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

YahwehSaves block evasion

User:YahwehSaves was blocked indef Oct 17, 2017 primarily for edits to the Audie Murphy articles. He also was frequently editing Matt Urban, Llewellyn Chilson and a number of military articles. His primary interest in the military articles is the medal count and service history. His last appeal for an unblock was denied Oct 22, 2017. It has been brought to my attention that IP 205.155.236.89 is YahwehSaves evading his block since Oct 28, 2017, and eventually this IP began making similar/identical edits on Matt Urban and Llewellyn Chilson. The IP has now done numerous edits to Garlin Murl Conner and other military articles. As of this morning, YahwehSaves is definitely evading his block with IP 75.79.31.20 (already known to be his IP). There are so many articles and edits by 205.155.236.89 since January, that it seemed to be the shorter path to report him here, rather than individual diffs at SPI. — Maile (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's a diff of him editing his own talk page. Seems fairly clear-cut.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Maile66 - I've blocked 205.155.236.89 for three months and blocked 75.79.31.20 for 36 hours for block evasion - are there edits or cleanup needed beyond the edits I see here from the IP that are latest revisions? How much needs fixing? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Garlin Murl Conner is on the watchlist of the article's creator, and I've already linked this thread to their talk page. Looking at the history of Llewellyn Chilson, it's being watched by Roam41 who is known to me as someone with more knowledge of the subject matter than I have. I placed a notice at WP Military History about soldier Henry Johnson, because I am not familiar with that. I'll check Chattanooga High School myself. While 75.79.31.20 seems to me to be a designated ISP account for a given user, 205.155.236.89 comes up as USC-Long Beach Chancellor's Office. So, thanks for your quick action. — Maile (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Maile66 - Sure, you bet. Let me know if you need my help with anything else and I'll be happy to do so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

As I have been a contributor to Henry Johnson, I looked it over and performed a restore to prior to this IP's edits. The only contributor in the middle of those edits was me. It also appears that inactive user Shade Ruff was another sock of YahwehSaves. Scr★pIron^IV 18:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I am familiar with both YahwehSaves and Shade Ruff. I have had several positive and polite interactions with the latter. Although he has a similar editing style, I don’t feel Shade Ruff is a sock of YahwehSaves. However, I do strongly agree that IP 205.155.236.89 is one. Roam41 (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah, 75.79.31.20 seems to have been used by YahwehSaves at least since 2012,[1] so I think the block needs to be more than 36 hours. I've blocked for six months. Bishonen | talk 18:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC).

No, on second thoughts I've blocked for a year. Compare Vanjagenije's 6-month block in 2016. Bishonen | talk 19:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC).

Bishonen - Sounds good. Thanks for looking and for extending as needed :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible to get a username block as well? I, and I'm sure many others find that username might violate policy. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we can call that username a policy violation, no. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Philblue7

Philblue7 (talk · contribs) has been warned many times about their unsourced contributions and WP:OWNership of the KidsClick article, including adding sources that are promotional WP:ADVERTs from the parent company of the children's block, and arguing about finite details such as a show being taken off for a week as permanent, along with programming grids which are overly complicated for what is a block of children's programming and should read as simple as possible. Editor also tried spinning out an article that violated WP:NOTTVGUIDE and has continued to insert guide listings into the KidsClick article despite the multiple warnings to cease and work with other editors within our policies. I feel like some kind of reinforcement is needed here because they aren't taking any advice to heart. Nate • (chatter) 22:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Clearly an SPA. No discussion on talk page.[2] What kind of sanction you think would be appropriate? It seems that he is gaming WP:3RR. Lorstaking (talk) 11:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

After this edit where they want programs in airing order they came on the air (rather than sensible alphabetical order), I think a reinforcement block is needed; we've had to remove schedules they've left too often. I'd like to hope mentoring helps but they only take the 'screaming at reverters in edit summaries' mode of communication and have never used the talk page for communication (and I'd hope they would have taken some time to comment here, but that hasn't happened). Nate • (chatter) 21:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Block maybe harsh. I think we need extended confirmed protection for some days, either he will move on or return to edit warring someday but since he has presented no argument that why we should support his side, I believe he will get over the consensus. Lorstaking (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

We had a semi-protect on the article a couple months back; they merely ceased editing/flirted with 3RR to keep out of trouble, and they're already long auto-confirmed. Nate • (chatter) 09:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

harsh douche-canoe?

Never encountered User:Jack Sebastian before so was very surprised to be called a "harsh douche-canoe" (whatever that is, it sounds awful) and to have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherise Haugen mocked with vulgarity. Attempts to deal with the user failed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cherise_Haugen and [3] He brought it to my talkpage User_talk:Legacypac#Yeah,_about_that... saying he could take me to ANi. Is this kind of attack against a good faith editor acceptable or is a block warranted? Legacypac (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

No and no. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Harsh douche-canoe is pretty good -- either Twainesque or Hammett-esque, not sure which -- but it should really be reserved for a situation with more at stake. Wasted here. EEng 02:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

If you take douche as a shower (French) this would just be spraying down your canoe with a 10% vinegar solution. Not a very powerful insult.104.163.148.25 (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I was going for a Hunter S. Thompson vibe. I'm an asshole sometimes; I'm working on it. I kinda hate it when someone comes to a deletion discussion and gets treated as poorly as Legacypac did for PageantUpdater. Verbally tapping such a user on the shoulder often has no effect; they shrug it off. Give them a figurative shove and call them on their bad behavior often does the trick. Unfortunately, Legacypac only saw how someone being harsh to him affected them. Had they been nicer, the discussion would have simply continued. Maybe the user thinks they're being "edgy" and "kewl" instead of insensitive and rude. Politeness goes a long way to maintaining civil conversations. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, Mr. Justice League, maybe you should have picked the correct side in your fight for Truth, Justice, and the American Way, since it's PageantUpdater with the long record of pitching fits when challenged. --Calton | Talk 06:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

{"Mr. Justice League" - that's pretty good!) I wasn't responding to PageantUpdater's behavior, which seemed fine in this instance. He was reasonable; Legacypac's approach was trout-worthy. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't care that much about users here calling each other this and that, but don't talk about article subjects like you do in that AfD, Legacypac. "It is laughable to call this person an 'actress'" — really? That wasn't even in response to something, it was what you opened with. Consider that the person may well be watching their bio page, and therefore may see what you say about them in the AfD. Please think twice before you laugh at them. Bishonen | talk 11:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC).

I did NOT laugh at the subject rather I rejected the claim, in Wikipedia voice, that the subject is an "actress" for what the source calls "one small acting role in the Michael J. Fox and Joan Jett movie "Light of Day.""¹ There is a difference between doing something little bit once and being labeled a professional by Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

That's not what I was talking about, Legacypac. Not even slightly. It's the way you put it. You said it's laughable to call her an actress. Is my point clearer if I say "Please think twice before you sneer at living people"? Just stop digging and try to "reject claims" a little more sensitively. The "subject" is an actual woman. What if she was your sister? Bishonen | talk 12:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC).

My female reletives are not actresses or models either and if wikipedia claimed they were it would be laughable too. Nice you "don't care" about direct attacks on living people who edit, only imagined slights against subjects who may or may not be watching. How would you feel if random editors started insulting you? Legacypac (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Kind of the point, Legacypac: how do you think the subject of the article feels about you insulting her? How would her daughters feel, reading that? How should PageantUpdater feel about you snidely dismissing his polite remarks? Dude, please begin to get the point. You have to think about shit that affects others, not just yourself. Think before you edit, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Aside: I find it bloody irritating that putting out one ghostwritten memoir immediately leads to "author" being added to every "celebrity"'s Wikipedia biography, and putting ten bucks in a charity pot adds "philanthropist", and so on. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Me too. Part of the New Normal in the Realm of False Equivalence. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

User:PageantUpdater has not been treated rudely, but is making comments on AfDs that are building toward a topic ban. The real tragedy is the fancruft fans that insist on making pages for private low profile individuals that include guesswork and unsourced nonsense. The ghits for one of the ones I researched yesterday did not even cover a page of results, with the top one being her facebook profile with 88 followers and the second one her twitter handle. The rest were the Wikipedia page, related list pages and Wiki mirrors. Low Profile in every way. We are invading her privacy by working on the page. Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I have to say, that is the first time I have ever heard - as a reason to delete an article - that we were invading someone's privacy by keeping it. Inventive.

However, it isn't the first time I have heard someone throw shade at an article because they they just didn't think it was worth their time. Brother (or sister- I am not sure how you gender-equate), I have seen fancruft before, and the article isn't it. You earn yourself no points by continuing to throw shit at the article, like some ill-tempered chimp. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• • • WP:BLP1E, WP:DOB, WP:NPF and WP:BIO1E all apply to someone that won a contest as a child and went on to live a low profile life. Throwing in parent and sibling names runs against WP:BLPNAME privacy conserns. Legacypac (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Man, I want you on my team for dodgeball. It seems no one can connect you with The Point. Sigh. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Lol a topic ban? Really? For one of the only editors interested in the topic who has spent hours improving and referencing articles? I even applied for a Newspapers.com account purely for the ability to be able to reference these articles properly. Well I guess that's one way for you and others like you to fulfil your aim of purging Wikipedia from pageant-related articles forever. Dude, I'm not the problem. The hundreds of throwaway accounts vandalising these articles, adding fancruft and totally disregarding policies, guidelines and the MOS that I and a few others fight on a daily basis are your problem. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Look at the way you regularly dismiss everyone else who cites BLP and other policy as practicing WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherise Haugen and other pages. Read the comments I found on your talk User_talk:PageantUpdater#February_2018_2 about this behavior. Legacypac (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Physician, heal thyself - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac, you and I have differing views about how to interpret WP:BIO which is fine. What I take issue with is excessively sarcastic, indeed disrespectful nominations [4] and (what comes across to me as) aggressively targeting a topic space with similarly framed AFDs without letting a couple of these run their course, redirecting articles unilaterally, not paying attention to previous AFD decisions in doing this etc. If you think she doesn't pass WP:BIO then you could have just said that. No need for all the overkill. I understand that I'm heavily invested in this topic space which you don't like, perhaps I do react too strongly. But I've spent over a decade trying to improve these articles in line with policies, guidelines & the MOS, and I don't appreciate the attitude you've unnecessarily brought to the AFDs. Just run a straight nom, let it come to a decision, and go from there. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yep. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive tagging, editing and insulting by Dennis Bratland

This user has been placing spurious tags on the Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster‎ article. They were deleted by two users, but he keeps replacing them.

• [5]
• [6]

Tags removed justly by 2 editors: [7], [8]

Tags reinstroduced by Dennis B: [9]

Dennis keeps introducing a poor-quality opinion article from "Futurism" alerting that the car may cause a Kessler syndrome, but the car is not even in Earth orbit to do that. [10].

I explained to him repeatedly Talk:Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster#Car is not in Earth orbit but in heliocentric orbit that the car is no longer in Earth orbit, so it does not form part of "Earth orbit junk", but cosmic junk (or Solar System Junk) so it is not falling on Earth. He posts long messages evading the fact and insisting that he has to introduce what amounts to an alternative view, which is in fact a FRINGE view.

He placed a 3RR warning in my talk page and refuses to acknowledge the car is no longer in Earth Orbit so it cannot be "Earth orbit junk" or cause a Kessler cascade. User talk:BatteryIncluded#February 2018.

After I added more references to the effect that the car is Solar System junk (not Earth junk), he called me "drunk".User talk:BatteryIncluded#February 2018.

He is simply disruptive, and insulting. And I am out of ideas on how to explain to him that a single fringe report (on an object that is not even there) has no place. Thanks BatteryIncluded (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

This person has been editing since 2006 yet they are offended that they got a 3rr warning after making 3 reverts in a row? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Deleting spurious tags and alarmist and ridiculous cheap sources is expected under any circumstance. Your obtuse behavior and insults are not. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

You’ve come to ANI to complain about behavior that is identical to your own. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The article is now fully protected. The proper place to take this discussion is right here - You two need to properly discuss the content issue and which tags belong and don't belong, and come to an agreement. When you two have done so, let me know so that I can remove the gold lock from the front gate. C'mon... look past the frustration and work together and sort this out... okay? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The dispute over mentioning fears of space collision was resolved when BatteryIncluded added some other source to represent that point of view. I'm not particularly about who we cite for that, only that we give due weight to those who have those concerns. I started an RfC to resolve the dispute over integrating the media reaction. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, BatteryIncluded: So... this means that I can unprotect the page now, right? And no more edit warring is going to happen there? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Dennis is still warring in the talk page with other editors. Id say another week or two. Thanks. BatteryIncluded

"Replying" to other editors is now "warring"? Talking it out is how we avoid edit warring. At some point BatteryIncluded's bizarre accusations are going to have to come back and bite him. I'm still wondering if he's going to go on harassing me with his demand to acknowledge that 'the car is not orbiting the Earth.' No matter how many times I've answered yes, he keeps coming back and haranguing me with the same question. When he pasted a duplicate copy of the same text and citations into the article, and I tried twice to inform him of his error (without reverting him), he continued to miss the point, and instead go off on tangential attacks. There's a competence issue here that should be dealt with. He's going to go right back to the article and attack other editors because he fails to comprehend the basic meaning English words. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I think you should unlock the page; there are other editors who want to work on contents, independently of the dispute between Bratland and Battery. If those two can't come to an agreement peacefully, then block them, not the article. — JFG ^talk 07:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

JFG - I agree; here you go -  Done.~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks! — JFG ^talk 07:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah, same page, same editor, Special:Diff/825217523 edit summary "Somebody wants to edit war again. How it works: you have revered once. Now I put it back (1st revert). You revert a 2nd time (keep count!), I put it back (2nd). You revert a third time (you're done!) I revert, #3. WP:3RR kicks in. Please discuss, OK?". (Most other editors appear to be doing their constructive best to operate at 0RR or 1RR). —Sladen (talk) 03:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

…and in the time it took to write the above… Same page, same editor, Special:Diff/825220019, another revert, reverting yet another editor: edit summary "see if it's OK for you do just mash the revert button, then it's OK for me to just mash the revert button. Don't like edit wars? Don't revert. Please discuss". Time for WP:NOTHERE to kick in? —Sladen (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Wait, Sladen. I made a compromise edit, as suggested in the discussion on integrating the response section, per WP:BRD. You decided to simply revert -- you clobbered the compromise and stuffed the non-official Tesla messages down in the "responses" ghetto/garbage dump. I had tried a new tack, you revered. You reverted. You did that. You edit warred. And then when I said, "OK, you want to edit war, then I'll edit war too", you came here to complain? If you don't approve of edit warring, then why did you revert my edit? If it's OK to revert, then what exactly is so bad about what I did? I'm asking you again: stop reverting, and discuss. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, please post WP:DIFFS so it is easier to follow and review. —Sladen (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

See my objection to demand for diffs from Dennis below. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

If diffs cannot be easily found, hopefully Dennis Bratland may be able to strike sentences 3–7, 9 & 11. —Sladen (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Attitude seems quite combative and WP:BATTLEGROUNDy to me based on what I've seen over at Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster. Article locked again due to edit warring between himself and others (not breaking 3RR technically, but still disruptive and assuming bad faith on everyone else). Beyond what I would say is constructive in civil discourse. Needs to calm down but instead just jumped back in swinging. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• It would look much different if this were any other topic. Tesla and SpaceX and Musk are touchy subjects around here. Elon Musk's life and adventures have such devoted fans on Wikipedia that any attempt to tone it down incites an angry mob. Note how offended some editors are about reputable media describing Musk as a master brand manager, showman, and marketer. Reliable sources complement Musk for being brilliant at his actual job, leading his companies to profits, and his fans are incensed because it deflates their image of him as a fearless, chill dude who loves to have fun. If you read the talk page, you'll see more than one editor who did agree with my agenda at various points, simply making the article encyclopedic and not a SpaceX mash note. It's just that few of them want to stick around and keep thanklessly fighting with the Musk fans. One editor does stand his ground and these spurious WP:BATTLEGROUND accusations get tossed around. If the others who agreed with me had been there to mash the revert button, you'd not be able to scapegoat me so easily.

