Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Eyes needed on articles about alcohol consumption

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

---

Could someone please look over the edits of Sbelknap (talk · contribs); he's got a particular personal vendetta against alcohol consumption and has been removing any statement from articles about alcohol and alcoholic beverages that do not conform to his beliefs; he shows no regard for WP:MEDRS, and is cherrypicking sources based only on those sources that reflect his personal beliefs, and removing those that do not. He calls material "deprecated" without providing any rationale why, and then just removes it. He calls sources like JAMA and the American Heart Association "low quality sources". See here where he removes a JAMA reference, and here where he dumps a bunch of sources that he doesn't think are "recent" enough merely because they contradict his narrative. Can someone else please review his editing and take corrective measures as needed; I want to avoid an edit war here. The user has been topic-banned previously from other medical topics for similar editing (see his talk page for notices of that topic ban); and I'm not wondering if he's now transferring the same behavior to other medical fields. Perhaps an expansion of his topic ban to cover all medical-related topics is in order. User has been notified. --Jayron32 11:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Linking the topic ban discussion--Ymblanter (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Blatant disregard for a topic ban? Only one answer... —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, the topic of alcohol consumption was not covered by the details of his prior topic ban; but what is evident is that he's engaging in similar behaviors (using the cherrypicking of sources to enforce a particular viewpoint) in a new area. --Jayron32 12:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Jayron, apologies, I misread the TB as saying "health" (in general) rather than specifically, "sexual health". Although, of course, there's always the "broadly construed" appendage; and as far as appendages go, alcohol consumption has been known to affect sexual "health"  ;) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is not a violation of their existing topic ban, but it is pretty much the exact behaviour that got them topic banned applied to an adjacent (but not overlapping) topic. I see basically three options here:

1. extending the topic ban to all medical content.
2. a sanction targetted at enforcing proper use of sources and proper talk page behaviour, regardless of the topic area (I'm sure this has been done before, but I don't recall the details).
3. both of the above.

I'm leaning towards options 2 or 3. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I don't know how much weight my input has, but I'm also inclined to agree with a sanction and topic ban. The editor has already shown that they won't learn from his previous topic ban on other similar topics with his belligerent editing. Sbelknap clearly really cares, but the lack of ability to rein things in and have productive discussions about their changes is really concerning for me. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 12:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

An escalation of the behaviour they were topic banned for into areas not covered by the topic ban calls for blocking, in my opinion. But I endorse option 1 at minimum. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

cymru.lass - Your input in a discussion has the same exact weight and significance as everyone else. Administrators do not have any additional "status", "authority", or "rank" than non-admins. The only thing that's different between us is that I have a few extra buttons - that's it. We're trusted to perform actions that aren't given out to everyone and nothing else is different outside of that. I'm no more important of a user than you are (if anything, I'm less important than you, as my job is to help and serve you) :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course, some editors are more equal than others. EEng 21:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

If they don't have additional or higher "rank" then perhaps there shouldn't be references to the "promotion" of "editors" to "administrators". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.169 (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• We tried to tailor the TBAN narrowly to give this person, who is an expert in the real world and wants to contribute to WP, the opportunity to learn with the hope that they could become better oriented to the mission and the P&G through which we realize it. The behavior described here is a huge bummer; this person could have been so, so helpful to us. He has now demonstrated that he is unwilling or unable to set aside his convictions as an expert as well as his real world advocacy when he works here, and that makes him a bad fit here. I support extending the TBAN to all health topics (not just "medicine") Damn. I've posted a notice of this discussion at WT:MED to get others' input from there. Jytdog (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)(sorry I want to think about this more Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC))
  • concur w/ Jytdog, (support extending the TBAN to all health topics (not just "medicine") )based on rationale above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • That's my motivation suggesting option 2 - making it clear that it is the behaviour not the topic that is the problematic thing. Option three is the same but a time-out from medical topics while they are learning and anticipate that the topic ban would be relaxed first. It would require someone far better at wordsmithing than me to craft though. Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I hear that. However I believe that the finasteride thing (the subject of his initial ban) is important to him in the RW. If losing his ability to edit that topic was not a sufficient wake up call, I have no basis for hoping that anything else will be. Hence my recommendation. Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC))
• Support extension of TBAN to all biomedical topics. Reviewing the recent edits, such as at Cider there was clearly an attempt to crowbar undue content in about the effects of alcohol. What is worse, this is done using the recent Lancet metastudy in the same kind of vague and scary way that has been done lazily in the media, by saying just that alcohol consumption "increases the risk of all-cause mortality" (see [1]). Wikipedia should be so much better than this, and we expect much higher standards from medical editors. Alexbrn (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I had a look at (only) his edit to Cider, and what I saw didn't line up with the description at the top of this section. It's probably undue – I'd probably have written two sentences that did little more than Wikipedia:Build the web to the relevant pages on the Health effects of alcohol – but he accurately presented both the current mainstream POV that zero alcoholic drinks per life is best for longevity overall, and explicitly presented the previous mainstream POV by saying that some prior studies found that one drink per day was better than a current consumption of zero per day in certain categories. Where we could do better in presenting this research would be to add that the difference between "zero per life" and "one drink, but not every day" seems to be pretty minimal.
    For those who don't follow this kind of stuff, while the Lancet article has made a big splash in the media recently, the idea that alcohol is a net negative is not really a new idea. This change in the medical establishment's POV has been visible on the horizon for a number of years now. I have no doubt that it's annoying to the industry (I happen to know a small cider maker) and feels personally threatening to some drinkers, but this barely counts as "news" if you've been following the literature. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• See also here. Alcohol is rapidly becoming the new tobacco. The attitude toward alcohol is, despite the latest Lancet article, still quite similar to that of tobacco in the 19th century. As pointed out here: "In the mid- to late-19th century, doctors determined that lip and tongue cancer rates were higher among smokers of pipes and cigars. Despite this link, major medical journals mocked those who opposed smoking. The Lancet, the leading journal of the time and still one of the most important medical journals in the world, wrote in 1879, “We have no sympathy with prejudices against … tobacco, used under proper restriction as to the time and amount of the consumption. ... A cigar when the mood and the circumstances are propitious [is] not only to be tolerated, but approved.” Moderation, not abstinence, was the order of the day." It's then no surprise that the disparity between where the evidence is leading to and the general attitude (that to some degree will end up in Wikipedia, as there is more to alcohol than the health aspects of it and Wikipedia must cover the entire topic) will attract activists who feel strongly about the health aspects. Count Iblis (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Sure and there's no doubt alcohol, especially in quantity, isn't good for you. The problem is the "activist" angle. There's no doubt driving a car risks a crash which can kill/maim you. We don't put that information in every article about every brand of car. Adding a socking great section to Cider and Whisky and so on is the problem. Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • No one is disputing the addition of relevant information from the Lancet article to proper context within the proper Wikipedia article. What is the behavioral issue here is the existence of that one article to justify sanitizing all other valid WP:MEDRS sources from every article if the results of those studies contradict the Lancet report. --Jayron32 17:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know the history here, but what strikes me about this complaint is that I don't see any attempt at either Talk:Long-term effects of alcohol consumption or User talk:Sbelknap to discuss this with Sbelknap. In fact, I see the opposite; Sbelknap opened a discussion at the article talk page explaining why he made those edits, and no one objected or suggested he was doing the wrong thing. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Will give this a little more time, but I'm seeing a clear consensus to extend the TBAN to cover all health and medical topics, as well as for an editing restriction requiring proper sourcing and proper talk page conduct. Swarm ♠ 15:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry again for my too-quick initial reaction. So the OP is unfortunately misleading. In the first diff cited, Sbelknap removed PMID 9863785 (Lancet primary source from 1998) and PMID 11308432 (JAMA primary source from 2001) and this press release. Similarly, in the second diff cited Sbelknap removed a small pile of old primary sources. These edits were perfectly appropriate. Those are unambiguously "low quality sources" per MEDRS. I and other experienced medical editors make edits like that every day. User:Jayron32, those parts of your OP are wrong and you should strike them. And yes, this should have been discussed before posting here.

What is more problematic, is a) the attention only to the evidence, and b) overplaying what the paper describing the evidence says. On a), when I say "only" evidence, we are mindful of what clinical guidelines and public health recommendations say, as well as what the most recent evidence is. Medical practice and recommendations are always judgement + available evidence. On b), the overplaying is apparent in the block of text that Sbelnap has been adding to several articles, like here and diffs above. All of the studies about long term drinking are observational, and can show correlations and risk, but not cause and effect. This is ironically exactly where an expert like Sbelknap could be so, so helpful but instead we have a very flat, un-naunced advocacy-driven edit. This is very close to the kind of behavior that became problematic at sexual health stuff. I am discussing with Sbelknap via email, after he reached out to me, which I appreciate. That's all I have to say for now. Again my apologies for my too-hasty initial response. Jytdog (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• fwiw its worth Sbelknap and i have agreed (I believe) on more nuanced content, something like this as opposed to the diffs linked above. I think Sbelknap understands that they rang alarm bells here and will be more careful in the future. I think no action is needed at this time. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• As Jytdog says right above, edits cited in OP are fine (not only fine, but improved the article) and as Kendall-K1 mentions, Sbelknap engaged in Talk page as he made those editing with perfect explanation on why they were made. This ANI post should be closed without action since it should never have been opened. --Treetear (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• If Sbelknap (talk · contribs) is not doing the things that were previously a problem, would it be appropriate to lift the previous topic bans? Count Iblis mentioned that, due to a changing balance of MEDRS, the health effects of alcohol are liable to be something we'll have a fair number of arguments about. Would it be possible to forstall using up editor's time lots of little discussions by reaching a more general consensus early, with provision for updating it? HLHJ (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

  No one has implied that he is "not doing the things".. in fact I said the opposite. The Benghazi "if" is shit rhetoric, so a trout for that. And no, about lifting the other ban now. Jytdog (talk) 09:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Given that some progress has been made with this editor, we could give Sbelknap a trial period of, say, one month of restriction free editing. During that time, he's to be treated as any other editor not under a topic ban. After that period the topic ban is reimposed, unless there is a consensus in favor of lifting the restrictions permanently or for renewing the temporary lifting (e.g. if he hasn't edited much during the trial period). Count Iblis (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• I do not know the previous cases but I know that he is rather hammering on Talk:Whisky about the negative effects from alcohol. He added this twice to the article Whisky first here and after a revert here. The Banner talk 15:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The first edit was undue, but second edit was better - we should have a brief summary with wiki links to articles that cover alcohol abuse, dependence and health consequences of alcohol. All our other individual drug articles, recreational or prescribed, have at least brief summary of adverse effects, why should alcohol be treated differently?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban: I do not see a consensus above for a topic ban of Sbelknap and the arguments in favour are not convincing. User:Jayron32’s original complaint above actually shows Sbelknap to be competently removing outdated sources and adding recent high quality sources in compliance with WP:MEDRS, as User:Jytdog has pointed out. If this was an obscure topic area receiving little or no active research then maybe deleting those sources could be an issue, but the effects of alcohol on mortality is an active area of research and thus we should be replacing sources older than 3-5 years with recent high quality sources, just like User:Sbelknap did. Another reason for opposing the topic ban is that, as User:Kendall-K1 points out above, there has been little or no effort to try to reason with Sbelknap about their edits on talk pages. It seems User:Sbelknap did try to initiate conversation on talk pages but was ignored, so, under these circumstances, to topic ban him is unfair. I also agree with WhatamIdoing’s thoughts on this matter. I think the only concern is mildly UNDUE editing at individual alcohol articles, where brief summary of some of the effects of alcohol consumption pointing to the health effects of alcohol, as suggested by User:WhatamIdoing, would’ve been better. User:Jytdog has posted above that Sbelknap is liaising with him, which is yet another reason not to topic ban this editor. We need good grounds to topic ban anyone, especially an expert knowledgable contributor such as Sbelknap. It does seem that some people, without sufficient knowledge of WP:MEDRS and the health effects of alcohol, have expressed (weak) opinions here in favour of topic banning an editor (who was for the most part making competent edits that improved our articles). We don’t topic ban competent editors who are improving articles just because they made a couple of mildly UNDUE edits.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Death threat

203.81.71.30 has threatened to kill me.[2] While I suspect that this is the work of someone who is all hat and no cattle, it is rather incivil.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the assessment. Blocked for 72 hours, and the post removed and revdelled as purely disruptive. Alex Shih (talk) 06:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, so I cannot see the redacted death threat, but I do nonetheless feel compelled to ask: is 72 hours really a sufficient block for threatening to kill another editor? Or was the threat so unrealistic and childish or cartoonish that the block is, more or less, pro forma? It's not that I don't trust Alex, I do, but I'm struggling to understand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Pinging Alex Shih. There have been further statements by the IP like [...[redacted - Oshwah]...] and a post-block statement of "Instead of giving me a million chances for me to personally attack and harass others, you have honored me (disrespectfully) with a 3-day block..." Leaving this to the discretion of Alex to decide whether to increase the block duration... Lourdes 08:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I was trying to figure out whether this is a dynamic IP (for which a 3-day block would be perfectly justified) or a static one, and I see that the IP geolocates to Myanmar. Could it be an open proxy?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I have my suspicions about that. It's worth noting that this user has used at least two other IP address in the range in the last two days - for this reason block length is probably not the thing to be addressed. With IP addresses a longer block doesn't necessarily achieve anything. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

