him to edit about anything else that he didn't have such a strong passion for, he'd be a great contributor. I think the problem is that he has such an obsessive passion for how he sees Red Hat/weapons deployment/related topics that he gets complete tunnel vision and blocks out anything that contradicts his own view of the topic and our policies here. He gets frustrated that we can't see what he sees, leading him to produce ever-lengthier posts trying to convey his point but instead alienating his intended audience in the process. I don't know that there is a viable alternative to blocking, possibly save a broadly-construed topic ban for anything related to Red Hat/weapons deployment/similar. But I admit I have doubts as to whether that would be effective or merely a postponement of a block. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure if my comment here is appropriate but I am OCD and spectrum. But not just on any one particular issue. I also have some nerve damage, adrenal tumor that jacks me up, and I nearly failed typing (sorry for the typos- I'm disabled). I would consider myself an expert on the material simply because I have read every reliable source I had cited (there were like 250) and did not synthesize if I had to use a public domain report or lesser primary source until a better one is found. Numerous times I have suggested to simply follow our sources or allow addition of a new ones as a compromise to end every dispute. However, that literally never ever happens with said editor as I have documented repeatedly. I was/am frustrated, mouthed off a bit too. To nearly everyone. I was actually shaking after it was nominated and then deleted. I apologize again.Johnvr4 (talk) 05:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

    • Oppose - I've taken a look at a randomish sampling of editing over the last few months and don't feel that a NOTHERE argument applies. Obviously, there is some less than optimum pugnacity with the editing, but this appears to be a good faith editor adding sourced content. Carrite (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I actually hatted a discussion on PMC's talk where Johnvr4 was going over oard, but he came back and had a reasonable conversation. I'm not convinced that the very WP:INVOLVED Admin is correctly asessing this situation. We don't have to follow the US Govt view of things and accusations American is editing against American seems hard to believe. Perhaps BuckShot06 needs to lay off Johnvr4 and Nohnvr4 should edit other topics. Legacypac (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Having followed this since the original AFD, I can safely say this is probably the eventual route that will have be taken. If he is not blocked, then a topic ban will definitely need to be implemented, broad-construed to prevent him from working on anything related to Operation Red Hat and military-based articles. John has a very hard time communicating concerns and actually addressing problems with his content, and this is a long standing issue. @Carrite: I feel like John is here to add sourced content as well, however his content is misleading or synthesized at times, and several editors have addressed that. It's a problem that goes back to the days of him first editing five years ago on the same topic. His behavior hasn't changed much and his problematic content went from being on the main articles to his sandboxes, which he has attempted to write for four years now with little to no improvement to follow Wikipedia standards (which is what the MFD was about). If John is not willing to take a topic ban and edit other topics, then this has to be the route to take because he is so engulfed in this behavior around these topics that it is now disruptive. I only support a block now because the few times I saw John edit outside his usual few articles, it ended up in content disputes as well and having content disputes this frequently is toxic. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Can't support the NOTHERE assertion as I don't feel anything has been presented to support it. Let's start by removing the useless stuff from the equation, the discussion on Nick-D's talk page can be succinctly summarised as "NOTHERE block and be done with it". This is not really helpful to this discussion. Provide me with a reason to support the NOTHERE assertion that does not stem from a NOTHERE assertion. The AfD from 2013 is unhelpful because, while it demonstrates (possibly) incompetence or poor source utilization it doesn't do anything even close to demonstrate NOTHERE (not to mention it was four years ago). Then there's the discussion on John's page (User_talk:Johnvr4#Air_defense_interceptors.2FGenie) that eventually boils down to, the sources don't use the word interceptor therefore don't use the word interceptor. Everything else was cleared up by quotes from the actual sources, or at least appears to have been based on Buckshot's response; [t]hanks for these. Clearly inteceptor isn't referenced. I will remove the words 'interceptor' etc, ... , and substitute with 'hydrogen-bomb-armed'. I mean this discussion if anything is demonstrative of the "here" part of NOTHERE. Then, last but not least, I'm actually presented with a concern that could be addressed. So let me address it; recreation of a procedurally deleted article that has undergone deletion review that supported the original deletion closure is valid grounds to argue disruptive editing. Please don't do that again. Sometimes, you'll have to accept that your work is not suitable for the encyclopaedia. Now, I'm going to take a moment to address something that was sort of brought up tangentially, but, isn't the central concern. Concern: I find that Johnvr4 has a problem maintaining composure and civility when discussing (or arguing) with other editors. This is not helpful to them or others. For example, the discussion on Johnvr4's talk page that I mention John actually asserts that they will edit war for their preferred version because of perceived incompetence on the part of Buckshot06. Evidence; ... I'll keep putting it back in. An edit war will ensue and your failure to read sources or discuss until now...and assertions (like those above) about the alleged lack of a similar passage in sources will be your huge problem. In conclusion, I don't see NOTHERE as presented, but, I do see civility and composure issues that may need some form of addressing. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The 2013 AfD is actually highly relevant, as JohnVR4 has kept trying to recreate this article (in various forms) despite the concerns raised in the AfD and its result, and the many subsequent discussions. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If I may interject, the appropriate link to that discussion is here :Air defense interceptors/Genie The argument was whether the Interceptor came directly from the original source I used- clearly it did yet the other editor would not acknowledge the obvious fact that the word was in that source despite thanking me for sources. I sort of citation bombed him with sources that quote F-100s, with Nukes, Genies at Naha on Alert as well as most of the WP main pages that also had it because he was being so absurd. And we are here talking about it now simply because he said a word is not there in that source. But it is and always has been. It was an Edit War and that concern was 100% his absurdity and I warned him to never ever try to fight anyone over that point. Yet that is precisely what he did today! Please please explore it further! And look at the reverts made that are contrary to reliable sources. He's done that exact same thing multiple times while stating in MfD that I never improved or condensed any material from my sandbox! That main space material was moved from my sandbox. Johnvr4 (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