  Honestly, a lead that summarize the content of the article is not unreasonable. Why the instant reverts when I attempt to address that? What drives such a reaction? If my edit wasn't quite neutral enough, anyone could have tuned it to be more neutral. But they deleted it all. Why are they not accused of using Wikipedia as a battleground? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've seen nobody agreeing with you Dennis. It is you against "Evil Wikipedia". You assume bad faith from anyone who dares edit your content. Enough. BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I repeat, these kind of ANI antics are going to lead to WP:BOOMERANG sanctions. Your accusations are false. I have sought compromise. I have agreed to compromise even when it wasn't what I really wanted. When it was clear I could not get an integrated response structure, I agreed with another editor's suggestion that we could keep the response section and only summarize it in the other parts of the article. I attempted to do that by adding a summary to the lead. When another editor offered a compromise version of that wording, I agreed with them. You accuse me of only seeing bad faith in others and that is obviously a false accusation. Yes, I reverted other editors, but only in direct response to them reverting me. I used the talk page to work out issues and you described my talk page discussion as "warring". Another false accusation.

As I've said, I don't take seriously anyone who accuses me of misdeeds when my acts are direct copies of what they did. You, for example. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• On principle I'd rather not see billionaire's explanations of their publicity appear in lede paragraphs. So on that point I agree with Dennis. On principle I'd rather not see widely viewed articles locked at all, least of all for 72 hours, due to a two-party dispute. So on that point I agree with neither of the two parties nor the admin who applied the lock.

Here's the thing. We've got at least 10,000 views and up to 90,000 views on this thing which makes it look at first glance that making it correct is the most important thing. However, locking opportunities for new WP users to contribute is not a good thing even at the expense of some quantum of correctness. Sometimes I think we lose sight of the fact that this project has to attract & retain new people to stay alive. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

All good reasons to focus on the real event -- the Falcon Heavy Test Flight -- and not even create a separate article about the lurid sideshow, the use of a car as ballast. Popularity defeated the idea of keeping them merged, yet popularity makes editing all the more difficult. Even so, the page would not be locked if WP:BRD had been observed. BRD says not to revert. Instead of nuking changes, adjust them to address problems with wording, sourcing, or neutrality. A few editors here feel they themselves aren't guilty of edit warring not because they didn't revert and revert and revert, but because they perceive themselves to have a solid majority. BatteryIncluded has chosen to be literally blind to the posts from editors who supported my arguments yet didn't hang around endlessly pressing the issue because they (naturally) have better things to do. I'm not asking for perfection: I have been open to compromise and I have accepted compromises. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Could you please unlock the article, so that other editors can keep working? Any remaining content disputes can be resolved by discussion. If some editors keep edit-warring, they should be admonished or temporarily blocked; locking the article is detrimental to rapid article improvement given intense reader interest and the need to correct initial impressions with newer and dispassionate coverage. Thanks for your attention. — JFG ^talk 07:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@JFG:Judging by what I see here, it would be better to wait a bit. It may be more blocks will e coming. Oshwah or any other admin familiar w/ this discussion can unprotect if they see it's OK. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like warring editors are now discussing article contents here at ANI instead of on the article talk page. Not a good outcome… — JFG ^talk 07:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Process time-out Dennis has been demanded to provide diffs to, in effect, prove his innocence, and I object to this. I think he's adequately explained why his introduction of advert and povfork tags, shown by the diffs at the very top of the case, was justified. He has also explained that his subsequent edits were attempts not to revert but to introduce new consensus text. If this is problematic, he should be provided diffs showing why, not the other way around. And it shouldn't be focused on a testy edit summary but the substance and his understanding of correct procedure. Ya, the edit summary was "not ideal" but we don't apply 72 hour locks because of that. I hope. Nor unnecessary chiding of a productive and valued long-term editor.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say this case is a good example of why ANI is seen as a kangaroo court by many. Also why I rarely participate because I'm pretty sure just mentioning that will start a new cyclone of reaction. Not what is intended – read it as "drama board" if you prefer. I invite a competent administrator to back this up and provide some positive leadership not just hand out blocks and locks, but a reduction in drama and personality-driven scrutiny.

To the competent administrator who I hope joins here. What do you want to see as an outcome? Because he's been dragged here to explain himself, then in effect punished for speaking: "warring editors are now discussing article contents", oh no. Do you want Dennis to say "I won't call people mister poopy face" and go to the kindergarten corner? Do you want good contributors to stay here? Do you want new ones to come? These discussions have consequences. People can and do quit over feeling they are held to have irredemable shortcomings. Please think about it. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bri: If you are referring to the full protection on the article about Musk's space car, it was protected for 48 hours after a request was made at RFPP to slow down the edit war disruption. It had been protected and unprotected earlier by Oshwah due to the edit warring. It has nothing to do with any edit summary and it certainly was not done to "punish" any user. I protected for only a short period of time to avoid inconveniencing the non edit warring editors of that page. I do agree it would be better to discuss the merits of the competing versions on the talk page rather than continuing this debacle. There was a discussion ongoing last I looked. Cheers, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bri:, an editor made an (unsupported) statement on WP:ANI that "$another_editor reverted"^{Special:Diff/825221142}. It order to test such an assertion for accuracy it is necessary to know the precise edit. Without this basic opportunity for oversight and to test unsupported statements, then Wikipedia's oversight would indeed become a Kangaroo court.^{Special:Diff/825280534} This is not something we want. —Sladen (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC) …an editor that tends to keep revert reserved for vandalism.

Guys, I'm going to reply elliptically because I really don't want to get into a diff war with anybody. Could you try thinking about the emotive content of what I wrote, instead of rebutting. Compare these two lists of words:

• Punitive, emotive, judgmental, absolutist, guarded, rigid
• Welcoming, self-correcting, accommodating, honest, authentic, creative

Which space would we all rather be a part of? Which space would new contributors rather be a part of? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

An honest one? —Sladen (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd like a work space where users extend WP:AGF to admins when they do not understand or agree with their admin actions. Honestly, I do not know of any admin who is not honest. I may disagree some of with my colleagues. I may find their online persona's abhorrent. I may even think some of them are too big for their britches. I do not question their honesty or that they, by their own lights, are working to better Wikipedia. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim, … can't see anywhere in which an admin's honesty has been questioned. What was requested: an editor (whose username appears in the title of this sub-section) was asked to provide evidence (in the form of a diff) to back up an unsupported statement made regarding (alleged) actions of yet another editor. Special:History/Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster covers the history of the article and shows what edits were made—a review of which does not yield an obvious match. An useful course of action in such a situation is to invite an editor to supply diffs, or allow those statements to be amended/struck, followed by a re-evaluation of the resulting courses of actions (if deemed necessary). —Sladen (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sladen: Yeah. Sorry. Thanks. Not directed at you. Must have misparsed comment made by someone else. (Sometimes the eyes jump from line to line.) Striking as it was pretty ranty and off topic. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Sladen, here. I expanded the lead to mention content from all of the article, correcting the exclusions non-SpaceX points of view. You reverted that, restoring the lead to a SpaceX soapbox, from primary sources or from secondary sources that merely parrot the divine revelations falling from Musk's lips. I give you credit for not doing a wholesale revert of my entire edit; you did leave the other sections of the article alone. But you did kick off the edit war over whether or not the lead could include any points of view other than Musk and Spacex, which resulted in page protection.

OK? You have your diff. Please do not carry on a further debate over whether you did or did not do something unless there is a point to it. And by point I mean some ANI-related purpose. What are you asking for here? What is your goal? Not bickering. Scroll up and read "Are you in the right place?" Is there anything on that list that you are requesting be done? State what it is you want, and cite your diffs for why it is justified. I don't see "striking sentences" on that list. If that's the only reason you're here, then we're done, aren't we? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

User: Verdy p

User Verdy p (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is ignoring WP:CIVIL, WP:Assume good faith and WP:EDITWAR on the Rockall article and Talk:Rockall. They have ignored and deleted a correctly referenced statement in the intro at least three times today and made inappropriate comments about other editors on the article Talk page. Warnings about this behaviour have been ignored. David J Johnson (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious breach of WP:3RR I'd like to draw attention to this edit. Baseless accusations of racism, whether implicit or explicit, should not be tolerated. nagualdesign 19:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I think their reverts fall outside the 24 hour window for a 3RR violation, but taken together with their talk page behaviour they do seem to have a problem comprehending Wikipedia’s approaches and policies, leading to frustration and incivility.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope, they breached 3RR. But what's more troubling is they are edit-warring against four other users.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23 above. Verdy p, this ongoing edit war that you've been carrying out on Rockall is exactly what you should not be doing... Had I noticed this a few hours earlier rather than right now, I would have blocked your account for edit warring. The fact that you've stopped editing just shy of a few hours ago puts you at the very edge within a hair's breadth of this activity being considered as "in progress" versus "it's stopped now, and a block isn't necessary". Your repeated failure to interact and communicate within compliance of Wikipedia's civility policy is very concerning - especially when I see a response such as this one. It really sends the message to me that you have a very strong point of view regarding this subject (and possibly the topic). When you tell other editors that if they don't support your thoughts that they're intolerant and discriminatory against cultures, ethnic groups, and the handicapped - that's extremely unacceptable and worrisome to me, and it's caused me to lose confidence that you can be trusted to follow Wikipedia's policies and respect them consistently at this time. Because of this, I've revoked your pending changes reviewer user rights. I don't feel confident right now, given this evidence, that you can sufficiently hold them. You're on a final warning basis - you are expected to stop edit warring, and you are expected to interact with others and comply with Wikipeida's civility policies. Failure to do so will result in action. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I did not start the edit war, I was directly opposed arguments that were absolutely not reltaed top tghe facts exposed (reduse to read, just consider imperfect English style or knowledge as sufficient to ignore all) was harrassing and an exposed kind of insult. inor questions of style (which cvan be corrected constructiuvely and cooperatively) and used to ignore facts.

I just demonstrated that there were contradictions between the article and the sources it used. How to explain that ? Short or long answers are all ignored, the number of facts exposed, differnt ways of saying it, causes all this to be ignored. Yes I was insulted personnally and I'm not the initiator of this anticonstructive, antipersonal behavior. I was complaining against this attitude, I should not have been the one victim of further measures. Even the simple fact of exposing a "source needed" in the article was also reverted, the fact of marking that there's a contestable (unprooven) statements in an article (even if there are sources, which here don't match) should not be seen as an edit war but really as constructive. verdy_p (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

"user's incivility and edit warring": I am not the one that has made edit war. And I'm not the one that used incivility, and I complained against the user affirming this, using false statements and personal jusgements about me. He wanted to ignore the facts, and wanted opposed only minor linguistic form (a minor aspect that can be corrected collaboratively but not required for discussion), and did not want to read anything. There was a contradiction and the contradiction remains in the article and the alleged sources (that are themselves contradicting, and are read selectively, i.e. severely biased against NPOV). verdy_p (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Having been away from this discussion for two days, I note that verdy p is still arguing both here and on the article Talk page, although not in the article itself. It appears that they have taken no notice of two administrators warnings here. David J Johnson (talk) 10:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

"although not in the article itself" ??? The article itself is not the place where this can be discussed, and the article talk space was appropriate according to current conventions. I do not understand at all your counter-intuitive precision here. Basically you're affirming here that there's no suitable place then to discuss the issue (by me, you, or anyone else), and not even here where I was personnally cited with other people making their own personal judgements and giving their opinion. If someone cites me explicitly here and adds his opinion, I have a legitimate right to answer it at the same place. verdy_p (talk) 11:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Have you read and understood the two administrators comments above? It certainly appears you have not. The article Talk page is the correct venue for a constructive discussion, but not for the type of allegations you have made against other experienced editors. David J Johnson (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:CIR, editor frequently calling constructive edits a "vandalism"

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

After he made this disruptive edit[11] where he called edit a "vandalism", by using a self-reverted edit[12] as justification, I warned him that constructive edits are not vandalism.[13] Indeed, that's something he already knows, but he is still frequently calling such edits a "vandalism".[14][15] He has been calling constructive edits a "vandalism" for a long time.[16][17][18][19][20][21]

WP:COMPETENCE issues are not limited to this. In his edit,[22] he used this source[23] for replacing "India" with "Indus River", but source says "India", not "Indus River". Lorstaking (talk) 08:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Dear Administrator,
  I have explained my accusation on the talk page: Talk:Cradle_of_civilization#Intentionally_rewriting_sections_to_be_more_vague_is_Vandalism._(Indus_Valley_changed_to_Indo-Gangetic_Plain)
  NINE Sources have been provided where the majority refer to the Indus River/Indus Valley. These 2 users have repeatedly changed the Indus valley/Indus river references to several other references that are NOT listed in the sources. They are engaging in Original Research and edit warning, ignoring talk page discussions and dragging other users to Administrator notice boards without engaging in any discussions.
  Please note that neither Lorstaking nor user User:EdwardElric2016 have contributed to the talk page. These two users have simply engaged in undoing constructive edits and plastering my talk page with warnings.
  The entire premise of the article is based on the following section: Cradle_of_civilization#Single_or_multiple_cradles
  The 9 sources list/discuss the Indus River or Indus Valley.
  Lorstaking removed this reference in favour of "Indo-Gangetic plan" back in October: [24] He also removed the Indus Valley reference in favour of the general term "India".
  I stand by my comment that this is vandalism as he is removing references to sourced information and adding his personal POV to articles while ignoring any talk page discussions. This user has not engaged with me in any constructive manner about the topic. He posted a warning and then created an admin incident. This is against everything wikipedia stands for. --Xinjao (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Also, [25] was not my edit. This would be another example of Lorstaking edit warring with others. Refer to [26] Xinjao (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• As a final point to address the actual dispute, which User:Lorstaking still refuses to address, as he seems more interested in combing my contributions from 2015. Please refer to the a simple Google search [27] The common name which scholarly articles and the vast majoity of searches utilise is "Indus Valley". The sources in the article use this name unless referring to the entire subcontinent. Lorstaking is engaging in POV by removing the Indus Valley references in favour of "Indo-Gangetic Plain" and the more non-specific and broad "India" references. Xinjao (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Sources call "India", not "Indus Valley" or "Indus River". Do you really believe that because you don't like the term "India", you are allowed to misrepresent sources? Makes no sense. This is a single edit, not edit warring and it remained there to this day until you started edit warring and misrepresenting sources today. There is clear WP:IDHT from you.