If you want to see the death threat, it is [...[redacted - Oshwah]...]. What is interesting is that someone with an IP address in Myanmar speaks very good English and is engaged in disruptive editing. Agree that this is a possible open proxy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I've redacted the external URL to the threat above - Zzuuzz has the ability to view the threat himself, and we should avoid linking external resources to content that's revDel'd on-wiki. The point of rev del'ing is to remove it from public view, and adding methods in order for it to be viewable makes keeping it redacted more difficult and it defeats the purpose :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• I've seen similar from Myanmar IPs recently, and according to https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/203.81.71.30 this one is a "Network sharing device or proxy server". A suitable proxy block should probably be put in place by someone who has the ability and time to work out the appropriate IP range. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but whatismyipaddress.com seems to say that about IP addresses at random. I wouldn't put too much faith in that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

  Per that website (addendum: per NRP, assuming we put any faith in that), there appears to be a proxy service in the range Special:Contributions/203.81.71.16/27. Editing of this person does seem restricted to that and not a /24 range of that I see.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

  https://www.ipqualityscore.com/free-ip-lookup-proxy-vpn-test/lookup/203.81.71.30 says it's a Proxy/VPN too, and gives it a "Suspicious" Fraud rating. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'm still calling BS on this, because it is very unlikely that it is someone actually in Myanmar, unless they are on holiday there.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• whatismyipaddress provides some specific definitions of what it calls a proxy, and there is nothing inherently wrong with proxies. Looking at the range, and the edits to Myanmar-related topics, I'd advise a little caution before throwing down an all-encompassing range block, because it will hit some collateral. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

  Yep, but if someone can identify the range and check what's coming from it, we might get a better idea. And there's the ipqualityscore.com result too, added above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee:I've looked at the IP, and I'm not seeing any actual technical evidence of a proxy operating at this time on that IP. As NinjaRobotPirate mentions above, a lot of those "proxy checking" websites (IPQS, Whatsmyip, iphub, getipintel, etc) should probably be taken with a grain of salt. They are useful for indicating something that needs to be checked more thoroughly, but I'm not sure I would use them as sole evidence. Myanma Posts and Telecommunications indicates that the company also provides mobile service, and anyone that's ever dealt with a vandal on a mobile range knows that they can jump around a lot - and behave like someone behind a proxy. My suspicion is that this is what we are encountering here. SQL^{Query me!} 05:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Oshwah: Since you redacted the death threat (or its remnants rather), just pointing out that the disparaging insult against the black community, which is still there in the edit history. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 11:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

QEDK - That wasn't me that removed that specific attack, and I think they left the diff URL there for others to review it for this discussion. Nonetheless, I went ahead and redacted the rest. If any admin believes that I should not have done this or if I should put the diff URL back as it was, please let me know and I will do so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware ofcourse, I was simply stating there was another contentious thing to censor, which you either didn't notice or didn't want to revdel, so I pointed it out. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 13:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah okay, no worries. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Needing more eyes

I had Aghachi7 requesting New page reviewer today. I moved to eventually decline it because of the quality of articles they have been creating. The problem is, there are a ton of articles. When I went through Samson Olatunde, I found that the majority that was in the article was not listed in any source or was only listed on an WP:SPS source. Admins can see my removal of text before eventually looking at the whole article and realized it was purely a promotional piece and G11ing it. I went to review more articles they created. Dipo Awojide was deleted G11, Ademuyiwa Adebola Taofeek was deleted A1 and then A7, and User:Aghachi7/Linda Ikeji's Blog was deleted G11. Further upon reviewing some articles, I deleted Green Mbadiwe G11/A7, File:Alternate Sound band.jpg per G12. And i'm very tempted to delete Tchidi Chikere for G11. And that is every single article I took time to look at, deleted basically. The quality of this contributors articles is not par for what they need to be. A sanction in some form may be appropriate, but I'm primarily seeking help to review the rest of the articles by people who are better than content creation than I am.

Also this users attitude towards others seems to be very telling. Warning an IP for reverting while they were editing, an unconstructive edit warning to the same user, this warning for this edit. Also they are spamming others to review an article they created about 30 times. Also showing WP:OWN type behavior [3] -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• I suspect this editor is also engaged in covert advertising. Apart from the above (Dipo Awojide and User:Aghachi7/Linda Ikeji's Blog are very concerning) we have Sheena Allen as a promotional puff piece about an American entrepreneur -- all of this editor's other created articles have a Nigerian aspect to them. If he is Nigerian, how likely is he to have taken File:Sheena Allen.jpeg? MER-C 20:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• While not yet proof of anything, that photo was almost certainly taken the same day in the same location as the photo in this article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I looked at the requirements to become a New Page Reviewer, And I do not see the requirement that the editor know how to create proper citations. Despite that, I would've anticipated the new page reviewers would have at least basic skills in creation of citations. While I do see an example in Sheena Allen, I looked at three other articles:Mike Okonkwo,Ejike Mbaka, and Tchidi Chikere, And all I see are bare URLs. That puzzles me.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad:

The header "Needing more eyes" is absolutely appropriate. Actually we need more hands too.

1. I have dedicated my work to solely the Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria and I have been left to fend for the project myself. Putting up requests for articles, managing the project page itself, creating articles and fighting vandalism to the best of my ability. And I can say I have been the most active member on the project in recent times (to the best of my knowledge). The more seasoned editors haven't been as active as they used to and I had to step up. I put up requests for new articles to be created by the project members and every time I don't get feedbacks. The project is literally in comatose. Earlier today, I had to request that I be given mass message sender privilege to enable me send out messages so I can rally round enough man power, because we need to get the project back and running smoothly. Aghachi7 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that WikiProject Nigeria (along with a number of other wiki projects), are close to moribund. I'd like to support anyone who wants to reinvigorate such a project. I'm not close enough to the new page patrolling initiative to know whether you should be granted this right, but there are some troubling notes regarding some of the articles you are working on, some of which may arise from the lack of person power in this general area. Editors working in a vacuum don't benefit from the strengths of a collaborative project.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: thanks. You took the words right out of my mouth, so to speak. Wikipedia is a community. Its also a platform where one learns more about editing with each day spent Wikipedia thrives on collective effort, whether it's by teaching folks with less experience or its helping to get pages to be as neutral as possible. The essence of Wikipedia is defeated when one has to work alone

2. I have a big admiration for people with 50,000 edits and I want to be like them. Now this might sound like a corny excuse, but I believe you have to know a person's motivation before you can judge his actions better. I figured out the best way to get my edits and avoid edit warring (which I ran into alot my first months on Wikipedia) is to stay in my lane. So I create very good articles. Here is what I do, i go to pages with lists like Miss Nigeria, Mr Nigeria, List of Igbo people, etc and create articles for names on these lists that don't already have an article or names that should be on the list. If Mr A is notable enough to have an article for achieving the same thing Mr B also achieved, why doesn't Mr B have an article like Mr A. Right? I put up every article I am about to create on the WikiProject Nigeria page to encourage inclusiveness, unbiased edits and contributions from other editors.

Aghachi7 (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Aghachi7, I understand where you're coming from, but over time the Wikipedia community has found it works best to stay out of the question of motivations and keep conversation focused on content. So I recommend taking on board any recommendations other editors are giving you in terms of how to improve your contributions (and DeltaQuad, I'll have a look at some entries and see what I can see as well, although unfortunately I'm not the most familiar with the sources in this particular area) and take the time you need to develop entries that meet minimum standards. (In particular, I recommend you review the policy WP:BASIC and make sure that all your biography subjects meet it, rather than assuming they qualify because another similar person has an entry.) I realize it's frustrating to see so many big gaps, and feel urgency about filling them, but your contributions will "stick" better if you make sure they are solid from the start, in terms of Wiki-policy. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll continue reading but in the main I think I'm too far out of my depth to evaluate quality of sources confidently. I put a note on NPR talk asking whether anyone with more regional expertise could help. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

One way would be to start with a WP:DRAFT and invite independent review before main space. What you're trying to do is good - we do not cover Nigerian topics well at all - but there will eb drama if you go it alone like this. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Good advice. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I know jack about sourcing for the area too @Innisfree987:. I'm absolutely willing to help review draft space before getting to mainspace, with what time I can spare. My problem is mainspace is indexed, and there was quite a bit of information not covered by any sourcing. I'll put up something in my userspace so we can at least review all the articles already out there.

@Aghachi7: The draft recommendation above is perfect. New articles should start there. I'd be happy to review in what spare time I have, but please understand there is no deadline. The biggest policy you need to read over is WP:BLPRS. Also, i'd be happy to talk to you about sourcing before you start an article, as in we review the sourcing before you put the work into it, so we don't always play cleanup and you can learn. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks DQ. If Aghachi7 is on board, I'll save other editorial suggestions for discussion at your userpage rather than clog up ANI. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate @Innisfree987:, @DeltaQuad: and @JzG:. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aghachi7 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Redoing ping because previous message wasn't signed: @Innisfree987, DeltaQuad, and JzG: Graham87 02:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I've opened User:DeltaQuad/Aghachi7 to start the review process for those involved. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• I am the current coordinator of WikiProject Nigeria, and was elected unanimously about a year ago. I take issue with your concerns on the WikiProject. Recall that I personally invited you to participate during the voting process but you ignored my post. If you have any ideas that will move the project further you need to share on our talkpage, that is the only way we can know editors that need assistance or want to assist the project. There are many experienced editors (many Nigerians) watching the talkpage and willing to help. Additionally, I also think there is a off-wiki COI concern here, which has also been raised by Mahveotm sometime ago. I do not buy the "if A was notable for this, then B should" as your main/only criteria for your selection of articles. You aren't creating articles for popular or prominent Nigerians, instead the subjects of your articles seem like subjects that would want to use Wikipedia to elevate their status. There are many popular and prominent Nigerians lacking WP articles, are are even listed on the project page, someone that is inexperienced but passionate should first start from there. You also added many so-called "social media experts" and "pr guru" who are un-notable and clearly not even popular to our project page. All these are suspicious, even from a Nigerian editor like myself! Few of your articles are genuinely notable, but the un-notability of the non-notable ones raises strong concerns for me.

I want to AGF, so I will ask you this since no one has done so, which of your created articles do you know personally, or have met individuals that know them personally? you don't need to have received money from them, you just have engaged in a conversation either with them or through intermediaries. Please come clean! HandsomeBoy (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

+1. This looks like UPE to me, straight up. Tchidi Chikere is sourced to crappy blogs and the like, including sources like this user forum. In any case this person should not get NPR. Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• While I wouldn't necessarily agree with granting this user NPR rights, it troubles me that there seems to be an attitude (here and in other conversations that I've randomly observed) that it's a big deal. Like adminship, NPR is one of those things that is no big deal. We don't want people going "willy nilly" with the permission, but it's a permission that has quite a few eyes on it and mistakes are caught rather quickly and a page can be unreviewed just as quickly as reviewed. While being a sysop gives extra buttons that could cause headaches, NPR is easily corrected, if misapplied. In my opinion, any editor with at least 4K edits to the Main space and a clean block log ought to have NPR as an auto permission. But, I know that I am distinctly in the minority on that, so I'll just step back over into my little corner now and let this discussion continue. Additional commentary Submitted my comment too soon... To elaborate on why I wouldn't necessarily agree with granting NPR to this user, I say that given the information presented here, as a method of review. There are some valid concerns that have been raised. My thoughts above about NPR being an auto granted permission would also include a check and balance system of some sort. Strikerforce^Talk 21:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC) (expanded) Strikerforce^Talk 21:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Great Famine (Ireland)

Independent comments are requested at User talk:Boundarylayer#The Chancer "User:DrKay", wanting to engage in "warring" specifically on the question of whether the diffs linked in that discussion are reverts or not. DrKay (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

They are not reverts. You added 'unreliable source' and similar tags. Boundarylayer removed the tags while providing the requested better source (with no comment on the merit of that source), which must count as a legitimate edit. After all, he was providing that which you requested. If he had removed the tags without adding a source, that would be a revert. TheVicarsCat (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

No comment on whether the diffs are reverts or not, but I've alerted Boundarylayer to the DS around The Troubles since they haven't been alerted before Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I note that BoundaryLayer, who already has one indefinite topic ban in place (on the subject of abortion), is now accusing another editor of being a "chancer" and a "hypocrite". They have already been blocked twice in the last year for personal attacks. I would suggest that this is sailing very close to another sanction. Black Kite (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh I see, DrKay presenting themselves as simply interested in the minutia of if these are reverts on the admin noticeboard. That seems proportionate. Wait, what is going on? Correct me if I'm wrong but again, wouldn't my word on it, or indeed the WP:CIVIL thing to do here be, to get a 3rd opinion or request for comment over something trivial like this? Why are you so intent on increasingly making it obvious that this wasn't just a misunderstanding on your behalf? As does anyone here really buy this anymore, all this over some silly overlooked "page-needed-tags", you should receive an edit-warring-accusation then find yourself on the admin noticeboard?

If anyone wants to see what the "Dr's" actual motivations are, much like the editors engaged in that abortion ban, then you really need look no further than this revealing quote the "Dr" made. "unlike you I don't edit-war to force my view on this article" From that quote, it is very clear User:DrKay is both levelling personal attacks and has an WP:AXE to grind over some content I've added, though rather than being civil and coming out straight about what that is. They have engaged in all sorts of this motivated wiki-lawyering and veiled nit-picking, in a chancer effort to suggest there is a "war", or get a ban in place etc. As let's drop the pretense, DrKay, no one goes tossing edit-warring labels and now starting Admin noticeboard proceedings...all this, over some overlooked page-needed-tags. Seems incredulous right, really strange right? Though not so strange when your realize, DrKay had days ago, written - "...you are a disruptive user..." and ever since has been desparately attempting to try to make something stick, to fit this their prejudiced view.