    The context for the quote and my prediction of an edit war was in response to Buckshot06's threats and actions to keep removing our very highly reliably sourced content: "You need a source for nuclear-armed interceptors standing ready for scrambling on Okinawa, and until you provide that, I've remove the paragraph again. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)" I hope that addresses (or characterizes) Mr rnddude's concern. I thought I was pretty nice about it in warning him given the wall I was beating my head against by simply continuing to even interact with that editor. The full quote was: "...Do not make me pull out quotes! I don't have time for such silliness. No one does. If you cant or won't read the sources, I'll keep putting it back in. An edit war will ensue and your failure to read sources or discuss until now...and assertions (like those above) about the alleged lack of a similar passage in sources will be your huge problem. So I'm going to formally warn you now. Stop and review the sources that you've said you already reviewed. If you had done so, we would not be having this discussion!". Johnvr4 (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC) 20:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC) I have only just remembered that Buckshot06 deleted that very source on Mar, 20. Johnvr4 (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Huh, you're right. It's clear as day on the 1981 CDI article. I had missed it both on your talk page and in the article; During the late 1950s and early 1960s the F-100 Super Sabre served as a primary interceptor. On top of that the Mindling/Bolton source explicitly states that F-100s were present at Okinawa and were nuclear arms equipped. That said, content is an issue that two people can mutually resolve if they are willing to discuss. Content problems shouldn't be the reason we are here. There are better ways to deal with these kinds of issues than outright edit-warring too. One, you can ask for a WP:3O. Two, you can withhold the material and discuss on the talk page (this was done, both at your talk and at the article talk, so kudos for that). Three, if need be, you can do and RfC. I've found a section (argument really) that I'm going to go read through. I am getting more lost, rather than less, as to what the issue actually is. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Block. JohnVR4 is essentially a single purpose editor whose contributions are focused on adding inaccurate and POV pushing material. This includes material which is not supported by the citations provided, as well as cherry picking material and developing large articles which are nothing but WP:SYNTH - to such an extent that they can't even be reduced to stubs. As noted in the post at the top of this discussion, multiple interventions by a large number of editors in good standing have not been successful in persuading him to change his ways or even seriously acknowledge that his editing is problematic. I think it's fair to say that the editors who have been involved with JohnVR4 have exhausted their patience with him. As he is not editing Wikipedia in good faith or in a collaborative way, he should be blocked to prevent further edits which post misleading information and disruptive conduct. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. There are clearly problems here, but I'm convinced that JohnVR4 has good intentions and genuinely believes his additions are beneficial to the encyclopedia, and is not deliberately trying to push inaccuracies and POV (even if that might at times be the result). As such, I don't see that WP:NOTHERE is applicable - "Difficulty, in good faith, with conduct norms" is given as a specific "not not here" example. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Just to add, I think a topic ban would stand a better chance of consensus, if someone were to propose one with an appropriate scope. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. WP:NOTHERE is for users who come here purely to troll other wikipedians. While his edits/comments might cause problems, this is a good faith editor, who needs to improve some aspects of his editing. Perhaps a short topic ban, so he can learn to edit well on subject that he isn't closely connected to might help. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. (involved editor) In one of the last interactions with Buckshot06 (when I thought we parted ways) I left him this message[95]: "...We just seem to bring out the worst in each other and only produce long discussion with out agreement, and embarrass each other then feel bad, over human errors. I tried to explain to you myself numerous times that our sources need to be looked at closely. The fact is that three other editors also looked at that concern and could not have missed it then failed to point that out to you when you asked, probably did disservice to both you and to I. We unnecessarily wasted a lot of time on this. The way I have interacted with you since was a direct reflection of my frustration in feeling that you are also difficult to work because you refused to look at the sources to verify content. If our paths cross in the future I hope that the interaction will be constructive and fruitful and not at all like many of our previous interactions. Peace. Johnvr4 (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Unfortunately, as one might note, what I had suggested and hoped is not even remotely what has happened since. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment of JohnVR4, userspace and main space submissions by Buckshot06