"I stand by my comment that this is vandalism", I expect there will be a speedy block for this continued incompetence, because now there should be no doubt regarding your disruption. Lorstaking (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Please take 2 mins to actually read the sources. They talk about the Indus Valley or the Indus River. This has nothing to do with what "I like". You are misrepresenting the sources. Not a single source refers to "Indo-Gangetic Plain" which is what you submitted in October. Furthermore, you have refused to engage with me on the Talk page and all you seem capable of is threatening users with warnings and bans. Xinjao (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

You are now trolling me, but don't worry no one will find any sense in your comments. Already mentioned you that in your edit you used this source[28] which says "India" not "Indus". Another source of yours[29] makes no mention of "Cradle of civilization". [30] redirects to college admissions, while [31] redirects to scam websites. Using such references won't impress me at all but only prove how deceptive you are. I expect not only a block but also a topic ban on your account for your continued failure to WP:HEAR that how badly you are misrepresenting sources, since this all comes after you had been already warned of WP:AC/DS about WP:ARBPAK.[32] Lorstaking (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems that your only intention is to ban people who disagree with you. Admin, please note that he repeatedly talk about warnings, bans, blocks, topic bans rather than engaging with people on the talk pages. These are NOT my sources. These sources are already in use in the article so please don't accuse me of this nonsense. The source [33] refers to INDUS VALLEY and has been used on the page for years. Here is another source already in use which refers to Indus Valley [34]. The fact of the matter is that you favoring "Indo-Gangetic Plain" reference which is not listed in any of the existing sources.
This entire discussion should take place in the talk page of the article, but since your primary focus is to get people banned, we find ourselves doing it here. Incompetence. Xinjao (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Problems are with your excessive lack of competence. The source that I had added supports the information by saying "major river valleys of the Indo-Gangetic Plain of South Asia were among the great cradles of civilization,"[35] unlike your misrepresentation of sources. According to your POV, we should be adding sources[36][37] that mention "Indus Valley" but not "Cradle of civilization"(name of the article) in violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and you also want us to remove what is not liked by you even if it is accurately supported by the source. This is just another incident of your small and recent editing history that you are always editing with an agenda,[38][39][40] you can't edit neutrally. ~~

Stick to the topic if you can. This has nothing to do with my contributions in other topics. For a person who refused to engage on the article talk page and where your first course of action is to get people banned, I question your competence too. What you have described above is Original Research, which you started working on in October of last year. "Indus Valley" returns nearly 4 million results whereas "Indo-Gangetic Plain" returns 200 000 off topic results that have nothing to do with the Civilization topic. You are engaging in ORIGINAL RESEARCH by adding these references to the article. Thanks for admitting this openly Xinjao (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

This noticeboard is meant for commenting on editor, not for gaining support for your problematic article version. Is it really possible to find someone "engaging in ORIGINAL RESEARCH" even after adding "references to the article"? Thanks for the laughs but that is not what I had asked for. Lorstaking (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

#1. If you had taken time to contribute to the talkpage of the article, we wouldn't be discussing the article here. You did not show any intent to discuss the subject. Your first move was to post a warning and your second move was to raise a case with an Admin. Your partner User:EdwardElric2016 also refused to discuss in the talk page. He repeatedly reverted my edits while asking me to use the talk page.
2. You clearly don't understand the concept of Original Research. You are expanding a definition to fit your POV, against the norm and against popular interpretation. A simple Google search reveals this. The phrase "Indo-Gangetic plain" is almost never used in this context. Indus Valley is the widely used common phrase when discussing the emergence of civilisation in the Indian subcontinent. So yes, your edits from October are examples of Original Research Xinjao (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Having visited the article recently and seeing the revert warring there, there does some to be an issue with the new user:EdwardElric2016 who does not seem to be familiar with policy, including reliable sources as even stated on his talk page. I would suggest this ANI is a bit premature and that the content of this ANI be posted on the article talk page. If the majority sources refer to it as Indus Valley (as seems to be the case), we could have a case of WP:UNDUE. Otherwise I can propose an alternative to put in the article. But one thing I should point to is the Indus Valley and Indo-Gangetic plain are two different things. Indo-Gangatic plain refers to the Indus and the Ganges; whereas the sources seems to be talking about just one of them.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree here. There is no issue with EdwardElric2016, he is a competent editor who is editing for a couple of years. Capitals00 (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Capitals00, He has so far refused to engage on the talk page but he continues to revert edits. On a different note, I also disagree with you deleting my talk page entry. I was discussing the content and the sources, but I have rewritten the entry with a different tone if that helps. I expect EdwardElric to engage this time. --Xinjao (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Xinjao, the report concerns your toxic conversations, misrepresentation of sources and false accusation of vandalism that you have made above as well, this has nothing to do with your petty content dispute. Evidence shows that you have been carrying this disruptive editing for years and here you have shown zero remorse for your actions because you believe them to be right. For such reasons, a block is really warranted, or a final warning that any similar misconduct will lead to a topic ban or long block. I am fine with either or both, but before this thread is willfully derailed anymore by you regarding the actual issues with your conduct, I would ping NeilN to have a look. Capitals00 (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Capitals00 I find your comments really unfair as you have decided to focus on that one word that might have been misapplied. I went by the book and initiated a discussion on the talk page which went completely unanswered. This users first action was to post a warning and second action was to start this admin case where he falsely accusses me of socking. I have a total of TWO edits on that article. They simply do not care for the talk page or discussing the content. I maintain that Lorstaking is engaging in Original research and ignoring talk page discussions. What is your suggestion that I do next? Xinjao (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Xinjao: As you probably know, reverting vandalism is exempt from WP:3RR. If you really think the edits are vandalism, then you believe that you are free to revert them without consequence or having to give a reason. If "vandalism" is your way of describing content that you don't like, then you are are attacking other editors, calling them vandals. The first option shows you don't know what vandalism is, which means your judgment regarding content matters can't be trusted in this area. The second option means you are simply attacking other editors, always unacceptable, but more so in an area covered by discretionary sanctions. I strongly suggest you carefully read our vandalism policy, especially WP:NOTVAND, as more incorrect accusations will result in a topic ban or block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I do apologise for the confusion NeilN. Vandalism might not have been the best word, but how do I address this users practices? They are not responding to talk page discussions, while mockingly reverting edits and referring to talk pages. Upon further reading, I maintain that Lorstaking is engaging in original research, while changing sourced content. What would you suggest I do next? Xinjao (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Xinjao: If you have clear-cut evidence the editor habitually adds original research in the India/Pakistan area despite being warned, then look into filing an WP:AE request. The cases presented need to obvious, however - not a matter of interpretation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Xinjao believes there is original research because his opinion is more prevailing than the one added by Lorstaking, though Xinjao has so far failed to provide single source that would support his opinion. There is no original research if reliable source has been provided to support the information, this has been already said by Lorstaking above still Xinjao is WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Falsely accusing others of "mockingly reverting" him shows battleground mentality. Recent problems are not limited to this single article either[41], there seems to be a long term pattern of nationalistic POV editing from Xinjao. Misrepresentation of sources has been explained above, however it seems that are worse issues with using sources. On talk page, Xinjao admits that two of his sources "no longer exists", or he "do not have access", still he edit warred to add these sources. That is a blatant falsification of sources. Xinjao at least deserves a final warning logged to WP:DSLOG regarding these serious concerns, that any more of this will lead to blocks or topic bans. Capitals00 (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thats a lot of baseless accusations coming from you Capitals. You have called me petty earlier too. I dont understand your hostility. I repeat once again for your benefit. Those were not my sources. Those sources were already being used in the article for years and I referred back to them. Please don't accuse me of edit warring. I have a total of 2 edits on that page and I actually engaged in the talk page unlike the person you are strongly defending. Out of 9 sources, 6 check out. 2 are inaccessible. But none of those 9 sources correlate with Lorstakings edits. You also misquoted me on the "mockingly reverted" comment. Edward reverted my edit whilst telling me to use the Talk page. I consider this "mocking" because he is clearly refusing to respond in the talk page himself.Xinjao (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It is well evidenced already. Though your inability to understand simple English language is clear. He called your content dispute "petty", not to you. You have frequently claimed that "9 sources"[42] [43] [44] supported your content and now you claim "6". None of your source support your sentence. If you are still not hearing then I would better expect you to be topic banned as result of this thread. There is no denial that you edit with an ethnic agenda and you don't care about editing with care. That's why you added the sources you didn't even read per your own admission. It is also irrelevant that what you "consider", as such statement only shows your inability to consider your mistakes. Lorstaking (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear Admins. Please note the personal attacks and please note that I have made a total of 2 edits on that page but I have lost count of the number of baseless accusations from these two. Lorstaking has spent more time trying to get me banned than he has engaged on the talk page. His dismissal of 6 valid sources (that are not even mine) in order to engage in his own original research supported by a single source is beyond astonishing. I will raise this separately. Xinjao (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

There is not a single personal attack. These false accusations of misconduct will get you blocked. You don't even know what is an "original research" despite having told 100s of time that if statement has been supported by reliable source then there is no original research. This is not only a case of WP:CIR but also WP:IDHT, you are deliberately attempting to mislead. "that are not even mine"? That means you hate to take responsibility for your edits now, yet you are tirelessly professing them. With this continued presentation of your incompetence, you are typically asking for an indef block until you grasp the policies correctly. Lorstaking (talk) 12:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

That's more than enough with your misguided hostility, insults and off topic posts. You raised this admin incident because you believe I am being disruptive with my 2 Edits and a talk page post, which you initially refused to engage. I will let the admins decide on the next course of action. Please keep the content discussion to the talk page. I see more people have countered your views. Address them please. Xinjao (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no hostility but concerns about you, if you can really contribute in a collaborative environment because to this day you have used Wikipedia for your WP:BATTLEs often.[45][46][47] Who would want to engage in a "talk page post", where you are misrepresenting sources, posting rants and calling every edit a vandalism with which you disagree? That's why bringing you to ANI was a better solution. Even after this all, nothing has been changed. You could've done yourself a favor if you could avoid the article but you are only making it worse for yourself by continuing your disruption. Lorstaking (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I am collaborating. I raised the talk page discussion, but thank you for explicitly admitting that you did not want to engage in those. According to you, the article was misrepresenting sources long before I entered, which is clear when you dismissed these sources back in October and added Uncommon Names instead. I had no involvement in the article when you started this process. Others are disagreeing with your edits and providing new sources, so perhaps take a look at your own conduct. --Xinjao (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, no one will engage in talk page that is toxic instead raise issues with the conduct of the user. You are using it as scapegoat, but if you were really so fond of talk page discussion you would've opened a talk page section first before making your disruptive edits on main article or after getting reverted per WP:BRD. I am yet to see anyone "disagreeing". 3 users are in agreement so far, there is nothing wrong with his conduct, though there are too many problems with your conduct. Capitals00 (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Having taken onboard Neil and Capitals feedback, I have created a new entry on the Talk page of the article, detailing the mismatch in the sources and the text being used in the article: Indo-Gangetic_Plain_vs_Indus_River_Valley Hope this helps. Xinjao (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with the above claim that EdwardElric2016 is necessarily a competent user. He's added original research on various articles and received numerous warnings on his talk page. So I'd disagree that it's necessarily user:Xinjao that's the problem. Despite being reverted, he has carefully explained his edits and is correct to state that the majority of sources agree on calling it Indus Valley; wheras User:EdwardElric2016 ignores this. There's more but I'll add it to the article talk page when I have time.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you talking about "his talk page" or "various articles" or this incident? You need to provide diffs for your claims, because they seem baseless. I am yet to see any misrepresentation of sources and mislabeling of constructive edits as vandalism or any other problems from EdwardElric2016 that are found in Xinjao, and now we have you to lend blind support to apparent disruption. You are under a final warning[48] and you should not take risks that will lead to reinstatement of topic ban on your account. I would remind here that you have already tested boundaries when you and Xinjao were trying to WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS on Hindustan,[49] about 3 months ago. Let us hope that you won't repeat mistake in the future. Capitals00 (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I clearly provided a link to his talk page. Likewise, Xinjaoe has clearly made his case regarding the sources, but again you not listening, which is clearly disruptive.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It is within policy not to agree with Xinjao's misrepresentation of sources. He can provide if he has any that would be suitable for the subject. Lorstaking (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

NadirAli, let me be crystal clear that EdwardElric2016 is more competent than you and Xinjao put together. You didn't provided any "link" to his talk page. A frivolous warning from Xinjao should be ignored. I don't have to agree with falsification of sources from Xinjao, but you are telling me to agree. You can ignore the correct argument and lend support to his disruption but you will only find yourself sanctioned, given you were sitebanned and topic banned and now you are under a final warning. Capitals00 (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Me and Nadir are active on the Talk page and trying to address your perceived concerns about sources, which is more than I can say for Edward who still hasn't made an appearance after guiding me there. Please explain in the talk page how I am falsifying sources? More sources have been added by another user fyi. Xinjao (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I have already explained that on talk page, unlike you I am not fond of repeating over and over. Editors are not obliged to reply to discussion and at least not when you are only engaging in disruption and making a WP:POINT. I have already looked into discussion and everything is still same. Capitals00 (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

By your own admission, Xinjao on the talk page, you are "combining sources". There is a word for this on Wikipedia: SYNTH. It is not allowed. - Nick Thorne ^talk 15:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

That's clearly not what I wrote Nick, I should have been more clear with that sentence but please don't take my discussion out of context. Its really not fair. I was referring to Lorstakings practice. He is happy using the original sources as the foundation of the article, but then he mixes the sources to change one specific naming convention (Indus valley to Indo-Gangetic plain). I have not added anything thats not clearly mentioned in the original sources. Please review my 2 edits and let me know where I have mixed sources if that's what you have gathered from my post. --Xinjao (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

"Clearly not what I wrote"?? You exactly wrote "Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Combining sources", asking other editor to engage in WP:SYNTH, since this is all you have been doing until now. Lorstaking's sources meet WP:V, while yours fail it. You have been engaging in this nationalistic POV editing in more than one article,[50] it would be an overkill to take your words without doing research since every time you are caught WP:GAMING. Capitals00 (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Why on earth would I ask someone to break the rules? And how on earth is the usage of "Indus valley" Nationalistic POV? Its very interesting to me that you consider this nationalistic. Does that mean all the sources I posted are nationalistic? Indus valley is not a nation. Its just a phrase that clearly upsets you. You have been pushing to get me banned from your very first post. Xinjao (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

User inserting false titleholder

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

---

Rndhnr has been on a cross-wiki campaign inserting a false titleholder in the article on the Duke of Gandía. I recently added an official reference (Official State Gazette, notice from the Spanish Ministry of Justice) on the current titleholder. Suspect that user Rndhnr is the same as the ip 60.153.93.4 who also edited the same article adding the same individual and also the same as HistoiredeFrance who left me a message claiming that the line is not accurate according to a soon-to-be-released book on the history of the Borja (Borgia) and whose edit in the article on Elzéar of Sabran, where he added the same false titleholder, was undone. Maragm (talk) 08:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC) Adding another suspect IP 60.152.122.245 who just reverted my edit removing false info. Maragm (talk) 11:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• That's a signature behaviour of Siredejoinville (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Needs a checkuser I think. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Siredejoinville. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

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

On Using a Personal Sandbox for Learning

I am a teacher at a high school in the United States. As part of a unit on the epistemology of Wikipedia, I teach students to edit Wikipedia. I teach students formatting (e.g. internal linking, citation, infobox, et al) as well as rules of use (verifiability, neutral point of view, etc.). Given that they are young students who make mistakes, I ask they keep all of their work in their personal sandbox until I can check it and teach them how to correct it. At the end of this project, some students publish their articles or update existing Wikipedia entries; some do not. Recently, one of my student's (ndunkel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sandboxes was deleted by administrator MER-C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I appealed this deletion on said administrator's talk page.