Despite being asked to elaborate, User:DrKay has not responded on precisely what "forcing" I'm allegedly doing on the article, it is presumedly something larger than "page-needed-tags" getting lost. So could it be, that what we are actually dealing with here, is an editor with a seething disagreement with content hidden behind this, the veneer of just being a diligent wiki-editor, engaged in what is fast becoming, the most transparent ulterior-motivatation-for-nitpicking, in the history of mankind?

Though seen as we're here, I would like to ask some admins what is the plan to prevent the rise of these kangaroo proceedings and indeed the roving gangs of editors gaming the system and attempting to generate bans for those they (closet) disagree with. As what makes me sail right past [User:Black Kite]] and others and only shake my head, on my way past. Is how we all know that this is happening. It's established practice now. We all hear about it, the admins probably see it as an everyday occurence at this stage.

It starts with a round of Mischaracterization-spin-the-wheel and then mangled, context-void cherry-picking quotes being presented to officialdom, all part of nippy-heels WP:HOUNDING, that by hook-or-by-crook will find its way to escalate to admin-noticeboards. It's all done by sanction-happy editors just because they WP:DONTLIKE and disagree with others. Would I be wrong, that this is not an M.O. established on wikipedia now? One of veiled maneuverings? One really does wonder if those type of editors, are even aware of the articles, the Pot calling the kettle black and Hypocrites? With that then and it being now, really a genuine question User:Black Kite, not as you have falsely attempted to mischaracterize as "accusations" or a "personal attack". Though thanks for neatly giving us an example of the very mischaracterization behavior, I'm talking about. The increasingly laughable opportunism of it.

When, in reality and this is it, the only actual WP:PERSONALATTACKs are the loaded accusations, that none of you, are to bring them to task over. Or are even considering to be grossly inappropriate. Such as the actual accusations they've made - "unlike you I don't edit-war to force my view on this article" & days ago "...you are a disruptive user...". How close to a sanction do sentences like that sail User_talk:Black Kite. Who is "personally attacking" who here and being "disingenuous"?

I'm here to collaborate and improve and make articles. You don't need to take my word for it, just take a look at the article and you'll see that with the quality of references I've added and attempts to make the lede more reflective of the article. I've no interest in the egos here. As I really do not appreciate an editor who is actually the disruptive user, fabricating notions of "edit-warring", starting talk-pages without notifying involved editors, claiming they pointed things out(to an empty room), summoning me to the admin notice board, vague threats about sanctions being made here now. All of this...all of it they claim over some dropped page-needed-tags when updating an article...that's right folks, unbelievable isn't it? It's completely in breach of WP:CIVIL and the opportunism that it reflects, should begin to be recognized and sanctioned. Some editors are clearly intent on making this place akin to soviet-esque systems of kangaroo courts and conducting purges or bans to control content, and it needs to end.

Boundarylayer (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think you've made my point rather well, if a little verbosely. Thank you. Black Kite (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

By "view", I refer to the view that self-published sources are acceptable in a heavily contentious topic area. DrKay (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

What is up with this page?

Could someone check why an assortment of IPs are adding weird stuff and edit warring at this IP talk page? I'm sensing it may be an LTA or similar. Not notifying anyone since there's many IPs. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

It's an LTA (or NTA cause it's definitely new?) See here and my contribs in user_talk between 13:14 and 13:23 today. The content they are adding roughly translates to "suck a horse dick" and it appears to be proxy usage too... CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Investigating... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The IPs are all mobile ISPs with very large ranges. I managed to block one range that won't have any collateral damage, but I won't be able to say the same thing about the others I've looked at so far... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh goodie. Thanks for looking into it. Home Lander (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Home Lander - You're welcome! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: A good portion of these are /16 blocked as NOP on several other projects. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Chrissymad - Definitely not surprising to hear; I've blocked about 3 of them so far. I still have more to look into but I should be done soon. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Alright, here's what I blocked:

114.5.0.0/16

60.50.0.0/16

120.188.0.0/16

36.84.0.0/16

114.4.82.83

That was as best as I could get without too much collateral damage and while verifying if these are open proxies. If I need to look into more ranges or if something doesn't look right, let me know and I'll take a look. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Miriam Tey de Salvador

Dear Administrators, I would like to bring your attention to the following talk page [[4]] of the entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miriam_Tey_de_Salvador. I am not so much experienced in wikipedia and therefore I would like to have your advice. I was reading about the wikipedia policy about biographies of living people [[5]]. It is not completely clear to me which are the limits for a reliable source WP:BLPRS and whats is relevant infomartion about a living person who is not just a famous person but addtionally a professional in some field. Is in this case relevant an affair of this person? There are sources about this affair but how can you proof it and be sure that the sources are reliable or are there really separate sources or the same? there is even a sources in the article about a marriage after this affair. Could you please me tell me if the sources indicated in the article are relevant or it is just tabloid journalism? Is it relevant if this person, who is known for other things (Editor, etc.), had an affair with someone else? .Is relevant who are the supporters of an organisation CLAC she founded? Thanks for your help, --Manlorsen (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

You are edit warring. Stop. --Tarage (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Like was stated above, Manlorsen, you seem to be engaging in edit warring, which is a swift path to a block. It's crucial that you slow down and stop editing the page for now. Instead, continue the discussions you are having on the talk page and reach consensus before implementing controversial or challenged content. Taking a break from the page for a few days may also help.

From what you said above, this seems to be a content dispute, in which case you should seek dispute resolution if necessary. This page is for discussing the behavioral problems of other editors, including long-term abuse cases. This is not the place for content disputes to be worked out, which is what talk pages and noticeboards are for. As is said in the dispute resolution documentation linked above, you can seek a third opinion or even initiate a request for comment (RfC) as a last resort, which might help resolve the content dispute. Please keep in mind that the problem here may be your behavior and position, so be sure to consider whether that is the case. Moreover, if it seems consensus is not on your side, it may be best to just accept that and drop it for now. Consensus can change, after all. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC); edited to add {{Non-admin comment}} at 00:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

This shouldn't be closed out of hand; there are certainly language issues here as well as WP:BLP issues, and this is an acceptable forum to resolve the situation (though a move to WP:BLPN may be necessary if there isn't a quick fix, such as a block, needed). power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Manlorsen's contributions at Miriam Tey de Salvador and Societat Civil Catalana have been somewhat disruptive, and they have not edited any other pages substantially. They are very close to a block. Perhaps a Spanish-speaking admin could give them a final warning? power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The BLP issue is whether a statement that Miquel Alzueta and Miriam Tey de Salvador were in a relationship should be in the article. There's extensive discussion of that on the talk page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Flint water crisis

2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has repeatedly accused me of bad faith on the above talk page, saying things like "Such behavior is manipulative and malicious", "I am against you trying to manipulate this page by concealing... the history of this Talk page" and that old issues were "resolved in your favor" and accusing me of owning the page. Someone please intervene. I consider this a personal attack. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

(non-admin response) I took the time to read through the first archive. I can’t see anything I’d call a personal attack per se. There’s definitely a dispute about editing practices and archiving though and it’s getting a bit dicey. In this case, do you think you could offer a concession by asking the involved editors what article related subjects need to be discussed and refrain from archiving until consensus is reached? This would in part be a show of good will, and would also allow the issues to be re-aired. Even if the donkey is starting to hum a bit, it would probably do the article no harm to go over whatever’s being disputed. Edaham (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to have a content dispute, he just thinks the talk page was archived too early and I disagree. He thinks anything less than a year old should stay on the talk page, even if the issue is long resolved. For some reason he think archiving equals "concealing" which is over course utter nonsense since they're still accessible and readable to everyone.TomCat4680 (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Have you considered ignoring it? --Tarage (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Not if he's making false accusations against me. I have nothing but good faith but he's accusing me of bad faith and I find this extremely offensive.TomCat4680 (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

There talk page shows that this isn't the first time they've been asked to tone it down. The anon seems to get fired up easily... usually over little things. Blackmane (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

This IP does have a history of sealioning, does not AGF, and is deaf to consensus, and prone to personal attacks. (User:Dennis Bratland wrote that)

That's why I don't understand why he hasn't been indefinitely blocked. That kind of behavior obviously doesn't belong here and shouldn't be tolerated. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello? Anybody? Why hasn't he been blocked yet? TomCat4680 (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

On the archiving question, in April 2016, an editor increased the original archive time from 28 to 180 days. In January 2018, deceased it from 180 back to 30 days, then after IP 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 complained in April 2018, TomCat4680 increased it to 60 days. It's true that the guideline WP:TALKCOND says not to unarchive threads that are closed in order to prolong the discussion, but rather start a new discussion. But the resulting page was only 3.8 kb, nowhere close to the rule of thumb 75 kb in the guidelines. There's hardly a strong reason to feel compelled to archive anything. Why fight a battle with anyone who wants to delay archiving? Sooner or later the bot will archive it again. This edit summary, "illegal to un-archive talkpages. if you have a unresolved issue, start a new section." isn't correct. Ignoring a mere guideline, especially when the outcome isn't an unreasonably large talk page, isn't something to to go war over. Guidelines aren't laws.

Regardless of that, 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 isn't someone you can compromise with, and they will never be happy. In the end it's like talking to a wall, and it will turn ugly. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

If that's the case I'd definitely recommend just not responding to anything which seems overly fired up and only reply in threads which are actually related to article improvement. Edaham (talk) 02:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I said this on the talk page but it bears repeating: the IP is ignoring the second half of the archiving rule: The talk page guidelines suggest archiving when the talk page...has multiple resolved or stale discussions. He resurrected an old archived thread from April about the same issue. He did it back in April too, but those threads were much older, although with previously unresolved (now resolved) issues. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Point taken. Archiving seemed the sensible thing to do. I still recommend a subject change on the talk page. Can I on a side note mention that we share a birthday. I'll write more about that on your talk page, but I find it to be a nice coincidence and it is endearing that you mentioned people who share your birthday on your user-page. Edaham (talk) 02:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, I changed the minthreadsleft setting from 0 to 3. I prefer to leave something on the talk page, rather than archiving everything. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why stale threads whose issues were resolved by consensus need to remain forever. TomCat4680 (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Because they're going to remain forever either on the talkpage or in the archive. Leaving a couple of threads on the main talkpage is a useful mnemonic to remind you that discussion has been ongoing. Looking for the small numbers in the archive box doesn't have nearly the same effect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

It prevents old resolved issues from unnecessarily being resurrected though. That's what started this whole dispute in the first place, he cut and pasted from the archive onto the talk page because he felt like he "lost" the argument from five months ago, even though I resolved the points he brought up by adding information and sources to the article. TomCat4680 (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it's more likely to cause old discussions to be started from scratch, if newcomers can't see what the most recent discussions were. The most recent talk archive is never my first stop when leaving a comment on talk. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Well it should be. I hate it when old resolved issues are resurrected. Anybody who cares enough about the contents of an article and its talk page should add it to their watch list and log in as often as they can to see if there's been any recent discussions. Anyways, I increased the archive minimum to 90 days on top of your keep 3 threads adjustment, so hopefully it won't happen again. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Bad content about health effects of food

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

The entire thrust of their editing about food. They do OKish if it is just about food (e.g. this editto Ketchup or but when it comes to health effects they go off the rails, especially if it is about "functional foods" or "superfoods" or any of that crap that the internet is full of.

If you look at this person's talk page you will see warning after warning for bad editing about alt-health foods. (they just delete stuff, so you have to look at the history).

I tried to have a discussion with them -- see here -- and they wrote But the short of it is that I am not employed or receiving compensation from any company involved in the space... but as of yet it remains an interest and a hobby of trying exotic foods with purported health claims. I am also potentially seeking to create new products out of so-called beneficial ingredients and so to get to the bottom of any health claims and to understand why marketing is or is not false. I suppose some of my recent edits were a bit of a statement made against any existing conservative bias I see in the article. I feel that it can be explained how things are marketed without selling it on wikipedia. I may have to take my edits elsewhere on the web, but now with your latest revert I feel you lost some critically useful information: that superfoods often pick out omega 3, antioxidants, etc. The "economics" section is a mess and moreover, with the discussion of the marketing of bananas, I see that may be outside the narrow scope of a "superfood" article and more towards the marketing of "health foods". I come to the article to understand why the superfood label is used and what it means and the article is lacking examples.

I replied: I think it is great that you are trying to understand the market for "superfoods" on a very practical level and want to share your learning in WP as you go. I do this sort of thing all the time, as well. There is just a very fine between describing accepted knowledge about the market and how people have been addressing and growing the market, and replicating the hype within that market..... you are crossing over into the latter a bit much

They have continued unabated. Some sample diffs:

• edit to Sugar substitute
• creating Category:Health drinks defined as "Drinks that promote health". Dogshit health food marketing.
• 1st set of edits to Kombucha; toning down dangers, emphasizing potential benefits. Adding unsourced/badly souced content.
• 2nd set of edits to Kombucha, more aggressively citing putative health benefits using bad sources
• 3rd set of edits to Kombucha, adding a bunch of brand spam via images.
• 1st set of edits to Chocolate with badly sourced health content
• 2nd set of edits to Chocolate, as before but now just blowing off sources altogether
• 3rd to Chocolate (see bottom-most, same as before)
• 4th to Chocolate, better in parts but still bringing in primary sources and unsourced
• 5th and 6th to Chocolate, still with the unsourced content.

There is too much work to do here in WP, to be cleaning up after somebody who is this aggressive and who ignores MEDRS so persistently and willfully, and even when they do pay it some mind, skews the content in a marketing way.