    Buckshot06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Buckshot06 and I have longstanding, heated and unresolved content disputes. He has characterized the disputes as me creating Fake articles and has made numerous baseless policy concerns in talk and recently at Miscellany_for_deletion/OpRedHat as well as to support his arguments in discussions. I have responded to his faulty assertions here:DRV JohnVR4 user spaces and at my talk page. His near-pathological misrepresentations take walls of my text to explain away and as a result my concerns are ignored most recently at WP:Deletion_review/Log/2017_August_30. He has repeatedly threatened to Mfd my userspace draft that was actively being edited 1.5 hours before he nominated it over obviously ridiculous concerns or assertions (such as those he raised in the previous section). His assertions are easily disproved in discussion, diffs, quotes, sources, and every other available method to Wikipedia editors.

    Despite my numerous pleas, Buckshot06 repeatedly refuses to read or acknowledge majority and minority opinions in cited reliable sources and then battles over text based upon his strong views and advanced degrees instead of reviewing the reliable sources (especially the newer ones) or opening a content dispute where our issues should be publicly resolved rather than being reverted or deleted outright or having an edit war. He then accuses me of not listening or a plethora or other dubious accusations. I wanted to work together and have asked for help but is is clear that Buckshot06 and I cannot see eye to eye and never will. We have decided to stay away from each other and he has now apparently followed up on a second one of his past (and also ridiculous) threats by opening the above section. This is the third time he has Accused me of an Anti DoD/US stance without the slightest merit and he does not seem to realize that I write from a reliable and documented source standpoint and most importantly, I am from U.S. a military family, from the U.S., which I still support (despite our country's current regime embarrassment). I take I great offense at his third anti-Us accusation (I warned him about it before) as well as his accusation that my thousands of edits were all in bad faith and do not improve Wikipedia -which he has already contradicted in his own words more times than I can count.

    That editor has near-pathological pattern of misrepresentation including in his misleading explanations of the links he provided in the above section. On the advisory by User:Moe Epsilon- For example, one editor User:Moe_Epsilon at the [AFD] fabricated a concern about my editing and claimed "I cooked something up." Then that editor made all types of other ridiculous assertions that are disproved by a source (plus the ones already mentioned) which I added only minutes before Buckshot06 deleted the entire sandbox4 draft just this week! The Diffs that were deleted (which I cannot see because I am not an administrator) would prove that I did not write that passage- but there is no just way to see it now since all the diffs are gone. (Well not just yet anyway...Wikipedia:Requests_for_history_merge#New_requests) The diffs would prove that Buckshot06 himself put that nonsense that got the page deleted right back on the main space and abused all of the sources he cited.[96] Note also that Buckshot06's POV version of Operation Red Hat is missing most of the majority and minority viewpoints in every single one of the sources he has cited.