While I have not seen the sandbox in question--it was deleted before I could offer the student constructive feedback--I contend that usage of the first person and content construed as advertising does not constitute Misuse of the sandbox]. Wikipedia clearly notes that sandboxes are not held to the same standard and that certain rules do not apply to sandboxes. I have therefore used them as a learning environment, where beginners can safely learn what is and is not appropriate. I ask for clarification on using sandboxes as a teaching tool (for me) and a learning environment (for my students). If appropriate, I ask for the restoration of said student's sandbox. JediLibrarian (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The deleted sandbox was not only a blatant advert, it was a blatant cut-and-paste copyright violation from another website (this website, to be specific). As such, for legal reasons there are no circumstances under which it will be restored; Wikipedia takes copyright violation very seriously. If someone has told you that copyright rules don't apply in the sandbox, you've been misinformed; this is a legal requirement not a Wikipedia policy, and as such we couldn't relax it even if we wanted to. If you're going to quote Wikipedia:Misuse of the sandbox, please do us the courtesy of reading it first, as in your own personal sandbox, you still shouldn't post nonfree copyrighted material or personal attacks/harassment, or writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. The addition of promotional material is not acceptable either. is explicitly stated there. ‑ Iridescent 15:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Your message clearly explains why the content was deleted, and I can take this back to the student as a teachable moment. Had a comment such as this been left on my student's talk page, we could have obviated this entire discussion. Your criticism of my own sandbox, however, does not meet this same standard. You cite a blanket violation, and I would welcome a message on my talk page clarifying what content you feel neglects to meet the standards you refer to. In addition, I would welcome a suggestion on how to use Wikipedia as a teaching tool. Wikipedia is well aware of systemic biases. Addressing these means empowering minority voices to grow into confident Wikipedia contributors. If a sandbox is not an appropriate place to experiment and learn, what is? JediLibrarian (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, a Sandbox is a place to practice editing, either to build a draft for later publication in the main encyclopedia, or just to practice formatting , and, whilst that and a "place to experiment and learn" are not mutually exclusive, neither are they synonymous. The former certainly should come before the latter. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

There is also a difference between experimenting and copyright infringement, per WP:COPYVIO: copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues. The content cannot be restored. What relevance does bias have to this discussion? Nobody takes into account the age, gender, race, or identity of the individual when performing routine maintenance tasks. If you know the individual then these may be factors that influence you, – well at least age might, you're obviously not going to lambast a 3rd grader the same way you might a college student for posting blatant copyvios on Wikipedia – but they have no bearing on the actions we have to take – that is delete and warn. On the flipside, I'm glad you're having your students use the sandbox, – you can also use draftspace – rather than the mainspace. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, to clarify a misunderstanding, Iridescent didn't make a comment on your sandbox JediLibrarian, they were posting a quote from an information page. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

There are three core aspects to being a productive contributor: (1) proficiency in written English, (2) appreciation of what an encyclopedia is, what purpose they serve, the type of information one might find within, the information you won't find in an encyclopedia and why people use them; and (3) information literacy and critical thinking (the relevant Wikipedia guideline is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, but you shouldn't need to refer to it.) The best use of editing Wikipedia as a teaching tool would be teaching information literacy and critical thinking -- I view the first and second points above as prerequisites. As you're a librarian, I suggest paying particular attention to sourcing -- for example you can compare some good articles to some crap ones or something like 1Lib1Ref. I strongly recommend against getting your students to write articles; the learning curve is too steep. They need to consolidate the basics first.

For what it's worth, from experience >99.9% of users who post blatant adverts (of which I have deleted about 10,000) are actually marketers and/or spammers who have zero interest in contributing to the encyclopedia. Spam is spam, no matter the page name. MER-C 17:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand the fight against "blatant adverts"; I followed Virgil Griffith's work on Wikiscanner with great interest. I'm sure "salacious edits", as Wired called them, have only increased in the decade since. Your point about the "learning curve" begs the question: Why not fix the learning curve? Over the years, I have taught about 500 students to edit Wikipedia. Those 500 students have created some beautiful entries, particularly in other languages, as those 500 students represent about 60 different cultures. Have there been hiccups? Sure--this represents a fine example. But can I think of a better way to promote Authentic learning while making the world a better place? Nope. I appreciate the discussion here. In the future, I'll have students use draftspaces, as suggested by Mr rnddude. And yes, I'll ask them to submit drafts for review and/or delete those draftspaces when finished.JediLibrarian (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Why not fix the learning curve - Who says it's broken? You're comparing arithmetic to algebra when comparing editing with writing. One takes more effort than the other. I'll put it this way, consider the following to be four basic levels of writing an article: (1) writing any article, (2) writing an article that will be retained, (3) writing a good article, and (4) writing a feature article. It takes maybe five minutes to achieve level 1 – pick a topic, write a few sentences, and hit save. Hours to days to achieve level 2 – pick a topic, write several complete paragraphs, use sources to back up your writing and then hit save. Weeks to achieve level 3 – pick a topic, write a complete and comprehensive article with good sources and submit it for review. Months to years to achieve level 4 – your students aren't going to encounter this, just leave it at that. From one standpoint, it could not be easier to start writing an article than it currently is. Type in the name of the article you want to write, click the link to edit, and start writing. From another, writing an article takes time, research, and ability. Not everybody is capable of, or interested in, this. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• To facilitate JediLibrarian's discussion with his/her student, why not email a copy? EEng 19:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Because—as already pointed out—it was a verbatim cut-and-paste of this website. ‑ Iridescent 19:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• In other cases, though, I think there would be nothing wrong with e-mailing the wikitext. If there was formatting or other changes to the content, I think it's reasonable to e-mail it. I'm sure one of our resident specialists will point out that it's a copyvio to e-mail a copyvio. I'd disagree on a somewhat technical point: It may be a copyright infringement, but it's not a "copyvio" in the sense of Wikipedia policy, which governs on-wiki conduct. I would have no qualms about, for instance, photocopying an article out of a magazine and mailing it to somebody on their request, as most libraries will do. While I understand there's a bit of a difference when we're talking about using the admin tools to access deleted content, the same "copyvio" rules don't apply to this. I'm actually not aware of a policy that's quite on point here, though I think it stands to reason that there should be good cause to share deleted content via e-mail when WP:REFUND wouldn't permit its restoration, and privacy-violating material should never be provided this way (and, in fact, should be oversighted even after being deleted). Maybe there's cause for some policy provision here? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• While teaching PLEASE make it a requirement for the students to blank their sandbox at the end (or when you check them you blank them. We already have a massive backlog Category:Stale userspace drafts and it takes other editors and Admins significant effort to clean up the abandoned pages. Legacypac (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Abhi1530

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

---

Could an admin look at / try to sort out the mess caused by User:Abhi1530? They have been determined to get the existing article Bonda Umamaheswara Rao removed (oft citing "unfaith") and replace it with one of their own making. User talk:Abhi1530 says that Bonda Uma is their uncle. Today they have renamed the article as Cdcddc and attempted to nominate it for deletion. Thanks! Dorsetonian (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

All dealt with by NeilN - thanks! Dorsetonian (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Apparent behavioral problems at List of Death in Paradise episodes

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

---

The user Kaos Edward Nick (talk · contribs) continues his editing behavior after his block has expired. Although I believe that it is vandalism (sneaky vandalism), I respect that the blocking admin at the time declared it to be disruptive editing only, so I'm reporting it here instead of AIV. --Richard-DIP (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. Yes, it's disruptive editing, to include unsourced speculation, not vandalism. The editor's contributions appear to be well-intentioned, but misguided, and they're not communicating. Acroterion (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Acroterion - Thank you. It's obvious that edits like adding a season that could possibly be broadcast in 2020 and calling it "final season" are disruptive editing (unsourced speculation), but sometimes it is difficult for me to tell if an edit like adding figures, e.g. the average number of viewers to a season that not even has been broadcast completely (diff) is sneaky vandalism (in the sense of adding plausible misinformation to articles), or disruptive editing only, especially as this varies between different language versions of Wikipedia. --Richard-DIP (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Ptb011985

Persistent disruptive editing and soapboxing, WP:TALKNO entries at

1. Talk:Mitragyna speciosa, such as this and this.
2. Mitragyna speciosa, such as this and this
3. User talk:Zefr such as this and this. Suggest that Ptb011985 be advised about WP:TALKNO, WP:MEDRS, and WP:CIVIL. 2 week timeout would be suitable. --Zefr (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

User Zefr has been trailing my edits for last week, reverting them, commenting on all talk entries, and providing his own POV. After being warned I attempted to advise user he was engaged in same behavior, but he disregarded it by removing from talk page. Warning him is harassment according to him, but he does the same thing repeatedly on my talk page and doesn't consider it harassment. Though agreement lacks, talk discussion on the article has been productive; nothing constituting soapboxing. User just disagrees and is just trying to bully his POV in via a ban. Ptb011985 (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing there in his examples. There is a discussion at hand and several users basically agree with me, several basically with Zefr. The edits cited are a matter of opinion, and other editors agree with my position (that the 'no evidence' claim should be attributed to the FDA), including one who started a talk page section on the subject. Zefr just appears to be trying to stifle the discussion in order to preserve an alleged consensus. I submit neither of us have made any significant policy violations, but if you ban one of us you must ban both. Ptb011985 (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ptb011985.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

FrankM113 edits to MacKeeper

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

---

FrankM113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been routinely editing pages related to the controversial Mac software MacKeeper (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (as well as Zeobit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Kromtech (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), the developers of the software), adding unsourced information in violation of WP:NPOV. He has been warned repeatedly to stop making these edits, but has not responded to any of the warnings he has received on his talk page. He has also had an issue with accusations of promoting a YouTube channel. Based on these facts, I would say he is not here to improve Wikipedia. —AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk
contribs) 17:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I am just adding true facts to the articles about MacKeeper so I'm here to improve Wikipedia. As for the YouTube channel I am not promoting it, I'm just interested in the channel and have stopped since Tenebrae told me to FrankM113 (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Heated discussion at Talk:Super Bowl Most Valuable Player Award

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

---

Hello everyone. I haven't initiated an ANI report in nearly a decade of editing, but I suppose there's a first time for everything. User:Mark Thomas II made some additions to Super Bowl Most Valuable Player Award recently, in the lead and table. Some of the additions are still in the article pending discussions at the talk page linked above, while some were removed and sparked some edit warring that brought Mark to 3RR. He was warned on his talk page, which seemed to anger him, and the discussion has gotten away from the topic of whether the additions benefit the list. Among the highlights are me being a hardcore article owner (with this as his evidence), me "operating WAY OUT OF LINE here for a very long time", the entire admin corps being called "THUGS", this comment joking that people with a certain medical condition are being euthanized, and vast knowledge of past Wikipedia abuses despite having 70 or so edits. In short, things have gone way off course. Would an uninvolved user mind telling Mark to calm down and focus on trying to build a consensus for his edits, as I don't think he would listen to me at this point? Thanks for any help you can provide. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. The three admins currently involved are not enough.--Mark Thomas II (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Removal of relevant notifications from talk pages of seven WikiProjects

Recently, I saw that this process was initiated: Articles for deletion/Anti-Orthodoxy, and since that article is quite important I decided to make some appropriate notifications on talk pages of seven WikiProjects that are most relevant to that subject, in order to inform interested users, but within few minutes user @Calthinus: (who is advocating deletion of that article), decided to remove all those notifications from all seven project talk pages, and he did so here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard: DBR, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy: DBR, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discrimination: DBR, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Serbia: DBR, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greece: DBR, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Romania: DBR, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia: DBR. Further more, on my talk page the same user accused me of "Inappropriate campaigning". I urge administrators to take a look at this problem, since I did not want to revert his reverts. I would like to know, were my notifications appropriate or not? If they were, then I hope they will be restored. Sorabino (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate, because not WP:NPOV. You should word it in a way that nobody knows your opinion; e.g, Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Orthodoxy. Thank you, ~~~~. and nothing more. Mathglot (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, if current wording is the problem then I will reduce notifications to simple information about proposed deletion, I guess that would be acceptable? Sorabino (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorabino I would recommend that, if you choose four Orthodox countries to ping to, you instead ping to all of them -- and throw in other countries involved in the page while you're at it, like Poland, Turkey, Kosovo and Albania-- not just those four so as not to give impressions of selectiveness.-Calthinus (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• In my opinion your notifications were inappropriately phrased and constituted canvassing in violation of policy. See WP:CANVASS. This does not mean notifications of any sort to relevant WikiProjects are inappropriate canvassing, but when you couple advocacy with your notification, it is usually improper. I also note that you did not notify the target of this complaint, which is mandatory. I have done this for you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Mendaliv Umm, this post by Sorabino is insinuating false things regarding myself. I am not advocating deletion at the current moment, nor was I when I removed Sorabino's notices. I'm currently advocating a title change and the current page becoming a disambiguation, which is not deletion. Again, I stated this before I removed Sorabino's notices [[51]]. I removed them not because of my stance, but because they were inappropriate. Insinuations not appreciated. --Calthinus (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, in addition to how Sorabino's notices were worded, the choice of WikiProjects was pretty bad -- he specifically omitted the projects of countries that were involved that the page portrayed in a negative light (Poland, Kosovo, etc...) while pinging specifically the project pages of specifically the Orthodox countries (Russia, Greece, Romania, and Serbia) that have had historical disputes with non-Orthodox countries. He also omitted every single Orthodox country that lacks religiously-tinged major historical dispute with a non-Orthodox country (Ethiopia, Georgia...)--Calthinus (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• I am not "insinuating false things" about anyone: user @Calthinus: has voted to "delete" the article and that vote of his still stands there: Articles for deletion/Anti-Orthodoxy. Sorabino (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and after that I made quite clear that my position had changed, and this was before reverting you [[52]]. It's fine if you didn't notice that, but please don't be so fast to attribute my actions to my (false) position, especially on this page.--Calthinus (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Voting rules are simple: if some has voted to "delete" an article, that vote stands for deletion unless it is visually suppressed and changed by the same user. The vote of user @Calthinus: is still standing for deletion. Sorabino (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

So, wait, despite this [[53]] you're still insisting that my (incorrect) stance is relevant to my removal of messages that violated our community standards? Honestly, that just makes me sad.--Calthinus (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sorabino:, i agree with @Mathglot: and @Mendaliv: here. One you could have worded it better (and neutrally) and two if your going to add it to wikiprojects for further discussion, add it to ones that the page is already listed as being part of [54] in addition to others as they come first and with the others its much more than just a few select countries. In some places Orthodoxy is a majority, in others its a minority but many wikiprojects would be covered under those aspects. Also personal attacks like on @Calthinus: or other editors are not needed. Please refrain from it. Best.Resnjari (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

No, Sorabino that is not how it works, they are called !votes for a reason. The closer looks at the arguments made by the AfD participants not the votes. In this case Calthinus made a clear statement of compromise that included keeping the existing article under a different name. In general it is best not to comment on other editors' motivations at all. It is a quick way to needlessly heat up an argument and often an easy way to end up with a short break from editing if one persists. I typically find it helpful to apologize if I find I have made an incorrect assumption about another editor. It costs nothing and can calm the waters.

On the topic of notifications simply remember that in order not to run afoul WP:CANVASS your notification must be neutrally worded - Mathglot gave you a good format - and you must notify all of whatever relevant participant. That means if you notify affected WikiProjects you can not pick and choose. If you are notifying editors from a previous AfD you must notify all of them not just those you think would support your position. Jbh ^Talk 06:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Sandboxes used for content saving, including deleted content

An editor is keeping about 20 copies of various articles including deleted articles in his user space in apparent violation of WP:UP#COPIES. Could somebody have a look at his his talkpage and see if my warning is way off base. He has also invited a blocked editor to do the same.