Please topic ban this person from editing about food and health. (I don't know how to tailor it more narrowly). I thought about doing this more narrowly to just health (so they could still do edits like the potato one) but I don't want to waste people's time further or get into the boundary issues of "nutrients". So let's be done with this. Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

User Bodhi Peace seems particularly vulnerable to accepting spam, marketing or personal experience as the basis for changing content on several food and health articles, and has often cited healthline.com as a source (it is a multiauthor, non-expert blog, remote from WP:MEDRS). This talk edit is an example of where a childhood observation led to several reverts and source checks. Each of the user's edits has to be monitored for fact and quality of source, often resulting in reversion or rewrites, and finding a quality source. Rarely does the interaction feel collaborative and productive. I support the topic ban. --Zefr (talk) 02:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

A ban from "Health and nutrition, broadly construed", perhaps? It seems such a thing is needed, since they've proven unable to take polite advice. Icarosaurvus (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I am just passing by this thread, being completely unfamiliar with the situation; however, I do want to interject here on a minor issue, since I have witnessed this become a rather contentious ambiguity in at least one prior topic ban of a user. Namely, it may be important to explicate whether "health and nutrition" here is restricted to human health and nutrition or includes the much broader interpretation of animals (organisms?) more generally. This seems mainly limited to human matters, but it may be best to clarify that now before it serves as a potential problem in the future.

For the record, I maintain no position on the topic ban or this issue, since I am not involved in this issue and have not evaluated it whatsoever. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 05:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC); last edited at 05:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

If a topic ban is necessary, and I am not convinced of that yet because parts of the edits seem okay, perhaps constraining it to adding primary sources and information based on primary sources to medical articles would be adequate. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

It's that "parts of the edits seem okay" which makes it such a time-sink for other editors to fix, as teasing out source misrepresentations takes a lot of time. The fact there is no proper engagement on the Talk page makes it worse. Alexbrn (talk) 06:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• I support this ban, with some appropriate time limit, as I too have had to waste time reviewing and fixing this editor's work in this area. They mean well, but have simply not grasped the requirements for writing about health and nutrition related matters in an encyclopedic manner, and certainly not in accord with WP:MEDRS. (The ban should include animal related matters as well, having had to fix some material on dogs and chocolate.) However, I think they are capable of learning, given some time. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support for at least some months, this is into WP:CIR territory given the number of warnings. Guy (Help!) 13:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I see no attempt by the proposer to engage the editor and explain at the talk page of the three articles Sugar substitute, Kombucha and Chocolate why these edits are so problematic. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC) [revised 13:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)]
  • Err, of those articles I've looked just at Kombucha and there has been a fairly obvious attempt[6] at engagement. [Response to amended comment by David Tornheim – and what on earth would the identity of the OP have to do with the merits of the proposal to topic-ban Bohdi Peace? That should be decided on the evidence ... Unless this is a way of continuing a long-standing grudge you have against the OP, which would be unhelpful to everybody else here.] Alexbrn (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC); amended 15:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I looked at the first edit of the long list:

edit to Sugar substitute

This edit adds substantially new content to a high-profile article which has not been removed or even challenged at the article. If it is so problematic that it is the first on the list as justification for topic-banning, then why has the content not been removed and discussed on the talk page of the article before coming here? If the content cannot be contested, this suggests a reason to not topic-ban the editor. I went to Kombucha and Chocolate and saw the OP did not try to raise objections at the article before coming here to raise them. (I had not noticed that other editors have raised objections about the edits at Kombucha and Chocolate. On that I stand corrected.) The lists of warnings on Bodhi Peace's talk page are indeed concerning, particularly the responses here. Ultimately, because of the diff provided at Sugar substitute, my feeling is that we need to work with the editor first in correcting issues. A request that the editor "slow down" before adding new content might be in order as well. But topic-banning seems extreme without first working with the editor. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

As everybody else is saying, they don't engage on Talk. In your haste to disagree with Jytdog you are enabling a problem editor IMO. Alexbrn (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

"[T]hey don't engage on Talk." That's clearly not true, as you well know, because Bodhi Peace responded directly to concerns you and another editor raised in this discussion at Kombucha. Bodhi Peace even conceded to a requested change with "I don't exactly know what you are getting at so go ahead and make the edit." diff That seems pretty reasonable.

Additionally, Bodhi Peace responded at the talk page of Chocolate here. After being accused of using blogs, Bodhi Peace replied, "All that information on chocolate poisoning in pets was copy/pasted, cut, summarized, etc. from theobromine poisoning." diff

--David Tornheim (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

They respond but they don't "engage" - the edit then continuing on. Alexbrn (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• And at Talk:Chocolate#Theobromine poisoning. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Off topic question Am I the only one who just drinks Kombucha because I think it's delicious and doesn't care about the supposed health benefits? Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
• I have experience with this editor on Ted Kaczynski. Some of their edits are useful but it is time consuming to review and fix the not-so-useful contributions. Edits such as this, changing the parameter "days between" (something I challenged but was reverted) to "time between" in order to give data such as "~1 year" and "~1 1/2 years" alongside data such as "2 years 317 days" and "6 years 123 days", just confuse me. None of their edits individually are that bad but it is a persistent pattern where they will need to be reviewed and retouched. To my knowledge, they have not added any referenced material to the article so it is particularly frustrating when you are having to review copyediting. There also are edits such as this, which was explicitly argued against shortly before on the talk page, with no response on the talk page or rationale for addition. In my opinion, they either edit on a whim without much care to the result or Guy's assessment is accurate. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I was aware of their editing on other topics like Kaczysnki but had not looked at them. I was hoping they were better. Apparently not. Jytdog (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Long term copyright violations and other issues with Nauriya

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

---

Nauriya has been engaging in mass copyright violations since 2013. See Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Faizanali.007.

Though it was revealed only in 2018 that Faizanali.007 is his account, after I had seen him making suspicious edits in the area of India-Pakistan conflicts and filing of SPIs against the opponents editing India-Pakistan conflicts with whom he never interacted before, I discovered in July 2018[7] that Nauriya is sock of Faizanali.007 (talk · contribs) and has abused multiple socks throughout these years.

The SPI ended up with a warning that any more instances of "socking/meatpuppetry/copyright violation" will result in block.[8][9] Though the decision was very gracious but has failed to bring any change. Neither meatpuppetry stopped,[10] nor the copyright violations.[11]

Just yesterday (on 4 September), he created Economic Advisory Council (Pakistan),[12] where he violated copyrights by copy pasting large chunk content from other sources. It is worrying that this happened only 3 days after he was warned already on 1 September where the warning noted that "Please be more careful, or you risk being blocked from editing".[13]

Apart from all that, some other recent violations include the upload of File:Pak Serzameen Shaad Baad music sheet.jpg from 23 August.

To this day, majority of his image uploads have been deleted for infringing copyrights.[14][15][16]

I am also concerned with the articles he has created. For example his two times creation of Wasi Shah with his both accounts (Nauriya, Faizanali.007) with both versions using POV tone and unsourced or poorly sourced statements and praises about the non-notable individual. The recreation has been salted because it was frequently created by socks. Nauriya later created article about Bhool where he referred Wasi Shah as "veteran writer and poet Syed Wasi Shah".[17]

His recent edit on WP:ITN reads "Previously Imran Khan blurb was not approved and now this. Pakistan is not a small country to be ignored like this. All British smallest elected/selected members gets INTR and when it comes to this, it becomes ceremonial. Then why Geremany blurb was posted."[18] Apparently the points he made were proven to be misleading.[19]

Nauriya has been indeffed two times for copyright violations,[20][21], none of which were ever successfully appealed since he switched to sock with another account after failing to appeal the block for copyright violations.[22][23] Given the long term recurring copyright problems as well as other issues, and gazillions of warnings for multiple issues, it seems that these blocks and warnings have failed to bring any improvement. Lorstaking (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The SPI you filed seems to have been closed as unconclusive by @Bbb23: who also cautioned you about mudslinging at the time, but I'll ping them in so they can verify. Regardless, it seems like you have a long-term grudge with this editor and are forum-shopping to get them in trouble. Simonm223 (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Have you missed the self-admission of Nauriya where he admits the named accounts to be his own, "I have been assessed for all these accounts. And they were all when"[24]? In any case, stop derailing the sensible report. GenuineArt (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

You mean the bit where Nauriya confirmed that the socks (which at this point have all been inactive 5 years) were a mistake they wouldn't repeat? It seems like the Standard Offer would have long since applied for any blocks involved; but I'll leave that to the filing clerk on the investigation, who I pinged. It seems strange you'd call something like that disruptive when there's some evidence to suggest hounding (IE: trying to dredge up five year old mistakes in hopes of getting somebody indeffed on flimsy ground.)Simonm223 (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

It was a strange decision to let him off even after discovery of sock puppetry. Copyright violation did occurred and in a deliberate manner. GenuineArt (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• My previous mistakes has already been discussed and I have given my explanation. You don't have to bring that again and again to prove that I am disruptive or not good for Wikipedia. Regarding copyrights, I admit it is my mistake, and for recently I have removed the copyrighted part, and I already saw the conversation on the talk of admin you started, and Diannaa has said to watch me for my edits. Other than that it is a case of hounding as if you are watching me, after you failed to get me blocked previously. I really don't know what to say in my defence, because this is a pattern you are following and trying to get me blocked. It is nothing but a grudge and trying everything to get me blocked. For copyrights, I will accept admins decision or punishment, but you are not only hounding but harassing me by doing such things. Please stop hounding and if it is my mistake ask me to make it correct, but instead you always go for block. Previously this editor has also hounded me like this, and he was warned for this, but clearly he and might be others are watching me for any mistakes I make in future, which eventually would help them get their agenda. Please I ask admins to look into this. Nauriya, Let's talk - 15:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• No one has the time to keep asking you to "make it correct" when you are being a long term unrepentant copyright violator with apparent behavioral problems. GenuineArt (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Just to weed out the conclusion from the mess of an SPI that Lorstaking linked to: Nauriya and Faizanali.007 were found unrelated ([25]) - they are not socks, the previous copyright investigation was for a different user. Lorstaking has a weird history of insisting that their sockpuppetry allegations are infallible even after many users tell them they're wrong, and it's true that I recently warned them to knock it off, though that was related to a different case. (struck per subsequent discussion, turns out I just made more of a mess Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)) That said, copyright is serious, and while Diannaa has already said she's going to keep a close eye on Nauriya's editing, I do tend to agree with DBigXray's suggestion to remove Nauriya's autopatrolled and reviewer userrights since it seems they can't be trusted to respect copyright. But the linked investigation from five years ago is entirely irrelevant. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Ivanvector: Nauriya admitted to be Faizanali.007 and in fact "all these accounts" that were suspected per his own admission.[26] Bbb23 found Nauriya to be unrelated to International Editor Shah,[27] who is not Faizanali.007. GenuineArt (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• @GenuineArt: Regardless of whether or not any of those accounts were linked by SPI to this user, none of these accounts have been active in half a decade. It's not a strong case for any ongoing disruption. Simonm223 (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• I find all above diffs to be very recent though. Given indef blocks were tried earlier, this time we need to think of a more stricter measure to deal with this severe issue. GenuineArt (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Ivanvector's suggested course of action. To wit:
  • The socking issue is really old, and just muddies the water here.
  • The copyvio issue, on the other hand, is current and serious. Nauriya should understand that further excuses are not going to carry much weight, and any future image/text copyvio is likely to lead to a indef block. Thanks Diannaa for offering to keep an eye on the user's contributions.
  • In the meantime, I support removal of auto-patrolled and reviewer user-rights given Nauriya's weak understanding of the copyright policies.

Abecedare (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment TLDR version: I do "not" think a block is needed here.
  • Long version (busy with RL but wanted to get this in before it was closed):
  • I agree that the editor is a mixed bag with issues on Copy-right violations, past blocked accounts and some instances of suspected proxy editing (which I was the receiving end of) but the editor, IMO, is a net positive for Wikipedia. The copy-right violations, IMO, have not occurred out of malice but more out of ignorance of rules and can be corrected.
  • Their contributions on TV series, movies and related articles has been very useful and as far as I can tell have greatly aided in improving the content in that area. Plus, the user seems to have a genuine interest in that area and the need is to correctly channel this.
  • I had mentioned my concerns about Copyright understanding earlier ([28]) and somehow it was construed as me trying to get back at the editor (don't blame the admins for that, if someone reported you then you somehow cannot be seen as wanting to do the right thing for them). Maybe, if this exercise was done at that moment, then this would have not have come to this. I did not wish that the editor to be blocked then nor do I wish that now. However, uploading copyright issues is serious and I have been blocked once for this very issue. In this case, I think what is needed is that we make an attempt to have the user understand what constitutes a copy-right violation and why it is harmful for Wikpedia. A simple way to do this is to have the user write a statement on what they did wrong. If the user does not get it correct, then we have to them rewrite it until they get it correct.
  • In my views, we must make an attempt to help the user understand our CR rules and their reasons better and I am sure they will and continue to contribute positively to the project.
  • For the sake of full disclosure, it was I who bought the recent image copyright violation to Diannaa's attention (was watching the user's uploads based on my concerns raised earlier). But I did not wish the user to be blocked (for the above mentioned reasons) and thus did not pursue this any further.
  • I have no further comments on the two proposals below. There are admins and senior editors here who I am sure can make the correct decision. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Adam, (TLDR: Your proposal has been tried and failed multiple times) In reply to ur quote we must make an attempt to help the user understand our CR rules Do you really believe that in last 10 years attempts were not made in that regard ? Did you check out the links above and the talk page history of Nauriya and his old socks, cluttered with Warnings ? he had enough warnings and time to understand the rules. "Copying content to Wikipedia is not allowed" isn't really that hard to understand, especially when you get several blocks for that. This is either a WP:IDHT or WP:CIR and proposals have been made to address the Long term abuse. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• FYI, I have made a CCI request, as that will be needed no matter what the outcome of this thread is: [29]. Fram (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: upload ban & revoke userrights

I don't want to step on Diannaa's proposal, but I'm hopeful we can head off another thread of partisan mudslinging with a quick solution. Since Nauriya (talk · contribs) seems to be either unwilling or unable to abide by our copyright policy, as evidenced by recent (not five-year-old) violations, I propose that their autopatrolled right be revoked (due to creating a page this week that was a copyright violation) and that they be banned from image uploads indefinitely, subject to the usual appeal process.