    On the advisory by User:RoySmith- User_talk:RoySmith#Ignoring_of_views_at_DRV,Administrators noticeboard#Closure_review_DRV_of_JohnVR4_userspace_Sandbox_drafts

    BuckShot06 makes various entirely merritless claims which I've already disproved to him. In the examples he provided he has fiercely contested moves from my sandbox and is still actively contesting them which proves his main issues with me is a content dispute where he wont acknowledge what a reliable source says (and Note his totally disproved POV complaint) but more importantly his assertions that my sandbox draft where the material is coming from has not been improved nor condensed are utterly absurd: Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan#Terrorist_threat_and_weapons_removed_in_1972-_Apparent_POV and here: Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan#Air_defense_interceptors.2FGenie

    Other highly relevant links would be:

    1. User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Operation_Red_Hat_Suggestion_Comment
    2. User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Operation_Red_Hat_again
    3. WP:Articles_for_deletion/Operation_Red_Hat,
    4. User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_19#Operation_Red_Hat,
    5. User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_19#Userspace_copy_of_Red_Hat,
    6. User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Operation_Red_Hat_Suggestion_Comment,
    7. User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_22#Draft_review
    8. User_talk:Nick-D#OP_RED_HAT_ongoing_issue_notification
    9. User_talk:Nick-D#Red_Hat_material_move_to_MK.2FSEARCH.3F
    10. User_talk:Nick-D#U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan.27s_southern_islands
    11. [97]
    12. [98]
    13. [99] In response, to these comments I received, I had thereafter moved out about 1/3 of the sandbox content as well as the reduced the scope then split the remainder in User:Johnvr4/sandbox in half.

    Note this exchange among others: "When I file the AN/I over your WP:OR, WP:PRIMARYSOURCES reliance, WP:POV, WP:OWN, WP:SYNTH, and battleground reverting editing, you will be notified, in accordance with policy. In my considered opinion, you should be writing research pieces for publication that allow you to state polemics, not trying to operate on a site that is supposed to be neutral. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)"

    "...Given your threat of an apparently inevitable pending ANI, why don't we just file that ANI case right now over the use of sources, edit warring, and POV on this page? Per your assertion, can you show me in this article any of My OR, or an incorrect use of primary sources, POV, OWN, or Synth? These unfounded assertions are going to be looked at under a microscope. Have you forgotten the main section to this sub-section? It is titled: Terrorist threat and weapons removed in 1972- Apparent POV ? Johnvr4 (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)"

    Also: "...I remain baffled about how I could be 'cutting you out' after pleading with you immediately above to edit the mainspace article. Your options are twofold: remain editing only your userspace draft, which is not really what a userspace draft is for, or actually get involved in the mainspace. Please engage with me, here or elsewhere, to tell me about well sourced issues which ought to be in the mainspace article, and we can get them in there!! Not every connected issue that you write about in your userspace may end up in the mainspace, but I can certainly see there are issues you write about which ought to be mainspaced. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC) [100]

    "I've already said how I believe most of what you have left under Red Hat actually belongs under 112 (or possibly under Project Deseret), and I've laid out my reasons, none of which are invalidated by further things you've said, or by the Chemical Weapons Movement History Compilation, as far as I've scanned it so far. But never mind -- I will cut straight to the chase. Would you prefer I start a WP:MFD (miscellany for deletion) discussion on your preferred, but disputed, version of the article in your sandbox, in line with WP:FAKEARTICLE, not in six months as I had intended to propose, but now? Then we'll get this cleared up sooner rather than later. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)"[reply]

    1. Project 112 Was moved out from my sandbox three days PRIOR to his demands! Project 112 move from sand box on March 16, 2017
    2. Deseret Test Center Was moved out from my sandbox three days PRIOR to his demands! Project Deseret move from Sandbox on March 16, 2017
    3. U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan Was moved out from my sandbox two days PRIOR to his demands! U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan Created from my sandbox on March 17, 2017
    4. United States military anti-plant research Was moved out from my sandbox one day PRIOR to his demands! United States military anti-plant research Created from my sandbox on March 18, 2017
    5. Project MKUltra Was moved out from my sandbox one day PRIOR to his demands! Project MKUltra move from Sandbox on March 18, 2017
    6. 1968 Kadena Air Base B-52 crash Was created from my sandbox 12 hours PRIOR to his demands! Created from sandbox on March 19, 2017
    7. Japan and weapons of mass destruction Was moved out from my sandbox four days after his demands! Japan and weapons of mass destruction move from sand box PRIOR TO March 19, 2017

    Last, Buckshot06 himself moved material he knew to be from my sandbox into another namespace WP:ARTICLE one day PRIOR to his demand.