I think this might be in good faith, but I'm having difficulty explaining the policies to them. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Accidentally blocked a user instead of posting a warning

I accidentally blocked User:Navaneeth Prince instead of giving them a warning about getting blocked for NOTHERE. I'm not sure how to fix this, please help. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Simply unblock them, apologise, and leave a note on the unblock saying it was an error? Black Kite (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Since they gave "Its my dream to be on Wikipedia and everyone should know about me / My dreams is to be a famous and good person so i need this page please help me" as a reason for contesting a blatant U5, one wonders if Dodger67 wasn't right in the first place... >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 12:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Unblocked, should I post the warninng I originally intended or would that be overkill? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah leave a note rather than a template, along the lines of "very sorry to have blocked you, but I must warn you that..." etc. That way your original message doesn't get lost, and, if they're merely under a misapprehension as to what WP is for, this will allow them the opportunity to adjust their behaviour acordingly. Good luck! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dodger67: sorry, should've pinged. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

"...a note rather than a template..." is always good advice. Templates are useful for pro-forma warnings for juvenile, simple vandalism where you expect them to be blocked anyways. For anything else, it is better to engage in dialogue with an intent to educate the new user. --Jayron32 16:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive and uncivil behavior by User:Rovingrobert

Hello. Rovingrobert is exhibiting a very poor (disruptive and uncivil) behavior:

1. He changed IPA transcriptions of foreign surnames from how the names are pronounced in English to how he thinks they're supposed to be pronounced: [55], [56], [57]. In the case of the second link, the response to my edit summary was I won't stop doing shit, bitch (EDIT: Here's another one: [58]).

2. He removed the pronunciation of Bjorn Fratangelo, saying that not everything needs a fucking IPA transcription. This surname does, its pronunciation isn't terribly straightforward.

3. He was edit-warring with me over the inclusion of [ʃ, ʒ] in transcriptions of Spanish (see [59] and [60] as well as [61] and [62]). In some cases, I just reverted him without being reverted again - see [63], [64], [65], [66] and [67]. The problem is that transcriptions enclosed within the IPA-es template link to Help:IPA/Spanish which doesn't really mention [ʒ] and uses [ʃ] in a very different manner. It took me some time to convince this guy to raise the issue on Help talk:IPA/Spanish. You can see for yourself how he worded what he wrote.

4. In his thread on Help talk:IPA/Spanish, he misrepresented the issue with the user LoveVanPersie, whose lack of WP:COMPETENCE (I can't call it differently) is wasting the time of other editors, myself included - see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#LoveVanPersie's transcriptions. It's quite strange how people who bring this up (he's the second person to do that within the last two days, which is also quite strange) when they talk to me or about me always forget how I spent hours and hours helping LVP with IPA. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

His response to this edit was fuk ya.

Do you think it'd be worth checking if RR is a sockpuppet of G-Zay? The reason I think this might be him is that for the last 6 months I've been successfully spotting G-Zay's sockpuppets and getting them banned via SI. He got aggressive with me only recently, calling me a harrasser and a loser for calling him out. It's suspicious how the insults, edit-warring and the misrepresentation of the issue with LVP happened a day before Rovingrobert started doing the same to me. Before that, he was perfectly nice to me: User_talk:Mr_KEBAB/Archive_4#Greetings, User_talk:Mr_KEBAB/Archive_5, User_talk:Mr_KEBAB/Archive_13#Hello. Mr KEBAB (talk) 10:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Joefromrandb

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

---

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

Joefromrandb has been commiting disruptive editing by removing the U.S. marks from various infoboxes, including Sylvester Stallone, Richard Crenna and Jan Maxwell, among others, as seen in those diffs 1, 2, 3, 4,5. I reverted two of his edit on Sylvester Stallone which he repeatedly reverted it back and he removed the warning I gave him about it as seen on this diff. Below are pagelinks of pages involve in Joefromrandb's disruptive editing, among others.

Sylvester Stallone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Richard Crenna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Jan Maxwell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Joe Rogan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Cecil B. DeMille (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Billy Dee Williams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Eric Singer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

BattleshipMan (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

That is not disruptive editing, in my opinion. The US is information that can be either assumed from the city, state, or quickly determined by clicking the links. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:USPLACE is that way. Suggest close. Toddst1 (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I was going to quote it, Todd, but then I realized that only speaks to article naming, not inline mentions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that they're should be city, state, country, just like in some countries with London, England, United Kingdom. What does that tell you? BattleshipMan (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, bad example. London, England will get you there with enough precision, and I'm pretty sure it's the primary topic for London. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

So just to be clear, does New York City ever need the state, when it appears in an infobox, e.g. the death place of David Bowie? And we can always just have London? Does the need for brevity always trump the need for consistency? I already commented on this at Template_talk:Infobox_person#birth_place Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Although it's worth seeing it as a need for decent writing, never mind just brevity. "London, England, United Kingdom" is dreadful and should be removed on sight. The only way it could be any worse would be to add ", Western Europe, Planet Earth, Sol System, Western Spiral Arm" and all the rest to it, as per common third grade behavior. I think we're off topic for this noticeboard. MPS1992 (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

So we can all join User:Joefromrandb in changing infobox examples of "New York City, New York, U.S." to simply "New York City", yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

If you don't have anything better to do with your time... After all, USPLACE says Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier in newspaper articles have their articles named City unless they are not the primary or only topic for that name. That speaks to article naming, but it is based on guidance for use in news articles.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

There should be city, state and country in infoboxes because it a standard way to reveal the person's birthplace and such, no matter how people in this site see it. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

No such standard is even possible, never mind desirable, because some countries are not sub-divided into states, and indeed some locations are not cities. MPS1992 (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan: No comment on anything else in this thread, but "no matter how people in this site see it" is exactly the wrong attitude to have when editing here. See WP:Consensus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Joefromrandb has a history of being a major disruptive editor and he's a history of blocks. Those edits he did are disruptive and there should be city, state and country in some infoboxes for standard reasons, something that he is removing most of them without clear explanation. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a borderline cheap shot. Joe's controversial background does not impede him from being right in this instance, which he is. Lepricavark (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

When we're talking about people who lived their whole lives in the US, it's a bit redundant to add US to well-known places. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

(e/c) It isn't that simple; it doesn't appear that everyone agrees that it should always be city, state and country. Continually reverting them in, or continually reverting them out, are both going to be considered edit warring. Looks like there's discussion going on at Template talk:Infobox person. That's a better place than here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Summary: drop the stick. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

This is hardly worth reporting. However, if you want to report this to the ArbCom, you may go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb_and_others/Evidence.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not worth reporting, but also, that evidence page is closed, Robert. Bishonen | talk 19:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC).

Maybe this case should be also. (Either that, or the electrons used to report this case should be used to recharge batteries.) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• We go through this every few months. (a) Article title guidelines say that US cities are generally City, State, though cities on the AP list (New York City, San Francisco, etc.) are just e.g. New York City. (b) Separately, something somewhere (MOS:Geographic Names??? or something) says that article text generally refer to cities according to the article titling standards. If you really want me to I can dig all this up. As much as I think Joefromrandb can be a prick he's right about this: we don't tell readers that states of the US are in the US. Same goes, as I recall, for English counties, Canadian provinces, and so on. Those may or may not be good guidelines for our worldwide encyclopedia, but they're the guidelines we've got.— Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs) 20:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Phew, only months, not weeks then. But just to be totally clear for the next few months.... The guideline is that if a UK county is given, no country is needed? This seems wholly contrary to the general guideline at Template talk:Infobox person, where an unlinked country is requested. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• That sounds really fascinating information and disputation that is very important to this noticeboard where Administrators' involvement is requested. Meanwhile, back in the adult world... MPS1992 (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Just trying to determine if User:Joefromrandb is actually being disruptive. Sorry to be so childish. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

No, actually you're trying to stir the pot. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Were you replying to me? Policy on infoboixing locations is not clear to me. Perhaps it is to you. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

If you think you need to remove the country from text because the country doesn't belong in a title, and you go ahead with that action despite being warned otherwise, you need to be stopped forcibly. Provisions for article titles don't govern provisions for text, for one thing, and you have no business making US articles less accessible to non-Americans. Nyttend (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, well, so far, four users–none of whom could ever be accused of being Wikifriends of mine–have opined that my removals of this superfluous bric-a-brac are correct, so forgive me if I heed that guidance, rather than "being warned" by a minority of one. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

That's another reason why you need to stop removing U.S. in American articles and making it less accessible to non-Americans. This is worldwide project and you guys have no business removing them. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

You're still not understanding this consensus thing that Floquenbeam tried to tell you about. If this is truly a worldwide project, how are you qualified to tell us what we can and can't do? Lepricavark (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel with the accessibility argument. Do you two (Nyttend and Battleship) seriously think that our readers need to be told that "New York City", "New York" is in the U.S.? (1) Don't treat readers as idiots and (2) there is a hyperlink there for readers to click. Are you now going to imply that readers don't know what a hyperlink is? Hell, even the image caption which reads "Tinley Park, Illinois" doesn't feel the need to bottle feed the reader.Mr rnddude (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Here are the two relevant provisions:

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names): Articles on populated places in the United States are typically titled Placename, State (the "comma convention"); some in U.S. territories follow Placename, Territory. A placename that needs additional disambiguation should include its county or parish (e.g., Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina, and Elgin, Kershaw County, South Carolina)... Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier in newspaper articles have their articles named City unless [etc etc]
• WP:Manual_of_Style/Proper_names#Place_names: In general, other articles should refer to places by the names which are used in the articles on those places, according to the rules described at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names).

So if Joefromrandb is edit warring and being dismissive and all his usual stuff that makes people mad without helping them understand, he should stop that, but he's right on the merits in this case. Why (as Martinevans123 says) the infobox documentation conflicts with this I don't know. EEng 00:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• This is disruptive editing .If remove U.S how can recognize the country...U.S citizens can recognize but from remaining world cant recognize..and also reverting repetition is not good editors policy

(Kanjuncgtion (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC))

We're not going to debate the guideline here, O User Who Just Registered An Account One Minute Ago. EEng 01:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

This has degraded into sockpuppetry to prove the ridiculous point. Can we just block the offenders and close this and move on please? Toddst1 (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

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

IP editor 82.9.47.145 - futurology

On sports related pages vandalised articles for example next season of UEFA CL. 3 month block from editing articles. --5.172.234.170 (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Question about informing an editor about a thread here

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

---

How can one open a thread here about an editor when their talk page is fully protected and they have disabled email? It makes it impossible to comply with the instructions above. DuncanHill (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

You could "ping" them here, and that should get their attention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

As it says in the fucking big notice when you edit here Bugs, "The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose". DuncanHill (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Cool your jets, Duncan. If he can't be contacted, just mention that fact when you report him here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• In theory, just ask an admin to leave the notice. In practice, I expect the protection has already been removed in this case. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Floquenbeam. DuncanHill (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Was Baseball Bugs temporarily banned from his merry interjections in this venue at some earlier time, or do I misremember? MPS1992 (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

"The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose." Apparently far beyond the comprehension of Bugs, as we have to assume he doesn't spout bullshit to wind people up deliberately, especially when he has such a long history of winding that person up, and knows damn well that the person in question would rather never hear from him ever again. DuncanHill (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Well now, I don't know much about this, whereas you and Bugs both seem to have been here a very long time. If a solution were to include an indefinite two-way interaction ban between you and Bugs, do you think that would work? MPS1992 (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

We seldom interact as it is. I was just gobsmacked as to why Dunc couldn't see an obvious solution to this apparent problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't ever call me Dunc, and just don't try to help me or give me advice. If I wanted advice or help from you I'd ask you. If I don't ask you, it means I don't want it. DuncanHill (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, it never occurred to me that would be an insult. The nature of your question sounded like it was coming from the type of guy who would sit at a broken red light for an hour because it hadn't changed to green yet. Sometimes you've got to think outside the box. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

You misremember. I was asked to cut back. Which I did. And my advice here was good. It's hard to figure what Duncan was confused about. If you can't post on someone's page, you make do as best you can. It ain't rocket science. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, although I would appreciate a diff of the decision as well. If the solution last time was merely that you were "asked to cut back", then I am hereby asking you to cut back in 2018. Thank you. MPS1992 (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, given the above outcome, I think it would be a good idea if you avoided interacting with DuncanHill in any way, from here onwards. There are ways of making that a formal restriction, but hopefully they will not be necessary? MPS1992 (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Whoever you are, it looks to me like you're just trying to cause trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Well, we'll see if we have this problem with you again, or not. MPS1992 (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

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

User:New2018Year

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

---

New2018Year (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor is being willfully obtuse regarding a possible move proposal of Trump to Trump (disambiguation), to the point that I believe it to be deliberate trolling/disruption.

Some recent diffs: [68] [69] [70] [71]

power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

There is also this Special:Diff/825354622. I find this particularly concerning it seems like a "do this or else" type of post. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Bad Faith Assumption. I am careful. I deem any Trump related topic as a hot potato. Because I thought that there was a RM moratorium for 6 months after the most recent RM, I thought that any person asking me to submit a RM now (before 6 months) was asking me to do something illegal. It is just like if a policeman asked you to disregard a stop sign....you pause and hesitate to break the law. New2018Year (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I am happy to assume good faith here for the time being, but am wondering about the past history of the user. Dekimasuよ! 22:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive945#Another malformed Trump move request is the incident mentioned at Talk:Trump. Dekimasuよ! 23:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Power~enwiki is very unhospitable, very accusatory, and unpleasant. Not the Wikipedia way.

Trump is so contentious that I don't look at the page on a regular basis.

Power~enwiki is a classic example of attacking and disrupting Wikipedia. I thought there was a 6 month moratorium on Requested Move discussions but I was wrong. It is not a rolling moratorium such that there can only be a RM every 6 months. After 6 months, there can (if the community wants) a RM every week.

The initial disruption was a SNOW close of the RM discussion. This was so bad because it is a contentious issue and disputed, not a unanimous consensus, which is what SNOWs should be. Previous RM have been mixed pro and con.

Power~enwiki should attack the non-administrator that SNOW closed it. Instead, he is attacking me, an innocent user. New2018Year (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock of Chris H of New York. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I did what I could. That's the one I was wondering about. Dekimasuよ! 01:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Rickyc123 gaming the system - part 2

User:Rickyc123 was previously brought to ANI for his gaming the system behavior. Rundown on Rickyc123's past behavior:

1) Rickyc123 copied drafts (Polo Reyes, Devin Clark (fighter), Danielle Taylor (fighter), Darren Till) that were awaiting review in the WP:AfC process to create his own articles in June 2017. He was warned about it and apologized and claimed he wouldn't do it again (1 2), and was informed by User:PRehse that: "Its best practice that if a draft is waiting for review it should be left (better to alter the draft than create another article) but failing that you can still move it into article space with the move tab (top right). That way attribution is maintained and toes don't get stepped on. Copy paste should be avoided at all costs. Just saying."

2) Rickyc123 copied yet more drafts (Age Before Beauty (TV series), Yellowstone (U.S. TV series), Kerman Lejarraga, Caleb Konley) after the above incident, despite demonstrating that he now does know how to move drafts. Rickyc123 was also copy-and-pasting articles to his own redirect pages (with no content) with a slightly different name, and redirecting those original article to his own, instead of just moving the original article to the "improved" name (e.g. his article 2017 Java earthquake was copied-and-pasted from 2017 West Java earthquake, and redirected the latter to his own).