• Support as proposer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: I edit-conflicted with what Abecedare wrote above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• I removed the user's autopatrolled and pending changes reviewer rights before I saw Ivanvector's proposal. I am assuming those removals will not be controversial; frankly, Nauriya should consider themselves fortunate to be getting this "last, last warning" rather than a block. Abecedare (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, what's done is done, I'm not going to nitpick. When I wrote the proposal I elected to leave out reviewer because it's less related to creating copyvios, though I suppose if the issue is that Nauriya can't spot a copyvio (rather than deliberately adding them) then we also shouldn't trust them to review other users' creations. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Ivan, as you guessed I removed Nuriya's reviewer right with the view that an editor whose contributions need so much oversight, should not be reviewing/clearing others' edits. Abecedare (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Was going to Support and see Abecedare already did it anyway. So... That's fine. Simonm223 (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Like Abecedare said above that the copyright issue is current and recurring for large period. I propose adding the line to the above proposal that "any future image/text copyvio is likely to lead to a indef block",(per Abecedare) which can be appealed only to community. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Generally that's implied for this sort of sanction, but I would support stating explicitly that any future copyright violations will result in blocks. I'm not in favour of specifying that such a block must be indefinite (I prefer admin discretion) but Nauriya ought to realize by now that indef is likely to be the case, given all these warnings. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Ivan thanks for considering my suggestion on the user rights and appreciate your compassion. Looking at Nauriya's reply, it does not appear to me that he really understands why he is being sanctioned or a remorse for it. All I see here is more WP:BATTLE behavior and accusing other editors. With so many warnings and blocks (on older user accounts) and still defaulting on CopyVios, I see here either an extreme case of WP:CIR or more likely a deliberate WP:IDHT to violate policies for POV pushing. And a block warranted for either of the cases--DBigXrayᗙ 20:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support because this seems to be the right solution. Oppose any changes suggested to Ivanvector's proposal. Son of Kolachi (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Indef Block

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

---

For Long term abuse. Final Warning on any future socking/copyvio/proxying or similarly disruptive activity was already given on 11 July 2018, 13 July 2018 and another CopyVio related Final warning on 1 September 2018. Which was answered with another CopyVio article on 4 September 2018. This medicine of final warning is well past its expiry date and the behaviour is now clearly a "mockery of the due process". I propose we stop wasting more time with editors not willing to learn.--DBigXrayᗙ 20:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef block/site ban (as proposer) Looking at Nauriya's reply, it does not appear to me that he really understands why he is being sanctioned or a remorse for it. All I see here is more WP:BATTLE behavior and accusing other editors. With so many warnings and blocks (on older user accounts) and still defaulting on CopyVios, I see here either an extreme case of WP:CIR or more likely a deliberate WP:IDHT to violate policies for POV pushing. And a block warranted for either of the cases. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef block site ban with proposed restrictions. Nauriya's own comments above gives lack of confidence that why copyvio won't occur again or if they understand the basics of this issue.[30] Proposed restrictions should continue to remain after successful unblock. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef block as this user continues to not get the point. Their comment also shows a lack of knowledge of the responsibility of his actions. The Duke ^{Talk page, please ping me anywhere else.} 20:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef block/ban We're well beyond the point of rope. This is a LTA. --Tarage (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban. Socking to evade copyvio blocks. FOUR FINAL WARNINGS but still creating copyvios. Softlavender (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC); edited 13:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose in favour of first proposal for a limited ban. We're dealing with one problem, a serious one admittedly, but going full site ban is a bit like using a sledgehammer to drive in a nail. We should try a crafted sanction before kicking someone off the site. If that doesn't work then a site ban is pretty clearly the next step. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

could have agreed with you for a new clueless editor, but this is a Long term Abuse + Copyright Violations + Battlefield mindset + POV pushing --DBigXrayᗙ 23:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

They've been kicked off the site before. Multiple times. They have a SPI case page as long as my arm. The ONLY reason they got to stay was because someone took pity on them with one of their socks and said "Okay as long as you behave." They have not behaved. --Tarage (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support Doesn't seem to learn. Repeated disruptive editing + no signs of learning from mistakes —> indefinite block. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 01:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef ban for showing no concerns over the long term socking and copyright violations. Article creations also seems suspicious as they show clear shift in language and editing style. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I understand the decision the of admins made previously for revoking my rights, but saying I don't show concern over the matter is not right. What is done, I can not bring it back, so I was looking what decisions admin would make. But proposing this, again and again is not justified, previously too you all tried to get me blocked, and now again you are doing this. If it is not hounding then what is that? I don't know why admins are not seeing that, I accept the decision for my mistakes, but def block is bit too much. Given what admins have said, I will comply. But this is seriously a pattern where you are trying to get us all blocked. I request admins for a just decision. Again I am saying I completely understand what has been said, but I don't know how to convince more, other than that please look for my future edits. Nauriya, Let's talk - 6:40, 6 September 2018.

• Support: Per WP:CIR and WP:IDHT. Persistent copyright violation and sock puppetry for 6 years was never properly addressed by this user, and the ongoing copyright violations after warnings and blocks gives us no other choice. This edit alone should have resulted in topic ban from WP:ARBIPA. Refusal to address the meat puppetry and/or recreation of non-notable articles with promotional unsourced content (e.g. Wasi Shah) only legitimizes this view. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef block/ban. I agree that this behavior is unjustifiable. WP:COPYVIO states persistent violators should be "blocked without warning for the protection of the project". Nauriya is lucky to have been warned for this long. GenuineArt (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
• Clarification - there still seems to be confusion about the sockpuppetry issue. Nauriya's 2013 sockpuppets are documented in the single report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizanali.007. From this there are two blocks for copyvio and one for socking, all from 2013. Yamla put a confusing note on Faizanali.007's user page suggesting a connection to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/International Editor Shah, the source of the Wasi Shah article (which has been moved to Lorstaking's userspace for some reason, courtesy ping Jimfbleak), but Bbb23 determined this was incorrect ([31]). I don't know if basing a site ban proposal off this is a genuine mistake or more ARBIPA bad blood, but I know which one I think it is. Regardless, there is no evidence that Nauriya has socked at all since the 2013 incident. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• It was sock puppetry since he was not using his main account but was evading the block with a newer account (Nauriya) while still sharing the same issues as his older accounts. He did this until July 2018, and was allowed to continue editing with his sock account (but technically he had to edit as Faizanali.007). The sockpuppetry issue only affirms that the editor has no credibility. Finally, he never addressed the meat puppetry that actually got him into trouble.[32] While here, he is not addressing the issues including copyvio - just like he hasn't for 6 years now. --RaviC (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
• (ec)Clarification of the clarification. There indeed still seems to be confusion, but it is mainly caused by posts like this one. "Regardless, there is no evidence that Nauriya has socked at all since the 2013 incident. " is an extremely twisted representation of the facts: the sockpuppet case was in July 2018, so they have been socking non-stop since 2013 until 2018. Have they created more accounts after they started socking in 2013? No, why should they, they were never caught. Block evasion by using a sock is in itself an instant block for that account. Evading an indef block for copyvio, by socking with a new account which starts off where the blocked account finished (e.g. this February 2014 edit is a copyvio from this september 2013 text), and which continued adding copyvio's despite mutliple final warnings and even during this debate, is enough for a full site ban for any half-decent admin. Presenting the false dilemma "basing a site ban proposal off this is a genuine mistake or more ARBIPA bad blood" is of course a logical fallacy. You oppose stated "We're dealing with one problem" (ignoring the socking completely), but that "one problem" will take countless hours to rectify (as it will necessitate another CCI to clean up five years of copyright violations), and is only caused by this user who was already indef blocked for the same problem, but choose to ignore that rather clear message, and all the other messages they got about the exact same problem. Fram (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment guys, put down the WP:STICK over the alleged sock puppetry. It's clouding the legitimate issue here and isn't convincing anyone who didn't come here specifically to get an editor they dislike banned on trumped up grounds. There's been no confirmation of sock puppetry from his account since 2013. You may assert he's socking, but he's not. He's been disciplined appropriately already for the CopyVio issue, and now all this is pretty obvious bad blood. Simonm223 (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• No need to put down the stick as long as people are spreading or believing falsehoods. "There's been no confirmation of sock puppetry from his account since 2013." You mean, apart from the July 2018 thread where it became clear that they had been socking since 2013? Of course he hadn't created further new socks in 2014, 2015, ... why would he? They had sock avoided the indef block of their account, that's all they needed; but that doesn't mean that the socking stopped, the socking continued until now. "He's been disciplined appropriately already for the CopyVio issue"? Umm, he has continued with copyvio since before 2013 until at least two days ago. What sanction has he receibed since then? Never mind "appropriately"? "It's clouding the legitimate issue here and isn't convincing anyone who didn't come here specifically to get an editor they dislike banned on trumped up grounds." Thank you, it convinced me, so apparently I'm now here because I dislike Nauriya, even though I had never heard of them before this thread, and have to the best of my knowledge never interacted with them, and have got no interest in the ARBIPA disputes either (I don't even know and don't care whether they are supposed to be I or PA here). Please stop with the ABF and the hugely misleading statements about sockpuppetry. Fram (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• He was not found by an admin or checkuser clerk to be socking in 2018. Can you please just stop it? Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• He admitted that he was the sock of multiple copyvio blocked editors. This was only discovered in 2018. While one incorrect account was suggested as well (and that one was indicated as unrelated), the others were undisputed. If you have multiple indef blocked accounts, and then succeed in creating one that escapes scrutiny for a while, it doesn't mean that you are no longer socking of course, only that you are continuing your disruption under the radar. Who do you think you are fooling here? Fram (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think I'm fooling anyone about anything. I'm just getting frustrated with this obvious and blatant battleground behaviour and I would like it to stop. Simonm223 (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

.... and let the Long term abuse continue. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that's what the first proposal, which I support, is doing. It's punishing the serious CopyVio issue, and showing that the user is on tenuous ground with community trust and giving them a last chance to contribute constructively but when people start dredging up stuff from 2013 to try and pull an indef that wouldn't otherwise be an indef, yeah, I get a bit stubborn about that sort of behaviour. Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: In place of being a poster child of WP:CIR, consider accepting the facts as they are. Nauriya was convicted of being a sock in 2018 and was engaging in excessive meatpuppetry when he was reported and continues to engage in meatpuppetry per diff added above.[33] GenuineArt (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• If you would like it to stop, then don't attack people who correct falsehoods, don't accuse them of being here to "ban an editor they dislike on trumped up grounds", basically, don't project your ABF attacks unto others. Indef banning someone who has been adding copyvio's incessantly for more than five years and has received multiple earlier blocks and "final warnings" for this behaviour is not "weaponizing community sanctions", it is using such sanctions to prevent further disruption. This is not some clueless newbie, this is someone who has used up more chances than most problematic editors ever got. Fram (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

With respect, Simonm223, this user used up all of their "last chances to contribute constructively" a while ago. I don't agree with Fram's tone in this discussion, but I do agree with his points. The editor is an LTA case who has been using a sockpuppet for five years to perpetuate his copyvio violations and other disruptions after his previous accounts were blocked. He was given four final warnings recently but still persisted in the same behavior. Softlavender (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Frankly the personal attacks from Fram to myself have me considering making a complaint per WP:BOOMERANG. I don't think what's happening in this AN/I is right because I think it's an attempt from a group of editors who often collaborate to single out a perceived opponent and get them removed. Considering that context I'm disinclined to support their attempt when another alternative which addresses the actual problem has been proposed. Simonm223 (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

What personal attacks? You are the one who claimed that the sock accusation "isn't convincing anyone who didn't come here specifically to get an editor they dislike banned on trumped up grounds.". As they convinced me (and some others apparently), you are explicitly accusing me of disliking this editor and coming here specifically for that reason, which is not true at all. Feel free to start a new section or subsection for your "boomerang", I don't think it will get you very far though. There is a difference between having a more direct tone and making personal attacks. Fram (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

How about the bit where you said I was "spreading falsehoods"? I felt that was pretty far over the line. Simonm223 (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Let's see: you make a claim about me (and others) who are convinced by the sock claims. I explain that your claim isn't true. You don't provide evidence for your claim, and neither do you retract it. On the other hand, you claim that they haven't been found socking, when they have admitted it themselves. If someone is editing in 2018 while their original account is indef blocked, then they are socking in 2018. It doesn't matter that the block of the previous accounts and the creation of this account were in 2013, they were editing with their sock in 2018. Yet you claim "He was not found by an admin or checkuser clerk to be socking in 2018.". So that makes at least two clear falsehoods you are spreading. Whether you spread them deliberately as falsehoods, or whether you are convinced that they are true, I have no means to know. But that you don't withdraw them after their problems have been pointed out is troubling. Fram (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, "Who do you think you are fooling here? " was implying I was trying to deceive people. Again a personal attack. Especially when combined with the highly combative tone you've struck throughout this conversation. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Out of the 11 people who have so far supported an indef block or ban, which ones do you perceive as "collaborat[ing] to single out a perceived opponent and get them removed"? Although I feel that Fram's tone and edit summaries are a bit harsh, I don't see him attacking you; I see him as getting at and posting the truth amidst a fairly cluttered discussion. Softlavender (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