    I sincerely that hope the above exchange with him entirely clears up the total and absolute absurdity of Buckshot06's assertions in nominating my draft for deletion FIVE MONTHS TO THE DAY after his ridiculous prior threats to MfD the draft. All endorsements in support of his entirely false assertions are faulty and his abuse of the noticeboard processes (both MfD and ANI) is now shamefully exposed. (bold for emphasis)

    I ask that Buckshot06 be stripped of his administrative privileges entirely, Be sanctioned for purposeful untruths, Leave my userspaces alone, and be prevented from causing further disruption, redevelopment, or improvement to Operation Red Hat with the administrator rights he has been granted. His behavior includes:

    1. The 4+ year assumption I am acting in bad faith
    2. locking that page
    3. Deleting the PageHist
    4. Restoration of the exact problems that caused an AfD
    5. deletion of mass amounts of reliable sources and relevant text
    6. Purposeful misrepresentation of facts in discussion, reverts, rollbacks, nominations and noticeboards
    7. harassment

    I may have difficulty responding in a timely fashion due to a hurricane in my location) Johnvr4 (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • To deal with the central request immediately, Johnvr4, Arbcom is the only place where you can ask that Buckshot06 be stripped of his administrative privileges entirely. That is unless Buckshot voluntarily hands them in. Arbcom has a five hundred word limit for case requests (your wall is significantly longer than this), however, I strongly recommend against trying to get ARBCOM involved as they will deny this request on procedural grounds. Instead, your time would be much better spent, getting rid of as much of the assertions or irrelevant material as humanly possible. Very few people are going to be willing to spend their time reading 12k bytes of material. Whole articles have been written with less. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Understood. I will reserve making that request for now. Since the DRV closure review was closed. Must I recap all in this forum and can both requests be open simultaneously? Thank you John.
    • That depends, is Roy Smith's closure in any way shape or form relevant to this specific AN/I case and the interactions between you and Buckshot06. If no, then it doesn't belong here. If yes, then keep everything together in one place. Perhaps leave it until this has been resolved first. I don't think there is significant pressing concern that would prevent you from waiting to ask the question a week from now rather than today. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    This thread appears to be the immediate follow-up to a closed DRV thread, itself a follow-up to a XfD thread, itself a follow-up to an AfD from 2013. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The DRV was a followup to the discussion at my user talk, which followed my closure of the MfD (reverted once by John because he disagreed). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Happily confirm Power~enwiki's summary, as well as PMC's note. The MfD was about my last throw to see if Johnvr4 was anything more than an SPA. It appears he has not changed his ways at all, and I do not believe he should be here. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure review DRV of JohnVR4 userspace Sandbox drafts. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a Forumshopping exercise and as Malcolmxl5 notes above, those discussions have been opened in appropriate places (as stated above) where I have already asked for a review of the closure. Around January 5, 2017 I again notified Buckshot that his his assertions and actions re my draft were without merit and his harassment would lead to the possibility of sanctions and my Ignoring All Rules. nevertheless I incorporated his suggestions.
    I did IAR and restore following each questionable recent deletion because every assertion he has made in moving to deletion discussions is a blatant misrepresentation of facts which other editors have (unbelievably) echo. [101]. The IAR restorations were immediate followups to questionable deletions but Buckshots06s efforts to ban me from the topic have persisted long before my IAR restorations.[102] I have edited numerous pages that prove his SPA noticeboard assertion are not accurate and that he knows that assertion to be untrue. Baseless SPA accusations by Moe Epsilon were addressed here: [103]. I also edit Electronic music project, Mil history, and others and wrote a nice article on Beacham Theatre as is mentioned on my user page while I took a break from all of controversies I've written about- which Buckshot06 is suddenly and very weirdly fixated on. He stated his purpose was to put a summary on the main space and something about the units and had no further interest. Those summaries he state were his sole purpose in this subject exist on the main space already and have for some time.
    As I stated above and will repeat here, this thread is about the constant misrepresentations by Buckshot06 in very recent discussion and noticeboards- including those listed above- resulting in deletions of my attempts to improve WP. Per his previous section this appears- at least partially- to be an immediate follow up to Buckshot06s actualized threat from April 2017 to come here over a prior content disputes and sourcing that he wanted to edit war over, appeared to have gotten got all wrong, wanted to avoid content dispute and still wants to battle over, followed by my April 2, 2017 willingness to also come here if that is this was the forum that he chose to explore his use of that source (plus a list of other sources). Link:[104] I hope this information clarifies rather than confuses.Johnvr4 (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:Power~enwiki Please do not close my valid request for a closure review of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure review DRV of JohnVR4 userspace Sandbox drafts unless a particular WP policy requires it. I went to DRV for specific reasons, brought up specific concerns in policy and provided more than adequate proof yet the DRV request was closed by ignoring all of my concerns with out even reading them. That closure without addressing any of those concerns is reason for the request for closure review. I ask that you please reopen the review request that you recently closed if/when possible. Thank you, Johnvr4 (talk) 06:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnvr4:--If you feel, that the true evidence that everyone is correct is adhering to your Supervalid beliefs and actions, I'm sorry to state that does not promise you a bright future on our site.And secondly, where this chain stops?You challenged the MfD at DrV.You are challenging the DrV at AN.Prob. iff the AN thread is let to run, a few days after it's clearly foreseeable close, you will be going to _____??I'm also genuinely concerned about the recreation of deleted and deletion-challenged material.That being said I am sorta neutral' about the invoking of ban/block hammer and will take the oppurtunity to sincerely request you to either leave the topic area or put a dead-stop to your disruptive antics.Winged Blades Godric 09:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Winged Blades, I was hoping that I would be vindicated, my concerns would be validated, counter arguments would fall apart and be seen for what they were when actual facts were presented. I hoped that each valid concern that I raised in the DRV, and MfD closure would be reviewed since they were ignored in closing it (see comment below). I would hope the drafts would then be restored so I can finish developing them in my sandbox and moving material the does not fit out. Then Id like move the sandbox to my user space and then ask for further community review and publishing on the main space if or when it is deemed ready. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