3) One of these copied drafts was my own. I then warned Rickyc123 in December 2017 about this inappropriate copy-and-pasting behavior. He removed my message indicating he read it. All the above articles have since been histmerged.

4) In January 2017, he yet again copies-and-pastes from The Ultimate Fighter 27 to create his own article The Ultimate Fighter: Undefeated (which was a redirect with no content), and turned the former into a redirect to his own copied article instead. Note that those two articles have seen been histmerged.

There were apparently other issues/incidences as well (such as mass creating inappropriate redirects), as brought up by User:CASSIOPEIA in the previous ANI, which resulted in User:Swarm giving him a formal warning.

I believe Rickyc123 is still gaming the system, albeit going about it in a smarter way now. He recently created an article that I believe is based heavily on a draft currently undergoing the WP:AfC process, this time at least making an effort to paraphrase and add a bit of new content. The similarities between the first revision of Kalindra Faria and the last revision of Draft:Kalindra Faria are unmistakable in my opinion, especially if you compare the infobox parameters and the mixed martial arts record table in the source editor page.

These two sentences for comparison:

• From Draft:Kalindra Faria: "In 2017, Faria was set to make her UFC at UFC 216: Ferguson vs. Lee against Andrea Lee, however as Lee had previously failed a drugs test, USADA required her to be in the testing pool six months before competing, causing her to pull out."

• From Kalindra Faria: "In 2017, Faria was set to make her UFC at UFC 216 against Andrea Lee, however as Lee had previously failed a drugs test, USADA required her to be in the testing pool six months before competing, causing her to pull out."

The almost exact same wording, the exact same sentence structure, the same grammatical error ("drugs test" instead of "drug test"), the same missing word ("made her UFC at UFC 2016" is missing the word debut), and both linked to the same incorrect Andrea Lee instead of Andrea Lee (fighter). Other suspiciously similar word choices like “fellow promotional newcomer” in the following sentence (the cited source does not use that term so it wasn’t copied from the source). Yet Rickyc123 claims to have never seen the draft prior to creating the article. You can read our conversation at his talk page, where he tries to explain the similarities. I do not buy his explanation. From the almost exact sentences above and the similarities between the infoboxes (exact same parameters including the birth_date parameter that uses “df” and the reach_in parameter that were used in the draft but Rickyc123 has not used in his previous UFC fighters articles) and the mixed martial arts record table, it seems clear to me that Rickyc123 saw the draft that is undergoing the WP:AfC process and rather than waiting for it to be approved/rejected at AfC, created his own article based heavily on the draft instead so as to game the system and get more articles credited to him with minimal effort on his part, while also wasting the efforts of other editors. Bennv3771 (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree the situation at Kalindra Faria is unambiguously a violation by Rickyc123. In addition to whatever block is deemed necessary, I think an indefinite prohibition on creating articles when a draft of the same name exists is needed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Updated, the simpler prohibition is better. Even if there is a standard-offer compatible block here, I think the prohibition on article creations should be separate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I've left Rickyc123 unblocked so they can participate here but left a clear warning that any more article creations before this thread is resolved will result in a block. [72] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

He should just be moving the drafts. We have enough work to do at AfC without someone duplicating the pages into mainspace while we evaluate them. The mainspace versions should be G12 Copyvio deleted and the Drafts replace them. Legacypac (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• I would also like to request for User:Rickyc123 to look through his past articles and come clean if he can remember any others that were copied from other editors' drafts so that the appropriate histmerges can be done. I previously requested he do this in December 2017 after realizing he had copied one of my drafts. He removed my message and did not reply, which led to me investigating some of his past articles and requesting histmerges for the copied drafts I found listed above (except for the Darren Till draft which had already been deleted, admin Anthony Appleyard found that one at the previous ANI). However, if there were drafts that were under slightly different names and/or have since been deleted under WP:G13 (this behavior has been going on for over 6 months), then there is a chance we missed them and it'll be difficult to find these drafts without Rickyc123's help. Obviously he cannot be forced to help, but it would be a nice gesture. Bennv3771 (talk) 10:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

From the history presented here, there is no way to assume good faith about their actions. The behavior is not simply 'gaming the system' it is flat out plagiarism and copyright violation. We indef editors who are serial copyright violators. Just because the violation is internal and no one is going to sue Wikipedia is not a reason to be be soft on this type of behavior. I would go further and say that repeatedly creating redirects and copying others' work to falsely show 'creation' of the article exhibits a level of deception and bad faith that should not be accepted in this project no matter the length of the editor's service or their other contributions. Indef and move on. The project does not need this type of "contribution". Jbh ^Talk 15:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

One thing before we get started is all the things in the previous ANI, I admit to and I know I have done wrong. Second is that I'm not so stupid as to copy a draft days after I've just got warned from doing it, if you compare the differences between mine and the drafts they're completely different. Including the infobox and MMA record section. (I actually believe there's is better) and if I had copied I'd have used the more superior version. As for the drug and drugs test thing. While it may officially be drug test, everyone says drugs test. Also if you look at any MMA article it tells you about opponents using that format. All promotional newcomers are referred to as promotional newcomers. And your whole basis of you saying I copied is based off 10 words in a 100+ word article that took me about 3 hours to make(what other evidence other than that sentence is there of me copying) and I will admit to the fact that I never manually enter the format on Wikipedia, I always copy and paste infoboxes and MMA record tables from other articles. And change it so it applies to that MMA fighter. If I was copying and pasting don't you think I would have checked it for mistakes before I put it on, when you look at revisions they are completely different I've got things they have and they've got things I haven't. As for the asking about drafts and stuff:

• There aren't any drafts left that haven't been sorted.

The ones I know but don't know if they've been sorted are:

• Darren Till
• Marco Polo Reyes
• Devin Clark
• Danielle Taylor (fighter)

As for the copy and paste thing where I changed the Article to an alternative name, I did that with West Java Earthquake, The Ultimate Fighter 27 and 2017 Washington train derailment.

As for articles which have been changed into articles after I've made them redirects, there is :

• Dan Ige
• Saparbek Safarov
• Frank Camacho
• Tim Williams (fighter)

All darts and Australian Open articles it says I made are also redirects I made that people changed into articles.

I've made Calvin Kattar, David Ramos(I know he hasn't had his 3 fights yet but he will have by UFC 224) and Deiveson Figueiredo articles so can someone let me know on my talk page when I'm allowed to put on articles again so I can drop them.

I'm actually going on holiday to Pakistan for a family wedding (The flight is 12 tomorrow UK time) and I don't know what the WiFi is like down there (cos I'm staying with family in a small village and not a hotel). So if I don't respond to anything said it's not because I'm not cooperating. I'm due back Monday 27th. So I might not respond before then.

One last thing, I've said it before but I'd like to reiterate all of the things said in the last ANI are true and I am guilty of a lot of things but I have done no wrongdoing in this Kalindra Faria article, I didn't copy her draft or use her draft, If people actually look at the comparisons between the article when I made it and the draft. They are in no.way similar. I'm not so unintelligent that if I were to reoffend I'd do it only days after the ANI had closed and I had got my warning. I don't believe people are actually looking at the revisions and comparing them, they are reading what is said in here and User:Bennv3771 had nothing to say when I asked him apart from those 10 words what was there to indicate I had copied and as soon as I found out this ANI had started my heart dropped cos i know noone is gonna side with me because of my history. I'm not gonna lie as a 23 year old man I was genuinely upset and angered when this time when I actually did nothing wrong. I was accused of copying. Is this what it's gonna be like every time I make a new article. What upset me more is the article took me 3 hours to make, I was only half paying attention to the Newcastle Vs Manchester United that was on while I was making it and after all that time of me making it. But rather than getting a thanks( which I don't really expect or want for that matter, that is not why I edit) I get it thrown back in my face saying that I've copied and pasted even though the two articles are vastly different. And I'm not even even going to say that I copied it but improved it a little because that would be a lie. They have got loads of good information that I haven't included. And of I were to copy I'd use all of their best bits and add in my own stuff. But when you actually look at the articles rather than reading this ANI, you will see that we use completely different sources, he's got more info in his infobox, we've got different extra notes in the MMA box, he's got a load of redlinks and my revision didn't have any. Plus the overall actual content is different. Just to reiterate after this me not saying anything on this ANI is not me being uncooperative, I am just going to a family wedding in Pakistan and I don't know how the internet is there.Rickyc123 (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Rickyc123

@Rickyc123: "User:Bennv3771 had nothing to say when I asked him apart from those 10 words what was there to indicate I had copied" I did not have "nothing to say". I just did not buy your explanation and figured that if that was all your had to offer than there was no point continuing the heated conversation on your talk page. Also, I brought up more than just "those 10 words" (it's actually 40 words by the way). Bennv3771 (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for looking through your past articles as I requested. Bennv3771 (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• I compared the wiki text of the version where the bulk of material was added [73] to the draft as it existed at that time [74]. The infobox and table are identical except for cosmetic changes on three lines. No differing fields between the two. I am confident the infobox and table were plagerized and the claim it was not is at best a deceptive untruth.

  There is change in the prose. However its independence from the original has been questioned above. Regardless, even if the prose were 100% original Rickyc123 knowingly appropriated a huge amount of another editor's work.

  Wikipedia makes it very easy to build upon the work of others, in fact that is what Wikipedia is all about. Willfully claiming another editor's work as one's own is inexcusable. Doing so repeatedly and after being warned about it is, in my opinion, one of the few unforgivable acts an editor of Wikipedia can commit. Jbh ^Talk 02:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposal - Article creation ban

I'm not convinced Rickyc123 needs to be blocked beyond the voluntary 2 week break he appears to be on. I do feel that an indefinite prohibition on article creation is necessary. Even if I take Ricky's statement at face value, the WP:CIR inability to find drafts for articles is problematic.

• Support as proposer. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Page move needs undoing to allow correct page to be created

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

---

The page Hassocks & Victoria (electoral division) has been moved to Hassocks & Burgess Hill South (electoral division). This has clearly been done in good faith but has been done in error. The page Hassocks & Burgess Hill South (electoral division) should be a new page instead of a page move. Can the move be undone to allow for the page history to be restored to the Hassocks & Victoria (electoral division) page, and then allow for Hassocks & Burgess Hill South (electoral division) to be created as a new page. Sport and politics (talk) 09:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Done, and I'd left Hassocks & Burgess Hill South (electoral division) as a redlink to allow it to be created anew, which you've already done. Blimey that was fast. Fish+Karate 10:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

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

PERMISSION ERROR while trying to create page

Hi everybody,

I`m new to editing and creating pages on wiikipedia. I just edited a page and thought it wasn`t much of a big deal to create a page since I have my article ready. I`m humbly requesting that an Administratot help me create the page. This is the error message I`m receiving: Permission error You do not have permission to create this page, for the following reason:

The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism. If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions:

Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard. You may also contact any administrator on their talk page or by email. Be sure to specify the exact title (especially by linking it) of the page you are trying to create or edit, and if it might be misunderstood (for example, an article with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do. If you wrote any text, save it temporarily on your computer until you can edit the page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayoolu (talk • contribs) 12:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dayoolu firstly we would need to know what page you are attempting to create as there are a large number of creation protected pages. Secondly we would need to know what it is your going to be adding to the page before we can create it. If you create the page as either a draft or in your Sandbox we can then move it when ready to the appropriate location. Amortias (T)(C) 12:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It is very likely that this is the same person we saw a couple of days ago. That said, I see nothing in the title blacklist log and nothing in the general logs under that username. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive296 § Ryan Hampton (Author) for the previous incident. Guy (Help!) 13:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Qwertywander

Per a suggestion by our learned friend Newyorkbrad I propose to add user:Qwertywander to the list of banned users due to long term abuse.

• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Qwertywander
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qwertywander / Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qwertywander/Archive
• Sockpuppetry requiring protection on numerous articles e.g. Ahom kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Example: Barua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where the sockpuppetry resumes less than 72 hours after protection expires

There is no need to respond unless you dispute this outcome, a user with this kind of history of abuse s normally considered de facto banned unless there is some compelling reason otherwise. Guy (Help!) 13:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, do that. --Jayron32 13:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Berean_Hunter (Redacted)

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

---

Forgive me if this is not the way to go about this, but I don't think this is an oversight issue since it was only a threat of outing. On this discussion, the user inferred I had a conflict of interest, and implied that they were aware of my supposed affiliations. I perceive this as a threat to divulge personal information, in violation of the harassment policy regarding outing. Specifically the lines "...reflects that conflict of interest, now doesn't it? I know that it does. I think that you also have another COI by pushing the agenda of a known group trying to effectuate changes for their purposes." and " Would that be a "those guys over there"? ...or maybe you could select a pronoun that would be more fitting and less disingenuous in its presentation. If "they" are against it then "they" don't have any business trying to sway the community here without revealing who "they" are." seem to be a veiled hint at information this user believes they know about me. This was also clearly part of an attempt to influence editing behavior, as the first post in this line of discussion ended with "You won't be doing any more of these changes. Let it go." I believe this not only clearly constitutes harassment according to WP's outing policy, but is an inappropriate form of intimidation. TylerRDavis (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see where Berean Hunter has such personal information, or where they threatened to divulge it. Now, I do see where he seems to be over-interpreting the situation by claiming that you have a defined conflict-of-interest, however I also believe that you are currently doing the same thing in the other direction; by taking his non-specific statements about believing you have a conflict-of-interest to mean that he intends to violate WP:OUTING. We can't base our actions on what we believe to be the underlying intents of people who have not actually acted. While that means that he shouldn't be blocking you for a COI without evidence of such, it also means you shouldn't be accusing him of abusing his tools until he actually abuses them. --Jayron32 17:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Without divulging such information here, I can tell you that he is implying that he knows about where I work, and possibly other affiliations. By sarcastically using "they" he is implying that it's a group I belong to, which is meant to imply that he knows something about me. If there is a private setting in which I can discuss the information I strongly believe he is implying he knows, I would love to do so. TylerRDavis (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, what we're telling you is that your strong belief is not evidenced by his writing here at Wikipedia. We can't act on your beliefs, anymore than he can act on his beliefs that you have a COI. --Jayron32 17:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @TylerRDavis: I have removed the unsubstantiated claim in the header. You need to provide diffs of the specific edit where this alleged threat occurred. The quote you provide does not show a threat and does not threaten you with WP:OUTING. It is not the best way to handle a COI accusation. In my opinion they should have said "your edits since returning from your five year break seem to be pushing the agenda of X. If you have any affiliation with X please see Wikipedia's Guidance with editing when you have a conflict of interest." (since the issue has been raised you should read WP:COI regardless) That said, Berean Hunter may have been a bit ham-handed, and should not have said they know you have a COI, they did not, in my opinion, threaten you. Jbh ^Talk 17:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by User:Noodlefish96

User kept reverting properly sourced information, adding unsourced statements, and justified their own edits as "improvements." We were both blocked for edit warring on an article (my block lasting 24 hours and theirs lasting 60), but I failed to mention that part of my doing was removing unsourced information and adding citations. When repeatedly asked to provide citations, the user has not done so, and instead responded with: "I'm not considered to be edit warring and I have consensus for my edits," when per the article's talk page, no such thing has been reached. Examples of their reverts are below:

·This edit was described one way, but ABC News, The Hollywood Reporter, but Variety say otherwise.

·This diff's description says the user removed information because it needed a citation when said user removed the information as well as its source.