That's probably quite easy - I'd suggest looking at this thread and this one, also about banning a user and see which editors active in the ARBIPA area popped up to support both. That's obviously not the same in the cases of good-faith editors separate from ARBIPA territory who have weighed in here. Black Kite (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support site ban per my "clarification of the clarification" right above. 5 Years of copyvio's with a sock to avoid a previous indef block for copyvio? No brainer. Fram (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban per the concerns raised and Nauriya's own response. As indicated in the initial post, the creations of Nauriya are indeed concerning. It turns out that the editors who were digging deeper into contributions of Nauriya were successful in most of their deletion discussions that discussed the creations by Nauriya.[34][35][36] A cleanup of problematic creations and edits would be needed. RaviC (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This is an attempt to weaponize community sanctions and I'm not at home for it. Simonm223 (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Before I would ask why you and Ivanvector are the only ones fighting tooth to nail to rescue a copyright violator, I would like to ask other questions. Haven't you operated Ivanvector's Wikipedia account for making edits?[37] Are there any strong reasons that why you are popping up these days in highly unrelated disputes that involve Ivanvector but not actually you by a long shot? Your defense of Nauriya is going to mislead the onlookers that you are here for Nauriya when fact remains that you don't share any history with him. What made you place your comment incorrectly right here?[38] --RaviC (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• No. I will note that Ivanvector and I are friends; a casual perusal of our talk pages will confirm that. And in this instance, yes, I agree with my friend's reasoning. But I can assure you that I have not edited Wikipedia with his account, nor he with mine. *Outside of the one time in 2009 at the diff you showed which was an accident which occurred while visiting his place and using his laptop. It was an honest mistake on my part. Simonm223 (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

  As for my motivation opposing the indef here? I prefer the more restrained option. I suspect canvassing occurred in this AN/I and after my personal (rather long-ago) history with pages where canvassing occurred to the detriment of all I have a rather negative reaction to even a suspicion of that. His reasons for getting involved are his own. Simonm223 (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: At the risk of insulting people's intelligence by assuming they don't know something they already know; and at the risk of muddying the waters in an attempt to clarify: One problem is that sock puppetry and block evasion are technically different, but frequently used interchangeably by nearly everyone, so sometimes people talk past each other. No, Nauriya has apparently not been using multiple accounts recently, pretending to be more than one person. But they have been using an alternate account to evade a block for 5 years, while continuing with the same problematic behavior that led to the block. Many people call that sockpuppetry too. I suspect the differing definitions could be at the root of the misunderstanding here. No comment on what to do about it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) @Fram: as usual, I appreciate your insight despite your aggressive tone. Up to your first post here, nobody had provided any evidence that there were ongoing copyright violations, there were only editors with dubious motivation misstating facts about one copyright violation in July and another a few days ago. As for socking I misspoke: by Nauriya's own admission they've been using that account since 2013 while the others were blocked; when I said "hasn't been socking" I should have said something like "hasn't used multiple socks" or "hasn't created multiple accounts". But you are right and I do not disagree that this is still block evasion. Abecedare and Bbb23 also seem to have agreed to the same when they offered Nauriya clemency (my words) after the 2018 SPI, and on that basis I said "not sockpuppetry". Of course it is, but I would not block on that basis given the entire set of circumstances.

But that all comes back around to the ongoing copyright violations which you so expertly deduced. Two copyvios would hardly be worth a siteban, but if they've continued with copyvios all this time, then Nauriya has been either dishonest or incompetent. The answer is probably somewhere in the middle, and at this point the solution to both is a block. I do question the motives and methods of many of the supporters, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Surely you wouldn't go ahead to propose user-rights removal and ban from uploading images only over "two copyvios" but like everyone else you must have read the diffs found in the original post by me where I linked the SPI that in turn linked copyright violations that occurred throughout 2018 and in the above ANI post I also linked the image upload logs that covers copyright violations from every single month or otherwise establishes that copyright violations are occurring for last six years, non stop.[39][40][41] You don't have to "question the motives and methods of many of the supporters" or assume any sort of bad faith. We are discussing a long term disastrous issue that lacks any justification. There are valid reasons involved in this report and that's why everyone else already supported indef block/ban. Lorstaking (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef block per this edit, and suggest that any consideration of unblocking include conditions I suggested in the earlier proposal. I'd appreciate if someone would strike my "oppose" comment up this thread, I'm on mobile and the thread is too long for my phone to grab it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Fram. The violations are rather obvious now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for the practical reason that monitoring an account that we know of for copyright violations is much easier than monitoring one we don't know of. If this account is indef-blocked a new one may appear, as apparently happened last time. Revocation of autopatrol and reviewer rights, as has already been done, should be sufficient. 28bytes (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• "If this account is indef-blocked a new one may appear, as apparently happened last time." Is this is a reason why he should be given the status of unblockable? Lorstaking (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Of all what has been said and written against or in favour, I am surprised how this bashing and negativity is ignored during the process. I am going to state somethings once and for all - one final time. Here it goes:

1. Yes I created those accounts in 2013 and moved on with this one since then. I wish I knew more back then or aware that you have to disclose previous accounts (blocked ones) if you are creating another. I have explained this all in the July thread filed against me. But I think that was not sufficient.

2. I haven't created other accounts for sock puppetry or used those previous accounts single time during all the year or nor I have used anyone else's account to create any edit.

3. Yes I had copyright issues for uploading images and I was warned, and I stopped. But not completely and this is my mistake.

4. My area of interest is listed on my talk page, however, in July 2018 I went through this mass edit warning on India-Pakistan issues and filled an SPI for an editor and that user instead filed for me out of revenge and this is when all information came forward. But truth be told I had no intentions to hide it from anyone, because at that time I was in China, where with paid VPN you can not used Google products. That is why this account didn't caught the attention of admins otherwise this issue would have been dealt back then, and I regret that I should have known and disclose this to admins. Again this was explained briefly in previous thread of July.

5. After that ANI thread was closed, Lorstaking deliberately went to hound me and was warned to stay away. But of course they were watching for any mistake I could make so they can get me banned anyway.

6. Recently in Ausgust I was twice warned by Dianna, and I was going to send her email that I wont upload and will abide by the policy and will take care of copyrights and I had already emailed the copyright holder but didn't get reply. Before this happened my recently created article was tagged by Lorataking for copyrights which again I accept it was my mistake and I removed that part.

7. Then he went onto file this with all the previous details to weight on his motive to get me blocked. And seemingly it is going great.

8. I truly accept my mistake for copyrights and I am ready to comply for the decisions admin made initially for a watch over my edits and revoking my rights.

9. Unfortunately this wasn't enough for all those who were waiting for this moment and they started opening history by inviting their fellow editors to post or vote against me. And this has been the case previosuly but respected admins are ignoring this fact continuously, regardless this case is true or not.

10. In this case, people went onto bash and accused me of fake accounts, meat puppetry and what not. I don't even know how to respond to such things and I always accept my mistake and problem where it was true.

11. Then I am here continusely accused of not understanding the situation and to respond to that, I can not undo for what is done but instead can uphold for future. But again that will be unconvincing and will be ignored.

12. Before this where were these usual editors who never interacted with me but started hounding after July incident when they were involved in Indian-Pakistan related edits conflicts and since then it is there agenda to get all of us blocked one way or another, which is again ignored by all the admins.

13. To all other who thinks and have made decision that I am disruptive and useless editor. I say this to them everyone make mistake and make again and again, I did too, for that I accept the punishment but only which actually justify for my mistakes.

14. This is nothing but revenge, vengeance, and hate using something against me when there real motive is clear, but nobody is speaking.

15. I know my mistake and I apologize for that. But all of the above discussion against my five years work is not only hurtful but it bilittle me for all that is written above.

17. I literally have nothing else to add because I have accepted my mistake but I denied all other accusations and I am appalled by all of you for going on such great lengths when I have not even interacted any of the above editors accusing me, excluding Lorstalking with whom I only know after what happened July.

This website means a lot to me, I am not very active in many projects or diverse editor rather I make edits in areas where my interests lies and they are entertainment. I have given time to my work, as this is my only hobby and tried my best to understand to best of my knowledge, If I was weaken in that, I would have been subject to just decision/punishment but clearly this would not be a just decision for site banning/indef block and I clearly understand the situation I am in.

Again whatever I have written will be ignored and as always this hounding and revenge thing will win. Yesterday it was someone else today it is me and tomorrow it is going to be another, it is going to happen again and I want to ask all who has athourity when they are going to look into this issue? I was not reported here by an admin, but those who already wanted to get me blocked. Usually I have seen threads where cases are filled between parties who are involved in edit warning and mutual disruption but this case is clearly a result of their motive who previously banned two Paksitani editors, whether they were right or not, I am not justifying them in any way but this is a pattern being ignored, again and again.

I want to thank you for whoever supported me or aided me with right and just decision. So here I am, asking admins to close this discussion with whatever decision they have decided to make. Because this is torture for me to see such discussion. Thank you. Nauriya, Let's talk - 19:30, September 6, 2018 (UTC).

You still believe that you can make a point by falsifying everything and shifting blame on others who are not responsible for your violations.

(1) You were always aware of WP:SOCK. (2) You switched to a new account whenever you were blocked on any account, nothing new there. (3) You have frequently violated copyvio. (4) You were engaging in meat puppetry and your reports were spurious. (5) There was no "that ANI" ever before, let alone any warnings that never happened. (6) Still you never considered any of the gazillions of warnings. (7) How "great" the report is, it really depends on evidence that you, not I, have created. (8) copyright violation is most serious violation, you still don't realize that. (9) Not everyone is your enemy. (10) They said what actually happened, you can still try proving them wrong if they are wrong or they are saying something incorrect about you. (11) You really don't understand the violations or you are deliberately engaging in them. (12) Regulars at ANI/AN commenting on one of the many proposal is not surprising. (13) You said this in July 2018[42] and also during the unblock requests of your past accounts.[43][44] To this day there has been no improvement but continued rise in incompetence, battleground mentality, IDHT, among other issues. (14) Same as #13. (15) Same as #13. (17) Not just me, you have also interacted RaviC, Kautilya3,[45] Adamgerber80,[46] and more from this thread.

I note that there was no point "16". It is really astonishing that you still don't understand what you are doing. Lorstaking (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef For copyvio issues and apparent unwillingness to change their behavior after numerous "final warnings". {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 01:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Issues with closure

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

---

Starting this as this issue has been already discussed by multiple users with Ritchie333.[49]

Per these diffs[50][51] the block as normal admin made by Ritchie333 has disregarded not only the community consensus to indef block/siteban but also the banning policy, especially WP:CBAN. The issue has been already discussed with Ritchie333 and he appears to have misunderstanding of this entire issue. Ritchie333 claimed that he made such decision because "Nauriya has never been blocked before"[52], contrary to the fact that Nauriya has been blocked indefinitely on his 3 previous accounts and nearly all supporters based their rational on the block evasion. "never been blocked before" is also contrary to the usual community bans such as this recent ANI discussion from 20 August, last month,[53] where Robertinventor with clean block log has been blocked per "ANI consensus",[54] and was told that "Your appeal route, should you desire it, is to WP:ARBCOM,"[55] per the regulations imposed on the editors who are "blocked after due consideration by the community". Ritchie also appears to have misrepresented the conclusion of SPI in his comments.[56]

This appears to be a WP:SUPERVOTE by Ritchie333 as also noted by Fram.[57] GenuineArt (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended content