    • Comment. I'm involved (I closed the recent DRV he started) so I'll not voice an actual opinion here. But, based on what I've seen, Johnvr4 really does need to back away from flogging the Project Red Hat dead horse. It's obvious he's passionate about that subject, but the community has clearly spoken, and he needs to move on. I don't see any good that can come (either to himself, or to the encyclopedia) of him continuing to push his view of that topic. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Roy, your actual opinion you've posted above is based solely on something you stated you ignored completely but you did note WP:STALE applied in closure so that's something. You've ignored my valid policy views and closed the DRV because you didn't want to read it. That closure has not yet been reviewed. How the consensus of the community was reached is just one of issues that you were expected to answer. That was why I came to DRV. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

    Proposal concerning JohnVR4

    "Johnvr4 is topic banned from contributing to or discussing articles regarding either Japan or weapons, broadly construed, anyway on the English Wikipedia. They may appeal this ban to WP:AN after six months."

    Rangeblock request - 2600:1700:20C0:44F0:*

    Range blocked for 31 hours by Malcolmxl5. (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Range contribs since Sept. 1: [105]

    That 2600:1700:20C0:44F0:* range has been disruptively editing (mostly blanking) the past two days. Yesterday, this user repeatedly blanked content on List of Clarence episodes, which resulted in a block of one of the IPs by Widr. Today, the same range was blanking on OK K.O.! Let's Be Heroes and List of OK K.O.! Let's Be Heroes episodes. These IPv6 addresses are all in the same subnet and the behavior suggests they are the same person.

    Would an admin familiar with rangeblocks please consider blocking this user for a short time to stop the disruption? Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

     Done /64 subnet blocked for 31 hours à la Widr's block on the single IP. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Malcolmxl5: Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Suggestion - 156.67.241.52 - hacking threat

    Blocked. GABgab 15:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    In revision ID 799386259 to the article Sombra (Overwatch) this user (User:156.67.241.52) claimed to be a member of Anonymous, and made a threat to hack the site and reveal information. As I am not a WP:ADMIN, I do not believe that I have the authority to assess whether the threat is credible, and therefore I believe this requires the attention of an administrator. However, as this does not involve violence, I do not believe it qualifies for WP:EMERGENCY intervention. One Of Seven Billion (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like garden-variety schoolkid vandalism. WP:RBI (User:Widr did the "B"). DMacks (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    New editor User:Specialwikipedib (talk) has repeatedly ([106] [107] [108]) removed inter-wiki links from articles without explanation. The editor has also commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Shen (which as seen other SPAs) and likely tried editing to look less suspicious. Requesting action.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably needs to be reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/123Aristotle. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What action are you asking for? The links they are removing are all red links. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/123Aristotle is probably the place to report this. ~ GB fan 18:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=799454502"