·This revert's description reads, "section was improved," except that one of the suggestions made by the GA reviewer of the article was not to overlink article titles, which this revert did.

Please assist me on how to proceed. Thank you in advance! DantODB (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• @DantODB: Very sorry to hear about your recent troubles. But this is not the place, I'm afraid, for resolving such content-orientated disputes as you present here. Obviously it can't be a behavioural matter as the other party is still blocked. Wait another ~48 hours, and then the both of you put your heads together around table, chew it over, and compromise item by item, on the talk page. Feel free, of course, to start the discussion first, so it's ready and waiting! If you are suggesting that actually (part?) of your block was exempt from edit-warring sanctions, then I'm afraid I have to inform you otherwise. The only thing that would have applied in your case was blatant vandalism—none of which is exemplified in your diffs. (Although I'm in no way condoning their behaviour or suggesting those edits or their remarks should not have been challenged—just that they should have been done so in a different way.) Cheers, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I blocked Noodlefish for a variety of reasons, including edit-warring and gaming my request for self-reversion, and they're still blocked. I also blocked DantOBD for four reverts on the material that Noodlefish was disrupting, but for a shorter term, and counseled him on reversion/edit-warring policy. @DantOBD, please follow my advice previously given: I suggest that you concisely address Noodlefish's edits on the talkpage, good, bad or indifferent. That way you'll have a basis for reviewers and uninvolved editors to see what you're doing and why, rather than having to parse a wall of edit history without edit summaries, as has previously been the case. Once you've done that you can start to work on the article again, being careful not to be drawn into an edit-war - if disruption resumes, you'll need to use AN3 or contact an administrator. I am not optimistic about Noodlefish, they have had a bit of trouble with listening to advice and sticking to commitments. We will see what they do when their block expires. In the meantime, please lay out your proposed edits on the talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@DantODB: Noodlefish has been blocked indefinitely as a sock so hopefully that makes things a bit easier for you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

User 68.22.85.66

Persistent, multiple-occurrence disruptive editing, indicated here and here. --Zefr (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for vandalism, you can always report these events to AIV as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Test of WIkipedia's academic rigor

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

---

At User talk:2601:283:C000:69D9:3475:DF0D:F0BF:AF7A, 2601:283:C000:69D9:3475:DF0D:F0BF:AF7A (talk · contribs) claims they've been testing Wikipedia's academic rigor. While I'm pretty sure we don't have any and aren't a reliable source for academic purposes, I mention this because Wikipedia is being accused by that editor of having a left-bias, possibly being racist (as race was raised, though racism was not specifically alleged), and because it appears to me that this user has been deliberately disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. I will notify the involved admins in a moment. My suggestion, though I haven't looked closely, is that the admins are blameless, that the anonymous user is deliberately harming Wikipedia to prove a point, and that there may be some WP:BLOCK evasion going on here which may need to be addressed. --Yamla (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe them about a rigorous study, I think they're simply trolling. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked, TPA revoked. Trolling. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Just the standard run of the mill drivel from someone who wants to dictate to Wikipedia. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Right. See you at tonight's Worker's Reading Group? I'm bringing cabbage. Drmies (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Multi-user edit war at Somalis

There appears to be a multi-user edit war unfolding at Somalis. I have tried to help resolve the issue on the article talk page, but I have to admit that I am struggling to fully understand the dispute. Note that this discussion resulted in a verdict that it might be necessary to adopt a 1RR policy on Somalia-related articles. I think the issue would benefit from the eyes of some administrators at this point. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• I protected it fully for three days. Yes, the wrong version, of course! Drmies (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks. Should the latest edit be reverted? I've kind of lost track of what the consensus version was! Cordless Larry (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm just a little birdie who blocks on instinct... Drmies (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

As a wp:Rouge admin he is obliged to protect wrong version. It's in our membership agreements. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Kudos to anyone who can work out what the wrong version is! Cordless Larry (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I am unsure what to do here, should I explain the situation or wait for admins' contribution? The protected version was not the consensus version (obviously!). --Kzl55 (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Kzl55: Could you link to that version. If it's the last stable, pre-edit war version, an admin could restore. The purpose of PP though is to induce stakeholders to discuss competing versions as consensus can change. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Could I also request that the editors involved in the dispute try to agree on a brief talk-page summary of the two different versions of the article that are being advocated? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• I reverted the latest edit but only because the user was a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: If you take into account the agreement we have in the talk page (Cordless Larry, Koodbuur, Sandman25 and myself) that the article and section should be representative of all Somalis, as broadly as possible, as opposed to having two Sultans in the section belonging to the same group and the same sub-group (as supported by Soupforone and Cabuwaaqwanaag a confirmed sock of serial disruptive editor), then it is this version [75] though it is neither stable (due primarily to opposition by editor Soupforone who states that "...there is no actual Wikipedia policy indicating that clan representation must be followed. This is just a courtesy rather than a necessity" [76]). It has been restored now due to editor Cabuwaaqwanaag being confirmed as a sock. I would like to add that following a request to take the matter to the talk page by Cordless Larry [77], everyone was discussing the issue exclusively in the talk page until Soupforone's unilateral decision to go back to editing the page [78], which they continued despite requests to continue the discussion in the talk page [79], [80]. @Cordless Larry: I can do that no problem. Best wishes --Kzl55 (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify the above: I agreed in principle that the images should be broadly representative, but haven't really been able to grasp exactly what the different proposals are. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I've summarized the file stuff on the talkpage. Soupforone (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• I have also placed (a somewhat long, but necessary) summary in the talk page.

@Dlohcierekim, Cordless Larry, and Drmies: May I also add that editor Soupforone has a history of unhelpful edits of the Sultan Abdillahi's file in Commons? They attempted to get the file deleted, [81]. This was unsuccessful and the a decision of keep was reached. They then employed the same combative style of editing even after a decision of keep was reached, which forced a moderator to protect the file due to ("continued unsuccessful attempts to get the file deleted by one editor") [82]. Which started this discussion on their talk page [83]. On another file I have uploaded they have made a name change request stating that that the file source does not specify ethnicity or clan the skull owner belonged to [84]. This is despite the the source clearly stating both [85]. What was particularly problematic about that edit was their removal of relevant categories from file and replacement with 'fossils' [86]. This resulted in this Common's Administrator's Noticeboard discussion [87] where a number of editors agreed the behaviour was disruptive. They only managed to escape sanctions after acknowledgement of their mistake and promising to cease that behaviour. Yet they are employing the same contentious, pov pushing, style of editing across a number of pages. One example of that being the current discussion at Somalis, another example of current disruptive editing on the Mahmoud Ali Shire page includes addition of unsourced content and content from self-published and user-generated sources (as well as travel guides) despite multiple requests to only add content from reliable sources [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94]. On both occasions they were supported by long term vandal and confirmed sock Cabuwaaqwanaag. Can anything be done about them? --Kzl55 (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit conflict in Agat (computer) (violation of WP:RS, WP:NPOV)

Greetings. Please, help us to solve some issues in the article Agat (computer).

An editor insists ([95]) on adding the "Reception" paragraph based entirely on a dubious publication in Byte (magazine), where an American ophthalmologist who visited the Soviet Union in 1982 and tested a new PC there describes his experience of working with what he thought was an Agat computer. However, there is a problem with that "reception", namely that it is irrelevant to the Agat. As one of key figures in Soviet computer industry and an infinitely more reliable source has explained on the pages of the PC Magazine ([96]) and elsewhere ([97]), what the foreign medic mistook for an Agat during his visit to the Fyodorov Eye Microsurgery Complex in 1982 was a mock-up device built and used for debugging medical software (and not intended for production), i.e. it was NOT the PC described in the article (the latter would be put into production only in 1984, two years after the visit). Furthermore, the same editor who added the irrelevant "reception" put the price of the Agat at $17,000, citing the same questionable article from Byte, though that price is not supported by any other evidence whatsoever and is at odds with the official Soviet source that I have provided ([98]), where the selling price is 3,900 rubles, as well as with another source, where it is estimated at $5,000 ([99], p. 10).

So, the issues are as follows:

1. The so-called "reception", written by a person not familiar with the Agat, pre-dates the subject matter of the article and describes a different device, not the real Agat. It is, I believe, completely inappropriate to include "receptions" that have little to nothing to do with the subject, i.e. to add a reception of A into an article about B, even if the author of the reception erroneously confused A with B. Such a "reception" is extremely misleading to the reader, as it describes a different product. It needs to be removed.

2. The price cited must be the same as in official, reliable publications, the one at which the computer was sold. A single and questionable claim from Byte cannot be preferred over the official price (which I have provided along with a reference to an official source). However, the aforementioned editor removed the official data and the reference and instead restored the dubious price taken from the publication in Byte ([100]), as if the opinion of a foreign medic was more reliable than official sources and any other evidence.

I have tried to discuss this on the talk page, but to no effect, as my arguments have largely been ignored by the opposing user. Rosso Primavera (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I have been trying to comment less at this noticeboard, but I would suggest that this may fall under the heading of "what administrative intervention are you requesting?" It does not yet seem to be a full-blown edit war. I have added my thoughts at the article talk page, and perhaps others could too. MPS1992 (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

What you are describing, Rosso Primavera, is a routine content dispute. We do not adjudicate content disputes at this noticeboard. We deal with obvious or persistent editor misconduct and disruption. Continue to make your case at Talk: Agat (computer). If that is not successful, there are various forms of dispute resolution available to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I've been seeing this slow burn on my watchlist since I originally started this article. It is a content dispute and not what this noticeboard is intended for. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC).

Legal threat

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

---

In this edit to Adelaide Institute, the IP User:118.210.108.139, who is apparently claiming to be Gerald Fredrick Töben, wrote in the edit summary:

Please note I deleted the following words because I have not been convicted of "Holocaust denial" - to assert this is libelous and I will initiate defamation action against anyone who continuous to assert this allegation.

. In the following edit, they wrote:

Correction of a defamatory imputation: In June 2009, a defamatory article attempted to link the Adelaide Institute with an American white supremacist, etc.

The material removed was sourced, and, if the IP is indeed Töben, their COI in regard to the article is obvious - they should not be editing it. The first edit summary is a clear legal threat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Do we need to check with the IP to clarify that by 'defamation action' they didn't mean 'a polite request on their talk page to revert themselves'? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC).

More seriously, I see that the operator of the IP address in question hasn't been notified of that discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC).

I was in the process of doing that, and it's now done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, looks like I was just too quick off the mark! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Pro forma block --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Dofhd / Planned Parenthood

So here are three gross vandalism edits by an editor who has been around for a while. Compromised account? --JBL (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

It isn't obvious whether the account is compromised or is vandalizing on its own initiative. Note the editor has a history of on-and-off vandalism, e.g. here. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted the revisions and left a warning note for the user. Let's wait to see if the user responds. At the moment, it doesn't look like compromised account to me. Alex Shih (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Temporary block request for user Musicpassion418 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

---

Could any of the administrators review this recently created user Musicpassion418 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his offensive remarks as well as continuous removal of my work on Kielce Pogrom page, thank you. GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I do not see why that article needs repeated parenthetical remarks emphasizing that Poland was under Communist rule in 1946. That looks like POV pushing to me, GizzyCatBella. Why should we block an editor who is trying to correct POV pushing? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Not really, I believe you question the name change for police authorities in Poland in 1946 to Milicja Obywatelska (Civic Militia). (Am I correct?) It’s not a POV pushing in any way, Civic Militia was an official name at the time. Please also consider all of my edits to the page before making such an unjust accusation. Please also notice that above freshly generated user has only 3 edits to his record, all bulk reverts on one page, one article, noting “Poles and their disgusting whitewashing... “ If that is an acceptable course of conduct then what isn’t?? GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, if anything looks like a POV-pushing to you please make changes to the related wording or advise Musicpassion418 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to do the above. By performing volume reverts, he is also damaging link repairs I have done. I’m not going to continue spending my time toward improving this article anymore. GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I left Musicpassion418 a note and let them know about this discussion. If one looks at their edit summaries-- I left them a note. Has not edited since. @GizzyCatBella: It might be better to invite the user to discuss their concerns and your own on the article talk page. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't make any conversation efforts with Musicpassion418 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) because I believe it is a ghost account created solely for the goal of reverts to article. He appears to be well familiar with editing methods, so I also believe that the person behind that newly created name is an established editor, conscious of his inappropriate behaviour. But thank you for your effort to resolve this issue.GizzyCatBella (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

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

User:112.210.68.217

User:112.210.68.217 apparently introduced pieces of subtle hoax into various articles in October 2017, one of which in the prominent article Arabic I discovered only yesterday. There is probably no action against the user (IP) needed at this moment, but I gave him a (first) warning and most importantly someone should check his other contributions to see whether any other malicious edits have survived to this day. I'm not very active on English Wikipedia, so don't know whether this is the best place to report, but I can't check it all myself and thought that letting others know would be good. --Blahma (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Blahma: The (dynamic) IP was active from October 6th to 10th last year. Apart from correcting the offending edit (I presume it's this one) and checking other edits, there's not much anyone can do, I'm afraid. Kleuske (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. And I would be happy if somebody checked those other edits, because there might be more hoaxes by this user still lying around, like the one I have found and fixed. If there was a template to mark a past vandal or a page to list users whose contributions require a check, I would have posted there instead (my home Wikipedia has a page for such kind of reports). --Blahma (talk) 09:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Looking at this editor's edits, I discovered this one, where they replaced the name of the Slovenian PM with that of the President as participating in a summit meeting. After much searching, I found this report, which makes it clear that it was indeed the PM who attended. This makes me very uneasy about the IP's many edits to Death and state funeral of Fidel Castro, which consist of unsourced additions to the list of those attending. I cannot find a list of those attending, but I am very sceptical about those added by the IP, and I think that they should all be removed. I suspect that the same is true of their similar edits to other imternational meetings.

The IP's incorrect removal of the UK from the list of OECD members was swiftly reverted, as was their similar removal of the UK from membership of the Eastern Partnership. The IP has also edited to claim that Syria borders Kyrgyzstan,[101] that Arabic is an official language of the European Union,[102] and that Burundi is a Mediterranean state.[103]

Given all this, I propose that all of the IP's edits are reverted as vexatious trolling. Is there a bot that can carry out this sort of task? RolandR (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced infomation from one user

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

LegerPrime is adding lot of unsourced infomation and/or vandalism into lot of articles.

Diffs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IQiyi&type=revision&diff=818557618&oldid=814583917

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comcast&type=revision&diff=825336371&oldid=825132473

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=825498242&oldid=825497684&title=Proposed_acquisition_of_21st_Century_Fox_by_Disney&type=revision

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Entertainment_One&diff=prev&oldid=823635444

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Movies_Anywhere&diff=prev&oldid=825212747

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Walt_Disney_Company&diff=next&oldid=824705347

They is adding so many infomation without sources. Some Wikipedia users has found that this user also do vandalism.

Can anyone revoke extended confirmed access and extend block for this user to a years or indef? Unsourced infomation and vandalism is bad for Wikipedia. 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:781E:3420:E9BF:22AD (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - LegerPrime was blocked by me yesterday, and is currently appealing the block. The reason for the block was AIV request. The user has a right to appeal their block. I'm neutral on the issue, and am wondering why the above post when a block has already been in place. — Maile (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The OP is asking for the block to be extended. Dorsetonian (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

LegerPrime block may be extended to year or indef anytime once the block appeal is denied or talk page abused. This user must use sources very well and don't do vandalism, but... 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:781E:3420:E9BF:22AD (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

This user did add false claims on user talk page. This user current block need to be extended to years or indef. 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:781E:3420:E9BF:22AD (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I've interacted with LegerPrime in several articles and had an extended interaction with him on his talk page after warning him for putting wrongly sourced material in articles. In my view, the user has been trying to use sources when editing since his previous block for adding unsourced material. However, the user has not been very careful when doing so...leading to times when the user does use a source, but the source either does not back up the text being added or does so in a very convoluted manner. The user can be both a bit snippy and sloppy sometimes, but they seem to be acting in good faith.