I may be missing something, but the section above is a proposal for an indefinite block, not for a site ban. Whoever wants the user to be site-banned should have opened a new section, proposal for a site ban, no? (Purely procedural comment, no opinion on what should have happened to the user).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC) I see more support for site ban than indef block in above. Any sanction that has been imposed by community should be appealed to community only instead of leaving it to a single admin to decide whether the sanction should be overturned. Ritchie made the block as a normal admin action so that any admin can unblock Nauriya without community consensus, contrary to what usually happens including the example of Robertinventor linked above. GenuineArt (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Ritchie's closure was a correct reading of consensus. There was consensus for an indef block, and that's what he placed. If people want a site ban on top of that, they'll need to get consensus for it (although it would seem to be overkill at this point.) 28bytes (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC) @28bytes: Where does WP:CBAN state that you must gain separate consensus? Editors who are... indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". and Unless otherwise specified, a ban is a site ban. Nihlus 12:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC) This is right. No matter whether it was a indef block or site ban because the fact is that it was decided by the community. Such blocks should be appealed to community not before 6 months. Ritchie blocked as normal admin action, he didn't imposed the actual community decided block or ban. GenuineArt (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC) I might be mis-remembering things (and I can't find any discussion in the archives, either) but I think there was some broad discussion at some point of time as to the purview of the clause stated by Nihlus. Anyone? Apologies, if that's my mind playing tricks.∯WBGconverse 13:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC) I believe the discussion you're looking for was at one of the village pumps. I think it was around Feb 2017, and largely between Jytdog and myself before being put to an RfC. I'm unable to search for it at the moment. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Yep. It started at AN here about an admin unblocking a community-indeffed editor, went to VPR here, and ended with an RfC at WP:BAN here, which was implemented here at WP:BAN and here at WP:BLOCK. Jytdog (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC) My apologies: you are right. I had not seen that change. 28bytes (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict) This "issue" is moot. Ritchie333's block enacts the community consensus that this editor's editing privileges should be revoked; it's a community ban any way you look at it, and any path to appeal will involve a community discussion. We had a long discussion about a year ago to clarify the banning policy specifically to head off this sort of irrelevant side discussion, resulting in the wording Nihlus referred to above. There's nothing left to do here, everyone should really just go back to writing an encyclopedia now. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Ivan, I believe that this route to appal should be clarified clearly, I believe the reason some editors raised this issue was due to the concern that any admin might unblock following a review of the Unblock template appeal. May I suggest to clearly mark it in stone--DBigXrayᗙ 13:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC) It is marked in stone, in the banning policy. See the links above. Again: see the links above. Did you see the links above? You should take a look at the links above. But really, actually have a read of the banning policy and the links to development of this section which are directly above. Maybe what you should actually read is WP:DEADHORSE or WP:STICK, but failing that, you should try reading the links above. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Chill dude, no need to get hyper angry about it. Did you see the time stamps of the links above ? it was posted after my comment. So much for WP:AGF sigh. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Ivan, Ritchie himself made the block as single admin action, not the CBAN one. Like you referred that this is a "community ban" that should be appealed to community. But this needs to be clarified by Ritchie or some other admin to Nauriya per the consensus in this thread. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC) He did. "Following the discussion, I have concluded there is a clear consensus to block you indefinitely for repeated and persistent copyright violations." He said so on the talk page, and linked to the discussion in the block log. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Ritchie333 said "If you wish to appeal the block, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}."[58] and "I am fine for them to appeal the block through the usual processes."[59] He laid out terms for a normal block, not community ban. Accesscrawl (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Agree with Ivanvector. This is pointless Wikilawyering. He's been blocked, no admin is going to unilaterally overturn it without being dragged to ANI so there will be a community discussion one way or another. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC) In any case, Ritchie333 must modify his comment on User talk:Nauriya#September 2018 that this is a community ban and should be appealed to community after 6 months from now. That will solve the problem. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC) User:Ritchie333 There was concern expressed in the RfC behind the changes to policy (to WP:BLOCK, here, and to WP:BAN here), about admins properly noting and logging community-imposed indefs (which are a thing), to avoid good faith mistakes by admins in the future - nobody wants to make such a mistake. It would be helpful if you were to make any changes to the log(s) and notice to reflect those concerns and the policy. Would you please do so and note that here, so this can be laid to rest? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC) yes, I second Jytdog as I requested above, but was responded to with an angry retort from Ivan.--DBigXrayᗙ 14:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. The discussion is linked in the block log entry. Do you mean add something onto Nauriya's talk page like "Administrators, do not unblock without community consensus" or something like that? I don't mind clarifying that so an admin doesn't put their foot in it - that makes sense. To carry on with the comments on my talk, most people in the above discussion wrote "Support indef block / ban" - maybe they meant "support indef block and also ban" but I interpreted it as "support either indef block or ban". AFAIK nobody said why an indefinite block was insufficient. In short, text communication is hard, so it pays to be very specific. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC) You need to update the userpage of Nauriya too with the Template:Banned user. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC) That is not correct. A community-imposed indef =/= BAN. Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC) (incorrect Jytdog (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)) Thanks for pointing that. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict)x2. Thanks so much for replying Richie333. Both the log and the notice. As to the notice, yes, something like that on their page would be great (I wonder if we need a new block notice template, for these?) With regard to the block notice, that could be easily mistaken for you taking solo admin action based on concerns raised at ANI, if somebody doesn't actually follow the link. Other admins wanted explicit reference to "community sanction" or the like in the block log, to help them avoid making mistakes. So the language added to the policy based on that concern was If the block arose from a discussion per WP:CBAN, please include a link to the discussion in the block log. If the block is enforcing a community sanction, please note this as well. Thanks for considering that second sentence there. Jytdog (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Right, that's done, so it's very obvious that anyone pulling a cowboy unblock will be in trouble. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Chika Nwobi Page

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

---

There has been some back and forth regarding this page. Recently, the majority of the page's sources were removed because the main reviewer found them to be too promotional. With all of those sources deleted, I'm afraid there's no use for the article because it will then be improperly cited. You can find discussions about this topic: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chika Nwobi‎ and User talk:GSS. Leapsandbounds (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Leapsandbounds 15:28 5, September 2018

Not clear why this is on ANI. Since the article is at AfD, presumably whether it is kept or not will be taken care of there?--regentspark (comment) 17:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looking at the Chika Nwobi: Revision history The AfD nominator has removed the allegedly spammy references and the original Author Leapsandbounds seems to be upset about it and is edit warring to restore the links. Leapsandbounds Please post those links in the AfD page below your comment if you believe that those links should be seen by AfD contributors. Edit warring to restore without valid reasons is inappropriate. In any case this is not an Admin issue. Let us know if you need any further Admin help here.--DBigXrayᗙ 21:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

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

User hoaxing, creating bad redirect

• Special:Contributions/Mozart834428196

This user has been making edits relating to the Catholic Psychedelic Synth Folk, which is either a hoax or something made up. The user made an article about the subject, but it was deleted. Next he redirected the page to Psychedelic folk and made an edit to the page [60]. He has also been inserting related material into other articles [61]. While it appears that many of this user's other edits may be constructive, this behavior needs to be looked into. funplussmart (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I moved and renamed this thread to try to get more attention to this user. funplussmart (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It would seem that Catholic Psychedelic Synth Folk is indeed an internet hoax. The question remains as to whether this editor knowingly inserted it as a hoax at Wikipedia, or whether they saw it on the internet and believed it. — Maile (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Lillyput4455 (Pakistanpedia)

I warned Lillyput4455 (talk · contribs) a couple of times on their talk page to avoid adding OR and poorly sourced material to Pakistan related BLPs but despite the warnings, the user continuously adding OR and poorly sourced material to numerous BLPs.

For instance, @GSS: removed OR (added by Lillyput4455) from Mizna Waqas bio on 2 September. Lillyput4455 re-added it saying sources are not required [62].

I also removed the OR (added by Lillyput4455) from Madiha Imam bio on 2 September [63], Lillyput4455 readded it a few days later [64]. The next day I removed it again [65] but Lillyput4455 re-added it again [66]. I removed it again yesterday [67] and cautioned the user User_talk:Lillyput4455#September_2018_2 but today Lillyput4455 reinserted the same OR.

Similarly I removed the OR (added by the same user) from Hiba Bukhari [68]. Lillyput4455 re-added it [69].

I removed the OR (added by the same user) from Rabab Hashim bio yesterday [70]. Lillyput4455 re-added it today [71].

I removed OR from Anum Fayyaz bio yesterday [72] and Lillyput4455 re-added it today [73]. I removed poorly sourced and OR from Sonia Mishal bio yesterday [74]. Lillyput4455 re-added it [75].

And earlier today I removed OR from Maham Amir bio [76]. Lillyput4455 re-added it a while ago [77].

Other than all these, Lillyput4455 has a deep relation with disruptive sockfarms and I suspect Lillyput4455 could be sock of Pakistanpedia and therefore suggest behavioral investigation should be carried out. Lillyput4455 and socks of Pakistanpedia contribute to same type of articles (Pakistani drama actors and TV series). They create articles in same style (add OR and use unreliable sources to support claims) and upload free-use images on Wikipedia with same descriptions. They both use mobile device, often sign their comments in same way (no time and date stamp) and both blank their user talk pages to remove warning messages by the bots.

When I nominated for deletion a BLP (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mizna Waqas). User:RidaJunejo (a sock of Pakistanpedia) voted keep, saying the subject played prominent role in Peek-A-Boo Shahwaiz. Peek-A-Boo Shahwaiz was created by Lillyput4455 and have no WP:N.

Lillyput4455 came as possible sock in recent SPI (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pakistanpedia/Archive#02_September_2018_2). He also came as possible sock in recent SPI on Wikimedia Commons (commons:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lillyput4456). --Saqib (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a sock and this is not your job Saqib (talk) to determine who is sock or who is master user. I added reliable sources to Madiha Imam from Dawn and The News International but instead you called it poorly sourced. You don't want users like us to here. I will always continue my editing regarding actresses and surely with reliable sources. I hope you get that.

Lillyput4455 (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

As one can clearly, you're adding OR and when you cite sources, they're mostly unreliable sources. And yes, you do sometime cite reliable sources to give the perception that everything is sourced via a RS but source does not support what is contained in the Wikipedia articles which means you're just dodging people. And currently you're edit warring on Madiha Imam. --Saqib (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I found Lillyput to be unrelated to Pakistanpedia. ANI is not the place to determine behaviorally whether the user is a sock despite the technical evidence to the contrary. This has already been hashed out at the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment Saqib is continuing to make the same accusations against Lilliput of sockpuppetry of Pakistanpedia when checkuser has already said there is no link and admins have found no compelling evidence and so this amounts to hounding together with closely following his every edit and nominating his articles for AFD while lecturing him on his talkpage, I believe Saqib should be warned of his stalking. However, Lilliput has used some unreliable sources as well as reliable sources so I suggest he rereads WP:Reliable sources and when he uses websites rather than press, book, or magazines he should check whether the websites are reliable by asking at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. Also I don't think Lilliput is a UPE as he has added content to TV articles such as "this series received very bad ratings", "was criticised" etc which a paid editor would not add, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: OK I was expecting this from you. For your kind information, I'm a Pakistani and I contribute to Pakistani related BLPs. I was not hounding or stalking Lillyput4455.These noted BLPs are are in my watchlist and this user has been adding OR and poorly sourced material to BLPs, repeatedly and therefore I think this report is justified and was long overdue. --Saqib (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: WP:HOUNDING states: "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." Lorstaking (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• • • I was referring to the repeated sockpuppet allegations Atlantic306 (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: How repeated? This is just the second time. --Saqib (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I started to look at the edits of the user, and already the first one which I have chosen randomly looks troublesome to me: This edit introduces info which is not sourced (not in an added source, not in the one which was in that paragraph). Will choose now a couple of more edits. (No idea on whether this is a sock).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Similarly, adding unsourced text. I mean, it is quite possibly that it could be sourced, but this has not been done.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

And adding completely unsourced info.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

All three diffs are from the last two days. I do not have time now for further research, but at the very least, this topic should be closed with a strong warning to the user concerning WP:V and WP:OR. It looks like they still have difficulties applying these policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Despite this thread, Lillyput4455 still edit warring on Madiha Imam to add OR and citing unreliable sources. I can see WP:IDHT. --Saqib (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I blocked for 24h--Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Vandalizing IP

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

---

Special:Contributions/208.119.81.194 has been making unconstructive and unencyclopedic edits to pages lately. See the contributions page for examples. Please note that this IP has been blocked previously. I found this while random-paging, and I thought such behavior would warrant admin attention. Please resolve. TempestGD (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

If you are referring to 208.119.81.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), they have not made any edits since August 31st. In addition, reports for vandals should start at WP:AIV. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a shared IP belonging to a library too. I don't mean to sound mean in saying this, but blocking it would be silly, in my opinion. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 14:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

By the way, the person who started this thread is now CheckUser blocked. I recommend a speedy close. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 14:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Sandbox inappropriately moved to mainspace

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

---

The page MINE is User:1002348supers's sandbox, which was just moved into article space, this needs to be undone so people looking for articles about mining for minerals or landmines don't find this instead, but when I tried to move it it said I had to ask an admin. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Returned to userspace where it belongs. I've admonished the editor. Acroterion (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Continued vandalism by user:Mainbody of Councils_of_Carthage

I have provided the user Mainbody warnings regarding editing the Councils_of_Carthage page. He continually removes the primary source material which can be found in first source documents and insisted on using a some source 1300 years later who provides an opinion which is not supported in by the first source. This second hand source may be mistaken as to which council debated the matter in question. All the Canons published by the council of 419 can be found on line and no source supports Mainbody assertion The complete canons of the council can be found here http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm I have directed Mainbody to these but he insists on removing edits citing from primary sources perhaps for partisan reasons. I had provided a friendly correction but his response was "yawn". DeusImperator (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC) 01:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that you read WP:NPA, which makes clear that describing a content dispute as 'vandalism' is unacceptable, and then read WP:RS, and WP:OR. We do not use material dating from A.D. 419 (even in translation) as sources of fact. We cite historians and other scholars for that. 86.148.84.151 (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the IP's analysis. Mainbody's edits are good faith and in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines, such as the part of WP:RS that says to prefer secondary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 02:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing on the actual primary source documents which support the edit. I have read through the canon in which the secondary source cites and it has nothing to do with what is alleged by the secondary source. The secondary source is not credible. Someone might act in good faith and yet be wrong. DeusImperator (talk) 05:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Document cited in footnote #8 does not even match the date of the council. It speaks of a council held in 417 or 418 but even that is incorrect. DeusImperator (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

A Rational Account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion is a screed, and is a polemical work and not a work of history, and relies on works such as the Foxe Book of Martyrs. I had my suspicions when I read "nisi forte romanam sedem appellaverit " which I have not seen in any of document and appears to be from a historically unknown council of Millevitane which has no source prior to 1500. But post 1500 there are several reference to it. Which call into credibility of the source. (editing: the council of Millevitane may actually refer to the Council of Milevi held in Algeria not Carthage and dealt with the plagian heresy) DeusImperator (talk) 06:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:ANI does not settle content disputes. 86.148.84.151 (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Southeast michigan dead bird hoax vandal

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

---

there is a user ip hopping and putting hoaxs on the following pages Garden City, Michigan

Westland, Michigan

Livonia, Michigan

Inkster, Michigan Do you think the pages should be locked or not?69.14.221.97 (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

There is a bunch more. Protection would not be effective. Materialscientest has blocked the original, but they've hopped to a different range. John from Idegon (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The ips seem to be open proxys69.14.221.97 (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

69 and other interested parties: this is the recent change report for Michigan subjects. I'm monitoring it, feel free to do likewise. John from Idegon (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Elon Musk Main page

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

---

There is a duplicate paragraph on the page of Elon Musk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batyodi (talk • contribs) 08:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Batyodi: If you put more details on Talk:Elon Musk as to what is duplicated, someone can help fix this. This noticeboard isn't for content disputes. Iffy★Chat -- 08:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Majik Ninja Entertainment

The other day I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majik Ninja Entertainment as "redirect". On the face of it, given there were no !votes other than "merge" and "redirect", this sounds like a pretty obvious decision.

Since then, I have had a couple of complaints on my talk page that Magik Ninja Entertainment is notable and I've made the wrong decision. I've attempted to explain that I have no real opinion if we should have an article on this or not, and simply closed the AfD against the arguments I was presented with. However, I have noticed that John from Idegon has had a bit of a chequered history on the article, including what appears to be violating WP:3RR on 27 August, and before that, Jim1138 has had a go at edit-warring too. The article has since been semi-protected by Ponyo, bringing the disruption to the close. Since then, I see a semi-protected edit request was filed on the talk page; to which John From Idegon gave them a well-reasoned response.

So, my questions to the peanut gallery are the following:

• Did I close the AfD correctly? If not, why not?
• If I didn't, should I start a deletion review, or simply re-open the AfD to allow further consensus?
• Have John from Idegon and Jim1138 been disruptive, or simply following best practice?
• Are the new users complaining on my talk disruptive, or do they have a valid point? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you closed the AFD correctly. I don't think John from Idegon violated 3RR, the edits were removing swathes of unsourced content added repeatedly by an IP which was almost certainly evading a block (as a sock of Demolytionman420). So no, not disruptive. The new users complaining on your talk page are perfectly free to create a draft article and try and improve it so it would meet our notability criteria. You could, as a helpful step, draftify the old article for them. Fish+Karate 10:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Under normal circumstances, I would do just that; however given the above discussion, I am concerned that the draft would be set upon by the editors I mentioned above as "against policy", "out of process", "aiding and abetting socks" or some similar rationale. Hence why I wanted to come here first and get a consensus on what to do. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Creating a draft article is neither against policy nor is it out of process, so go for it. Fish+Karate 11:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think draftification is the answer here. The material prior to the redirect was sourced almost exclusively to faygoluvers.com, a website that would best be described as a Juggalo fansite. A better question would be, how did Froggyfixit, a brand new editor whose entire edit history concerns this article, find his way to the talk page of a redirect for his first edit, and figure out how to post a protected edit request? I doubt this is further block evasion, as Froggy writes in more or less standard English and the blocked editors linguistic style was more urban vernacular. But it certainly does seem to be WP:MEAT or possibly WP:UPE. John from Idegon (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• This is a trick question. There's never any correct way to close an AfD. EEng 22:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Tom O'Carroll

The article about Tom O'Carroll, identified in his article as a "pro-paedophile advocate", is being disruptively edited by Anotherultimatename. This user has several times added mention of a paper by the subject of the article ("Childhood 'Innocence' is not Ideal: Virtue Ethics and Child-Adult Sex"). See here, here, and here. The addition is opposed both by me (I've removed it several times now) and by ScrapIronIV, who removed it here as "promotional", which arguably it is.

I have tried to indicate to Anotherultimatename that edit warring to add potentially controversial content on a paedophilia-related article, content that is supported by no one other than him, is a really, really terrible idea. I have politely suggested that he should just drop the issue and move on. The user won't seem to get the point, however, and is still adding the content, most recently here. Could admins please step in and put a stop to this? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I was going to block, but he's only done one edit on the article today and has filed a request at third opinion to try and resolve the dispute, so I'm going to give him a final warning instead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

A third opinion request is disingenuous. It is for disputes between two editors; in this case, it is two editors versus one other editor. The user just needs to walk away from this issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It appears that Anotherultimatename is new, has never been informed of our policy on edit warring, and is trying to use the talk page, but FreeKnowledgeCreator has rather quickly taken this to ANI. This doesn't appear to be an obvious case of editing against consensus, as the talk page discussion is just a back-and forth between 2 users, (ScrapIronIV made a single revert with no discussion on the talk page[78], so I can't see how a 3O request is bad faith). The edit warring does need to stop, but an edit warring block for a new user who has not been informed of WP:EW would be a case of WP:BITE Tornado chaser (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

This is not a new user, and I believe I know who it is, but checkuser evidence would be stale at this point. I have not filed an SPI report for that reason. There is consensus to keep this non-notable article from the article. Scr★pIron^IV 15:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article in question that this editor wishes to include is a clear violation of WP:CHILDPROTECT in that it promotes inappropriate adult-child relationships, and actually claims that "...child adult sexual relations are not intrinsically harmful and may be beneficial." This advocates "inappropriate adult–child relationships on- or off-wiki (e.g. by expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children)" - which is explicitly prohibited. Scr★pIron^IV 16:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I will comment that he filed the Third Opinion request after his second request to the dispute resolution noticeboard was declined. The first request was declined due to inadequate discussion and inadequate notice to the other editors. The second request was declined both because the notice was still not properly provided and because, in the talk page discussion, the other editor said that they had nothing further to say. If they have nothing further to say at the talk page, they are not likely to have anything further to say at DRN. It appears that this editor is forum shopping, looking for as many ways to continue discussion or to insert the material as possible. I recommended and will still recommend a Request for Comments. I will also say, as I have said in other disputes, that if saying something twice isn't persuasive, there is no reason to think that saying it five times will be. Use a Request for Comments and be done with it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Getting to the actual content of the edit, the article cited (pdf easily locatable on the internet), is indeed a pro-pedophilia journal article appearing in a juried academic journal published by Springer. So that is all true. What remains is a content fight, two against one. I have no strong opinion about whether such content should be included or not; my inclination is to say it should but I wouldn't touch this BLP with a twenty foot pole myself. Bottom line: maybe a slow motion edit war, but nothing "promotional" or with culpable intent, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, there should not be a subsection in the piece on the journal article, but it should be listed as "Works" or under "Further Reading." Not sure the bio should even exist at WP, but that's an AfD question. Carrite (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I've nominated for deletion, we'll see what the community says at AfD. Carrite (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Since Anotherultimatename is a single-issue account focused on the Tom O'Carroll article to the exclusion of everything else, it is quite plausible that it is a sock. That is one reason I did not bother to notify Anotherultimatename on his talk page about the rules on edit warring. Perhaps I should have done so anyway. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Anotherultimatename has only made 22 edits, so it's a bit early to start calling them an SPA, it is entirely possible that this is just the first topic they plan to edit, you don't need to edit multiple topics in your first 30 edits to be acting in good faith. We must not assume new users are socks and block them for violating policies they were never informed of, if anyone has clear evidence of socking, block the sock(s), but don't assume bad faith like this.

I have now informed Anotherultimatename of the edit warring policy. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't simply assume new users are socks, but neither should we be blind to things that might suggest that new users are socks. Anotherultimatename was aware of the Dispute resolution noticeboard, so clearly he already knew something about Wikipedia despite the small number of edits associated with the account. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Block evasion

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

---

193.240.59.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hi. IP 193.240.59.34 is the IP sock of a blocked user. They've been blocked twice at this IP in the last few weeks. I'd be grateful if they could be re-blocked again, ideally until 2nd Oct, which relates to the page they keep editing. Any questions, please ping me or drop a note on my talkpage. Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked by Widr while I was investigating.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to all involved. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Emilyjohnson1986

I've been watching Emilyjohnson1986 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for a while. I have just blocked due to failure to engage and persistent COI editing with, as far as I can see, no non-conflicted edits at all. Guy (Help!) 13:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I have endorsed the block and dropped my 2c on their talk page. I don't particularly like blocks like this, but sometimes we just have to do them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Yep, good block. Here only to promote RNN, likely employee or contractor who is unwilling to engage and learn what we so here, and how. Jytdog (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with the comments above. Block was right and made after warnings. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• Aye. Ironically, RNN is probably marginally notable, but I'm pretty sure if someone neutral wrote it, the results might not be what they want. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog (yet again) and Yakult

"This is a pile of dogshit on the sidewalk. If people want to write a real article on this, please do so. But I bet not a single one of the !voters here will clean up this dogshit. Nope, you will give your !vote and leave the shit here for other people to step in." is simply not acceptable editing behaviour.

This is yet another example of Jytdog as Saviour of Wikipedia against all other editors. This week he's taken against Yakult. I don't know if you can even buy this in the US, but it's huge in Europe and massive in its original Japan. But Jytdog wants rid of it.

That much is reasonable. But the edit warring and attacks on other editors since are not. This is typical Jytdog and it needs to stop. [79] [80] User_talk:Jytdog#Incivility. In particular, and classic Jytdog, they fall back on MEDRS as an excuse to impose whatever they want (and it's always their subjective WP:OR opinion, not anything sourced) against any source of consensus. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Umm... How are these diffs[81] [82] personal attacks? Tornado chaser (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

They're edit-warring and attacks on other editors (and their opinions, which we respect, per consensus). Jytdog has a substantial track record of both this, and of hiding behind MEDRS on utterly irelevant topics (metallurgy?) because he's an unassailable editor "defending" WP against fake medical claims. Yet he's the biggest bully and fraud of the lot. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Andy Dingley I suggest you retract your personal comments about Jytdog, otherwise you look a little hypocritical. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Would that be the statement, "He's the biggest bully and fraud of the lot."? Can I use a large <font> tag to make the point? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

That is the statement I am referring to, but it would think it unwise to use the font tag. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Jytdog was being less than civil, I'll give you that, but you appear to be assuming bad faith and making personal attacks. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 23:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Agree The incivility from this editor should be obvious from the long list of complaints on his talk page. He had been warned to stop swearing and promised not to continue, yet it continues unabated. [83] Arbcom unanimously found: "Jytdog has engaged in edit warring, has belittled other editors, and has engaged in non-civil conduct." [84]. Arbcom unanimously ruled: "Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility...." [85] --David Tornheim (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC) [revised 01:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)])

• Andy is all sweaty and exercised, but scurrying to that page to edit badly and leaving such silly notes on the talk page don't help create high quality content. It was rather just WP:POINTY (perfectly so - actually restoring bad and badly sourced, policy-violating content, to make a point).

Ever since that reprap thing Andy has let themselves get all worked up over me periodically, as they acknowledged here (and as anyone can see in that thread).

I'd like folks to consider a one-way IBAN, as mentioned the last time Andy was blocked for their pursuit of me. Jytdog (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• Jytdog is occasionally over-enthusiastic but he works hard to improve the encyclopedia and is almost always correct. Anyone who works to reduce the promotion of dubious products (or the promotion of products with dubious claims) gets attacked by the promoters and their enablers, as seen here. Of course Yakult won't be deleted and of course those (like me) who point that out won't help to clean up the article. No one is without sin. I support a one-way interaction ban to prevent Andy Dingley from pursuing Jytdog. Johnuniq (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes I was venting, and shouldn't have, as i noted here. I shouldn't have written that. fwiw, and it may cause yet more trouble, i have struck it Jytdog (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• The point here is that it is not an excuse for you to behave like this, and then strike it, as if that excuses it. You do this all the time. Your wolf-call has worn thin. You are perpetually abusive to other editors, and then you excuse this by reverting later. No. This has to stop. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but where is the justification in such hostile behavior and antagonistic retoric by Jytdog? Are we saying that "working hard" means that an editor don't have to be civil? Then I would like to know what level of editing can excuse such a behavior? How is it this behavior acceptable from anyone? be it an IP or a 15 year veteran? Oh and an "IBAN" for reporting bad behavior?  MPJ-DK  00:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
• I also have concerns about Jytdog regarding WP:civility and WP:AGF, that are completely unrelated to Andy dingly's issues, and can provide diffs if needed, but this kind of standing by personal attacks[86] makes andy's complaint look hypocritical, it seems we have 2 uncivil editors making incivility accusations against eachother. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• Totally agree that it is on both sides, whatever happens should not just be a one sided thing.  MPJ-DK  01:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• Drop this and move on I happen to be one of the editors subjected to Jytdog's profane tirade, which he wisely struck out. I list over 110 articles on my userpage where I have saved articles at AfD by expanding and improving them. In this case, I provided four sources indicating that the topic is notable but had neither the time nor the interest to improve this article. I am not required to improve every single article that I recommend keeping at AfD. On the other hand, Jytdog does excellent work in the field of quackery and pseudoscience. Jytdog, please re-read the ArbCom admonitions from 2015, and realize that this type of outburst can lose you allies. Please do a better job of controlling yourself going forward. Andy Dingley, you also ought to control yourself better because your complaint here looks more vindictive than well reasoned. And yes, Yakult is sold in the United States too. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• I am curious as to why repeated incivility is tolerated? Would my edit history also allow me to be uncivil? And "striking it" does not make it go away, a change in behavior makes it go away.  MPJ-DK  01:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Frayae making strange moves to/from draft space

User:Frayae has been making a lot of strange moves to/from draft space. I see three page moves from user space to draft space with strange titles: Draft:Kentik (conflict of interest draft), Draft:Martin Schäuble (version 2), Draft:Khaladdin Musayev (version 2). Also, the one that originally caught my eye, he moved Broadcast, Unknown-Unicast and Multicast traffic into mainspace, without it being reviewed, after I had raised concerns. But, what got me really curious is this is an account which was created three months ago, and has already racked up 7716 edits, which seems like an extraordinary rate. What's going on here? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)