That said, I don't think this user did anything to deserve a year-long or indef block (though I have no issue with the 3-month block Maile gave out earlier).

Moreover, I note that one of the diffs the IP cited was the diff that led to his current block. All other diffs given by the IP user, except one, are older than the diff that resulted in a 3-month block, (the exception is this one, which I reverted a couple of days ago not because it was unsourced, disruptive, or vandalism, but rather because I didn't think it was notable enough for inclusion in the article). Given that, I don't think any additional action against the editor is warranted. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, Not sure why we are here, as these issues have been addressed already. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Aoi: @Dlohcierekim: Talking about extending the block for this user and what this user did done. On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LegerPrime, they did claim that "In fairness, my recent edits since my last block were sourced when required.", "One of them were from before my last block. The rest are sourced." and "All of the unsourced edits I did on those were from before my last block.". This user use false sources that have no value to the article. One Wikipedia user did claim that this user also vandalized some Wikipedia articles. Some the claims in this user talk is false. This user did sent a unblock appeal, but it going to be rejected. 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:781E:3420:E9BF:22AD (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone close it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:781E:3420:E9BF:22AD (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

User:UnteenthSense′s unethical behavior, and EW

User:UnteenthSense persistently discusses me, my alleged ulterior motives, "disruptive" nature of my edits, doing "some digging" of my record, etc, instead of discussing the merits of the article under discussion [104], [105], [106]. I find such judgmental and ad hominem attitude on the part of an editor, who was registered but a few hours (SIC) prior, highly suspicious. Please check them as a sock, possibly along with User:GodsPlaaaaan. The latter is engaged in active edit warring, against all other editors in List of United States attacks on the Syrian government during the Syrian Civil War ([107], [108] and other). Axxxion (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, you feel that way. I'm a new account but not a new editor, first off and certainly not another account's sock puppet. This "persistent discussion" you refer to has occurred in one article's talk page where you have been called out by other editors. Have you considered that maybe you're not being harassed or anything of that nature, but your edits truly are disruptive? You fundamentally alter entire articles without consensus and then call foul (and report) when other editors simply call for more discussion. That is wrong. As for User:GodsPlaaaaan's "edit warring". It sounds like he wrote the article to be specifically constrained to certain actions and other editors are trying to transform it to be something else and he's attempting to keep it in its original form.UnteenthSense (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

New account but not a new editor as well. The list is meant to be about intentional attacks which has been very obvious. Your entire reshaping of the list to push for the inclusion of the September 2016 Deir ez-Zor air raid seems to be pushing a POV. This event has already been included in the beginning of the article for a while now with the explanation that it was accidental. Pretty unfair that now that this article is getting more attention because of the Battle of Khasham that its purpose is changed. Also theres is no point in saying I've been disruptive to others when the only reverts have been against you and Selfworm. GodsPlaaaaan (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The plain fact is that, as is clear from the article′s edit history, GodsPlaaaaan has been reverting repeatedly against three other editors, and I include the revert made ([109]) originally by User:Editor abcdef, who possibly belongs to same editor.Axxxion (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:SPI is the venue for that discussion. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Sander.v.Ginkel

In the past, user:Sander.v.Ginkel was the subject to many discussions on this page due to his substandard work. See here, here, here, here and here.

Sander.v.Ginkel got an offer from a user:MFriedman to protect/improve articles something that made people unhappy. See also here. Still, MFriedman went on with moving articles back to main space from draft space, effectively circumventing/ignoring the clean up operation. So far, so good. And the name stuck in my memory.

Recently, Sander.v.Ginkel placed an article on the Dutch Wikipedia nl:Ilse Kamps. And out of the blue, after a 4.5 year hiatus, MFriedman showed up to vote for keeping the article due to the article being properly sourced. But MFriedman added these sources, after his vote. At that moment my alarm bells went off!
I requested a sockpuppet investigation and it came back positive. The Checkuser confirmed that Sander.v.Ginkel and MFriedman were identical.

So now we are confronted with a lot of articles that were never checked for the substandard editing of Sander.v.Ginkel moved back into main space by what turned out to be a sockpuppet of Sander.v.Ginkel, MFriedman. This is clearly misusing a sockpuppet to protect articles against thorough scrutiny.

What to do next? The Banner talk 15:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Checkuser needed I don't know what's the community consensus regarding accepting CU results on another wiki. If one of our checkusers confirms then I'm looking at indeffing both accounts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Neil, the CU is stale as MFriedman has not edited on the English Wikipedia since February 2017. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. At the moment, I wouldn't support a block for it would be against policy. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

(moved from AN) No need for an investigation. You can just ask me, and yes I'm using both accounts Sander.v.Ginkel and MFriedman. When the account Sander.v.Ginkel was blocked I used MFriedman, including review my own articles I created with. See that there are no main issues in the articles I reviewed and added references where needed. See as example here, here, here, here, here, here etc.. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked Sander.v.Ginkel for six months and the puppet account indefinitely. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

And how is Sander.v.Ginkel's block preventative in any way? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano: It prevents them from quite flagrantly violating basic policies whenever they feel like it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The thing is, the latest violation was one year ago. I agree that the sock could be blocked, but Sander's block to me seems punitive since it is so long after the fact. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

A year ago was when SvG also stopped editing before resuming this weekmonth. I do not believe he would have stopped socking had he not been caught last week on the Dutch Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Scores of his pages moved to Draft are coming up for WP:G13 after being tagged as promising drafts 6 months ago which lead to this discussion Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Pierre_Le_Roux Legacypac (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Back when this issue first came up there was pretty clear consensus to indef block this user. Unfortunately, that consensus was overruled in a pretty blatant supervote. If the views of the participants in that discussion had not been discarded and ignored on a whim, this ongoing disruption could have been avoided- as I said at the time. Reyk _YO! 16:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• No issue with me if editors want to change my six month block into an indef. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Already requested a User_talk:Sander.v.Ginkel#February_2018 block review. My review is to indef. There are a lot of page moves that need to be checked again Special:Contributions/MFriedman Legacypac (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Some Wikipedians have already misjudged the likelihood that SvG would continue to be a problem editor. I think some editors have, in their misguided mercy, forgotten that WP:BLOCKDETERRENT is supposed to have deterrent value. If en-wiki is unwilling to halt the editing of problem editors, then it only encourages this sort of activity where crocodile-tears promises and the forgiveness of long-undetected misbehavior becomes the norm. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've just noticed that MFriedman commented in the thread linked by Reyk above that somewhat swayed a few following comments! SvG claims he "wasn't aware how bad it is to use another account." It should be obvious that you shouldn't use an alternative account to support yourself. With this in mind, I'd support upgrading the block to indefinite. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

MFriedman discussed SvG as another person here [110] which is deceitful and suggestive we can't believe the statements in the unblock request either. It is pretty clear that their promotions of SvG pages back to mainspace were problematic from the talkpage. Legacypac (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef- obviously. Reyk _YO! 19:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Having read through this past thread and noting SvG's assertion that he wasn't "aware how bad it is to use another account" [111] I believe more than ever that my six month block was justified. This isn't tripping over some Wikipedia policy, this is an indication of a lack of basic common sense and ethics. We cannot have an editor deficient in both areas editing freely here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Is Beatley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) likely to be another sock? Guy (Help!) 20:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

  I though Beatley is a confirmed sock of Slowking4.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I just don't know Slowking4, I don't know if this could be one sockfarm. I guess not, though. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The articles

I started G5ing the article, but looking at it again, that may not be what's needed. Many were moved back while SvG was not actually blocked, though he undoubtedly would have been if this had been spotted. If they had remained in Draft, most would long ago have qualified for G13 as very few had any substantive edits at all other than the SvG sock (a few bots and formatting edits, and almost none with any edits in the last 6 months). The issues that led tot he move to Draft have undoubtedly not been fixed in more than a tiny proportion of cases, since there have been few if any edits to any of them.

Should I leave them nuked, or restore and move them back to Draft? Guy (Help!) 20:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I somehow thought that at some point I nuked all the articles which were left in the draft, there were around 5K of them. I am surprised that there are still any left. Is it clear what the origin of these drafts is? Were they moved out of the draft and then moved back? On an unrelated note, I do not see anything controversial with the deletions, but delinking the pages from Olympic-related pages might be not necessarily the best idea - all Olympians are notable, and redlinks are way more visible than black unlinked text. Also, if an article is created by a good faith user, it takes a bit of time to figure out where it should be linked from.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Created by SvG, moved to draft during cleanup, moved back by MFriedman with comments like "checked" or "no SvG issues". Guy (Help!) 21:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I see. I would say then indefblock and mass deletion. This is clearly evasion of sanctions imposed by community on SvG.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

They shouldn't be unlinked. There are several prolific creators of Olympian biographies, and this adds a time-consuming additional step if/when they create these ones. —Xezbeth (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

OK. will bear that in mind. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Scbritton

I'd like him unblocked, he got pissed off, we all do, he got stubborn, we all do. Newbie who don't quite get our ways, we are meant to be colloquialYa, give this one a chance Darkness Shines (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

To return to edit warring? [112] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Who hasn't? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

So you're saying it's okay to break WP:3RR if you think you're right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Feck off man, I'm saying a newbie fucks up, we all have done that Darkness Shines (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, no, we haven't all been blocked for screwing up, newbies or not. The key thing is if they realize they screwed up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

No, I think he's saying that Scbritton had "served their time" for edit warring, and the increase to an indef block without talk page access was overboard, considering they hadn't edited anything since the block expired. I'd like to hear from User:JzG, who should have been notified. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

It was a response to this diatribe, but I have no problem if people want to give him a second chance. Guy (Help!) 19:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thats the pissed off part i mentioned, can't let J know due to protection? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• I think it would match our way of doing things more to unblock, give them a final piece of advice about edit warring, and let them decide whether to retire, resume editing without edit warring, or resume editing and edit war some more, and then get blocked indef. Since Guy is OK with this, do you mind, NeilN? If not, I'll just do it now and save some electrons. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Floquenbeam: No, I was writing up something similar but it's better coming from you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • OK then, thanks, I've unblocked. I'll leave that "final piece of advice about edit warring" I mentioned above in a little bit; I need late afternoon chocolate first, and I type slowly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: I'm fine with that if you think he's likely to be worth the effort. Guy (Help!) 21:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate it guys, hopefully I've not just shot me bollocks off Darkness Shines (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd hope not either - who'd clear up the mess? ;-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

is it appropriate for me to inject my thoughts here as well, since I am the subject of this particular discussion? Scbritton (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Scbritton: Yes, you are free to provide your input here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Good. Below are my queries. I'm not trying to defend myself, but, rather, make some points regarding things that were said and clarify things that were said to me.

1. When the 24 hour block was imposed, the comment was, "pull a stunt like this again and expect a much longer block." I'd like to know: (a) what "the stunt" you were referring to is (and yes, I followed the link),
(b) whether the block was over 3RR or over whatever else the "stunt" could be; and,
(c) do you believe that the "pull a stunt" statement was made calmly and with civility?

2. I'd like to know what, exactly, was wrong with the "diatribe" (as described by others rather than me. I was expressing frustration with Wikipedia and the perception that was created resulting from the situation to begin with) - the indefinite block said something about personal attacks and inappropriate usage of Talk Page. Since I didn't mention anyone by name in that paragraph,
(a) who was attacked and how were they attacked; and
(b) What other purpose does a talk page serve other than ... well, talking to people?

3. Mediation and/or independent third-party input might be in order with regard to the original dispute. Where, how, and who do I talk to about that?
Scbritton (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I will address my "stunt" comment. You were blocked by a different admin for edit warring at the same time I was looking at the report. We semi-regularly get editors trying to foul up edit warring reports. If that was not your intention with this edit then I apologize but I'm at a loss at how you could have made that edit following the board's instructions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I was attempting to file a new report against the editor who was reporting me, as I believed it was that editor who was engaging in the edit war. The template on the page was convoluted and difficult to understand, so I opened up the page, copied the other editor's report, pasted it in a new section (or so I thought) with the updates to show it as a filing by myself against them. Clearly something went wrong - either through my error or otherwise.

1b: It was over edit warring. Reversing someone else's edit warring report didn't exactly help, either. 2a: When others gang up on an editor to force/impose their will on a user is attacking the good-faith editors on that page and showing a distinct lack of understanding of WP:Consensus. 3:See WP:STICK. You already got input from multiple editors, and pretty much everyone has indicated you were wrong. There's a time to play Captain America, and a time to realize that maybe, just maybe, you're missing something. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Fine. It was over edit warring; and I disagree with your assessment about my statement "when others..." since the term "others" is vague and mentions nobody by name. If I had listed off the editors who did the reversions, I would be more inclined to agree with you on that. My understanding of the NPOV tag was based on what I read from the instructions - if you believe a section of an article to not be neutral, you add the tag and open a section in the talk page to discuss it, outlining your reasons and why. It was reverted before I even got the talk page section completed, which is what annoyed me to begin with.

If I had listed off the editors -- considering that everyone here has access to page edit histories, and can see exactly to whom you're referring, this strikes me as a bit disingenuous. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I just want to note that the edit warring was not the only problem. This editor was engaging disruptively at Talk:Milo_Yiannopoulos/Archive_3#Alt-right_in_lede_(revisited). They are welcome to try again, of course, but it's worth noting that they've made a rather poor first impression among a wider swathe of editors than are present in this thread. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

that was 6 months ago and the comments were on the talk page because I was attempting to reach WP:CONSENSUS after my edit was reverted with a one word descriptor which stated, "No." (again, to someone who makes a good faith edit, very terse, unhelpful, and frustrating). If defending a point of view is suddenly interpreted as "disruptive" then there's a deeper underlying problem at play than my actions.
Scbritton (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

You taking the piss? I asked you be unblocked, why the fuck are you arguing shit here? Post to the talk page and discuss shite there man Darkness Shines (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm asking questions, trying to understand what happened, Darkness. That's it; that's all.

Scbritton (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC) In any event; I've made the points I feel needed to be made. Any further discussion should probably take place on my talk page as Darkness Shines suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scbritton (talk • contribs) 22:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikiedebs and North Korea

User:Wikiedebs is on a one-user mission to remove negative information about North Korea from Wikipedia. This mainly takes the form of blatant deletions, e.g. [113] [114] [115] [116]. They constantly lie in edit summaries and incorrectly mark them as minor, e.g. [117] [118]. Their strategy is to make an innocuous edit towards the top of a page to disguise content removals below [119]. More recently they have resorted to childishly bombarding articles with "citation needed" tags. [120] [121] And finally just plain and simple edit-warring [122] [123]. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive proxy user

Maybe this issue has been previously discussed. There is an Iranian proxy hopper, that has been disrupting Wikipedia for a very long time. The user incorrectly inserts DOB in the infobox, e.g. [124], [125], [126]. There are tons of other examples, cross-wiki as well. Could anything be done about this recurring vandalism/trolling? A range block? Disembodied Soul (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Smells like the Cause of death vandal to me - blocked. Berean Hunter has slapped a range block on one of those IPs already. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)